It's not the parties, stupid!

At the end of the day, the inability to change or tune a federal program or to create an environment to experiment is exactly why no programs should exist at the federal level. It is not the existence of partisan rancor that causes problems. It's the end result of a program that favors one party (the one in power at the time) and is shoved down the throats of everyone - like it or not.

California has different social perspectives than Utah or Ohio.  Vermont people have different priorities than Texans.  Why is it that we allow one political group to force its ideals and values on others?

Things were no different 229 years ago when the constitution was being drafted.  As simple as southern states being mostly agrarian and northern states emerging into light industry.  Back then, what was important to people in cities was not the same as what farmers valued.  Even faith was practiced differently in different regions.  Our constitution was formed specifically to keep the federal government form encroaching on local beliefs.  It was not an accident.  Today differences still exist in many regards.  While we may often agree that a given problem exists, we often, usually along political lines, disagree on the solution.  And assuming the responsibility at the federal level means that most fixes applied will anger about half the people and because of the size and complexity of the bureaucracy at the federal level, the solution will be nearly impossible to adjust if it does not work.

If my neighborhood has an issue that it needs to deal with, like a dog that barks all day.  My neighbors can get together to solve the problem with a direct focus on the specific problem and the source of it. We all have a say and can voice opinions and offer solutions. If we can't solve it ourselves, we can ask our town to take up the matter.  We can still approach the town council and speak on the problem and offer solutions. If they feel it is a big enough problem, they can pass local ordinances.   If the city can't resolve it, we can take it to the county where we can often still have a voice and speak to the county commissioners.  Once it gets to the stat level, it is harder, geographically and logistically to have a direct say, but local representatives offer some access.

Yet once an issue gets to the federal level, having a voice is little more than a tick mark for or against on a tally sheet.  Having a real voice is difficult at best.  Even if you have the ear of your representatives, they are also listening to those with money - lobbyists, big corps and wealthy donors. They are very unlikley to upset any of thos apple carts because a constituent has an issue.      

Yesterday, a left-wing extremist took shots at republican congressmen practicing for the baseball game against democrats.

The attack has brought the two political sides together in a in a sort of "Let's all change the tone" moment.  That would certainly be welcome, but it won't solve the problem.

The problem is not that Democrats and Republicans, or conservatives and liberals disagree. Nor is it the tone of the disagreement that causes issues.

As a conservative, I really don't care how nice my opponents are when they attempt to shove their politics down my throat.  As an example, for a fraction of a moment, politically, the left had majorities in the house, senate and presidency. They used that advantage to push a socialist healthcare agenda on all Americans without any voice in the matter for the minority conservatives.

The power that exists in Washington is incredible.  It is power that was never supposed to be there and has been added incrementally since the founding of the country.  Every little encroachment on "State's Rights" is seen as just a minor extension of a power already approved.  Soon, there will be nothing that the federal government can not do and it will use the power to push the agendas of the party in power deeper into the lives of Americans.

Is it so bad?  If the ACA bill were not a miserable failure, would it be so bad that everyone have equal healthcare?  Of course that is laudable! But you can never end that argument.  If you say "yes," universal healthcare should be a right, then what about 3 square meals a day? What about a warm coat and a pair of winter boots? What about a warm (or cool) house?  Of what good is a free house if you can't afford electricity or other utilities - need to provide that too?

It is not that society should or should not have the right to make these decisions about public welfare services, it is that once installed at the highest government levels, no one can really change them, fix them or remove them without herculean efforts.  Just try to tweak Social Security or Medicare.  It can not be done.  They refer to it as the third rail of politics.  And why should that be? Why can't those programs be regularly reviewed for efficiency and effectiveness and solvency?  Why not create alternatives to test to see if they might be better.

The answer is because they are too big and entrenched.

If instead of the ACA, the government said to states, we would like you to create healthcare coverage programs in your state to assure that everyone has equal access to coverage.  They could issue guidelines and goals but not directives.  Imagine that 50 states create 50 different programs, and after 10 years, 10 or 15 show themselves to be much more efficient and effective.  States could much more easily change and adapt and tweak their programs and work on a model of constant improvement. But with the ACA, change is nearly impossible without throwing out the whole thing and recreating it which is what Republicans are trying to do.  They may pass something but once again, it will be impossible to fix and will not allow for experimentation or modification for local needs

We have to find a way to neuter Washington's ability to direct our lives.

Can I interest you in Chicken or Sh*t for dinner?

There is a meme on Facebook this morning with a clip from a New Yorker article.  The quote says "I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart.. (and says) 'Can I interest you in the Chicken.. or would you prefer a platter of shit with broken bits of glass in it.'"

My first reaction was that that was typical New Yorker - left good, right bad.  So obvious a decision that only a moron could make the wrong choice.  So to look at the polls these days, it pretty much an even race:  43 to 43 leaving 14% undecided or voting for someone else.  If you ask the New Yorker, that means about half the country is too stupid to see what a glorious option we have in Mrs. Clinton - 43% so stupid that they would opt for the unthinkable.  They epitomize the entitled, intellectual elitist class in America.  They have the answers and you should all just sit back and let them run things.

In reality, both candidates are mortally flawed.  Neither is likely to have a presidency that will bring us to the shining city on the hill.  Clinton is too partisan, like President Obama, to see anything coming from the other party as useful. Her track record going back 30 years into Arkansas is dubious at best and the few things she puts on her resume as successes, like killing Bin Laden, are hard to quantify her specific contributions. Her baggage is certainly heavy, but her supporters are more than willing to carry it for her.  For her, being the first female president would be nice and were she to have a successful presidency, she might be able to toss some of that baggage off the train.

Trump is not politically partisan, but his privileged life offers a world view that limits his vision of how to solve complex problems like urban poverty.  He has catered to and expressed political beliefs that land in the center of Republican, Democrat and Libertarian camps.  Mr. Trump probably does not need a career change to politics to make money or live the high life so it's fair to say, he probably is not doing this to raise his living standards.  He is bitterly hated by moderates who thought they controlled the Republican party.  Bitterly hated by the left, except a few years back when he gave to their campaigns.  He is certainly not a jewel to conservatives.

Could ego be in play for both of these two?  Duh!  But then who runs for president that does not have a world class ego?

You don't have to look far to see what can be described as terminal flaws for either candidate.  Which is why this has become an election about "Never Trump" or "Never Clinton" and apolitical people have a much harder time sticking their toes in the dirty pond of  either camp.  Except for a few genuine Libertarians or Greens (aka New Communists,) undecideds are struggling with which shit dinner they can swallow.

The hard part is assessing how either might do. You can look at the web sites or listen to their speeches, but that only tells you what they say they want to do - what they think you want to hear. How do you know what they want or what they will or can actually do?  I want to start a company and become a billionaire, and I have lots of great ideas,  but my track record does not have many of things necessary to achieve that goal so it will never happen.

President Obama gave us exceptional speeches in 2008 and had many believing he would be a transformational president and he said he would be.  We would see peace in the world, poverty would be reduced, illnesses cured, the seas would halt their rise, the global warming would be brought under control... That was a fairy tale, not because they weren't lofty goals, but because the guy espousing them had no track record of any achieving any of them.  Wanting something badly and speaking passionately about it is not sufficient to achieving it.  His skill set was decidedly insufficient to achieve them and too few looked at the track record to see if it matched his vision.

I am a strong believer that you have to look at history to read the future.  It is not a perfect barometer, but, as they say, zebras do not change their stripes.  Mr. Trump has had some pretty good successes in building his business - but there have been casualties along the way in failed ventures, failed marriages etc. It has not been pretty. The successes can be argued to outweigh the negatives though.  However he has a track record of impertinent language, or just speaking without thinking and he is not an exceptionally strong delegator, but has hired a broad range of men and women based on accomplishments. There are few who can negotiate as well and few who understand finance as well. He is certainly an alpha male driven to succeed - but his world is business, not government and it is not clear if the skill sets can intermingle.

Mrs. Clinton is an alpha female, equally driven to succeed but without the track record to underwrite it. She does however, have a lifetime working in government where the lines of success and failure are more gray because there is always someone else to blame and projects are so involved, credit for success can always be taken.  There are also 30+ years of enemies who have a long memory and will bring up the areas where she failed like Whitewater real estate deal and dubious connections to a savings and loan. Her email server, destroyed emails and the debacle in Benghazi weighs heavily on many minds.  But she does know how Washington works - at least from a front seat in the gallery.  Her time as a Senator and Secretary of State give her an advantage of experience that will take Mr Trump many years to appreciate.

With Mr Trump and Mrs. Clinton, we may well feel we have only the option of cold shit soup or hot shit sandwich.  Either way the election will be decided at this point by the undecided.  Those that see the flaws in both and struggle to find focus on how either might succeed in the role of President.  To them I say turn off the TV, and spend some time researching the accomplishments of both and matching that up to what they say they want to do for the country.  That will tell them everything they need to know.

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.