So you are worried about the Corona Virus. Well, that's be design. In the beginning, the US Federal Government and the States saw data that had them concerned. They sought counsel from their various health experts and those experts quickly came up with charts and graphs raising the alarm.
The problem is that this was something new and the models they talk about were not specific to the current threat. Ohio governor went before the state and said after one confirmed case where they could not trace the origin, that it was not caught through the community. The models said there could be 100,000 people infected for every case they saw. On that basis, they began closing down the state.
The models further state that the infection rates will double every other day, so by my math, every single person in Ohio should be infected by now. Scary huh?
Except the models are not accurate and never were. Today, Ohio shows just over 3700 cases, and 102 deaths. Obviously, there have been many more cases, most of which people were not tested and have or will likely fully recover. If there were 100,000 cases 3 weeks ago, 80% would be recovered, but there would still be 20,000 that were in a more serious condition and hospitals would be even more overwhelmed.
The state knows the numbers are not panning out and how do they react? They double down and tighten restrictions even more. To someone who actually looks at the numbers, this makes no sense. When you look at the bar charts that they put out, they don't list the new cases each day, they stack the new cases on top of the existing cases which makes the chart appear to be trending out of control.
Last week, the federal government passed a multi-trillion dollar recovery/stimulus bill and promised to send out even more money to keep the economy solvent and including money for infrastructure. Well, there is the problem. Politicians smell money in the water and they are now posturing to grab as much as they can for their state. No state will stand up and say "we're fine - we have recovered and really don't need any of your money." Not one.
Alexander Frasier Tytler was quoted as saying "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."
Well, here we are. Not sure how we can stop this train except for a full bankruptcy of the national government.
Sunday, April 5, 2020
Sunday, October 22, 2017
Daily Dose of Tainted Red Meat
Oct 19th, George W Bush gave a speech at the "Spirit of Liberty, At home in the World" event in NY. If you didn't hear the speech, but only what the major media has to say bout it, you would be lead to believe he came out and gave a point by point rebuttal of Donald Trump's tenure as president. That's what I heard, and then I read the speech.
I read a transcript of the whole thing and my take is a little different. The speech, in many respects applied equally to the far left activists like ANTIFA and BLM, as it did to Trump and the far right. The media has taken the approach that because Bush did not mention anyone by name that they can take license to apply ALL of Bush's criticism to Trump. The take away clip I heard most was "Bigotry seems emboldened. Our politics seems more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication..." with the implication that only the far right (ie Trump) has conspiracy theories and offer open arms to bigotry. Certainly that is the narrative of the left, but there is ample evidence of those same illnesses on the left.
Can you not apply bigotry to ANTIFA and BLM that rail agains anything and everything "White." Can you not look at the totally unproven notion of Russian intervention affecting the election of Trump as a conspiracy theory?
The incidents at University of Virginia this year are pretty much universally attributed to the white nationalists. Yet the violence was entirely started by the ANTIFA and other far left groups that showed up. They showed up with the intent to creating a confrontation. I often wonder if the off the charts racists had their little demonstration and no one showed up, what would the effect have been on their cause? Yet the far left groups brought a magnifying glass and international focus to the event. The president was roundly criticized for including the left along with his criticism of the racists. The media used that to highlight the notion that Trump aligns himself with the racists or others in what they deem the alt-right.
I don't know how many white supremacists there are in the country, but I rather doubt it is more than a handful. I don't think I have ever met or seen one in person. Whomever they are, I’m pretty sure they are not sufficient in numbers to direct the tone of the national discourse that Bush spoke about. So who is? How many of Spencer's racist group were at Univ of Florida this week? Perhaps a handful. Yet it makes national news as though an entire city was out trying to tear the fabric of society apart. That is what our main stream media does. It has abdicated it's role of factual reporting. Almost all reporting is framed in a left leaning political agenda.
The Bush speech was benignly hard hitting. I say benignly because he did not name names. I can attribute almost everything he said as easily to the left as the media attributes it to the right.
The sad fact is that most people don't recognize when agenda infused media are feeding them tainted red meat. And yes, it happens on both sides. But finally, just so we are clear, the those I see on TV who claim to be white supremicists, are, as a group, pretty much all the proof you need to know there is no such thing.
Thursday, June 15, 2017
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.
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.
Friday, October 7, 2016
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
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.
Friday, September 30, 2016
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)