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.
Friday, December 11, 2015
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.
Friday, June 6, 2014
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.
Friday, December 6, 2013
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 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.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
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.
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.
Friday, November 22, 2013
Can Washington Pols see more then 5 minutes ahead?
Yesterday the US senate voted to remove the 60 vote barrier required on Presidential nominees. Essentially saying they did not want or need any support from the other party.
This is pretty much the same thing they did with ACA (Obamacare). Toss the rules out so the simple majority can get their way.
For more almost 225 years, the Senate has been the moderating force in our government ensuring that everyone pretty much has a say in how things got done and further ensuring that we did not have majority mob rule.
What is striking is that this is not the first time the Senate has considered this action in the face of a small few who felt the need to hold up a nomination. The irony is that there is a plethora of video out there with nearly every single democrat senator objecting the Republicans doing this same thing only about 10 years ago.
To say the legislative environment is "bitter" is a gross understatement. What is at stake is power because we citizens have seen fit to hand it over. We let Washington dictate to our schools what to teach, what to serve at lunch, how much districts can spend... We let them dictate all sort of things to our states on the environment, healthcare, insurance, manufacturing, employment rules. In short, we have a new nanny and it is the Federal Government. And that role for politicians is a powerful and addictive intoxicant; unfortunately one that is not regulated. The nature of the intoxicant causes a complete lack of ability to consider consequences beyond a few minutes.
When democrats voted to make simple majority the rule of the day, did they consider the political landscape with the crash and burn of the ACA? They will almost certainly allow Republicans to keep the house and have put enough seats in play in the Senate that Republicans could very well have both houses in a little over a year? Does that precedent mean nothing? How can democrats defend their certain objection when Republican invoke the "nuclear option" once they are back in power?
If the ACA continues on the path of utter decimation of the average persons healthcare, the presidency will also very likely move to the right. How will the precedent work then? If Republicans have the house, senate and the presidency, and no filibuster protection for the left in the senate, it is a fair bet that everything the left has fought for over the last 50 years could disappear in a matter of weeks or months. I am in favor of this - so don be confused. My point is that it could never happen except that senate democrats have knocked down the trees and started paving the road in this direction. Their myopic vision will empower the right and have the exact opposite effect on the countries direction that they want. The right could not have mapped out and executed a better plan.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
A Proposition unfulfilled
150 years ago words spoken by President Lincoln, still haunt us. Not because of their insight, not because of their brevity, not because of the poetic cadence, but because they remain largely unfulfilled.
"...dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal..."
This remains an unfulfilled proposition. The proposition, as I understand it, was that the law should be blind. All of us start at the same point, and what we do with our lives is a product of our own industry, insight, intelligence, perseverance and intellect. Yet we continue to not see each other as equals. We are a selfish and competitive lot. We use the law and taxes to try to force equality upon us, but those efforts make the proposition of equality yet more difficult to attain.
We recognized that race was making winners and losers in society so we wrote laws requiring a balanced workforce regarding race. We wrote laws to balance college admissions by race. We wrote laws that moved money around based on race. We reasoned that since race was the root of the problem, race could be used to solve it. But when you dig deep, those laws are doing exactly the opposite of what they should be doing. Someone is being denied a job or a promotion, or entrance into a college because of the color of his skin. The person on the losing end of that proposition is not likely to take a position that this is ok because its payback for past wrongs. It only perpetuates, at a minimum, hard feelings and at worst racism.
How do we define ourselves racially speaking? What makes us black or white or Asian or Hispanic? We have a president who we call "black," yet his mother is, by most definitions 100% white. How do we reconcile that? Can anyone really define race anyway? It seems to me it is entirely a fabrication of our society designed to push white people to the top of the social standing - affording them better opportunity for power and wealth.
I believe that until the day comes when the law can not tell the difference between a man and a woman, a black man and a white man and an Asian and an Indian and a Hispanic, between gay and straight, the rich and the poor ... until that day comes, much of our law is just an exercise in optics. When in our own minds we can look at each other at a level deeper than color, when we can take a measure of each others character, we will be stuck in an unequal world.
Perhaps in another 150 years, after more homogenization of our DNA, we can see those words as the "realization that all of us are created equal"
"...dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal..."
This remains an unfulfilled proposition. The proposition, as I understand it, was that the law should be blind. All of us start at the same point, and what we do with our lives is a product of our own industry, insight, intelligence, perseverance and intellect. Yet we continue to not see each other as equals. We are a selfish and competitive lot. We use the law and taxes to try to force equality upon us, but those efforts make the proposition of equality yet more difficult to attain.
We recognized that race was making winners and losers in society so we wrote laws requiring a balanced workforce regarding race. We wrote laws to balance college admissions by race. We wrote laws that moved money around based on race. We reasoned that since race was the root of the problem, race could be used to solve it. But when you dig deep, those laws are doing exactly the opposite of what they should be doing. Someone is being denied a job or a promotion, or entrance into a college because of the color of his skin. The person on the losing end of that proposition is not likely to take a position that this is ok because its payback for past wrongs. It only perpetuates, at a minimum, hard feelings and at worst racism.
How do we define ourselves racially speaking? What makes us black or white or Asian or Hispanic? We have a president who we call "black," yet his mother is, by most definitions 100% white. How do we reconcile that? Can anyone really define race anyway? It seems to me it is entirely a fabrication of our society designed to push white people to the top of the social standing - affording them better opportunity for power and wealth.
I believe that until the day comes when the law can not tell the difference between a man and a woman, a black man and a white man and an Asian and an Indian and a Hispanic, between gay and straight, the rich and the poor ... until that day comes, much of our law is just an exercise in optics. When in our own minds we can look at each other at a level deeper than color, when we can take a measure of each others character, we will be stuck in an unequal world.
Perhaps in another 150 years, after more homogenization of our DNA, we can see those words as the "realization that all of us are created equal"
Friday, November 15, 2013
Silence... for now
I've been absent from my blog this summer, not from a lack of interest, but because my need to vent has been taken up by Facebook, Twitter and responding to articles and comments on articles directly.
While that's been satisfying, it is defense. And defense only wins if it's complimented by an effective offense. In the world of politics, offense is probably best done with effective and original ideas that provoke discussion and challenge conventional thinking. So I'll make a more dedicated effort to keep my thoughts here original rather than responding to what I hear and read.
Responding to what I hear and read though, is pretty much what I will do here today. And that is not a contradiction at all.
As summer drew to a close, the buzz in the political world was what would happen at the beginning of October when Obamacare rolled out. The focus was on the web site. The first wind I got about cancelled policies was shortly after that. Then, as media types began to penetrate the layers of the web site, and actually saw their own Obamacare rates, their collective jaws dropped and, slowly, the stories emerged from even the most left leaning outlets like MSMBC that this was not what was promised - that the process was not easy and the RATES were not lower.
Pardon my snicker for the past 3 months. I probably posted 100 links to stories on my facebook backing up my belief that this healthcare law was going to be a disaster. Imploring my liberal friends to acknowledge this was naive - I admit that. In the past, they would post comebacks and we would have a sometimes very long thread of back and forth. They never really ended, we just got tired, until another post came up that threw more gasoline on the dying embers.
But since early October, there has been a notable change. No long threads. No arguments. No nothing. No one will engage. A few of the weaker souls unfreinded me, but most have stopped posting altogether on politics and have reverted to pictures of their supper or their cat. Silence. I don't struggle to understand that. I get it completely. I am not the type that wants to throw salt in the wound either.
The build-up to a big game is filled with bravado and claims of superiority. Doesn't matter if it's a high school rivalry or the Super Bowl. Everyone is confident. Everyone feels confident in victory and confident that if they brag enough, the team will not let them down. Then the big game comes and one team and its fans celebrate. The other team's fans slip into a sort of sulking hangover. Every word seems painful and its' just easier to lay quietly - in silence. I felt that way in November 1976, 1992, 1996, 2008 and again in 2012. In all of those cases I was not convinced I was on the wrong side, I was angered that my side picked the wrong team. Seriously, Ford, Dole, McCain, Romney?
Losing is painful to the spirit. It causes us to challenge our most internally held beliefs. How could I have supported those guys? What was I thinking? Why am I invested in them? How could anyone support the other team? What do they see? How can they not see what I see?
In Cleveland, where some of the worlds most loyal sports fans reside, we understand loosing better than most. Our teams perennially show promise and with equal frequency, let us down. Sure some call the sports talk shows, but the next day at work after a big game is very quiet. Wounds take time to heal. Politics works the same way. The talk shows and pundits still talk and write because they have to. The individuals are looking for answers.
The political right said the healthcare.gov web site would be a disaster, they challenged the President every time he said they could keep their coverage, they argued that Obamacare's entire purpose was to ensure that everyone would give up their private insurance, they swore that it would raise costs, not lower them, they pointed out that the young would not buy expensive insurance and they said the whole thing would be a train wreck. The debate was passionate! The left was comfortable standing up for the president - arguing his points, adding their passion to the debate. Then, over the last 6 weeks the bottom fell out. Like the longest sports competition ever played... and while not over yet. the score is so lopsided, the contest seems all but lost to the left.
Conservatives were right on most points. It has been a train wreck in every sense. The hard part, if you are a supporter of the President, is coming to grips with why it happened this way. Were your beliefs misplaced? Why did you not see this coming? Can it be fixed? Can it be fixed by this team (administration and congress)?
Conservatives are rejoicing in a victory which in the scheme of the war is a relatively small, but consequential battle. They are also rejoicing in the silence of their opponents. That Silence will not last. The Administration will herald every little improvement in the website and parade the handful of buyers that actually saved money before throngs of adoring supporters in an attempt to win back some political inertia. But November 2014 is too soon and the problems are too great. There is nothing that can happen good for Obamacare that will help the left. The only thing they can hope for, or work for, is a major change of subject.
The silent ones out there want to talk about something, anything, else.
While that's been satisfying, it is defense. And defense only wins if it's complimented by an effective offense. In the world of politics, offense is probably best done with effective and original ideas that provoke discussion and challenge conventional thinking. So I'll make a more dedicated effort to keep my thoughts here original rather than responding to what I hear and read.
Responding to what I hear and read though, is pretty much what I will do here today. And that is not a contradiction at all.
As summer drew to a close, the buzz in the political world was what would happen at the beginning of October when Obamacare rolled out. The focus was on the web site. The first wind I got about cancelled policies was shortly after that. Then, as media types began to penetrate the layers of the web site, and actually saw their own Obamacare rates, their collective jaws dropped and, slowly, the stories emerged from even the most left leaning outlets like MSMBC that this was not what was promised - that the process was not easy and the RATES were not lower.
Pardon my snicker for the past 3 months. I probably posted 100 links to stories on my facebook backing up my belief that this healthcare law was going to be a disaster. Imploring my liberal friends to acknowledge this was naive - I admit that. In the past, they would post comebacks and we would have a sometimes very long thread of back and forth. They never really ended, we just got tired, until another post came up that threw more gasoline on the dying embers.
But since early October, there has been a notable change. No long threads. No arguments. No nothing. No one will engage. A few of the weaker souls unfreinded me, but most have stopped posting altogether on politics and have reverted to pictures of their supper or their cat. Silence. I don't struggle to understand that. I get it completely. I am not the type that wants to throw salt in the wound either.
The build-up to a big game is filled with bravado and claims of superiority. Doesn't matter if it's a high school rivalry or the Super Bowl. Everyone is confident. Everyone feels confident in victory and confident that if they brag enough, the team will not let them down. Then the big game comes and one team and its fans celebrate. The other team's fans slip into a sort of sulking hangover. Every word seems painful and its' just easier to lay quietly - in silence. I felt that way in November 1976, 1992, 1996, 2008 and again in 2012. In all of those cases I was not convinced I was on the wrong side, I was angered that my side picked the wrong team. Seriously, Ford, Dole, McCain, Romney?
Losing is painful to the spirit. It causes us to challenge our most internally held beliefs. How could I have supported those guys? What was I thinking? Why am I invested in them? How could anyone support the other team? What do they see? How can they not see what I see?
In Cleveland, where some of the worlds most loyal sports fans reside, we understand loosing better than most. Our teams perennially show promise and with equal frequency, let us down. Sure some call the sports talk shows, but the next day at work after a big game is very quiet. Wounds take time to heal. Politics works the same way. The talk shows and pundits still talk and write because they have to. The individuals are looking for answers.
The political right said the healthcare.gov web site would be a disaster, they challenged the President every time he said they could keep their coverage, they argued that Obamacare's entire purpose was to ensure that everyone would give up their private insurance, they swore that it would raise costs, not lower them, they pointed out that the young would not buy expensive insurance and they said the whole thing would be a train wreck. The debate was passionate! The left was comfortable standing up for the president - arguing his points, adding their passion to the debate. Then, over the last 6 weeks the bottom fell out. Like the longest sports competition ever played... and while not over yet. the score is so lopsided, the contest seems all but lost to the left.
Conservatives were right on most points. It has been a train wreck in every sense. The hard part, if you are a supporter of the President, is coming to grips with why it happened this way. Were your beliefs misplaced? Why did you not see this coming? Can it be fixed? Can it be fixed by this team (administration and congress)?
Conservatives are rejoicing in a victory which in the scheme of the war is a relatively small, but consequential battle. They are also rejoicing in the silence of their opponents. That Silence will not last. The Administration will herald every little improvement in the website and parade the handful of buyers that actually saved money before throngs of adoring supporters in an attempt to win back some political inertia. But November 2014 is too soon and the problems are too great. There is nothing that can happen good for Obamacare that will help the left. The only thing they can hope for, or work for, is a major change of subject.
The silent ones out there want to talk about something, anything, else.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Tear Down This Wall
On June 12, 1987 President Reagan stood in front of a crowd of West Berliners in the shadow of the Berlin Wall... and defiantly called to the Soviet Union to withdraw its unjust influence over East Germany.
"Mr Gorbachev, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL! "
The crowd erupted in wild applause as did the rest of the world. What was not known at the time was that the State Department and others on Reagan's staff were extremely vocal in opposition to using such a strong statement. They insisted that he soften his rhetoric. He simply said "no." We needed to stand up to the bullies in our own government and in the eastern block and let the world know that our principles were not going to be masked in political correctness.
Soon, the wall fell of it's own injustice as did the Soviet Union and the power it held over most of eastern Europe. 16 years later, a unified Germany thrives and most of the former Soviet Block countries are seeing prosperity they have not known since before World War II.
What got us there is leadership. Mr. Reagan understood that the role of the US in the world was not just wielding military power, but by putting on display the principles we stood for and a willingness to fight for it - and to stand up for those principles for everyone in the world, not just our own citizens. We needed to hold the lamp high and be that "shining city on the hill" and let the world know that there was hope, that we would be there for them, that we would not shrink to the bullies.
What we have now is something quite different, quite inferior. What we have now is more in tune with what Mr. Gorbachev had... narcissism, self service, politics, graft, greed, bullying, arm twisting. We do not lad by example, we do not lead on principal, we do not lead on the pure power of what is right. The city on the hill has turned a bit dingy and the lamp we hold is neither high nor brightly lit. My God, what I would not give for leadership like we had in 1987!
"Mr Gorbachev, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL! "
The crowd erupted in wild applause as did the rest of the world. What was not known at the time was that the State Department and others on Reagan's staff were extremely vocal in opposition to using such a strong statement. They insisted that he soften his rhetoric. He simply said "no." We needed to stand up to the bullies in our own government and in the eastern block and let the world know that our principles were not going to be masked in political correctness.
Soon, the wall fell of it's own injustice as did the Soviet Union and the power it held over most of eastern Europe. 16 years later, a unified Germany thrives and most of the former Soviet Block countries are seeing prosperity they have not known since before World War II.
What got us there is leadership. Mr. Reagan understood that the role of the US in the world was not just wielding military power, but by putting on display the principles we stood for and a willingness to fight for it - and to stand up for those principles for everyone in the world, not just our own citizens. We needed to hold the lamp high and be that "shining city on the hill" and let the world know that there was hope, that we would be there for them, that we would not shrink to the bullies.
What we have now is something quite different, quite inferior. What we have now is more in tune with what Mr. Gorbachev had... narcissism, self service, politics, graft, greed, bullying, arm twisting. We do not lad by example, we do not lead on principal, we do not lead on the pure power of what is right. The city on the hill has turned a bit dingy and the lamp we hold is neither high nor brightly lit. My God, what I would not give for leadership like we had in 1987!
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Question of the day - Hero or Traitor?
I have seen the question many times over the past 48 hours regarding the "leak" of secret NSA activities and capabilities regarding snooping on US citizens. Is the leaker a hero or is he a traitor of the highest order? Did he do Americans a favor by informing them of the capability of the NSA or did he further the cause of terrorists and other USA enemies by giving them a heads up on the braod capacity and capability of the NSA.
So it seems there are really two parts to this story --- or maybe 2 stories to this story - Part 1: The leak itself. Part II: Analysis - Was it a good thing or a bad thing?
The leak was by most definitions a crime. But then again, almost all leaking of national security information is a crime. But then there are whistle blower protections. The twist here is that the NSA appears to be doing exactly what congress authorized. However, just because congress authorized it does not make it constitutionally pure. Edward Snowden appears to believe what he was capable of doing with the technology at his finger tips afforded a broad violation of the 4th amendment to the constitution. Leaking it was unquestionably a crime but what other remedies did he have? Congress approved and oversaw it while the executive implemented it. Arguably, he could have filed a lawsuit, but it is unlikely that that would have accomplished anything because pressure would have been brought to bear on the judge to throw the case out and then Mr. Snowden would have just disappeared - quite literally. That may still happen.
Who was really surprised that the NSA is tapped into the phone and data systems across the planet. Perhaps some, naively thought the scope was limited to just the bad guys and that somehow their emails and (gulp) blog posts were immune to review. The review, in my mind is the violation. Others perhaps understood that this was probably going on (myself included) but did not give it much thought because we were not doing anything "wrong." The surprise for me was that they are archiving the data and that a single person at a workstations with the proper clearance (and apparently there are thousands) could reach out and collect just about anything. That, according to Mr. Snowden any way - no one has confirmed that what he said is true. I am not sure he does not overstate the capability or the lack of security. By confirming what most people already knew, I am not sure releasing this constitutes traitorous activity though. We'll see if they prosecute, because if the claims he makes are untrue, what case does the government have?
The problems that surfaced at the IRS with political gaming of personal data pales in comparison to the damage that could be done by a political hack sitting at one of these NSA work stations with the clearance levels Mr. Snowden had. But politics asside, what about the damage that could be done by someone who is spying for another government who sits at one of the NSA work stations. We talk about how the NSA makes us secure at home, but the very act of collecting that data and housing it in one place without better security and creening procedures poses what I would deem a larger threat.
Pundits across the political spectrum seem conflicted. They hate the snooping but they seem somehow comforted by its presence in the context of helping to keep Americans safe or perhaps better said, making American 'think' they are safer because of it. The ultimate irony to me is that the distinction between left and right is quite blurred. Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh are against it while John McCain and Barbara Boxer are for it. I'm pretty sure that has never happened.
There seems to be no easy place to draw the line of what side one falls on, which is an incredible sign of progress. When political opponents stand together on principal, rather than retreat to the home base of party lines, we actually getting a real discussion with real passion and real ideas. Politically, this is where real solutions are born.
Having said that, I find the concept of supporting the snooping on Americans in any form entirely untenable. I fail to see where the anyone can argue for the snooping with the language of the 4th amendment being so clearly against it.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Can you argue that your email and web searches are not the latter day version of your papers and effects and afforded this protection? Can you argue that the authority exists for collecting this data and warehousing it for later use falls outside the requirement for warrants for probable cause? Suppose the police came to your house and said we need to go through all of your papers, make copies, take pictures of your personal possessions, make lists of all your music, and put a chip in your DVR and a microphone in your kitchen so they can record what you watch and say ... but then say "Don't worry! We are only collecting this stuff in case you ever do something wrong and then and only then, will we get a legal warrant to actually look at it." The premise is absurd and no one would tolerate it.
With that thought in mind, I am inclined to push Mr Snowden more towards the hero side of the spectrum. I am still hopeful that we find that what he claims the domestic data collection and storage capabilities at the NSA are not true. We'll see.
So it seems there are really two parts to this story --- or maybe 2 stories to this story - Part 1: The leak itself. Part II: Analysis - Was it a good thing or a bad thing?
The leak was by most definitions a crime. But then again, almost all leaking of national security information is a crime. But then there are whistle blower protections. The twist here is that the NSA appears to be doing exactly what congress authorized. However, just because congress authorized it does not make it constitutionally pure. Edward Snowden appears to believe what he was capable of doing with the technology at his finger tips afforded a broad violation of the 4th amendment to the constitution. Leaking it was unquestionably a crime but what other remedies did he have? Congress approved and oversaw it while the executive implemented it. Arguably, he could have filed a lawsuit, but it is unlikely that that would have accomplished anything because pressure would have been brought to bear on the judge to throw the case out and then Mr. Snowden would have just disappeared - quite literally. That may still happen.
Who was really surprised that the NSA is tapped into the phone and data systems across the planet. Perhaps some, naively thought the scope was limited to just the bad guys and that somehow their emails and (gulp) blog posts were immune to review. The review, in my mind is the violation. Others perhaps understood that this was probably going on (myself included) but did not give it much thought because we were not doing anything "wrong." The surprise for me was that they are archiving the data and that a single person at a workstations with the proper clearance (and apparently there are thousands) could reach out and collect just about anything. That, according to Mr. Snowden any way - no one has confirmed that what he said is true. I am not sure he does not overstate the capability or the lack of security. By confirming what most people already knew, I am not sure releasing this constitutes traitorous activity though. We'll see if they prosecute, because if the claims he makes are untrue, what case does the government have?
The problems that surfaced at the IRS with political gaming of personal data pales in comparison to the damage that could be done by a political hack sitting at one of these NSA work stations with the clearance levels Mr. Snowden had. But politics asside, what about the damage that could be done by someone who is spying for another government who sits at one of the NSA work stations. We talk about how the NSA makes us secure at home, but the very act of collecting that data and housing it in one place without better security and creening procedures poses what I would deem a larger threat.
Pundits across the political spectrum seem conflicted. They hate the snooping but they seem somehow comforted by its presence in the context of helping to keep Americans safe or perhaps better said, making American 'think' they are safer because of it. The ultimate irony to me is that the distinction between left and right is quite blurred. Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh are against it while John McCain and Barbara Boxer are for it. I'm pretty sure that has never happened.
There seems to be no easy place to draw the line of what side one falls on, which is an incredible sign of progress. When political opponents stand together on principal, rather than retreat to the home base of party lines, we actually getting a real discussion with real passion and real ideas. Politically, this is where real solutions are born.
Having said that, I find the concept of supporting the snooping on Americans in any form entirely untenable. I fail to see where the anyone can argue for the snooping with the language of the 4th amendment being so clearly against it.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Can you argue that your email and web searches are not the latter day version of your papers and effects and afforded this protection? Can you argue that the authority exists for collecting this data and warehousing it for later use falls outside the requirement for warrants for probable cause? Suppose the police came to your house and said we need to go through all of your papers, make copies, take pictures of your personal possessions, make lists of all your music, and put a chip in your DVR and a microphone in your kitchen so they can record what you watch and say ... but then say "Don't worry! We are only collecting this stuff in case you ever do something wrong and then and only then, will we get a legal warrant to actually look at it." The premise is absurd and no one would tolerate it.
With that thought in mind, I am inclined to push Mr Snowden more towards the hero side of the spectrum. I am still hopeful that we find that what he claims the domestic data collection and storage capabilities at the NSA are not true. We'll see.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor...
Rand Paul today ruffled some feathers talking about a pathway to citizenship.
Many of those who heard him at CPAC this week may have become part time fans. Thinking, "Wow! This guy makes sense and maybe isn't the nut the media has made him out to be." Then today, he expresses his libertarian edge and those temporary fans have fled.
I don't propose to analyze Paul's statement, in part because I don't think they take the issue it far enough.
Most of we Americans have forgotten our own history. The statue of Liberty - among our most cherished icons of freedom holds a plaque that says:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free;
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless,
Tempest-tossed to me
I lift my lamp beside the golden door! ..."
How beautiful! How touching and how much national pride we have felt being able to look back on our history and celebrate what we stand for. There was a point in the nineteen century when people showed up on our shores with no more than a satchel of clothes and couple coins and a burning desire to make something of themselves in a land that did not have institutional class divisions but offered the opportunity to soar!
Around the turn of the twentieth century, the federal government began changing the rules and imposing standards that included quotas by race or nationality. Recognized at the time, by many, as a pure violation of our national principals, we have a continuous effort underway to rewrite these rules.
Today, if you have means and an education, (especially in high tech fields,) you can get in the the USA quickly and get on a fast track to citizenship. If you are poor, little education, and no means to get to our boarders, you have no prayer of getting in. If you are a Cuban and risk your life crossing the Florida Strait, you are granted immediate citizenship. If you are Mexican or from other central and south American countries, you can pay smugglers to get you across the Rio Grand, but your options when you get here are strictly limited.
Conservatism should return to the values and virtues the country was build on. Not to earn the votes of the wretched refuse, but because it is right. Because it would return us to a land of vast and limitless opportunity.
Surely, some things needs to be fixed. America has become a magnet to some because of it's opportunity, and to others because of the seemingly limitless list of freebies that governments offer up with the promise of more to come if you'll just vote a certain way. There will be a price to pay, and it will require sacrafices in many ways, but, afterall, isn't that who we claim to be?
We must return to our founding principals and open our arms once again. Don't stand near me and celebrate your liberty and freedom and then turn around and deny it to someone standing by the golden door wanting the same thing you celebrate. I say Open the doors!
Many of those who heard him at CPAC this week may have become part time fans. Thinking, "Wow! This guy makes sense and maybe isn't the nut the media has made him out to be." Then today, he expresses his libertarian edge and those temporary fans have fled.
I don't propose to analyze Paul's statement, in part because I don't think they take the issue it far enough.
Most of we Americans have forgotten our own history. The statue of Liberty - among our most cherished icons of freedom holds a plaque that says:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free;
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless,
Tempest-tossed to me
I lift my lamp beside the golden door! ..."
How beautiful! How touching and how much national pride we have felt being able to look back on our history and celebrate what we stand for. There was a point in the nineteen century when people showed up on our shores with no more than a satchel of clothes and couple coins and a burning desire to make something of themselves in a land that did not have institutional class divisions but offered the opportunity to soar!
Around the turn of the twentieth century, the federal government began changing the rules and imposing standards that included quotas by race or nationality. Recognized at the time, by many, as a pure violation of our national principals, we have a continuous effort underway to rewrite these rules.
Today, if you have means and an education, (especially in high tech fields,) you can get in the the USA quickly and get on a fast track to citizenship. If you are poor, little education, and no means to get to our boarders, you have no prayer of getting in. If you are a Cuban and risk your life crossing the Florida Strait, you are granted immediate citizenship. If you are Mexican or from other central and south American countries, you can pay smugglers to get you across the Rio Grand, but your options when you get here are strictly limited.
Conservatism should return to the values and virtues the country was build on. Not to earn the votes of the wretched refuse, but because it is right. Because it would return us to a land of vast and limitless opportunity.
Surely, some things needs to be fixed. America has become a magnet to some because of it's opportunity, and to others because of the seemingly limitless list of freebies that governments offer up with the promise of more to come if you'll just vote a certain way. There will be a price to pay, and it will require sacrafices in many ways, but, afterall, isn't that who we claim to be?
We must return to our founding principals and open our arms once again. Don't stand near me and celebrate your liberty and freedom and then turn around and deny it to someone standing by the golden door wanting the same thing you celebrate. I say Open the doors!
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Assault weapon attack on the 2nd Ammendment
Trending on Twitter over the past few days has been a growing surge of momentum to ban assault weapons. To a low information citizen, the argument sounds reasonable: You don't need them to hunt, we are not under imminent threat of attack from Canada, Mexico or Cuba.
In order for the argument to succeed, you have to disregard what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is, namely to protect US citizens from internal threats from a government grown too powerful and intrusive. The founders recognized the intoxicating nature of political power and understood that words on paper would not be enough of a barrier to protect against abuses.
They built a government with fire walls between the executive, legislative and judicial powers. But by allowing citizens to arm themselves, the threat of citizen armies converging on the seats of power was a 3rd, more powerful, check on government excess. At the time, citizens could own anything - muskets, canon, etc. Our government, while allowing police, National Guard and the military to have and use assault weapons and heavy armaments, bans most of that in the hands of citizens. A citizen revolt against the government today would certainly fail because the 2nd has effectively already been neutered.
What those in the seats of power have learned is that they can mask their power grabs in frames of compassion and caring for citizens. Saying they only want a safer country, banning assault weapons is proposed as a completely sound and reasonable move. But opponents are making the case that the issues of safety are not solved by banning the weapon, but rather a two fold approach of arming more citizens and working more aggressively to understand what is happening with people suffering form mental illness. So both sides can make their case. Arguably, the way to solve it would be through a constitutional amendment changing or abolishing the 2nd amendment.
That is certainly not something I could support, because I like that those in Washington feel a slight threat from the citizen armies. The Vice President today, however, has suggested that the President could effectively ban the semi-automatic rifles with an executive order. That would be a breathtaking power grab and an unfortunate display of his lack of leadership skills. This is a matter that needs to be handled legislatively, and the President certainly has the right, if not the duty, to use the bully pulpit to argue his case. Citizens, through their representatives, also have a right to be heard and if they choose to ban certain types of arms, then so be it, although I believe it needs to be through the amendment process. These types of changes need at least 2/3 support of the congress and states.
My fear, albeit, not a big one, is that if an executive order is issued, which rings of an unconstitutional power grab, it could trigger some citizens on the fringe to overreact in ways that more people could get hurt and a constitutional crisis could ensue. Were I a political weatherman, I would say this will run for a few weeks until something else will take the top spot from out attention span challenged media.
In order for the argument to succeed, you have to disregard what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is, namely to protect US citizens from internal threats from a government grown too powerful and intrusive. The founders recognized the intoxicating nature of political power and understood that words on paper would not be enough of a barrier to protect against abuses.
They built a government with fire walls between the executive, legislative and judicial powers. But by allowing citizens to arm themselves, the threat of citizen armies converging on the seats of power was a 3rd, more powerful, check on government excess. At the time, citizens could own anything - muskets, canon, etc. Our government, while allowing police, National Guard and the military to have and use assault weapons and heavy armaments, bans most of that in the hands of citizens. A citizen revolt against the government today would certainly fail because the 2nd has effectively already been neutered.
What those in the seats of power have learned is that they can mask their power grabs in frames of compassion and caring for citizens. Saying they only want a safer country, banning assault weapons is proposed as a completely sound and reasonable move. But opponents are making the case that the issues of safety are not solved by banning the weapon, but rather a two fold approach of arming more citizens and working more aggressively to understand what is happening with people suffering form mental illness. So both sides can make their case. Arguably, the way to solve it would be through a constitutional amendment changing or abolishing the 2nd amendment.
That is certainly not something I could support, because I like that those in Washington feel a slight threat from the citizen armies. The Vice President today, however, has suggested that the President could effectively ban the semi-automatic rifles with an executive order. That would be a breathtaking power grab and an unfortunate display of his lack of leadership skills. This is a matter that needs to be handled legislatively, and the President certainly has the right, if not the duty, to use the bully pulpit to argue his case. Citizens, through their representatives, also have a right to be heard and if they choose to ban certain types of arms, then so be it, although I believe it needs to be through the amendment process. These types of changes need at least 2/3 support of the congress and states.
My fear, albeit, not a big one, is that if an executive order is issued, which rings of an unconstitutional power grab, it could trigger some citizens on the fringe to overreact in ways that more people could get hurt and a constitutional crisis could ensue. Were I a political weatherman, I would say this will run for a few weeks until something else will take the top spot from out attention span challenged media.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Fact Check - You didn't build that"
I made the argument on my Facebook page that "You didn't build that" could be among the most unfortunate 4 words ever spoken by a US president.
One of my friends that enjoined the Facebook food-fight that ensued, argued that the quote was taken out of context. I looked into it and found a fact check article at the Washington Post.
The Post argues that Obama was referring to the roads and infrastructure when he said "you didn't build that." This, I believe, is where the out of context argument is coming from. Given his often unintelligible speech pathology when speaking extemporaneously, I might agree ... but the larger argument he was making follows the "It takes a Village" concept and that bolsters the suggestion that he was saying you didn't do it alone - "you had help." It's a chicken and egg argument - and most business owners argue that the core of the effort in starting their business is a product of their own industry - not that of a socialist collectivism. The product of their industry is taxed and that money goes back to the "village" to build those roads and other infrastructure. The infrastructure and other government help does not come first. The road was not first built by government in the hope that someone would someday invent an automobile to ride upon it.
Even if the president did misspeak, I believe what he intended to say was, indeed, exactly how people have understood it. Regardless, those 4 unfortunate words have proven to be a gift-wrapped campaign theme for his opponents.
One of my friends that enjoined the Facebook food-fight that ensued, argued that the quote was taken out of context. I looked into it and found a fact check article at the Washington Post.
The Post argues that Obama was referring to the roads and infrastructure when he said "you didn't build that." This, I believe, is where the out of context argument is coming from. Given his often unintelligible speech pathology when speaking extemporaneously, I might agree ... but the larger argument he was making follows the "It takes a Village" concept and that bolsters the suggestion that he was saying you didn't do it alone - "you had help." It's a chicken and egg argument - and most business owners argue that the core of the effort in starting their business is a product of their own industry - not that of a socialist collectivism. The product of their industry is taxed and that money goes back to the "village" to build those roads and other infrastructure. The infrastructure and other government help does not come first. The road was not first built by government in the hope that someone would someday invent an automobile to ride upon it.
Even if the president did misspeak, I believe what he intended to say was, indeed, exactly how people have understood it. Regardless, those 4 unfortunate words have proven to be a gift-wrapped campaign theme for his opponents.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Yes, You Did Build That Company
(Note: This was my letter to the Editor published in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on July 18, 2012.)
President Obama opened his re-election playbook this week when he wagged his finger at business owners and entrepreneurs and told them they did not create their companies alone. In effect telling them that because someone else built the roads their goods were transported on and someone else provided electricity, or built the Internet that they communicate to on, etc., the fruits of those businesses should be more willingly shared.
President Obama opened his re-election playbook this week when he wagged his finger at business owners and entrepreneurs and told them they did not create their companies alone. In effect telling them that because someone else built the roads their goods were transported on and someone else provided electricity, or built the Internet that they communicate to on, etc., the fruits of those businesses should be more willingly shared.
His failure to understand the concept of risk and reward is not surprising because he has never actually started a business. Never had to make a payroll, or met a budget. Never had to sell investors on an idea. Never taken a real business risk.
Ok, that argument has been made by the right since 2008. To anyone who has never done those things, Obama's argument probably sounds reasonable. Along the lines of Hillary Clinton's It takes a Village - there are certainly benefits of living in a collective society with various professions, services, roads, power lines, Internet, telephone etc. But the President does not understand that this is not a chicken and egg scenario. All of those services are paid for after-the-fact by taxes and fees of the successful business.
Early settlers created trails to get the products of their farms and workshops to markets or to trade with Native Americans. There was not a government that said - "lets clear a trail from Boston to Albany so there can be commerce." The commerce built those paths. In time, roads got busy and perhaps early private turnpikes were created to collect fees to maintain those roads. Later, the need to pave roads became apparent. They were not paved first, so some guy could later invent a car or truck. The proliferation of cars necessitated the building of smooth roads. The taxes of businesses and the labor of the people paid for that. Today, taxes and fees to both government and private enterprise to support the infrastructure and growth of tools like the Internet. Of course the Internet is a framework where businesses and entrepreneurs can experiment on new ideas - but it was not laid out there just for them. They pay to use it!
To suggest that government, because it collected taxes and built roads or other services, deserves any real credit for for the hard work and industry of someone trying to start a business or successfully running one is absurd.
Take the artist who has an idea for a new painting, and makes sketches, renderings, experiments with paints and colors, and after months or years of toil, starting over countless times, with tens of thousands of adjustments and fixes, creates a breathtaking work of art that is lauded by critics everywhere. Should any credit go to the canvas manufacturer, the pencil maker, the people who make paints or the color dyes or the brush makers whom she paid for their products? Does any credit go to the electric company that she paid to keep the lights on? Or the landlord whom she paid for a studio? Does any credit for this work go to her teachers, or her parents who raised and fed her? NO! She gets the credit for her work - all of it! She gets all the credit because it was her work product, her creativity, her sweat, her investment in the project... and when that piece of art sells, she will pay taxes, and perhaps use some to invest in her next project.
We need to celebrate our risk takers Mr. President, not jump on their bandwagon and try to take credit for their work or diminish their efforts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)