It sickens me that more people like the shooters in the recent Ohio and Texas murders are on the loose. All the talk about "thoughts and prayers" coming from the GOP is as worthless as used toilet paper. Nothing of value comes from the GOP or the gun lobby, save additional business for the undertaker.
Yet, the leftist argument that banning guns can not solve the problems that America has. We are a violent society which does a poor job of assimilating the "alienated" into the larger whole. These socially isolated people become ever more angry, as they are caught in a vicious cycle: People look for answers, find answers in extreme positions, extreme positions cause people to become isolated, isolated people look for even more extreme positions. Eventualy, they give up hope on the larger society, and either as an individual or part of an extremist group, lash out in a violent, destructive rage.
All too many people look for simplistic solutions. And the current president spouted simplistic sound bites which sounded like solutions to these people. Like religious zealots, these extremists felt they had the right to take the law into their own hands, restoring the purity of a white America.
America was never pure, and it was never an "Aryan" nation. Our first settlements, as well as our westward expansion, depended on the intermixing of peoples. Whether it was Dutch settlers developing relationships with the native Iroquois, southern whites raping their black slaves, Anglos mixing with Mexicans along our southern border, or everyone mixing with native Hawaiians, none of us are pure. And it is about time that we break the back of violent white supremacist culture.
Not having a homogenous culture has been both a great asset and a great liability for America. As an asset, we mix the best of ideas from all cultures to produce something greater than any of the originals. As a liability, the lack of consistant cultural shorthands leads us to conflicts which can escalate into violence. If our founding fathers knew then what we know now, I'm not sure if the 2nd amendment would have been ratified. But I'm sure that they would have considered it, as then, like today, many people depend on their guns for food and protection.
Is there a single definite answer to stopping gun violence - NO! We can institute programs which cause people of different backgrounds, Rural and Urban, Black and White, Anglo and Latino, etc. to mix and develop connections with each other. Our military does that in the field. But what about civilian life? Might it be possible to look at our past and use FDR's employment programs (CCC, WPA, etc.) as models for ways to mix people of different backgrounds AND to give them employment when they need it most?
But first, we can start by teaching people that the last resort of the incompetent is the initial use of violence. Teach people how to communicate and assimilate into the larger society, and to gain value from that society. That might be a good start to reduce the number of these unwanted killing sprees....
The Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare" as many people call it. It's a flawed law meant to put true healthcare reform in play. But the dysfunction of both political parties has locked in this law's provisions, the worst of them requiring people to buy unsubsidized insurance because their states didn't accept the medicaid expansion to cover these people.
One of the problems insurers have in America is that there is no price control on prescription drugs. The largest buyer of these drugs is Medicare, and yet, the federal government prohibits Medicare and Medicaid from negotiating prices for drugs. As a result, we have the highest costs for healthcare in the world. No wonder why many insurers are bailing out of the Obamacare health insurance markets.
Another problem is the inability to force the states to expand Medicaid, even with a 90% Federal government subsidy for those costs. Without nationwide participation, a law like this will fail, as people will blame the law for their problems and not the law makers who won't tweak the law to make it work for all. One might argue that this part of the law was a failure from the start. But in any law this complex, the drafters were likely to make errors. If we looked at law as we do for computer systems, we accept the fact that there will be computer bugs, and that they will be fixed. Why are many people condemning a law, when they should be condemning congress for not doing anything important in this area for generations, and then not fixing mistakes when they do something?
To me, an understated problem is the inability of insurers to get young adults to sign up for the higher levels of healthcare. The ACA depends on a large number of young workers (who are in good health) to pay into the insurance plans, so that older, less healthy, people can buy affordable insurance. Obamacare is a health care transfer from the young to the old, in the same way as Social Security is an income transfer program from the young to the old. In both cases, it only makes sense. In traditional societies, the young take care of the old. In an age of the sub-nuclear family, government mandated wealth and health transfers from young to the old make sense. Most people can no longer depend on their extended families for help.
There were many lies used to sell the public on the need for this law. This is not uncommon with politicians. FDR lied about keeping America neutral before WW2, even with the obvious signs that we could not avoid getting involved with this worldwide conflict. And yet, people accept the story given by their political tribes, instead of seeing the reality behind the scenes of the kabuki theater of politics.
Obamacare needs fixing. There are not enough insurers willing to participate in markets where they can't make money. There are not enough people covered by this law. There are not enough choices available to people in need. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If we get rid of Obamacare, we will return to a worse system than we have now. The only question is: Do we provide a "Public Option" or not? If there is a public option, the average person will likely pay roughly the same rate as state employees do for their insurance plans. (I use COBRA rates for my analysis.) Without a public option, people will go uninsured.
Are we heading towards single payer healthcare? Maybe. But if private industry wants to keep making profits, it will have to find a way of fixing a system that was broken way before the ACA was enacted, and will need to find a way to do it within the spirit of the ACA.
I can't stand Trump, and you can't stand Clinton. Who would be a logical choice for us if we could have only one person as president? This is a big problem when both candidates are equally easy to hate?
Over the years, Clinton has been pilloried by the GOP and lied about at every turn. But she had done little to make things better for herself, and has only reinforced the lies told about her. But Trump is no paragon of honor, as he has been in bed with foreign powers who are no friends of the USA. Even in this paragraph, you can sense a very slight bias towards Clinton - but not a bias I'd have if the GOP put up a more honorable candidate.
Recently, Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia. Her surrogates covered up for her instead of telling the truth and letting the chips fall where they may. As a result, her health has become an issue for the campaign. Gone are the days that Kennedy could hide his Addison's disease. Gone are the days that Wilson could hide an almost fatal stroke. And gone are the days that FDR's polio related paralysis would be ignored by the press. The health of a potential president is very important to us.
Given Trump's doctor's note, I feel that the note was in effect written by Trump himself. Even a 12th grader would use more adult language than was on the note. (Trump's speeches have been analyzed, and they are at a 4th grade level. What does this say about the doctor's note?) With Trump calling for full disclosure by Hillary, but not being willing to do so himself, there is little reason to consider him an honorable candidate for president.
So where does this leave us? We do have a choice - the Libertarians and their candidate, Gary Johnson. No, I don't expect him to win. But I do expect him to be able to throw a monkey wrench into this election. Voting Libertarian is the best way of saying "NO!" to both parties and their corruption. Once they start getting some victories, it will be much harder for the duopoly to keep this third party off the ballot. And with victories will come change.
Some people will say that Johnson should have known about Aleppo. Yet, how many of us remember that Syrian city unless it is in the news? I can't fault him for being forgetful - he doesn't have the luxury of big staffs like the Democrats and the GOP can provide for their candidates. At least, he has a coherent philosophy. And if by some miracle he won our nation's highest office, I'm pretty sure that Willie Nelson, Snoop Dogg, and Bill Maher would be there at the swearing in ceremony - as well as the unofficial "after party". (I'd love to be there for that one!)
We have a lot to think about before November 8th. And I hope that either one of the major party candidates shows him/herself worthy of high office. Or I hope that the Libertarians would finally come of age and win something....
In order to understand what is going on with this year's election, one has to understand history. In short, one has to understand what led up to the Great Depression, what led up to Iraq War #1, the Bill Clinton presidency, the George Bush (#43) presidency (especially the response to 9/11), and the Obama presidency. In the light of history, everything going on makes sense, and I'm still surprised that only the Libertarians have emerged to be a potential disruptor for this election.
Let's look at the Bush #43 presidency first. He was elected with the mantra of "Compassionate Conservatism" infusing his campaign. One would have expected him to be a president who focused on domestic affairs. He did push a reactionary conservative agenda to appease the hard liners of the GOP base, and did appoint many conservatives to the courts. But 9/11 threw him and the rest of the country for a loop. Politically, he couldn't allow another terrorist attack to occur without an appropriate amount of security theater - so we built up much of our dysfunctional security infrastructure in his reign. But he also had to get us into a never-ending war, where we disrupted the power structure in Iraq, allowing ISIS to form.
Next, we have to look back at the Bill Clinton presidency. Bill was a sex addict (no surprise, FDR and JFK also "suffered" from this affliction). But Bill succeeded beyond anyone's expectations, leaving the US with a treasury that was spending less than it was taking in. Yet, his presidency was marred with scandals (something common in politics), and his wife was tarred with the same brush that tarred him.
Bush had a choice - should he borrow to pay America's bills for a war in Afghanistan, or should he raise taxes to pay for the war? He chose to borrow AND decided to cut taxes - leaving whoever would following him with very tough choices - do we cut the military or social spending budgets, and which line items are sacred? Luckily these tax cuts were temporary, and would expire after he left office. They were designed to make a Democratic president look bad, as no Democrat would touch social spending - so he would have to let the tax cuts expire, allowing the GOP to claim he raised taxes.
The GOP has a mantra of "Less regulation brings on greater prosperity." When the economy collapsed in 2008, a smart GOP candidate would have to ask the question: "What happens if we continue our dysfunctional policies? Could we have another Great Depression?" And I'll bet that John McClain realized this in 2008. Could he tell his party's loyalists that they needed to pump money into the economy AND impose new regulations on the banking sector of the economy? Of course not. So he made a decision that he'll never admit making - to trash his chances of being elected President by nominating Sarah Palin for the office of Vice President. (But he had to play dumb. Any hint that he threw the election would damage his stature in the GOP - and he hasn't admitted that he did this yet, and I doubt he ever will....) John McCain was very aware of what happened to Herbert Hoover. His administration was blamed for the Great Depression, and the Democrats held the office of the President for 20 years under FDR and Truman. I'm pretty sure that McCain figured that the GOP could brush Bush #43 under the rug, and possibly tarnish the Democrat (Obama) so the GOP could win in 2012.
Obama is elected in 2008. We know from recent history that the GOP opposed everything he tried to do to prevent a Great Depression. But both Bush #43's advisors and Obama's advisors were working to script legislation to prevent the worst from happening. And Obama was more successful than expected, in spite of the GOP. He knew not to shred the social safety net while things were getting worse, and then to take away the extra support when things got better. No matter what people did to find scandal in his administration, his was the cleanest we've had in decades.
During Obama's administration, the GOP regained control of congress. And repealing Obamacare became a new mantra. Hillary Clinton takes on the job of Secretary of State, dealing with many of the foreign policy decisions that Obama doesn't have the time to make, being involved in the domestic economy and its problems. But this places her back in the cross hairs of the GOP's attacks on her. If they could have convicted her of anything, they probably would have done so. But the most they could do is to tarnish the reputation of a woman because she was married to a president of the opposition party who was very successful and very flawed.
The GOP congress was ineffectual in delivering on its many problems, and many in the base stopped believing in the lies told by its elite. So, Donald Trump became a great disruptor. Voting for Trump was a vote against the GOP elite. Sadly, Trump is a person who leaves anyone and anything he touches poorer for knowing him. But one would have to know his history to think he's anything other than a successful entrepreneur.
At the same time, the Democratic elite was also shown to be worthless, leaving fertile ground for Bernie Sanders' candidacy. If it weren't for Bernie NOT realizing how powerful his message and candidacy would become, and how the Democratic party's elite structured things for Hillary to win, he might have just pulled up the upset of the century.
Now we have Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as our presumptive nominees. They have the lowest approval ratings in decades. And the Libertarian, Gary Johnson is polling in the double digit range. Will he be able to keep polling this high and get into the debates? I'm not sure, but he is another disruptor. If Johnson were to win any electoral votes, and if neither Trump or Clinton win a majority of electoral votes, the presidential election could go to the House of Representatives. Would the majority GOP states vote for Trump, or would they do something embarrassing like voting for Clinton? I suspect that neither candidate would be acceptable, and this would leave the Libertarian (who is, I believe, a former GOP governor) as the only palatable choice.
Could this scenario happen? It's highly unlikely, but we've seen the strangest things happen this year, and I'm not ruling out even stranger things from happening.....
