Have we sunk this low?

Although this is not the mosque in the article, "As Houston Islamic Center burns, firefighter posts "Let it burn - Block the fire hydrant" , it illustrates what is on much of conservative America's mind - blind hatred to others who are not like them.  It's not just Islam - Sikhs are being caught up in the hatred of the ignorant, as noted in this article.  Even my father lumps Sikhs in with Muslims, calling them all "Towel Heads", without the slightest understanding that Sikhs are often at odds with Muslims because of their religion and practice of it.

This is the kind of event that disgusts me.  There is nothing wrong with fearing the unknown. I fear the potential of having an unassimilated ethnic group demanding rights they have in other countries that no ethnic group should have in ours. But giving into that fear is something else.  The quickest way to radicalize the Muslims in the United States is to treat them as third class citizens.

There are legitimate fears - Americans do not want to see the United States become like Europe.  We successfully absorbed millions of people from around the world in simpler times - and virtually every major group has been successfully brought into the mainstream. People coming here wanted to become Americans and leave the old world behind.  Current European immigrants want to bring the old country (and culture) with them - and this poses a dilemma for today's Americans:  Will newcomers (in any large number) from truly foreign cultures assimilate successfully?

I'm concerned with the growth of Islam in the United States.  It's because I see Saudi Arabia funding many of the prison chaplains, spreading the most conservative practice of Islam in the world.  I'm afraid that their barbaric culture (vs. the barbaric culture we're already familiar with) will cause us problems if its members grow too large in our society.  

- - - - - -

However, I also fear radical Christianity.  We've identified the San Bernardino shootings as terrorist activity. But what about the bombing of Abortion Clinics, as well as the assassination of doctors who have practiced there.  Many of the same people who say abortion is wrong often try to impose their moral values on the rest of us by also getting in the way of women having a full range of safe and legal contraception options.  (The "Hobby Lobby" case comes to mind here.)  So I am concerned for the women who do not have convenient access to safe and legal medical procedures to keep a baby healthy while it's in the womb, as well as access to safe and legal medical procedures for those women (for whatever reasons) need to abort the fetuses inside them.

Once a woman's right to control her own body is taken away by social conservatives, what is next?  We've already seen legislators pander to the religious right by saying that church attendance should be made mandatory.  How would Atheists fare?  Then, I'd bet that religious purity zealots would go after "social undesirables" such as Homosexuals, Bisexuals, and Transgender people.  And then, who would be next to suffer in the potential religious purges?

- - - - - -

If you don't think anything like this could happen here, you haven't been paying attention to history.  Politicians will lie to the people.  But sometimes, they get caught up in their lies, and have to act in disgusting ways.  For example, we've seen Japanese Americans herded up into prison camps -  only because of their ancestry.  Was this done to people of either German or Italian ancestry?  No.  But we feared the Japanese, and "needed" to control the "Japanese" in our midst in the most brutal and inhumane way possible.  (And Donald Trump) is using this as a model of what we should do to Muslims living in America.

After seeing pictures of Jews wearing Yellow Stars in Germany, it sickens me to see this crap being proposed here.  And I feel very sorry that the most "conservative" of Christians are making the same mistake Germany made in the 1930's. Instead, I'd like to see America address the problems brought up in this video clip from the HBO series, The Newsroom.  Only then, can America be great again (no help from Trump.)

Reflections - Post San Bernardino

As much as I disagree with the NRA, I'll agree with them in regards to mass killings - it's not a gun problem, but a people problem. Gun free zones are meaningless in the same way that Drug free zones are meaningless. They are only a public statement that guns (or drugs) are not welcome, and not a reflection of reality - because those unwelcome items are already there.

Even if we were to take the NRA's stance that we have a mental health problem (in the case of the Connecticut school massacre in Sandy Hook), how do we change the mental health and legal systems (as well as provide adequate funding) to deal with such issues? If we focus on terrorism, how many freedoms do we want to sacrifice in the name of security? Can we trust our governments, with the history of corruption we have in this country (from both parties)?

We need intelligent regulation that crosses state lines, and has few (if any) loopholes. Population density and homogeneity is important. In areas of low population density, where people tend to be from a single ethnic group, we find a very low level of gun crime. In areas of high population density and a heterogeneous population base (such as in most urban areas), we find a high level of gun crime.

So, what do we do?

In the case of potential non-terrorist gun crime, we can work on providing better mental health treatment to people at a low cost. We can look for people who are alienated from society in general, and find ways to better integrate them into society - jobs, friends, social networks, etc. - so that they feel they have something to lose from going on violent rampages.

In the case of potential terrorist gun crime, we can allow the government to use a limited amount of spying tools (with appropriate warrants and vetted public monitoring to help protect us from becoming a police state) that analyze content and traffic on the internet (and associated social networks) to detect these terrorists (such as could have been done for the San Bernardino killings) and stop them.

Federal regulation based on population density and population heterogeneity must be enacted to supersede that existing on state levels, and must reflect the reality of metropolitan areas that cross state lines, as well as trafficking materials from areas with lenient regulation to those areas with restrictive regulation.   

Will this end all gun crime?

Certainly not!  America is a nation in love with its guns, and we have a constitution that protects our gun rights, in part, to insure that we can overthrow a tyrannical government. But, if we can cut this crime by a significant amount, we can start focusing on other problems that are just as important - such as seeing that ALL Americans who want a job can get a job (or have one provided to them that supplies them with a reasonable income).  I am tired of hearing Americans shout past each other, not listening to the valid points their opposition brings up. We have it in ourselves to make this nation a greater nation than it already is - Let's find a way to make it so.....  

Another Candidate who is Unfit to Serve

The Donald.  Always using bluster to manipulate people.  And sadly, he seems to be succeeding.  

I've always looked at Trump as a schlocky real estate promoter who has turned his last name into a brand name.  The problem with the brand is that it depends on people to believe it has value, instead of carefully looking at the merchandise itself. And that's where the big fraud starts to surface.

My father has subscribed to the cult of Trump.  My dad is a WW2 veteran, and he has seen generations of American politicians betray the country. These politicians say one thing, then do another - and the people never hold them accountable, as they blindly trusted the words of the ruling elite.  My dad has always been a cynic.  When asked why he votes out the incumbent, he responds that it is time to let a new crook get his piece of the action.  So when Trump says, "Let's make America Great Again!", my dad buys that line hook, line and sinker - as he believes that this country needs to be fixed, and he has given up on the ruling elite either being willing or able to do this.

Let's look at Trump with a critical eye.  Umberto Eco has noted 14 points of Fascism.  Citing an analysis on the Blue Virginia website it appears that Trump (and other GOP candidates) meet Eco's definition of a Fascist.

1. "The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition...As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message." (Right, and according to Trump, all he needs to do is snap his fingers and bring us all back to that mythological time prior to when America stopped being "great.")
2. "Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism." (Science denial is rampant in the 2016 Republican presidential field, certainly with Trump.)
3. "Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake." (Listen to Trump's speeches, they're extremely short on specifics or actual plans, extremely long on taking action -- even if the specified action would be extremely harmful, dangerous, crazy, whatever.)
4. "No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism... For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason." (If you don't agree with Trump, you're in idiot, probably a Communist, etc.)
5. "Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus UrFascism is racist by definition." (Xenophobia - immigrant bashing, Muslim bashing, etc. - is rampant in the rhetoric of Trump and other 2016 Republican presidential contenders.)
6. "Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups." (No question that a lot of people are frustrated right now, for economic and other reasons. The problem is that they're often pointing their fingers at the wrong causes for their distress, and demagogues like Trump are stoking that.)
7. "...at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia."  (Again, that's Trump to a "T," including his hyper-militarism, the answer to everything being to kill it, deport it, bomb the crap out of it, etc.)
8. "The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies." (In this case, I wouldn't say "wealth" as much as "force," such as in the case of ISIS.)
9. "For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle." (Not sure if this one fits exactly, but I haven't thought it through fully. Your thoughts?)
10. "Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people of the world, the members of the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party." (Yep, that's Trump, American Exceptionalism and breast-thumping ultra-nationalism to the nth degree. Because WE ARE THE GREATEST...well, that is, when he makes us "great again!" Heh.)
11. "The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death." (Not sure Trump's "impatient to die," but he certainly seems eager to send other people to fight and die.)
12. " Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the UrFascist hero tends to play with weapons – doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise." (Definitely note the strong streaks of homophobia and misogyny in the right-wing "base." Also note their extreme discomfort with other sexual identities, such as transgenderism, as well as with men not being tough or macho enough (e.g., Trump's criticisms of "JEB" Bush as "low energy."). And of course, they loooove their guns, the bigger and badder the better!)
13. "For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter." (Yep, that's Trump.)
14. " Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in 1984, as the official language of Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning. " (Listen to Trump speak; he sounds like he has about a 3rd-grade vocabulary. Bunch of utter garbage, no complex or critical reasoning in evidence, definite "Newspeak" tendencies.)

Trump wants to control his message, and even the true conservatives in his party are getting fed up with his antics.  Recently, he wanted to talk over Joe Scarborough on "Morning Joe", and the host cut to a commercial instead of letting Trump run Joe's show. It's about damned time that people start treating Trump for the troublemaker that he is, and chase him out of the GOP.

With all that being said, I want to play with fire, and I hope that Trump is the GOP candidate. Why, you might ask? GOP strategists have noted that a Trump nomination might cause many GOP loyalists to stay home on Election Day and allow for a Democrat to be elected, possibly enabling the Democrats to regain control of the Senate.  Am I comfortable with the risk that this Fascist might actually win and gain power?  Absolutely not.  But if both the GOP and America as a whole can't see Trump for the danger he is to our society, than America deserves the trouble it will get if Trump is elected.

Iran and the remaining folk in the Clown Car.

Most of the people in the GOP "Clown Car" are saying that the deal with Iran is a bad one, and that they will overturn it when in office.  Do any of them understand that pandering to the base only makes them look more idiotic for the general campaign?

- - - - - -

The deal with Iran was not only a deal with America, but a deal with Germany, France, Russia, China, and Great Britain.  Although the Israelis could not be a direct part of the deal and had to condemn the deal for existential reasons, I have no doubt that they have had to have some input into the deal due to their relationship with America.

It is very pleasant to read this statement from Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, that the Republican presidential candidates were so “laughable” that “the people of Iran look at them as a form of entertainment.”  Why, you might ask?  Well, he is wise enough to know that even if the USA were to back out of this deal, that it would still be in force with the other G5+1 members.  This deal needs no treaty with the USA, nor does it need America's cooperation to be implemented.  It helped that the USA was on-board when the deal was crafted, as it allowed America and Iran an ability to openly work with each other - something that has not been possible since before 1980.

The Iranian President went on to say the following:

“Can a government become a signatory to an international agreement and then the subsequent government tear it to shreds? This is something that only the likes of Saddam Hussein would do. So, any government that replaces the current government must keep itself committed to the commitments given by the previous administration. Otherwise, that government, that entire country will lose trust internationally,”
To me, this is the most salient point of the conversation noted in a late September post in Raw Story.  Iran's president knows that America's foreign policy can not make rapid flip flops based on which party is in charge of the executive branch.  It took over 50 years for America to start having civil relations with Cuba.  And he expects that it will take more time for America and Iran to learn to work with each other again - this deal being one of many steps geared to fixing the problems of the past.

- - - - - -

Can we trust the Iranians?  If we were to look at it from a different point of view, one could ask - can they trust us?  Right now, the Iranian President is wise enough to know that the "Clown Car" is spewing out noxious fumes, and will likely get its tuneup in the prelude to the general election.....

Unfit to serve

As much as I have a Liberal political bent (according to today's values), I am willing to listen to people from the conservative side of the aisle.  Unfortunately, one of the "outsiders" on which many conservatives placed their political hopes has shown that he is unfit for the job as POTUS.

One of the things I've learned over the years is that military people take their ranks, their awards, and their service academies very seriously.  It is very important for them to know their place in the grand scheme of things, as armies and navies can not operate according to market based principles.  They must, by definition, operate on a command and control structure to succeed in their missions.

When Ben Carson was found to have lied about him being accepted to West Point, this made him unfit to serve as commander in chief.  Our military must have leaders they can trust - especially when it comes to understanding the military.  When a leader claims that he was accepted into the military elite and turned it down, and then found to be lying, a soldier will wonder - what else is he lying about, and can I trust him to be acting for the country's best interest?  

Our constitution defined a delicate check and balance between civilian and military power by defining the idea of a "well regulated militia" - even though we have an army and a navy, we also have arms in private hands - to preserve the power to rebel against tyrannical authority if needed.  The military was put under the control of civilian authority, so that they would not be independent of the elected government, and so that its focus would be to serve the needs of the nation instead of serving its own needs.  Part of the bargain was that civilians would respect the structure and functions of the military, and serve (when needed) to protect the country.

Ben Carson does not understand this.  If he can't be honest about his past, especially in regard to potential military service, then how can he lead our soldiers?  Hopefully, his supporters will realize this - and find someone else more suited for leadership - even if that candidate is someone I can't support for other reasons.... 

Now, I've seen it all.....

And now a break from my usual political commentary, and a note on the current state of American society....

- - - - - -

After tonight's late night ads, I must say that - Now, I've seen it all - Coloring books being marketed to adults!  When I grew up, a child would progress from simple coloring books to being able to draw simple pictures on his/her own.  If that child had talent, it would be nurtured, so that he/she could draw or paint complex pictures.  If not, he/she would have to be content, painting by the numbers and churning out many a Velvet Elvis.

Strangely enough, I can see why this product would be easy to sell - a coloring book becomes a form of meditation. Even Crayola has seen a way to sell its products to adults. The minimal effort needed to fill in blank space can help clear the mind, and allow it to relax.  But I am appalled by the sales pitch - where they say that the after product becomes a piece of artwork which one could give to friends.  Are they serious????

According to Wikipedia, 

"In 1958 the National Defense Education Act was passed with the encouragement of many legislators who feared the United States education system was falling behind that of the Soviet Union. The act yielded textbooks, produced in cooperation with the American Institute of Biological Sciences, which stressed the importance of evolution as the unifying principle of biology. The new educational regime was not unchallenged. The greatest backlash was in Texas where attacks were launched in sermons and in the press.Complaints were lodged with the State Textbook Commission. However, in addition to federal support, a number of social trends had turned public discussion in favor of evolution. These included increased interest in improving public education, legal precedents separating religion and public education, and continued urbanization in the South."

In short, cultural competition and urbanization pushed America forward in regard to scientific education.  But now, we're seeing people who are too busy to learn basic STEM skills, as well as others that prefer to use their religion as an excuse not to recognize generally accepted scientific reality.

- - - - - -

This rot is not limited to mathematics and the sciences.  It infects what we call common entertainment as well.  Compare two Television episodes made about 50 years apart.  In the 1960's one show had a child's father talking about the day the child was born. A wonderfully innocent joke was made: "Was Mommy There?" And the response was an obvious yes, with the setup for a story.  50 years later, a popular TV show made a big production about who peed on a pregnancy test stick - and bored the hell out of me. Yet, the people on the 2010's TV show made a fortune - even though what they did wasn't that funny.

Recently, I went to Atlantic City, and saw a comedy show with 3 popular comics.  The whole audience was laughing their guts out, while my partner and I was totally bored by the acts. When one of the comics started to make jokes referring to an 8 year old boy who shot his dad, I got disgusted.  The child was a victim of child abuse, having been beaten for 1,000 days in a row.  Is this something to laugh about?

- - - - - -

But back to the coloring books....

I have nothing against the firm who is selling these books.  In fact, I wish I had thought of this idea first.  It is something that actually serves a purpose - just not the one being advertised.  And I hope the people buying this product enjoy the time they spend filling in the blanks with colors.....

He kept us safe....

I have to admit - Donald Trump is a breath of fresh air, mixed with the usual smog of politics. And recently, he opened up a conversation that mainstream Republicans wanted to avoid - was George W. Bush's presidency a great failure?

In an interview, Trump opened up a pissing match with Jeb Bush, noting that Bush #43 was president on 9/11, and we went down the wrong path by destabilizing the Middle East.  Jeb responded that his brother "Kept America Safe".  Does any sane person really believe that Bush #43 actually kept us safe - even though it might be unfair to hold him accountable for 9/11?

This idea "he kept us safe" is the one thing that many Republicans hold on to which prevent themselves from massive "transformative learning". It's hard to admit that one's leadership got it totally wrong to such a large degree as Bush #43 did.  And Jeb is making the mistake of saying his brother did the right thing, while the majority of Americans (including a growing minority in his own party) believe that his brother was a total failure as president.

- - - - - -

If we go back to 2003, Bush #43's administration made a decision to remove Saddam Hussein's government from Iraq, setting the stage for a "forever war" the minute a power vacuum was allowed to exist in Iraq.  Obama, giving the American public what it wanted, pulled troops out of Iraq, allowing ISIS to form.  This was a two-stage clusterfuck. We either had to stay in Iraq, with thousands of Americans coming home in body bags - or, we could pull out, and take a risk of radical Islam gaining power.  There was no good choice - and this was Bush #43's legacy.

Did he keep us safe?  No.  But he did create great political theater to make us feel this way. When you look at the TSA and their continued screw ups, one wonders how more incidents haven't happened.  They can spy on our high tech communications.  But they can't spy on low tech (paper) in the same way.  Each time there is a failure in keeping us safe, the TSA tightens things up until the public complains, then eases off a bit.  There is no way to preserve absolute safety - but the public is being treated like a bunch of children and is not being told the truth - life, itself, is a bunch of risks.

- - - - - -

There is a growing list of politicians who are willing to discuss the mistakes this country made in the wake of 9/11.  And this is a good thing.  The GOP can not govern unless it is willing to look at itself honestly and say what they got wrong, and what they got right.  If they build on the things they do right (and we're not talking pandering to ignorant, dogmatic parts of the base), they have a chance to sell America on a market based economy, with all of the risks markets entail.  But this will include safety nets for whom the market can not serve.  If the party fails to address these points adequately, it will shrink in importance as its base shrinks as a part of the general population.

Armistice Day

Armistice Day.  We now call it Veteran's Day, as a way to honor those who served.  But, in America, we've lost the true meaning of the holiday.

There are many cemeteries in Europe in which are buried the bodies of soldiers who died in World War One.  This was the first global war in our world's history, although most of the killing was done by the European powers and their proxies.  It was considered "the war to end all wars", and yet, there was another world war within a generation.

What is it about humanity that leads us into war?  Could it be the nature of the Alpha Male is getting out of hand when large populations are involved?  I have no idea. But one would think that as a species, we'd have learned how to dampen this tendency in humans.  Sadly, we haven't yet learned how to do this.

- - - - - -

We have one political party which has had a collective myopia, being hawkish about getting into war, but with no clear plan of what to gain from making that war.  Have they learned anything from the lessons of 11/11/1918?  I doubt it.  They were responsible for us squandering billions of dollars in Iraq, claiming that we needed to make that nation "Safe for Democracy".  Does anyone think that Iraq became better off because of our involvement? And then, this party wanted us to invade Syria and remove another dictator.  Do they want to keep getting us involved in areas of the world, where a potential removal of our troops (once there) would create worse problems than had we not invaded in the first place?  Do they want "Forever Wars" only to keep the Military-Industrial Complex profitable?

- - - - - -

Wars should be rare things, not forever things.  America has made the big mistake of empire - we're using war to get our way in the world, and this is a tool that becomes much more expensive over time.  In addition, history has shown us that a propensity towards war is the sign of a dying empire.  Instead, we should be using diplomatic and economic power to get our way, to keep this empire.  It's one of the better ones that have existed, as it did help people become free and prosper around the globe.  But we can't make all the world safe or prosperous - the people and their cultures in areas that we have influence must want what we want for this to happen.  That's why Iraq and Syria were failures for us.

- - - - - -

The fields of Europe hold many a cemetery from both world wars.  Can we afford to add fuel to a fire which may result in another world war?

Democrats finally debating

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton - Opponents who know who their real political enemies are. One comment from Bernie in regard to Hillary's emails said all that needed to be said about the difference in tone between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in this country. 

Contrast the difference between Sanders' campaign and Trump's campaign.  It'd be almost impossible to find an instance where Sanders said anything mean about an individual.  Yet, you'd find a very strenuous voice against social injustice in our society.  Contrast this with Donald Trump, where a lot of meanness exudes from the man - but he doesn't have much of a message worth delivering.  Sanders states how he'd fix the problems in our society, while Trump only makes grandiose statements on how he'd make America great again, without filling in any of the details needed to believe him.

Both Sanders and Trump are voices against "business as usual" from the party elites. But again, look at the differences.  Sanders can work with the Democratic elite, even though he is an Independent from Vermont. Trump threatens the Republican party elite, and he comes from the same circles who could buy and sell presidential candidates.  Who do you think will get more done if elected to POTUS?

Many still consider Sanders' and Trump's campaigns as sideshows to the "eventual" main event - Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton. But Jeb has no traction right now.  The top 3 GOP candidates are all people from outside the Washington elites.  There is a good reason for this - the public is sick and tired of an elite that no  longer looks out for the welfare of the common person.  The dislike of elites shared by rural and inner city people is now spreading to suburbia - crippling Bush's chance of being nominated as the GOP's candidate. However the same dislike is not hurting Clinton that much.  

Why is Clinton not suffering as much as Jeb Bush?  This is an important question to ponder. The way I see it, her wealth is "new money" - something people respect, even though they question her ethics. Bush's wealth is "old money", and no longer has the respect of the common person. This is not conscious. I only thought of it when I think of how rich the Clintons became in 15 years.  

This leads to yet another question - Why has Trump's wealth not been held against him? To me, I think it is how Trump has promoted himself.  He has had many more business failures than successes, yet has figured out a way to offload the risks of his business ventures onto others.  For a project manager - this is a great thing to do.  But for the rest of us, it smacks of something less than ethical behavior.

Over the next 3 months, we'll see a lot of change. And we'll see if Sanders' and Trump's campaigns are going to implode when real elections are held.  If I am right, Hillary will collapse again, and the people in back of the GOP Clown Car will drop out of the race. I also think that Sanders will ask Hillary to be his VP - and she'll accept the position. It'll be a fine way for her to end her political career - and she could still get the job she's coveted for several electoral cycles.....

Chaos in the house

From what I understand, our forefathers thought that the Speaker of the House of Representatives would be America's most important political position, and not the office of the President.  However, it is the presidency which has become the most important office - and for good reason. As Harry Truman said: "The Buck Stops Here!"

Lately, no sane man would consider the position of Speaker of the House.  Rep. Boehner resigned, as he felt that he couldn't control the extremists in his party and get them to vote on "must pass" bills needed to keep the government running. He was tired of the responsibilities of the office, and decided to retire instead of destroying himself by staying in the battle. But this left Rep. McCarthy next in line for the office.

There are many reasons why McCarthy should not be Speaker of the House. But I won't go into the ones that many Democrats might bring up.  Instead, I'll trust his judgement that he is not the right man for the job, and speculate that he did not want to take the blame for a likely government shutdown (which would likely happen by the time this entry is made public). He's smart enough to know that the same angry people who are propelling Trump's candidacy are also the same people who no longer trust political insiders to do anything to address their concerns.  They feel they have nothing to gain by keeping the present elite in charge, so they are willing to collapse the system to make their voices heard.

But what does this mean for our "democracy"?  

If the House was designed as a place where the people could vent their feelings, and the Senate was a place to prevent short term feelings from mucking up the system, then what happens when the legislative branch is dominated by a party which is unable to govern? To me, this forces a president (most likely from the opposing party) to govern by edict and by novel interpretations of existing law.  This is very dangerous, as power keeps shifting from the legislative branch to the executive branch - and this power is subject to fewer checks and balances as time goes on.

Eventually, one party will control the two elected branches of government.  And if the party is as dysfunctional as today's GOP, then I have serious concerns. The angry mob that is disrupting the functions of the House could gain control of the executive branch - and that could be the end of the republic.

Why such a concern?

Let's take an inflammatory issue such as abortion.  Many scholars thought that Roe vs. Wade was a horrible decision - not because of which side won, but because it forced society to adapt too quickly to change.  Later rulings have softened the blow, and have rolled things back a bit.  But they (SCOTUS) have always relied on judicial precedent to guide them in new rulings.  What would happen if a new, replacement elite were to ignore precedents? The loss of abortion rights in themselves might not be that onerous. But could you imagine possible government intrusion in a woman's reproduction to make sure that all fetuses are tracked and accounted for?  

Long term government policies that cross administrations could also be overturned at a whim.  Could you imagine the lunacy of a rapid rapprochement with North Korea?  Heck, Cuba and Iran have never been as much trouble to the US as the DPRK has been, and yet they get all the press these days because of a slow and careful movement towards normalization with these countries.  Would we kill NAFTA without serious thought? Possibly. But this is why our government was designed to implement change slowly - so that we don't make the mistakes often made when the voice of the mob drowns out the voice of reason.

But what role should an elite play?

This question has been central to American polity since the days of Jefferson and Hamilton. As for me, like Hamilton, I believe that there is a natural elite that tends to form in any society. But like Jefferson, I also believe that to be free, "the tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of tyrants."  America has been a stable republic because its design provides for a greater tolerance of instability in the system.  I only hope that the design keeps working - and I'm not too sure of this any longer....

The boys of October

If I could change one (of many) things in history, this ball park would be standing and the one in Chavez Ravine would never have been built.  Alas, history never follows a script. And if it could, there would be too many ad-libs.

This season, at least, both New York baseball teams have been scheduled for post-season play - as happened many times in the past, when there were three major league teams in the five boroughs.  By the time this entry is made public, there is a high likelihood that one (or both) of them will be eliminated from eligibility to play in the World Series.

- - - - - -

For many generations, Baseball has been the one sport that has reflected the ethos of America - for better and worse.  It has reflected corruption in both players (Chicago Black Sox) and owners (Charlie Cominsky).  It has reflected the racial prejudices of this country with segregated baseball teams and leagues.  It has reflected unrestrained greed.  But yet, it has also reflected what is best in America - a nation with a cultural language which has been shared by almost all as they assimilate into the larger whole.

I grew up when New York City baseball was at a nadir.  The Dodgers and Giants had already departed for the West Coast, leaving the New York region with a single baseball franchise, the Yankees, which was being treated like a cash cow by its owners.  By the time CBS took over the franchise, the Yankees were heading for a last place finish - for the first time since before Babe Ruth joined the team. And CBS had no clue about what it could do with the team.  (Contrast this with Ted Turner, who made the Braves a centerpiece of his entertainment empire about 25 years later.)  The Mets were a joke - a group of has-beens and never-will-bes that couldn't win - even if the other team didn't show up.  

- - - - - -

The nature of the game of baseball is virtually unique among sports.  It doesn't follow a clock, save the interruptions mandated by modern day advertising. It is both an individual sport and a team sport - where a batter is opposed by the nine other players on the field. An individual may sacrifice his chance to be on-base in order to advance a runner to a better position - much like in real life, where someone might "fall on his sword" to protect someone else.  It is a game where both the individual and team is celebrated, and as such unusual among sports.  (Yes, we may think of Quarterbacks in American Football. But in many ways, they are simply hands-on field managers, and not much more than that in an overall view of the game.)

- - - - - -

Baseball idioms have infused themselves into almost every part of American life - even sex. When people differ in what "first base" and "second base" refers to, they do have an idea of how "far" one got (or how much was achieved) when in the act of "love making".  Many decades after the poem was written, people still understand why there is no joy in Mudville. And in my generation, many still knew of Baseball's Sad Lexicon - where bear cubs could make a giant hit into a double - long after the Giants departed the Polo Grounds, and long after Tinker, Evers and Chance have passed away.

Since the month of October will be Baseball's last hurrah before football season takes hold, I'd like to leave you with the immortal poem by Franklin Pierce Adams....

These are the saddest of possible words:

"Tinker to Evers to Chance."

Trio of bear cubs, and fleeter than birds,

Tinker and Evers and Chance.

Ruthlessly pricking our gonfalon bubble,

Making a Giant hit into a double –

Words that are heavy with nothing but trouble:

"Tinker to Evers to Chance."

Ben Carson - Would you be comfortable with a Muslim as president?

Recently, I was watching TV when Ben Carson said that he felt Islam was incompatible with the constitution, and that he was uncomfortable with a Muslim being president. Politically Incorrect?  Sure!  But he said what a lot of the people in mainstream America feel, and are voicing in both rural and urban settings.  So why are the pundits giving him a hard time?

In an age where the Middle East is center most in the political debate, often ahead of jobs, education, and health care, the religion of a candidate for POTUS often gives us an idea about his/her thinking about an issue. Would you have wanted Joe Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, having to deal with a possible rapprochement with Iran?  I certainly wouldn't.  But I wouldn't want either a Sunni or Shiite Muslim directly involved with the negotiations either - they may have too much emotional "skin" in the game to make a decision which meets the best interest of ALL Americans. 

Carson did say that he was comfortable with a Muslim in the Legislative branch - as long as he/she subscribed to the basic secular values of the United States. And in many ways, most Americans support people who are not religious extremists being part of government at all levels.  

The US Constitution says that no religious litmus test (my words) shall be used to qualify a person for running for any office in the United States.  This is a good thing.  But it doesn't prevent the individual from using a person's religion as a guide to how he/she would deal with certain issues.  For example, POTUS is a 24x7 job.  Would we want someone who "religiously" observes Shabbos to be president?  I'm not sure.  But we've already had a Christian (in the 1800's) who would not work on Sunday be elected president, and as a result, we actually had a day in our history where there was no sworn in President of the United States. Could we afford this today?

Years ago, people worried about JFK being Roman Catholic - Would he obey the Pope before fulfilling his duties to America?  History tells us that he put America first ...after sating his sexual appetite.  This is why we need to know as much as possible about a presidential candidate before supporting him or her.  Sometimes, a person's religion can be simply posturing (as in the case of JFK) - or one of real belief (such as with Jimmy Carter). Either way, religion is an important factor in who we choose for president....

In the end, I think this will quickly become a non issue, but not for the reasons I'd want it to happen.  Instead, the Democrats and the remaining GOP Candidates will be out gunning to take down Donald Trump, and not having a serious conversation about the role of religion in politics and government.

Making America Great Again

In a recent issue of "The Economist" there were 4 separate mentions of Trump's candidacy for POTUS.  One of them was an editorial piece where the magazine states that it doesn't want Trump for a candidate, because of his offensive nature.  The problem here is that they do not address the root of the problem - the political elite in much of the Western world (I should say its "democracies") has done little to address the need of the average citizen in these countries.  The rich are getting richer (especially in the USA), and everyone else is losing ground.  In short, the "Trickle Down" policies that the GOP has promoted has been shown not to work - on a worldwide basis.

Normally, I'd agree with The Economist.  But in this case, the "Angry White Men" supporting the Trump candidacy may be on to something.  Trump is financing his candidacy with his own money, showing virtually everyone else (save maybe, Bernie Sanders) to be political whores of the financial elite. Even the Bushes can't prostitute themselves enough to raise enough campaign funds to compete with Trump.  There may be only two or three Republicans who stand a remote chance for the long term: Cruz, Carson, and Fiorina. And Cruz is trying to stay in Trump's shadow, hoping that Trump will self destruct after cleaning out most of the opposition, so that he can grab a ready made base.

The same forces at work that benefit Trump are also benefiting Bernie Sanders.  He is the true "Anti Wall Street" person (read: "Not Hillary Clinton") running in this election, and he is getting the Liberal equivalent to Trump's base - save Sanders' base is more educated and more aware of what is going on.  Hillary's performance is so lackluster, that an unannounced Joe Biden beats her in the polls against all GOP candidates.  (And Biden is being floated as a candidate for POTUS, because the people who fund the Democrats are just as afraid of Sanders as the GOP funders are afraid of Trump.)

Now, let's look at this in the context of world affairs.  Moderate Muslims are being pushed out of Syria and Iraq due to the growth of ISIS.  It is interesting to note that the wealthiest Muslim nations of the Middle East are doing nothing to help these refugees - it is the nominally Christian countries of Europe who are being forced to absorb these people.  And the problem is that most people may change their nationality and customs easy, but they do not follow a reworked adage: "When in Rome, Worship as the Romans do."  So many people become isolated, and tend to live in ghettos instead of being assimilated into the larger society.  

There is push-back coming from the "Angry White Men" of Europe.  In places like Denmark, the far right party runs the country, and says that no Muslims need enter. Even though Europe has a below zero population replenishment rate, the hard right rightfully worries about the changes to their societies that these uninvited immigrants bring.  No one from the traditional political elite is discussing the drawbacks to social change - so the "common" person is taking affairs in his own right, and voting a non functional elite out of office, replacing with people who may listen to their concerns.

A while back, Mark Steyn wrote a book called America Alone - The End of the World as We Know It.  One review of this book notes:


Why has Mark Steyn's book "America Alone" been labeled "alarmist" by his opponents? Look at the title: America Alone. Its meaning is obvious, but concerning what? When the Soviet Union fell, America was left standing as the sole super power in the world. But that is not the meaning of America Alone. However, do you remember what Nikita Kruschchev said? America would fall from within, without one shot fired. America would destroy herself through societal softness and the Soviets would walk in and take over.

Steyn states that Muslims have adopted this concept of a country falling from within, beginning in Europe. Through immigration, Muslims are establishing themselves as a stronghold. Belgium, Sweden, England, Denmark, the Netherlands, and France are on their way to becoming majority Muslim and geo-political. In fact, he says, Eurotopia is fast becoming "Eurabia."

Three events are rapidly leading to Eurabia:
1. Demographic decline
2. The unsustainability of the advanced Western social-democratic state
3. Civilizational exhaustion

Do you remember years ago forecasters urged population control? Europe heeded this warning and now faces two factors that will change it drastically: its population is aging and couples are not reproducing themselves.

...

With an aging population and declining birthrate and a swelling benefits package supplied by the government, who will pay for this social welfare? Answer: incoming immigrants with high birthrates.

Therein, Steyn says, lies the problem. While people of Europe have abandoned their churches and religious beliefs, Islam immigrants bring with them "a religion, and an explicitly political one." In fact, if a European wants to marry a Muslim, he must convert, or as they call it, revert. Muslims believe that everyone is born Muslim--he/she must find that calling. And no one may leave the religion.

How pervasive are Islam and Muslims in Europe? "Go to any children's store in Amsterdam or Marseilles or Vienna or Stockholm. Look at women in headscarves or full abaya. That's the future"

...

In France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden, riots over equal rights have disturbed traditional peace. Women feel safer walking neighborhoods in Muslim garb in order to be left alone by Muslim men. When Muslims take over, they take the land and distribute it to Muslims, creating reverts out of the native people. Because the United States doesn't take land, Muslims consider the US weak and defeatable. As Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong of Singapore said in 2004, " The central issue is America's credibility and will to prevail".

Steyn concludes in outlining America's exceptional nature and how it can prevent Muslim reversion of an entire country.

Sadly, there are many of us (including myself) who believe that Steyn is correct.  Although I have nothing against Islam, I do have something against the cultures of the Middle East where Islam has flourished - their core nature prevents people from looking at themselves and their culture critically, and stands in the way of progress.  (Please note that this is not an indictment of Islam as it is of tendencies in the Muslim world in the Middle East to enforce rigid conformity among the masses and subjugate those masses.)

So we go back to Trump's candidacy.  What do we do about it?  For me, I prefer to see Trump win the GOP nomination, as he is more "Liberal" than many of the wingnuts in his party.  (For example, some of his ideas about healthcare make sense - when he isn't pandering to the official GOP party line.) If Trump wins the nomination, it is possible that the GOP may undo its "Southern Strategy" and become a more moderate political party. And if both Trump and Sanders get their parties' POTUS nominations, meaningful campaign finance reform could take place, as the political whores may find that it is better to be freelancers than to be pimped out by the likes of the Koch Brothers.

Am I sure of this?  No.  But I see the signs of world turmoil, and we ignore the needs of the common person at our own peril....

The Iran Deal.... What the average political hack misses.

This is a picture I dare not blow up any further (pun intended) - it is of "Fat Man", the plutonium based bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki.  And it is a little knowledge of the Manhattan Project and Nobel Prize winning scientist Glenn Seaborg that is needed to understand what is "in between the lines" of the deal recently cut with Iran.

According to nonuclear.se, Plutonium is a man-made nuclear explosive; it is created inside all nuclear reactors when uranium is bombarded with neutrons. Some uranium atoms can absorb a neutron without fissioning; when that happens, they are transmuted into plutonium atoms. Plutonium has become the nuclear explosive of choice in the world’s nuclear arsenals. Therefore, the goal of this deal had to be to stop Iran from developing a Plutonium based nuclear arsenal - Iran still could tell its hard-liners that they can produce a bomb.  The P5+1 (The permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany) gets to be able to tell its hard-liners that Iran will not be able to produce Plutonium based bombs, explaining why this is so important in private.

No deal is perfect.  But this deal allows both sides to save face.  If anyone is worried about what will happen to Israel, they shouldn't be - the history of the US and the USSR shows how Mutual Assured Destruction helped prevent World War 3. (Or, I should say, that this war was fought via proxies and with money - a much safer form of warfare for all sides.) The Iranians may be crazy, but they are not insane.  The last thing they want to do is provoke the Israelis into exploding 1 of their estimated 100-200 warheads over Tehran.

If one looks at the size of a ball that represents the amount of fissile Plutonium needed for a bomb, it's easy to see that one could easily transport that much material anywhere on the globe.  Years ago, my high school had some non weapons grade "Yellowcake" (Uranium) - and I expect that 64 Kilos of the stuff would be much larger than the ball above.  In short, Iran has signed off on a deal which prevents its fissile material from being used by non-state operatives.  (That means: No Uranium or Plutonium in the hands of Hamas or Hezbollah.)

I'm not sure if Iran will live up to the letter of this deal.  But I expect that there will be many people interested in keeping everyone honest - and I'd bet that the Iranians are serious, if only because they prefer not to ignite an arms race between it, the Saudis and Egypt....

Jorge Ramos vs. Donald Trump - No Subtlety Where Subtlety is Most Needed

I am not a fan of how Jorge Ramos acted at Trump's question and answer session.  Would Ramos have treated the current president this way?  Probably not.  However, Trump is not the president yet, and he has to subject himself to the full onslaught of the press - some of which are actively (but covertly) agitating to end his run for the presidency.  

- - - - - -

Since I am not a Spanish speaker, I do not watch Univision. I am told that Ramos has the reputation in the Spanish speaking communities that Walter Cronkite had in mine a generation or two ago.  With this being said, I had to wonder - why was he cutting in front of other journalists to pose his questions to Trump?  Why couldn't he wait his turn, like other journalists there?

There was only one easy to come up with answer to these questions - Trump's campaign people may have been avoiding Ramos's request for an interview with Trump, so that he could explain his positions on immigration to Ramos in detail.  Trump is a bombastic demagogue whose message is more of style than of substance. He attracts angry old white men who feel that their nation has been ruined by newcomers. Yet, reality proves Trump otherwise.  First world nations that actively accept immigrants usually outperform their peers.

Ramos is not innocent here. From what I understand, he has had a bug up his ass in regard to the issue of immigration for a while. The idea that a nation has a right to reject (and send home) uninvited, illegal immigrants may be abhorrent to him - which is the opposite of where Trump stands. But the people who watch Ramos' news reports have much to benefit from uncontrolled borders. So he can not have an objective viewpoint on this issue.

- - - - - - -

What is really happening here?  The average Trump Supporter has no clue about the real nature of illegal immigration.  Mexican immigration to the USA (illegal and legal) has fallen, now that there are greater legal opportunities to provide well for their families. Mexico is also helping the USA keep other foreigners from crossing the border to illegally work here. (Many of these people are illegally being denied asylum here because of the civil unrest in their home countries.  Of course, the combined issue of the narcotics trade, illegal immigration, and American demand for both illegal drugs and workers never gets mentioned for the cause of their countries' unrest.)  But the real problem is that the vast number of illegal immigrants simply overstay their visas and absorbed into the cash economy.

Trump supporters actually believe that a 40 foot wall and mandatory deportations for all illegal immigrants will keep unwanted foreigners out of the USA and keep them from taking jobs from Americans.  This is complete B.S.!  But what would happen if we were to develop a realistic plan to deal with the illegal immigrants already here?  What would it look like?

- - - - - -

One of the complaints that many "conservatives" have with allowing the illegals to stay here is that they jump in the line for citizenship, and that this benefits the "liberals".  This is not as true as it sounds, as most illegals prefer to stay out of sight of the government, and choose to avoid things like voting fraud - simply to keep as low a social profile as possible and avoid detection from the INS.
So I pose the question: "Why not give these people only 'American National' status, but not ever let the illegal immigrants gain full American citizenship?"  The nationals would have the following rights:

• The right to work anywhere in the USA (and pay taxes)
• Eligible for a US Passport (in the same way as residents of American Samoa and Swains Island).

But they would have the following restrictions:

• No right to vote or hold public office.
• (In this case) permanently ineligible for American citizenship.

This way, they could not affect American voting patterns, nor do they gain much from jumping ahead of the immigration queue.  But by being legal participants in the labor market, they can actively negotiate higher market rate prices for their labor, pushing labor prices up, not down as they currently are doing....

What about their children, you may ask? To me, this is a simple question.  If the child came over the border before the age of consent, they could immediately become American Nationals.  But after serving in the military or performing other appropriate community service, they could apply for citizenship at the age of consent.

Doesn't this reward people for breaking our laws?

Sadly, our economy has already done that - these people have often created their own jobs in the cash economy, and we have already been rewarded by lower priced goods and services they provided us for our cash.  

My question is: "Why don't we bring their labor efforts into the open where we can tax their income?"  Conservative types have no answer for this.  They think that an Albanian operating a food cart on 6th Avenue in NYC is taking work away from Americans.  But what kind of native born American is willing to do this kind of work?  We already know that much of the back breaking harvest time farm work is done by immigrants (legal and illegal). Would we see a rush of Americans to do this back breaking labor?  I doubt it!

What will likely happen if we keep these immigrants in an "illegal" status?

As I see it, they will lose respect for more of our laws over time, and flow into the "illegal" economies - drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc. - where their experience of working in the cash economy is an asset instead of being a liability.  Can we afford to risk this?  I doubt it.

- - - - - -

So I have a question - when will the United States become serious in what needs to be done in regard to illegal immigration?  Hopefully, it will be sooner instead of later....