It can happen again, and be even worse.

The above picture was censored for years. What would the public have thought if it knew that thousands of people were being herded up on the West Coast and sent to prison camps without due process of law? The United States Government had considered these pictures too inflammatory for public viewing until they were unearthed from the National Archives in 2006.  

- - - - - -

Most people don't know that Japanese food was as common as Chinese food in the USA (at least on the West Coast) until World War 2.  But, after Pearl Harbor Day, our government had a ready made excuse to strip everything of value from law abiding people and deny them their basic human rights.

Could this happen again?  Of course!

We now have a president elect (at the time this blog entry was written) who has expressed a desire to force Muslims to register themselves with the Federal Government, so that the government could do what it wants after the next terrorist disaster.  This is dangerous. This is the same president elect wants to put limits on 1st Amendment freedoms for the rest of us.  Can you imagine what would happen if Alec Baldwin did a Saturday Night Live sketch that offended someone who had the power to incarcerate people without due process of law?

- - - - - -

We live in a culture where people live in fear.  They pick and chose their news sources to conform to the way they imagine the world as being, and not as it really is. So their biases are confirmed and strengthened.  Recently, one self appointed "examiner" went to a pizzeria to examine reports of a Child Abuse ring in the Pizza Parlor, associated with some high level Democrats.  The problem, is that this jerk opened fire on people, triggered by fake news. This person acted as a self appointed police force without any hard facts, and put people's lives at risk.

Of course, I have posted the BBC links to the real story, and have shown only the tip of an iceberg.  Fake news is being disseminated, and people believe it.  Although this was not done by OUR government this time, it has happened in the past, and will happen in the future.  Thankfully, services such as Google and Facebook recognize the need to use Artificial Intelligence to filter out this misinformation. But it's not enough.  People inclined to believe in conspiracy theories will do so no matter what facts are presented to them. They can't afford to challenge their beliefs. As the Archie Bunker character noted, "My dad was this way.  How could this man be wrong?" When one is taught that right is wrong and wrong is right, how can a person come to a rational interpretation of the facts?

- - - - - -

The other night, I started to have a conversation with a woman I consider a moderate. I had posed the idea that Liberals should give up opposition to 2nd Amendment rights.  Instead of opposition, Liberals should advocate that every law abiding person be required to own a gun AND to practice using it on a regular basis.  My idea was to make it possible for people living in Blue States to resist being intimidated by those living in Red States, if we came close to having a second Civil War. She was horrified, as she realizes that we need gun regulation based on population density, and not arbitrary geographic boundaries.  So this line of thought ("Should we increase the risk of violence in cities, so that we can protect ourselves in a war between rural and urban areas?") got shut down for a while, as it triggers great intellectual discomfort among liberals and moderates who live near big cities.  

This is a big problem.  How does one fight back against an armed opponent?  Should we be taking butter knives to gun fights?  This is an issue that Liberals must tackle, both as a metaphor, and as a literal statement.  Liberals have to become serious in defending their rights - even if that defense has to use tactics which Liberals find abhorrent.  

- - - - - -

Life is all about risk management.  People (by instinct) want to eliminate each and every risk in their lives.  When they can't cope with what life puts before them, they give up hope then make big mistakes.  Sadly, enough people gave up hope and chose someone who could be a tyrant.  They have put their faith in the wrong things, and now the piper will be paid. These will not be pleasant times for most of us, and I hope we finally learn to see through the fog and act a little more rationally 2 and 4 years down the road.

Conflicts of interest, and worse.

The closer we come to Trump's presidency, the more we see that conflicts of interest will rule the day.  Yes, there are quite a few cabinet appointees who are likely to oppose the goals and purposes of the departments which are supposed to head.  But this pales when one thinks of how much business will be done with the Trump Organization while the Trump family has access to the White House and the powers of the sitting president.

Are people upset?  Yes, including many in the GOP.  But party loyalty is getting in the way of eliminating this problem.  The GOP is getting drunk on the power they expect to have as of January 20th. Big business will get everything it wants for the next 4 years, and very little will get in the way.  People who voted for Trump to drain the swamp will again be disappointed. And that leads to the question: Can anything be done to stop this mess?

At the time I write this, there is a movement to have 37 "faithless electors" deny Trump the presidency and force the election to the House.  This movement of "Hamilton Electors" is trying to get 37 electors to vote for a Republican like Kasich, giving the House the chance to restore sanity to the presidency before anyone takes office. Although I doubt this movement will change things, it would be nice to see the election go to the House, and it would be nice to see the GOP toss Trump out.  Even though they would likely keep Pence as the VP in
this scenario, we would avoid even larger problems from a man (Trump) who believes that 

"l'état, c'est moi"

Or, in English: 

"I AM THE STATE!"

If we look at French History, shortly after the American Revolution ended, the French Revolution started as a response to the corruption of France's elites.  Eventually, it resulted in an end to France's monarchy (vive la Guillotine!) and prepared the way for Napoleon and his destructive behaviors. Can America afford to go down this path?  No.  But we will know if it is more likely than not depending on whether the Hamilton Elector movement succeeds or not. And by the time you read this entry, we will have the answer to this question....






."

The fear of censorship is real

The internet "Wayback Machine".  It is an invaluable resource housed in a server farm in California, and is used by news outlets from both sides of the aisle to extract an objective truth of what was publicly available on the internet at any given time.  I have used it myself for more mundane issues, such as retrieving web pages for a defunct "Church of Elvis" site which has been down for about 15 years. And with the election of President to be Trump, they consider the prospect of government interference enough to announce that they will clone their entire server farm in Canada to preserve their essential data. 

I am not a fan of Trump, and I think worse things could happen than if a GOP congress were to impeach him, and let VP Pence take the reins of the executive branch of government.  But this is far from ideal.  As I write this, the Electoral College hasn't voted, and enough "faithless electors" could potentially change their allegiances to affect this election.  But I strongly doubt this will happen.  For the first time in my memory, we will see a president elected who openly claimed that the election was rigged - even after he won the election!

What does this mean to America?

Sometime in January, President Obama will hand over the reins of government to the new President Trump.  We will have a man in power who has no respect for legal precedent, no respect for the rights of citizens to protest the government, and has no respect for previously negotiated contracts.  His administration will be known for promises not kept, and conflicts of interest that will only serve to make this man and his family richer than they are now. It will also be known for the political extremists who joined his cabinet, as political payback to extremist groups who supported him during his campaign.  

Over time, I expect to see attacks on hard won labor rights and hard won civil rights.  Look at Trump's position on labor issues - he recently said that wages as a whole are too high. Yes, he has flip flopped on this issue several times in regard to the minimum wage.  But can we trust labor rights to a man who discriminates against American labor?  In addition, with a vice president who ignored the AIDS crisis and supported Gay Conversion Therapy, can we expect someone like that to protect the rights of this community?

Trump has said that he'd nominate a man like Antonin Scalia for the vacant Supreme Court seat.  And recently, he has said that he would take away American Citizenship AND put a person in jail for at least a year, if convicted of burning an American flag.  Can we say that he will respect any constitutional right when Scalia himself said that flag burning is a constitutionally protected right?

How do we deal with the potential threats of a Trump presidency?

In an op-ed piece in the New York Times, Luigi Zingales says that the Democratic party should work with Trump when he wants to do something that helps the party achieve some of its goals, and strongly oppose him when he goes the other way. The Democrats should resist having another Clinton dynasty come in the persona of Chelsea, but should grow new leaders from their ranks.  Opposition to Trump should be modeled on Italy's opposition to Silvio Berlusconi, as they were able to remove him from office using issues instead of personality hatred as their means of motivating the electorate.

The above only covers resistance at a macro level.  What about the little people who could get in Trump's way?  For me, I believe that if one could get a second passport, that one should do so now.  Money can slowly moved outside the country and invested elsewhere. This could be done legally, without records, if the amounts are small and the resulting foreign investments were not interest bearing. (I'll let my readers figure this out for themselves. There are legal issues involved in the movement of money across our border that I don't want to discuss here, lest I am charged with giving information on how to commit a financial crime.)  Ideally, one would have a skill that is in hot demand AND would make it possible for a quick exit to Canada. Americans with skills on this list will likely be welcomed North of our border. But what about the rest of us?  The New York Review of Books published Rules for Survival in an Autocracy. And they are:

• Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says.
• Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality. Consider the financial markets this week, which, having tanked overnight, rebounded following the Clinton and Obama speeches.
• Rule #3: Institutions will not save you. It took Putin a year to take over the Russian media and four years to dismantle its electoral system; the judiciary collapsed unnoticed.
• Rule #4: Be outraged. If you follow Rule #1 and believe what the autocrat-elect is saying, you will not be surprised.
• Rule #5: Don’t make compromises. Like Ted Cruz, who made the journey from calling Trump “utterly amoral” and a “pathological liar” to endorsing him in late September to praising his win as an “amazing victory for the American worker,” Republican politicians have fallen into line. Conservative pundits who broke ranks during the campaign will return to the fold.
• Rule #6: Remember the future. Nothing lasts forever. Donald Trump certainly will not, and Trumpism, to the extent that it is centered on Trump’s persona, will not either. 

I don't know exactly what will happen over the next few years.  But I do think these will be trying times, and it will be our duty to protect America from its own delusions of greatness.


 

There is a real risk of something worse happening.

As I write this, I've just digested the news that Donald Trump has made a $25 million settlement for the Trump University swindle, without admitting any fault for the problem.  On the same night, his VP was at "Hamilton" and a cast member stuck up a challenging conversation with Pence.  To distract people from Trump's paying off on a settlement, Trump accused the cast member of harassing the VP elect.  Again, we're seeing business as usual from Trump - when you have to pay for your sins, distract others from the confession, and certainly don't admit any fault or responsibility.

No one ever expects Trump to ever expose his tax returns to public scrutiny. If they were public, they would expose the many intricate layers of international deals with people who are less than honorable. Couple this with not divesting Trump's holdings into a blind trust and disconnecting the family from the family business, we have great potentials for conflicts of interest which I have no trust that Trump will handle honorably.

Everyone I speak to in my bubble of friends is horrified about what this presidency means. To me, I expect to see a lot of scandals, with a president trying to scuttle freedoms enumerated in the 1st amendment and upheld by over 200 years of legal precedent. His election has unleashed conservatives who want to shred the social safety net.  The Speaker of the House is now floating proposals to scuttle Medicare, and replace it with a voucher program.  We have never had a decent marketplace solution to healthcare issues in this country, and the Speaker only will make things worse.  He wants to subsidize the wrong side of the Supply/Demand curves with his voucher based proposal, and this will only raise prices.  If he were to subsidize supply, he'd reduce prices - but politicians never have a clue on how to make markets work to solve problems and not make them worse.

I see a major attack on Gay Rights coming, and the GLBT communities have much to fear. It's amazing how many people are killed around the world because they do not fit the molds of traditionalist sexual identities and/or practices. With a VP such as Pence, Trump has signaled that he doesn't give a damn about social rights or safety to marginalized groups. He is a bully, and only respects bullies - and despises anyone who could be a victim. Hopefully, more gay people will join groups such as the "Pink Pistols", and signal that they will not allow themselves to be pushed around.

But it is not just the Gays who are at risk.  I go to a Muslim doctor for treatment.  He has always treated me with respect, and we have always had the chance to talk a little about social affairs on my visits.  He has been a valuable member of my community for generations. Why should he be called on to register with the government because of his religion - as posed by Trump before and after his election?  How does one choose who is good and bad from any religion?  Should Christians get a free pass?  We see religious terrorism from some people from our religious right, and no one demands that Christians register with the government.  And what about the Jews?  They should always remember the yellow stars sewed on to their clothes.  They must always remember the numbers tattooed on their arms during the Nazi years.  They must start standing up to say NO - this should never happen to any group, not even our professed opponents, ever again!

What about the rhetoric of rebuilding our military?  We're the only nation in the world that can fight a war in two theaters of operation at the same time.  We spend as much on our military as the next 5 nations in the world combined.  The biggest problem with our military is that it is too big!  Much of our spending takes place because we have grown addicted to the jobs that building unneeded equipment brings to communities across the nation.  It is an inefficient way of keeping people employed, as once bullets are shot and bombs are dropped, we have nothing to show for this spending.  No new bridges are built.  No roads are constructed. No houses are erected.  No children are educated.  No sick are healed. I could go on and on about the things we don't have because we have chosen to fight "forever wars" instead of preparing ourselves for a future of prosperity we could 
have earned.  

We do have problems.  For example, we have alienated people in both rural and urban areas. They are not well educated, and live where good jobs are not available to them.  In rural areas, the mills have closed down, and the people can't move to places where plentiful jobs are.  In urban areas, the high paying jobs require educations that people can't afford to get.  And when people fail to achieve to a reasonable potential, they often fall into despair and escape into drugs and alcohol.  No amount of moral and legal punishment can help these people.  Only opportunity can help them.  Sadly, structural unemployment is becoming a greater problem every day, and the elites have at best neglected the worse off in our society. And at worst, they have warehoused these people in a prison industrial complex geared to keep them out of sight and out of mind.

There is a tendency for those who are alienated to follow authoritarian leaders when they don't feel like they are getting their fair share from the system.  They look towards a messianic figure to deliver them from the injustices they perceive are being inflicted on them without delving deeper into their problems.  For example, many people voted for Trump because he promised to eliminate environmental regulations which made the coal mines unprofitable. Sadly, he can't make people use coal who don't want to buy it.  As such, the people are going to get screwed again, because the false messiah made promises which could not be kept. If these people saved their money when times were good, they could have left their one horse towns at the first sign of decline.  The unions could have negotiated phased shutdowns of plants, with safety nets in place to help people transition to skills currently in demand - and provided relocation assistance so these retrained workers could go to where the new jobs were.  Instead, the former workers blame the wrong "others" for their problems, and keep sowing the seeds for future disappointments.

The election of Trump was a signal by the masses that they wanted change.  They did not care much about the nature of the change - they wanted to riot using ballot boxes as weapons.  Trump can not and will not deliver the changes the people want. He has too many conflicts of interest for him to even govern honorably.  All he can and will do is push this country towards an authoritarian government - if we don't resist it.  Resistance can be peaceful - mobs of people can block movement of traffic in a city.  Mobs of people can protest at key locations and get the press needed to show that the government lacks critical public support.  But mostly, they can slow things to a halt until a new and more honest leader can come through the ranks, and truly push for healthy change.  Until then, I pray that the decent people in the GOP will reach across the aisle to the Democrats and use the legislative branch of government to check and balance the power of this Sociopath who will be in charge of the executive branch of government. 

The conservatives won this election.  Now they have a duty to govern responsibly. Only time will tell if they handle their responsibilities honorably in spite of having a dishonorable man in charge of the executive branch of government....

Throwing a "Monkey Wrench" into the system.

The American people have spoken, and they have thrown a big monkey wrench into the system.  Should this have been seen beforehand?  Yes!  But there are many tired voters, people tired of having their views ignored, people tired of changes that don't benefit them, people tired of an elite which doesn't care for America first.  And it is these voters who have chosen to take a dose of "Fuckitall" instead of letting someone like Hillary run this country.

As much as I think these people were making a big mistake, I think the common person has a real grudge against the elites. And I can't blame them much for voting for someone who spoke their language, used their metaphors, and echoed what they feel are the "real" truths in life - regardless of how little these so-called truths are based in reality.  This happened in Central Europe during the 1920's and 1930's, and it could happen here to the same disastrous affect - if we don't wake up, and listen to the alienated people who live in both rural and urban areas.

Sadly, I feel that Trump is not qualified for the job he has at hand.  But he is what we got now.  Supposedly, he was very surprised to find out how large a staff he and his minions must appoint in the next 2 months. At least, Trump has demoted Chris Christie even further, so that Trump is able to keep his distance from "Bridgegate" as much as possible.  (No, Trump had no hand in that debacle.  But why should he get his reputation prematurely tarnished by association with his former chief of transition?)

For the most part, I do not worry much about Trump yet.  It will be hard for him to dismantle Obamacare without a major backlash.  Even Obama himself was uncomfortable with the individual mandate, but was shown that insurance would cost much less for old people because the insurance pool would contain enough healthy young people to offset the cost of providing care to old people.  He will not be able to overturn Roe v. Wade without the cooperation of the "Blue States" - and this is unlikely to happen anytime soon.  He will find it hard to unwind many of the treaties we have enacted, and his military advisors will likely keep him from using the codes in the "Biscuit" with the "Football" an aide carries with him at all times.  But there are people who have legitimate fears, most of whom are poor, and are in populations marginalized in "Red States" - such as gays, lesbians, and transgender folk. With a Vice President like Pence, I have good cause to worry.

With things the way they are now, I'm tempted to utter the simple phrase:

"Houston, we have a problem."

All we have to go on are the lies of our president elect, and the lessons of history.  Yet, there's a part of me that believes that our founding fathers may have thought someone like this would be elected president, and held the belief that honorable men would strip this man from power if he went too far.  If he does go too far, I hope that my faith in the founding fathers forethought still holds true.

A proposal - Mothballing infrastructure.

You'll note that there is a lot of vacant land around this abandoned house. This is because the city of Detroit has bulldozed many of the vacant structures in the area, eliminating traces of urban blight. But why did this have to be so? The answer lies in the problem that all cities have - no one has yet developed a good plan to shrink a town or city when both businesses and people abandon it.

Cities such as Youngstown Ohio have decided to Mothball infrastructure by removing many derelict structures, and ending utility service to many of the cleared areas. If no one lives in the areas, they can be treated as park land or cemeteries.  This involves much less effort than providing police, fire, and other city services to sparsely settled areas. Given that Detroit has lost more than half of its population with the decline of the local automotive industry, it only made sense that Detroit go down this path.

What happens to the few remaining residents that want to make a go of it in these  areas? It might make sense to condemn their properties, and build them new houses in areas where there is a dense enough population to make it worthwhile to provide services to these areas. Instead of being the only occupied house on a block with derelict structures, the same person could be in the middle of a safe and vibrant community.

It costs money to bulldoze properties.  It also costs money to maintain the underground infrastructure (sewers, etc.) in these areas. But vacant land is much easier to redevelop when population comes back to the city.

- - - - - -

This is only part of the equation.  How should we finance the clearing of land? American real estate development assumes that all properties will be standing forever. No one includes the tear down of  a house or factory after its useful life ends. When businesses have no more need for the land, it is often abandoned. When no jobs are to be found in a community, people abandon their houses and the land on which they stand. As a result, the land becomes blighted.

How do we solve this problem?  I keep working a thought experiment involving an insurance bond which covers the tear down of buildings and the clean up of land. For a small monthly price, insurers would hold in escrow enough money to finance a tear down and clean up, resulting in a "green" site.  The land would be certified free of toxic materials and would be usable for any residential or commercial purpose permitted by zoning codes. They would have to adjust the expected escrow fund (and charge the land owner for it) so that the expected cleanup could always take place.

Why should a third party control these funds?  To me, I don't trust government to do the job of maintaining these reserve funds. Nor do I trust individuals to do this job. We've seen what happens when government lets businesses pollute the land and not hold the businesses accountable for their actions?  Rare is the enforcement action which forced General Electric to clean up PCBs from the Hudson River.  Rare is the individual who'd bulldoze a vacant derelict home in Detroit (or other cities.)  We need someone to be responsible, and we need a market place solution. So insurance companies are good choices, as they can manage risk AND determine how much of a clean up fund is needed for any property.  

How do we get from here to there?  Is this just a pipe dream?  I'm not sure if there is even a way to implement this idea. But what would have happened to places like Detroit if property owners had paid for the tear down of their properties?

The Packard factory complex (part of which is shown in the above picture) has been vacant for over 60 years.  It has been scavenged for all valuable materials, and is undergoing rapid decay.  The place is a hazard.  But if this place were bulldozed and cleaned up, it would have made a great park, and nor be a blight on the community.  And given 1950's prices, the clean up for this complex would have been relatively cheap.  

- - - - - -

Once land is vacant, it can be put to many short or long term uses.  For years, there was a lot of vacant land near the Whitestone bridge in New York City. On one side of the bridge was a city park. On the other side was a cemetery and some other unused land.  This land has been changed into a golf course. (No, I will not identify the course or provide images of the place, because I detest the man who the course is named after.)  Even the Fresh Kills Landfill has been changed into a city park.

Along the Hudson River, there are many old factory buildings.  Many were left to decay. But with riverfront real estate at a premium, developers are paying to clean up the land and rehabilitate the structures. If these structures had been cleared from the land, we'd have developed the areas sooner - as it would have cost much less to do so. As a result, we'd likely have had more affordable living space in a region known for excessive prices.

I am not against preserving historical structures. But I am against them turning into dangerous places, and symbols of urban decay.  Given the choice, I'd tear down every unmaintained property, clean up the land, and give it away to people who will take care of the land. This would be much better than dumping the clean up cost on the people who remain in these areas.  In short, if you made the mess, you are responsible for its cleanup. We teach that to children.  Why don't we hold adults to the same standard?

And now, the real work must begin

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.

By now, the votes are in....

By now the election results are in.  And given the third presidential debate, I am hoping that Trump did the right thing and conceded defeat.  

- - - - - -

At the time I wrote this entry, Trump said that he would only consider following a long standing tradition and concede the election (assuming Hillary wins at the polls).  This is a dangerous precedent. Part of the glory of this country is the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to another, including the times when the opposition party is voted into power.  Trump is a clear and present danger, as long as he does not honor the will of the people, as this could incite malcontents into starting a "Beer Hall Putsch".

Hillary did the honorable thing and said that she would respect the results of the election. Of course, I expect this would be easy for her, because, by most measures, she is likely to win the election.  As of the time of the debate, this was Hillary's election to lose, and I think that she avoided the big mistakes that would cause her to lose.

- - - - - -

Last week, a decade old recording of Trump talking about being a sexual predator made the news. And the fellow on the other end of the conversation (Billy Bush) was fired from the Today show.  Several Republicans revoked their endorsements of Trump, as they realized that the GOP needs the votes of white women to win future elections. With this week's pronouncement regarding election results, these Republicans, and more, should be saying that they will respect the results of the election, and will not support Trump is he challenges the election.

Gore had good reason to challenge Bush in 2000.  Voting machines did not accurately record the will of the voters. Yet, when the results were finalized, Gore conceded with grace. In his blog of the third presidential debate, Andrew Sullivan posted an image of the letter that George Bush wrote to Bill Clinton on 1/20/1993. It was an extremely gracious letter, saying that Bush truly wished Clinton the best fortune as president of our country.  I doubt that Trump can be this gracious.

- - - - - -

I strongly hope that Hillary wins this election, as I am afraid of how nasty Trump treats people perceived to be his enemies.  There is no place in being nasty and impolite when one is the most powerful person in the world. As Teddy Roosevelt once said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick."  Trump does neither.  In each of the debates, Hillary acted with class, and kept her cool. Trump, on the other hand, showed himself for the bully he is.  He is not qualified to stand at the most important bully pulpit in the world.  He is the clear and present danger to America, not Hillary. In nihilist rage, he would destroy the country if he doesn't get his way. Whereas Hillary will only keep a corrupt system in place, for lack of a better system to replace what we have now. 

So I ask a question - can one man, in isolation, "Make America Great Again?"  If Trump can, he doesn't need the cooperation of the American people to do so. And if not, it would be foolish to elect a person who believes he can accomplish miracles due to the "strength" of his personality.  Hopefully, America has voted rationally.

Does anything said make a difference at this point?

By this point in the campaign, I'd expect that in a normal Presidential Race, we'd have more undecided voters. This year, we have people from both parties who are sick of the choices given to us by the two major parties, and want another choice.  Given the above chart (issued on 10/16/2016), it looks like 9% of the public wants to vote "NO" to both Trump and Clinton, leaving 6% of the public in the "Undecided" category.

If we factor out the two minor parties, the chart looks like this:

This chart implies that 8% of the vote is up for grabs, making it highly likely that Hillary will win.  Although anything can change up to election day, the above two charts do not look good for Trump.

- - - - - -

The big problem with elections is showing the public that they have not been rigged.  It is much harder to falsify votes once cast. Instead, the two parties fight to keep people loyal to the opposition from getting to vote.  But what happens when a vote is as close as it was in Florida's  Bush v. Gore battle?  One could legitimately say that the election was stolen by Bush and his friends. Yet, Gore had the grace to concede, knowing that he could have destroyed America's faith in this most important of citizen rights and duties.

In some states, the incidents of election fraud are not myths.  Elections can and are being rigged by corrupt politicians who manipulate vote casting machines.  In other states, even the dead have voted. Yet, for the most part, our elections are reasonably honest and can be counted on to accurately reflect the will of voters in the territory covered by the ballot.

Unfortunately, Trump is now putting the electoral process into question.  He is accusing unnamed "others" of trying to rig the election. He is taking legitimacy away from the process in the eyes of his supporters, and this is dangerous. Assuming that Trump loses, his followers will not believe the results of the election.  (Gore's supporters had a better claim that the election was stolen from them, but the need to hold the electoral college election for POTUS may have been more important than the accuracy of Florida's vote.) Can you imagine what could happen if a bunch of disaffected, armed Trump followers don't hear an honest concession speech from Trump on November 8th?  I shudder at the thought.

- - - - - -

If one studies German history of the 1920's and early 1930's, one sees eerie parallels to what is happening in the United States.  In Germany, hyperinflation destroyed the financial power of Germany's middle class. In the United States, the effects of globalization did the same to many in the middle class, as there was no safety net or shock absorber for these people.  No wonder why they both sought out a "messiah" to deliver them from their suffering. Sadly, neither group could articulate its problem, nor could they come up with a leader from their own ranks who could challenge a corrupt elite.  As a result, the Germans put Hitler into power, and we risk putting Trump into power.  

In America, we have systemic unemployment, and no one dares to speak those words. People in rural areas do not have access to the opportunities of the city, and they couldn't even afford to move to the cities if they could leave their homes. The one factory, mill, or mine has closed down, leaving people with no way to escape poverty.  A similar situation exists for those in the inner cities, as we have neglected the needs of the poor, and avoided addressing both social and educational needs that would help them break the cycle of poverty.  We warehouse those who break laws in prison, permanently tainting them with a scarlet letter of a criminal record, and then expect that they compete for the few jobs left for those with "checkered backgrounds".  The prison-industrial complex is hurting both rural and urban areas equally, and is helping to keep the poor in both areas from advocating for their own interests.

- - - - - - 

Globalization has hit America hard, and both rural and urban areas have suffered because of it.  No job is safe any longer.  Yet, no one is proposing the form of safety net or shock absorber we need for our labor force.  We do not provide for workers to retool themselves for the future.  We do not limit the export of jobs that can be done anywhere, so that Americans are only serviced by American workers,  Why is it that we place call centers in India, when this work can be just as easily done by people in rural West Texas, a Lakota Sioux reservation, and Chicago's South Side?   There is no reason that we don't reserve most of these jobs for Americans, and pay the higher product prices needed to bring this labor back home.  

Our elites are the problem, and they must be replaced.  However, we must be careful to make sure we know how to operate the levers of power as we throw the bums out - or we will make things worse with a rebellion that is not thought out.  Years ago, General Patton recognized the need to keep some ex-Nazis in charge of operations in occupied Germany. Contrast this with George Bush and the occupation of Iraq - he threw all ex-Baath party members out of power, and they had chaos.  

For those who still want to vote for Trump, I have one question:  Are you ready for the chaos that his election or defeat will likely cause?

Don't be surprised

This year is one where the public is signaling that it wants a big change.  Both Trump and Sanders were the choices of people disgusted at the two-party duopoly's ability to prevent meaningful change, and allow the middle class to sink into poverty.  The GOP had no choice, except to accept Trump as its nominee. And the Democratic establishment found a way to gyp Sanders of the votes he needed to win the nomination. As a result, we have the two least favorite candidates being in a position to be elected president.

Many Democrats are now saying that a vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump.  This may be true, but only in the states where it's a toss up between Hillary and Trump.  In states such as New York, there there are 3 Democratic party voters for every 2 from the GOP. It is safe for me to vote for the Libertarian choice, since I see no risk that Trump can win in New York.

I am under no illusions that the Libertarians can win.  Johnson's total ignorance of world affairs shows him to be unqualified for the position of president.  His Vice Presidential nominee is better qualified than he is, as Weld knows much more about the world outside the 50 states.  Sadly, the Libertarians have way too many purists, and do not know how to compromise in order to gain power.

Yet, I see signs of hope for the long term.  For the first time ever, I've seen a campaign sign for the Libertarian candidates posted near my house.  They are slowly starting to get traction - after many years of wandering in the wilderness.  People are seeing the Libertarians as a party they can support, if only as a protest against the two-party power duopoly.

Don't be surprised that some time in the next 20 years that the Libertarians become a major power in their own right.  The Democrats have not been developing enough good leaders at the state level, and have ceded control of many states to the GOP.  The GOP has taken ever more extreme positions, and no longer represent mainstream America. Why did it take so long for Trump to repudiate David Duke? The answer is simple - they have courted white supremacists since Richard Nixon's day, and they don't know how to break the deal with this devil.  Please note that most Republicans are not racist.  They only made the mistake of absorbing this blighted voting bloc when the Democrats cast them off by LBJ's signing of civil rights legislation.

The Libertarians are closer to classic GOP values than the current GOP is.  Small government is a hallmark of the Libertarian party.  The GOP promotes an ever bigger government, in the form of our military and its civilian workforce. Contrast this with the Libertarians who want to pull back from international quagmires, and work on domestic problems.  I, for one, am afraid that if the GOP gets in control of the elected branches of government, that they will repeat the mistakes of Bush #43, and pay for military growth with debt - destroying the futures of our children and grandchildren, as they will be the ones who have to pay for our mistakes.

My advice: If you live in a state which is virtually guaranteed to vote Democratic, vote for the Libertarians if you can't stand Trump of Hillary. If you are in a state that is virtually guaranteed to vote Republican, vote for Libertarians if you can't stand Trump or Hillary.  But if you live in a state that's up for grabs, vote for the candidate who is least objectionable.  It's a terrible year in which to cast a vote. But we have a real choice, even though many of us will be holding our noses as we make it.

The end of the season - a departure from politics for a change.

The fictitious Chico Escuela  said "Baseball has been berry berry good to me".  And it is sad that the season is almost at an end.  By the time you read this, the Wild Card playoff games will be over, as will be the first (and maybe second) round of playoffs. 

Given how long the baseball season is now, MLB has to make some hard long term decisions regarding the sport.  For example, if we're going to keep the 162 game season, future stadiums may all need domes in order to deal with November baseball. Of course, they could cut the season back to 154 games. But this reduces revenue, and I doubt this will happen. The owners could go back to a two division, two league format - but they are addicted to the money of having multiple levels of playoffs.  In short, the owners have to consider reducing short term profits for the long term survival of the national pastime. 

The current playoff structure insures that luck, more than skill, determines who wins the World Series.  Over a 162 game season, the best teams generally have the best records. But when short playoff rounds are introduced with teams of nearly equal skill level, luck plays a greater factor in who advances to the World Series.  Having more teams in the playoffs keeps more people interested in the sport late in the season. But does it make sense, when baseball needs more fans who love the sport throughout the full season - especially with teams who have usually posted mediocre records, like the Chicago Cubs.

I love the history of baseball as a sport.  Yet, I am not a fan of the game, as I don't want to get my heart broken when a team I support loses.  (With 30 teams in Major League Baseball, there has to be 29 losers. There is no way around that hard fact.)  What would be even worse, would be for me to love a team, and then have it move away - as the Giants, Dodgers, Braves, and others have done.  MLB has no loyalty to any city or community. The only thing it cares about is money.

When I was a child, Baseball was THE national pastime.  Now, the NFL has a more enthusiastic fan base for American Football than MLB has for Baseball. Even Soccer is gaining a foothold now.  Baseball may be a dying sport.  Why might you ask?  Soccer is the game most immigrants are familiar with.  They stay loyal to the sports they may have played in childhood. Now look at football.  This game is vicarious violence with rules.  It oozes testosterone.  In Texas,  there is a $50 Million Football stadium being built.  Males love this kind of competition.  How does Baseball stack up against these two sports?  Not that well.  I don't see Little League games attract the youth of the nation as they once did. Baseball is no longer accessible to our youth, and the sport is now associated with late middle aged males with money.  Football and Soccer have better outreach programs to America's children.

Hopefully, this will change, and we'll see a Renaissance in Baseball. If this doesn't happen, it will be the people who own the major leagues to be to blame....

Many people think we have no choice, but we do.

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....

Mixed Nuts

As they say, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.  And Donald junior's quote about gas chambers says that he is just as crazy as his father. There is talk that Trump's wife worked here illegally before becoming a legal resident. The more I hear about Trump and his family, the more I feel like they all are a danger to this country in one form or another.

The Trump organization does business with a lot of shady characters. I'm far from certain if it is even possible for Trump to be president without a conflict of interest between him and the family corporation. Most presidents are able to put their private wealth into a blind trust, where they do not know what is in the trust, and that there is no conflict of interest between the president's actions and that of the people managing his money. Trump has only said that he will put his organization into the hands of his family. Can anyone say that this eliminates the potential for a conflict of interest? When I consider the business scams perpetuated by Trump and his minions, I get very disturbed.When I consider that the Trump Foundation may be a slush fund by another name, I get disgusted. When Trump claims that he gets audited every year because he's a good Christian, I know he's lying because the IRS (with the exception of TCMP audits) only flags returns for audits because they are very suspicious. Of course, when you consider the people that the Trump Organization does business with, I find that it will be highly likely that a President Trump will favor his business friends over the national interest.  Can we trust Trump to look out for the USA when his Modus operandi is to only look out for himself?

Of course, there are people who will be voting for Trump as a way to disrupt the national elites.  I have no truck with what they want to do, but with how they are doing it.  One does not throw out a government unless one has sane leaders to take over the reins when the old leaders are elected out of office.  In Britain, the opposition party has the equivalent of a cabinet in waiting. These ministers are specialists in their areas of competence, and would be ready to take the reins immediately once their party is voted in. In the USA, we have a deep bench of reasonably sane people to call upon for cabinet nominations during the 2 1/2 month period between Election Day and Inauguration Day. And all cabinet positions are vetted by the Legislative branch as a safeguard.  However, Trump wants to put the foxes in charge of the hen houses.  He has already tapped someone from "big oil" to be in charge of the EPA. He has also said that he wants some new limits on 1st amendment freedoms. In particular, he wants to gag the press. Given the Newsweek article liked to above, one can understand why he distrusts the press. This is a dangerous harbinger of things to come.

Given that I live in New York, I expect the Democrats to win my state by their usual margins. As a result, I feel safe in casting my vote for Gary Johnson and helping the Libertarian party grow.  If I lived in a state where the election would be a tossup, I'd be voting for Hillary. I do not like Hillary. But she seems like the lesser of evils, when one gets to know more about the two candidates.

Thoughts on the first presidential debate.

One speaks to our gut.  The other speaks to our mind.  Both are disliked by almost everyone. And yet, we have to choose one from these two candidates.  Either way, America loses.

- - - - - -

Everything Trump says is a lie - including the words "and" and "the". When Lester Holt (the debate's moderator) tried to fact check Trump on a ridiculous claim, Trump shouted over him. Given Trump's style, he showed that he'd bully anyone, everyone, and anything that got in his way - including the truth. (Hillary tends to be more in touch with reality.) Sadly, Hillary didn't go in for the kill where Trump was weakest - his tax returns.  It has been documented elsewhere that Trump is in bed with many unsavory characters, and she could have brought up the slavery in Dubai associated with one of Trump's partners.  In short, she could have gone a little loose with the facts and played Trump's game by her rules.  

Sadly, Hillary is too much of an intellectual type.  She's the type of nerdy girl who tried to impress people when young by studying everything in the town library. She is a fountain of facts fighting a tiger of lies. If one listened to the debate, as I did, one would have noticed Trump shouting over Hillary at least 20 times.  If Hillary had responded in the same way a man would, she would have seemed shrill and lost any of the gravitas she had.  There is a double standard applied to women, and Hillary does not have the vocal tools which Maggie Thatcher used to beat men at their own game.  (Over Thatcher's career, she gradually lowered her voice to take advantage of a human prejudice to assign gravitas to lower pitched voices.)

- - - - - -

Who won the debate?

If one listened to the debate and carefully parsed the questions and answers - Hillary.  But that's too easy an answer. Trump was not preaching to the public.  He was preaching to a base who already had their decisions made for them, and needed to avoid anything that smacked of defeat by a woman.  And that he did with his visual image. He is a dominant, bullying male. He used all the key tools of an emotional abuser to dominate the moderator and to dominate Hillary. If you were already supporting Trump, you'd have said that he won - especially, since neither Hillary nor the moderator could talk over his shouting.

I'm very afraid here.  Hillary needs better tools to use in her battles with Trump.  I've said it many times - Hillary needs a gag writer.  She needs appropriate insults she can throw at Trump and get the audience laughing at him.  (The audiences are instructed not to applaud or make any other vocal comment during the debate.)  If she can break that wall, Trump will lose, as he can't stand to be humiliated - especially by a woman.

Years ago, Charlie Chaplin said that he'd have never made "The Great Dictator" had he known how bad Hitler was. I am very thankful that Chaplin did make this movie, because he showed that humor was the one tool that can always be used to deflate the ego of a tyrant. Let's hope that the comics of today know that it is their turn to step up to the plate.

It was 50 years ago today....

Normally, I'd be saying a lot about politics.  But I think people can get tired of the usual warnings about a bombastic demagogue and a habitual liar.  Instead, I'll talk about an important phenomenon which still affects us today - The Beatles.

Much has been written about this group, and there are people who know more about the Beatles than either of the two surviving members of the group.  The reality is stranger than fiction, and the "Fab Four" were lucky enough to have the skills to ride the tsunami wave of fame as it crashed into shores around the world.

- - - - - -

In the 1950's, most music reflected the collective angst of the Post-WW2 high schoolers. There was little truly adult about this music, as it reflected the angst of the bobby-soxers up to the point where they would get married - and not a minute beyond. Dion would ask the question, "Why must I be a teenager in love?" while Chuck Berry would sing about "School Days".  In the movies, Debbie Reynolds would be telling a whole generation that "Tammy's in love", while Elvis would tell his woman to "Love me Tender."  There was nothing that reflected the trials and tribulations of adulthood.

The Beatles could play the music of the 1950's, and were very, very good at it.  They performed in the Hamburg's Reeperbahn at the Star Club, and in Liverpool at the Cavern. In a few short years, they became one of the best Rock and Roll groups in the world - just as America got a taste for its own style of music played by a multitude of groups who earned their chops in Great Britain. So when the youth of the early 1960's looked for new music, they would likely stumble into groups like the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Dave Clark Five, and others. And it was this music that would chase most singers of Frank Sinatra's generation off the charts for good.

- - - - - -

The Beatles were a great live band.  But as they became popular, the technology for arena concerts had yet to be developed.  By the time the Beatles gave up on touring, they had turned into adults, and started to write songs that adults would enjoy.  Gone were the "standards" sung by Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett.  In its place was more interesting music developed in studios, such as "A Day in the Life" and "While My Guitar Gently Weeps".  The new music had broken out of the straitjacket of the love song, and could now explore many more topics - including serial killing, as in the case of "Maxwell's Silver Hammer."

Eventually, adulthood got the best of the Beatles as a group. John met Yoko, and he found a new muse. Did she break up the Beatles?  Many people say "Yes", but I feel that it was their growth as individuals.  Each one of the members felt a need to express themselves in ways they couldn't as members of the group. And each was doing so by the middle of the 1970's. 

- - - - - -

Like Marilyn Monroe's premature death making the world see her as a forever young woman, the death of John Lennon locked the memory of the Beatles as a "Forever Young" group. It is no surprise that the combination of great music and a recorded portfolio that never suffered a quality decline with age continues to attract new listeners.  In fact, the music of the Beatles is considered just as fresh today as when it was recorded - and that is one heck of an accomplishment.  They changed the world of music when they recorded their hits, and they still set a benchmark for other musicians to reach today.