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.

6 years since Obamacare was signed into law.

It's almost been 6 years since Obamacare was signed into law, and we're now seeing the problems in the law.  Democrats rightfully say that more people are covered by health insurance, while Republicans rightfully say that there are fewer choices in medical care. What is the objective truth?

To look at this law objectively, one has to look through the lens of American politics, and what happens when the political system periodically breaks down in this country. The other day Rachel Maddow talked about an interesting phenomena on her show. It had to do about "Nativism" and when it pops up in our society.  Nativism, as I like to describe it, relates to a frustration held by native born citizens related to their place in society (and in the economy), a tendency to blame their problems on the foreign born, and a remedy to stop (or reverse) immigration by unwanted foreigners. 

When Nativism first became important, it was in the guise of the "no nothing" movement. Our political system was breaking down over the festering issue of slavery, there was political paralysis caused by the Northern and Southern states refusing to work together to govern effectively. In the end, the Whig party died, the GOP was born, and we had a brutal civil war before we had a government that could govern again.

We are again seeing the signs of our political system breaking down.  Donald Trump is only a symptom of a much larger problem. 

- - - - - -

America is again at a crossroads.  Every so often, its politicians tend to become so opposed to each other, that the normal business of government doesn't get done.  We have a Supreme Court nomination that the GOP controlled Senate refuses to act upon, simply because it wants to deny the current Democratic president any ability to make constitutionally mandated decisions that may affect the balance of power for years to come. They falsely claim that a lame duck president has no right nominate a person for a Supreme Court opening, stating that the next president should be the one making the nomination. Tribal loyalty is trumping (no pun intended here) duty to the nation. And we all suffer for it.

As a nation we have serious problems that are not being addressed.  We have refused to act on rationalizing America's immigration policy for years, effectively encouraging a "catch and release" policy for illegal immigrants.  Many people believe that the big problem is Mexican immigration to the USA, when the reality is that Mexicans are going home because of opportunities opening up there.  We have people who want "forever wars", and a Military-Industrial complex which is all too eager to oblige them.  We warehouse many of our poor in prisons, locked away for trumped up charges, all in the name of keeping our nation safe from crime.  (We'd be better off legalizing hard drugs, and taking away the reasons people commit crimes to buy these substances, and imitate Portugal in this area.)  We still have not been able to cover 100% of Americans in a medical insurance program, in part because of political bickering, in part because of big pharma having prevented some of the meaningful reforms that would allow medical insurance to be profitable for both the customer and the corporate entity providing it, and in part because because we do not have a "Public Option" ("Medicare for All", as Bernie Sanders would call it) where private industry can't afford to provide care.  Our political class is paralyzed, and the people are revolting at the polls.

- - - - - -

This situation has happened in other countries, and we've seen the disasters. To me, the most notable disaster was the fall of Weimar Germany and the ascent of Hitler and the "Thousand Year Reich".  We all know what happened there. Europe's economies were destroyed for at least a generation, and many of the continent's scars are visible to this day. Yet, Nativism still flourishes there, with far right parties trying to throw the immigrants out. And I can't blame the Nativists, because many of these immigrants have not assimilated into European society, many still live in cultural ghettos, and many cause problems by trying to bring the failed social values of their old homelands to the new.

The Nativists are just as much of the problem as are the unassimilated immigrants. Neither has adapted to change.  In many ways, both cling to a past which has not served them well, and has left them unprepared for the future.  It's sad, as neither group realizes that the past is the problem and not the solution.  In both the US and in Europe, Nativists resent immigrants who they feel are stealing their jobs. In reality, they are doing the kinds of work that the native born consider beneath themselves to do.  To make things worse, the jobs that many of the Nativists once did are no longer available.  Both Britain and the US have reduced their needs for coal, but no one has provided for the displaced workers. They have good reason to feel angry.  Immigrants are also part of the problem, as they bring ways of life which are incompatible with life in the new countries.  Muslim immigrants are often shocked that Western countries do not, and will not accept Sharia law in their midst.  The native born Christians in these lands rightfully see this as a problem, as it could lead to an all out war between them, and a growing Muslim population.

- - - - - -

The future is not as bleak as one might think. Mexican immigrants have assimilated more easily into American society the further away they are from Mexico.  In the lands which once were part of Mexico, they have tended to maintain a stronger cultural identity, and pose an interesting problem for America.  How do we insure their primary loyalty is to America? Most Muslim immigrants do not want any part of Sharia law, nor do they want the customs of their homelands.  They see the problems in places such as Egypt, where the government has no value to the common person.  They also see that government in the USA has a rightful place in public life, and is much of an asset here, as much as it was a liability in the lands from which they came. And in virtually all cases, it is education that has made the difference.

It's hard to learn to think critically without a good education.  And many of Obamacare's greatest opponents come from the masses who have not been educated well.  They do not see the law as an important first step towards an effective health care system for Americans, as they have not been taught civics in our schools.  They do not know how the government functions, nor do they know how to achieve their goals using the powers reserved for the people.  Instead, they look for a strong leader to deliver them from the mess that they, themselves have made. The masses have caused their own problems, because they, themselves have delegated their thinking to others.

Luckily, we still have a critical mass of Americans who have been well educated, and they still outnumber the "unwashed masses".  Hopefully, these people will stop the "unwashed masses" from electing a bombastic demagogue as a strongman leader, and instead, force the two parties to work together again and govern.  I still have hope for America, as the structure of the government handed to us by the Founding Fathers is still resilient enough to deal with today's problems.  They saw the objective truth, and it wasn't pretty then.  And our objective truth is just as ugly today as it was then.  So I have faith that what was given to us by Hamilton, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams and others is strong enough to weather the likes of Trump or Clinton....











https://www.morningstar.com/news/Market-watch/TDJNMW_20160831501/update-how-gilead-broke-obamacare.html


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/obamacare-prescription-drugs-pharma-225444

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2015/01/08/what-a-drug-price-debate-reveals-about-obamacare/#6eed2d1578c2

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy

Although I am still a registered Republican, I don't remember the last time I could honestly say that I could vote for a candidate on the Republican Party line. The wingnuts have taken over the party, and the rhetoric coming out of some former standard bearers has been an embarrassment for any thinking person.

Recently, Rudy Giuliani has stated that he doubted that our president, Barack Obama loves America. It seems that he believes that if we love our country that we should blindly praise our country without question, and never criticize it.  This is not love - this is blind, unthinking loyalty to a potentially corrupt leadership. Did the Abolitionists (pre Civil War) not love their country because they disagreed with the law of the land? What about people like Martin Luther King Jr. - could you say that he didn't love this country because he was critical of how it treated his race? What about the Japanese-Americans who were herded into prison camps? Almost every group who are present in this country has a legitimate gripe to complain about - do their complaints mean that they do not love this country?

Giuliani stated that Obama does not believe in American exceptionalism. Later, on Fox News, he "doubled down" and restated the same claim. (And this, with Fox News trying to give him a chance to hedge things, so that he didn't look as much like an idiot as he did.) The former NYC mayor opened up a firestorm, as CNN noted that this puts the GOP 2016 contenders for the Presidency in a bind - Do they support Giuliani, and disrespect the office of the President? Or, do they criticize Giuliani, and say something good about Obama to show respect for his office? Of course, the left has had a field day, with one congressman using the constitution's "3/5ths Human" value of a slave for the head counts needed to determine the number of congressmen a state has.

To me, the most galling of Giuliani's statements show how racist he really is.  Giuliani stated that he was OK to criticize Obama in his way because he (Obama) had a white mother. To me, that's like saying someone isn't racist because he/she has a black friend. Our society has a lot of racist elements in it, and they can not be eliminated overnight. But to say that the sitting president of our country doesn't love his country because he refuses to shout meaningless lines like "we're number one!" and makes valid criticisms of this country is insulting to those who want to continue making this country a better country for all.

Our country was founded as a result of a minority revolt against unjust authority. It caught the British by surprise, as the British acted as it being associated with Britain was reward enough for any injustice suffered by the colonists. History has proven the British wrong - growth always is dependent on a "What have you done for me lately?" attitude. If we're not moving forward as a nation, then we are backsliding. And this president does not seem to be a backslider - even if a critic disagrees with the direction in which the president wants to take this country.

I love my country. But I do not think it is the best country in the world. Instead, we may have the best ideal, the best goal for a society in this world. The opening of the Declaration of Independence comes to mind - "We hold these truths...." We are far from that ideal - but it is a direction we all should take. If we didn't criticize our society, we would have blind obedience to corrupt leaders - and never would have given Blacks the right to vote, nor would we have given Women the right to vote. We never would have fought to end Jim Crow, much less had our current president in office, if voices of criticism were silenced, and defiance of unjust policies never occurred.

No, our president does not love this country in the same way that Rudy Giuliani does, and I thank God for that. I'd rather have a man in charge who is comfortable with criticism than to have a leader who squashes all dissent. 

State of the Disunion

Has anyone noticed that the cultural divide in America in the 21st century isn't that much different from a map of the United States drawn at the time of the Civil War?  Most of the states drawn in blue are "liberal" states, while most of the states drawn in gray and territories drawn in brown are "conservative" states. In a previous entry, I noted that the lunatics are now in charge of the asylum. What I didn't note was how geography plays a big part in a region's cultural values.

Areas of high population density are often hotbeds of cultural diversity. One can not but have his or her values tested by being in contact with people who think differently. A typical New Yorker will have coffee at a pushcart staffed by an Iranian, eat lunch at a Kosher deli staffed with Mexican labor, and have dinner at an Italian restaurant staffed by Albanians. On another day, that same person may eat breakfast at a Greek diner staffed by Columbians, have lunch in a cafeteria staffed by native born Americans, then have dinner at a Soul Food joint before rushing off to an Irish bar....

Contrast the above to life in smaller towns in the old Confederacy. In many of these small hamlets, one might not even find one decent restaurant - and have to grab a burger at the local pub. (Charlie Daniels' "Uneasy Rider" comes to mind here.) Due to the remoteness of many of these places (think of small towns in the Rockies and in Appalachia), many people socialize with people who often are related to each other by inter-generational intermarriage. Their views often aren't challenged, as they only meet people like themselves on a regular basis. When one lives in these smaller communities, the locus of social activity is often the local church. This doesn't sound like much, but think of it as the one institution in the South that wasn't crushed after the civil war, and you'll see how dysfunctional values of 150 years ago could be preserved to the present day.

Religion, as an institution, changes much slower than society in general. This is good, when people need a connection to the eternal. It is bad when dysfunctional values are passed on from one generation to another.  Years ago, my mother made a big deal about our church changing the hymnal being used every Sunday. Imagine what it was like dealing with the issue of slavery - something which the bible permits and has rules for. If a person comes from a society that accepted slavery, and was forced to end it - it is likely that the religious institutions would be slow to follow the political mandate. It is also likely that these same institutions would help people find ways around the  political mandates (legal and illegal) - which we saw in the era from Reconstruction to the Civil Rights battles of the mid 1900's.

People in conservative areas are slow to change with the times, and there are still traces of institutional racism found across the USA - including the "Northern" states. In Nixon's "Southern Strategy", he knew what language the GOP could use to flip it from Democratic Blue to Republican Blue. And he was successful. Unfortunately, he also eliminated the mixing of conservative and liberal values in BOTH parties which helped stabilize American government. Now, we have a very conservative GOP which uses both a religious and plutocratic litmus test for its candidates - and its influence is growing in the short term, while demographics condemn it to likely failure in the long term. 

Would we have been better off if the South had left the Union? I'm not sure - it'd have been one hell of a hard border for both sides to police. Socially, I think the North would have been better off, and would have looked more like today's Canada with its higher priority on social welfare and fairness. The South, however, would have had a history similar to today's South Africa - with a period of Apartheid and ostracism from world politics, followed by a more democratic, but polarized country.  

Instead of what could have been, we have what we have now - a country fragmented along a rural/urban divide, where the more conservative elements are holding off on the needed investments in our common future. Sadly, I don't see anything changing soon....