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.

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

And now, for your amusement - Jeb Bush!

As David Letterman said before he retired: "Bush presidencies are like Godfather movies - it's best to stop at two."  I don't recycle this Letterman joke because I dislike the fellow. Instead, I recycle it as a reminder that he would be the third member of his family to hold the office of President if elected - something he downplayed very much in his announcement that he was running for POTUS.

- - - - - -

Jeb is the Bush brother who was being groomed for the presidency. It was a surprise to his dad that Jeb lost a gubernatorial election in Florida, while his brother won in Texas. And, as a result, it was "W" who ran for POTUS and won in 2000.  (I can only imagine what might have happened if Jeb had been in office instead of his brother - would he have come off as more competent?  Only god knows - I certainly don't.) But I expect that Jeb will be the likely GOP 2016 nominee - and will run against Hillary Clinton.

Let's contrast the two likely candidates at first glance.  Jeb's web site and other media downplays his membership in the Bush family. Hillary in her announcement made a big deal about her connections to both her husband Bill (former POTUS) and Barack Obama (current POTUS). What does this say about Jeb? Does he fear being tarred by the same brush being used on "W"?  I can't blame him - I think "W" was a terrible president.  (Too bad that he can't distance himself from "W" without also distancing himself from his father - who was a decent president.)

- - - - - -

I am very leery of having another Bush run for POTUS. This family has been extremely well connected for the past 150+ years - and electing one of the entrenched elite from a family who has already supplied 2 POTUS's makes me worry about a static elite in this country. Our founding fathers lived in a world where one could go from poor to rich and back to being poor within a generation or two.  This is no longer the case.  So I pose the question - can we afford to have families who lock themselves permanently into both the economic and political elites?

Even though Jeb may be a decent man, my concerns about him and his family are solely about the establishment of a permanent elite, and whether a democratic republic can afford to have one. As much as I hate to compare the United States and France, sometimes the comparisons can't be avoided. In this case, history gave us a France with a static elite. The rule of law was perverted to keep this elite in power, and social injustice was rampant. Eventually the pot boiled over, and France had its revolution.  The signs are there that America hasn't learned its European history that well - and I am very concerned about what might happen in our lifetimes....

The collision of Church and State

Sadly, we're seeing in some of the "Red States" a push to break down the wall that separates Church and State. Although many of the people think this to be a good idea, saying that "if we go back to God's word, then all will be right with the world", history has shown this idea to be the furthest from the truth. 

- - - - - -

If one looked at Europe before the "Peace of Westphalia",  one would see a collection of European states fighting each other, with people being expelled from their homelands because they did not worship in the same church as the princes that rules their principalities. This was not a stable situation, and it was not good for the princes nor was it good for their subjects. 


According to Wikipedia, the main tenets of the Peace of Westphalia were:

• All parties would recognize the Peace of Augsburg of 1555, in which each prince would have the right to determine the religion of his own state, the options being Catholicism, Lutheranism, and now Calvinism (the principle of cuius regio, eius religio) 
• Christians living in principalities where their denomination was not the established church were guaranteed the right to practice their faith in public during allotted hours and in private at their will. 
• General recognition of the exclusive sovereignty of each party over its lands, people, and agents abroad, and responsibility for the warlike acts of any of its citizens or agents. Issuance of unrestricted letters of marque and reprisal to privateers was forbidden.

Over the long term, the associated treaties that defined this peace helped define the nation-state we know today. People could worship in their own churches - even though the crown may be associated with a different religious sect. Europe stumbled into a policy which would reduce the risk of sectarian violence between Christian sects.  


Undoubtedly, the well educated among our Founding Fathers were aware of these treaties, and wanted to make sure that the fledgling United States would not have religious wars between the states. The 1st amendment to the US Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As a result, religious sects had to market themselves as this country grew Westward. Often, the first church in a community gained most of the parishioners - but this was not a hard and fast rule. Later immigration might result in new churches being built for people who belong to different sects, and we had relative peace. (I choose to skip over the persecution of the Mormons for now, as it is a notable exception to this trend.)


Even now, in most areas outside the "Bible Belt" most people don't care what church, temple, or mosque their neighbors belong to. Sadly, in the "Bible Belt", there is a large number of people who believe that they should roll back America to the "good old days" where traditional Christianity was the default religion - as if the 1950's were great for all of America. These people judge others based on their conformity to tradition, claiming that these cultural norms are defined by God - and punishing those people who don't follow these norms.  Challenges to any authority are squelched - even when the person in authority is corrupt and self serving.


We see people trying to use fear of God to control others, such as this post that God will destroy America if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Same Sex Marriage equality. Why do they fear this change?  I know of no traditional marriage which has been harmed by two people of the same sex getting married.  The answer, as I see it, is that people in cultures (or subcultures) where tradition is valued very highly do not have adequate skills to cope with and manage the unknown. So instead, these people try to use both secular law and pseudo-religious dogma as their tools to keep others in line with tradition. 


Some traditional cultures, such as the Amish, simply shun those who do not follow the group's edicts regarding following tradition and associated behaviors. But the Amish also allow for their children to make a "knowledgeable" decision, giving them time to learn about the outside world before committing to the Amish tradition. Contrast this with the Hasidim, who do their damnedest to make sure that their population is as ignorant as possible about the outside world as a whole. But it's not my intent to bad mouth people from traditional cultures, as it is to make note of a line between an informed decision and a decision made out of ignorance and fear.


Years ago, Southerners used religion as an excuse to preserve slavery. Now, the social dysfunction once limited to the South has infected other states - and is being used to deny rights to a new class of people.  Although I am a straight male, I feel that I must stand up for the Gays and Lesbians in our community. If I don't help them defend their rights, who will be there to protect mine when I need help?