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....

A seismic political shift may be underway

With the 2016 election cycle, we may be seeing a seismic change in American politics as we know it.  America saw it happen on the brink of the Civil War, when the Whig party collapsed, and the Republicans took their place.  In 1912, something similar almost happened, where the Reform (better known as "Bull Moose" party) under Teddy Roosevelt had a shot at disrupting the two party system.  And now, we had two major disruptors in the name of Trump and Sanders who almost emasculated the power of the political elites to control elections.

- - - - - -

Over the past 50 years or so, we've seen great cultural change.  Bill Maher commented "If you liked the 50's, you're a Republican. If you liked the 60's, you're a Democrat." In so many ways it is true - the cultural divide we have now comes from the conflict from that era. If you were a white male, the 1950's were the apex of White privilege in America. If you were a white male, you had virtually everything handed to you - as there were no challengers from other backgrounds, nor did any females pose a threat.  People of color (Blacks, Latinos, Asians) had yet to demand political inclusion, and women were expected to be at home. This started to change with the protest movements of the 1960's, and the extension of civil rights to most people upset those who formerly held all the power in our society.

During LBJ's presidency (1963-1969), the Democratic party sowed the seeds that would cause it to lose the American South as a voting bloc.  LBJ was forced to carry out JFK's promises (always meant to be hollow ones) to deliver civil rights to people of color and to women.  This did not go well in the South.  As a result, in the late 1960's / early 1970's, Richard Nixon developed a strategy to wrest the American South from the Democratic party. The "Party of Lincoln" sold its soul to gain these votes by putting every roadblock it could in the way of helping the groups LBJ helped, so urban dwellers who once voted for the GOP started to vote Democratic for the first time.  This tendency continued through the presidency of Ronald Reagan, where the South and rural areas of the country became solidly Republican, while the North and urban areas of the country became solidly Democrat.

- - - - - -

America became a culturally divided country from its beginning.  Rural areas of any country tend to be the most conservative in nature. In the United States, this meant that few people took chances to unionize their work forces in these areas, unless the work had become extremely dangerous (such as mine work).  For the most part, jobs were few, and people took work at whatever terms were offered by their employers.  It was only one step above slavery, save that the mill owner did not have to care for his employees once fired.  Contrast this with what happened in urban areas.  Jobs were plenty, and employees had greater bargaining power.  Unions formed both to provide better working conditions and to provide better pay. Corporate socialism evolved here, and prospered when America was the unchallenged economic power in the world.

With technological change, the globalization of world markets, and a greater concern for the environment, the old orders became threatened by pressures they could not control.  As technology eliminated many jobs, nothing was done for the displaced workers. As competitors from abroad forced American manufacturing to cut costs, many American workers lost good jobs and had nothing to fall back on. And as we slowly learned to stop polluting our local environment, we put local workers out of work as we shipped dirty businesses to places where they didn't care about their people and their land.  In short, the promises made by both business and government to the public at large were broken.  The elites didn't care what happened to the common person, as long as they stayed in power.

- - - - - -

The rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is an indication that the public is tired of an elite that makes promises every election cycle, and that never delivers on its promises. Trump lies in every speech that he is making, and his supporters don't give a damn.  He appeals to these voters on a more primitive level of thought.  The same might be said about Bernie Sanders, except that he is not peppering his speeches with falsehoods.  Instead, Bernie told the truth as he saw it - America hasn't been run for the benefit of "the people" for years, and made both an intellectual and emotional appeal to his base.  Bernie's supporters are young, and see that there is no way the elites can or will do anything for them.  So they gave the system a vote of no confidence by supporting Bernie.  In short, the insurgents from both extremes realized the same truth - it's time to replace the ruling elites.

Trump's nomination and Bernie's failure to be nominated pose a question that America has to answer.  Do we want to overthrow the elites and deal with the risks of the amateurs being in charge?  Or, do we want to allow them to stay in power (with a big warning) as long as they change their tune and start looking out for the people as a whole? This question gets complicated when rumors fly about Jeb Bush looking to support the Libertarian Party's candidate for the presidency.  Could the GOP establishment be looking to flee their old party, clean up its mess, and find a path to becoming a center-right party again?  If so, I see the old GOP becoming a populist party for a generation or two.  And I would also see the Libertarians becoming like the GOP of the 1950's. Could this be a harbinger of a potential three-party system?  Who knows?  But I'm looking forward to the ascendancy of the Libertarians the the collapse of the GOP.

- - - - - -

If the Libertarians become a political force to be reckoned with, the democrats will face attacks on two fronts - one social, and the other, economic.  In a way, this will be good for the Democratic party.  It has been around almost since the founding of the republic, and it has been good at adapting to change.  Will it adapt again?  Who knows? But all I can say is that I think we're seeing a political shift like we haven't seen in 150 years....

Cuba Libre... More than just a drink.

The Cuba Libre - a drink that has both political and social meanings.  

As I write this, President Obama is about to visit Cuba - the first American President to visit in approximately 90 years.  Much has changed in both countries, and in the drink since then, As a result, many angry words have separated these two countries - countries that should have been friends for most of the past 60 years.

One can not say for sure that the original drink was made with Coca Cola according to the linked article.  But by the 1940's, a Rum and Coke was what was understood to be a Cuba Libre.  During this time, Ernest Hemingway was becoming a native of both Florida and Cuba, being well known for being a patron of El Floridita.  Fast forward a few years, and we have the Cuban Revolution - where Castro threw out the corrupt Batista regime (as well as the American mob), and sided with the Soviets in the time of the Cold War.  As a result, the American public became brainwashed to see Cuba as an enemy nation.

During the early stages of Castro's rule, he nationalized virtually all of Cuba's industry, and did not compensate their owners (mostly American) for the taking of their property. (Bacardi's holdings were affected.  Luckily, they had enough resources to relocate their brand and production to Puerto Rico.) A large wave of people fled Cuba, coming to the US, and many of them settled in Florida - distorting the politics of the state for generations to come. Not only did we have an important group of business leaders who had a bug up their collective ass regarding Cuba, but we had a vocal group of people making sure that we couldn't easily make peace with the Castro regime.

Let's look at some complications that caused us problems: 

1. Bay of Pigs fiasco
2. Cuban Missile Crisis
3. Cuban Trade Embargo
4. Kennedy Assassination

Each issue on its own wouldn't be that bad.  But when the net effect of all of them are put together, it's easy to see how we'd be unable to have official relationships between our countries for 50+ years.  The Bay of Pigs fiasco made it possible for Castro to use his revolution as a potent symbol to encourage support for his regime against the will of the USA. The Cuban Missile Crisis allowed the US and USSR to deescalate tensions, preventing a war (that Castro wanted). The Cuban Embargo which prevented commerce between the two nations didn't help but to further separate the two nations from each other. Most people don't know this, but Kennedy was working on ways to get rid of the embargo before he was killed. Sadly, the one person who could have reversed this pattern of animosity between nations wasn't around to fix things - and as a result, we had an extra 50+ years of separation.

It's amazing how much flak Obama received for starting the process of normalizing relations between our two countries.  Unlike North Korea, Cuba has not developed nuclear weapons, nor has it developed intercontinental ballistic missiles.  Yet, until recently, I could legally spend money in the DPRK, and not in Cuba.  This is ludicrous!  I'm glad that I'm seeing positive changes occur in my lifetime....

But I will close out with a thought I had about 20 years ago, and wish I could have made true.  When my dad was cleaning out my grandmother's apartment, he found a bottle of Bacardi Rum that was labeled "Product of Cuba".  (I wish I could have saved that bottle and its contents.)  A few years later, the CEO of Coca Cola was a Cuban emigre. A couple of my co-workers were Cuban exiles.  A perfect thing to do would have been to bring in this bottle of rum, have a fresh bottle of Coke near my desk, and bring these two men over on New Years Eve to wish them a Happy New Year, and a free Cuba, all with true Cuba Libres in our hands.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not just what you know, but how and when you use that knowledge.

Not many people have seen an Enigma machine close up - but I have. It's an amazing piece of engineering, but not as amazing as the fact that we cracked the code AND knew enough not to use all the knowledge we had, lest we clue the enemy in to the fact that their codes were broken.

- - - - - -

During WW2, one of the biggest clandestine goals of British intelligence was to break the German Enigma codes. Every day, the Germans would change the rotors and give the Enigmas new settings to code and decode messages. The Allied forces could not break these codes until Alan Turing figured out the weaknesses of what the Germans were doing. 

After the codes were broken, what next? One had a good idea of what the enemy knew, but could they prevent disasters? Often, NO! Unless there was a plausible way to explain why a troop movement was changed, why a convoy was rerouted, why some action was not taken, the Allies had to accept the known attack to come.

Today, we are in a similar war - but against many powers. Ars Technica describes what one division of the NSA is likely to have done in infecting systems around the world, so that America has a technical edge which might be used militarily.  

- - - - - -

In the past, America has tapped Soviet (now Russian) cables connecting the mainland to Vladivostok to keep tabs on the fleet stationed there. But the Soviets were able to plant a bug in the American Embassy in Moscow - inside the Great Seal given to us as a gift. And the Chinese are known to have their electronic spies as well. All the major nations are playing this game, and they have likely evolved a form of "rules of engagement" for use when dealing with each other. But this doesn't apply to nations that aren't top tier powers. Nor does this apply to non-national powers, such as Palestine (not yet a nation) or ISIS.

As civilians, none of us (for all practical purposes) have any clue to what is going on behind the scenes. We do not know for sure how successful the STUXNET virus was in attacking Iran's Uranium enrichment program, but it likely set Iran back by a year or two. Even more interesting is North Korea's military programs - could they have been compromised by malware hidden in the hard drives they bought from outside the country? (I'd bet that China may playing a role here, as they have gotten weary of keeping this dysfunctional regime afloat.)

- - - - - -

Much of the time, information like this never makes it to the history books. Alan Turing's accomplishments were kept Top Secret by the British for a couple of generations. Once classified as Top Secret, few governments ever bother to reclassify information which no longer needs to be kept secret. Yet, some secrets are kept by hiding them in plain sight. Leon Theremin was reportedly kidnapped from the United States in the 1930's (there is information that says he left for tax reasons), and after a stint in the gulag, then working for the KGB, ended up at the Moscow Conservatory of music (building Theremins and other musical instruments) before becoming a professor of Physics at Moscow State University.

- - - - - -

There are people who want our president to go to war against ISIS, putting boots on the ground.  Are we ready to have our children come back from the war in body bags (or worse)? I doubt it. Years ago, President Kennedy contacted the pilots flying spy planes over Cuba and gave them orders (with explanations) to NOT report any hostile fire from the ground while flying their missions. Many planes came back perforated - and the pilots claimed they hit birds and other things. This gave the president the room he needed to talk peace. But it was not only an American who prevented the Third World War - there was a Soviet Officer, Vasili Arkhipov, who kept his submarine from launching nuclear missiles while the submarine he was on was being attacked by American depth charges. Hard Liners in both countries wanted war - thankfully, that war never happened. Are we ready for yet another "Forever War", because we're seeing extreme inhumanity from an enemy? Or, are there other things we can do (or are being done) that can limit the scope of the war?

Right now, we do not have all the facts, and we are being manipulated by the media. We have to watch out how the media is being manipulated - when the Jordanian pilot was burned to death, none of America's Left and Centrist media provided links to see this murder. Only the Right wing media provided links to view the murder, as it is trying to stir up the will for Americans to endure yet another war. In fact, politicians are already saying we should resort to nukes, and kill ruthlessly. Wouldn't it make more sense to get more information before another rush to war?