Thoughts on Friendship

I've been thinking on the nature of friendship, and the following joke comes to mind:

A friend will help you move.
A good friend will help you move a body.

Years ago, when my wife died, my friend Bill went dumpster diving for me, trying to find one of my wife's purses that had $800 in it that I forgot to remove. Sadly, we never found that $800. But his actions illustrate the type of dedication that true friends have for each other.

I can't say that my relationship with Bill has always been smooth sailing. There was a several year period in our lives, that we were out of contact with each other. Yet, when I found the job in the city, he went out of his way to send me a top of the line, fully loaded iPad to as a gift to celebrate my success in finding work.

In order for two friends to be friends after hurting each other, it takes a lot of effort from both parties. It also takes a lot of forgiveness - not just for the other person, but for one's self. We all do things we are ashamed of, and in the heat of passion, we say and do a lot of things that we later regret. Unfortunately, we can never take those words back or undo those actions. But we can forgive others for what they have done.

Over the past few years, I have caused some of my friends to suffer more than their share of pain. For this, I will always be sorry. I have lost two friends very close to me - neither of which will likely see this blog post. And that's OK. With these lost friends, we gave as good as we got. In many ways, things balanced out in a strange sort of way.

While talking with one of my friends the other night, we discussed the frequency of contact between friends. This friend and I can talk about anything, including the most serious of subjects, but we don't talk too often. We are among each other's circle of close friends. These are the friends I'd ask to move a body. However, with the two friends I lost, we'd be on the phone every day. It was good to talk with them, even though we often had nothing much worth saying. They were comforting and fun to be with. But I'm not sure if I could have asked either one to move a body.

With one of the above friends I hurt, I noted that I was trying to have a wider circle of friends and acquaintances. Not everyone could be counted on to move a body, nor could all of those friends be counted on to be in contact on a daily basis. This friend preferred to have a extremely small and tight circle of friends who could be leaned on for any favor, big or small. When something I did hurt her, she felt that I betrayed her - and there is now no way to repair what has been broken in that friendship. There is no olive branch that would be accepted. With the other friend, I realize that both of us were processing grief in our own ways, and that we put all too many roadblocks in the way of friendship. We gave as good as we got, for better and worse. Yet, I have hope that one day, these road blocks can be removed and that friendship can be renewed.

All too often, friends move away, and there is little opportunity to maintain a friendship. This happened with a woman I once dated. My wife and I were at her wedding, and she and her husband were at my wedding. Her life made it impossible to keep in close contact, as she lived over 100 miles away. Luckily, Facebook brought us together again. It allows us to keep up to date with some of the details of what is going on in each other's lives. And I hope to be able to visit her and her husband once social distancing ends.

Other times, two friends who have distanced themselves for a while still have desires to resume a friendship. This was the case with me and an ex-girlfriend. When I first met her with her husband, I knew that he was the right man for her. And he knew that I would never be a threat to their relationship. In fact, it was one the story from of my experiences that made it possible for her to have a relationship with her husband, and to weather the storm that their first real argument triggered. Hopefully, they will live long lives, and that I will maintain friendships with both of them for a long time.

Some friendships are not meant to last. One of these friendships was built when we were both in college. Even when I had to choose between having him or Bill attend my wedding, he took it in stride. We stayed friends for years until American politics drove us apart. This friend needed to identify himself as a loyal member of his political tribe, and I got tired of hearing things that evidence continually was proving to be false. Rather than put up with hearing regurgitated propaganda from his tribe's spin masters, I let him go. Hopefully, he hasn't consumed too much of the "Kool-Aid" being handed out by his tribe's propaganda division.

Luckily, some friendships were meant to last. I've known Bill since I was 16. And we've been there for each other in time of need. Although he has not asked me to move a body, he did ask me to do something that could have put me at risk of being incarcerated. And I gladly did this for him. Yet, we haven't seen each other in person for years.

In short, each friendship is unique. The best ones are priceless, and much effort may be called for to preserve or restore them. Hopefully, we all have those types of friends. And for me, I hope that repairs can be made to some of the bridges which have been burnt between me and some of the friendships I should have valued more....

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....

Borders, Immigration, and Crime

One thing common to both illegal immigration and illegal drugs is that our total lack of realistic governmental policies has resulted in the growth of criminal activity along our border by gangs who would have otherwise remained petty thieves.

Drug smugglers, having perfected the art of transporting illegal substances across our border, are nor transporting people across the border. "Coyotes", having perfected the art of smuggling people across the border are now taking on higher profit drug shipments. In short, our demand for both illegal immigrant labor and illegal recreational substances has again created a rich "Mafia", not unlike what happened during Alcohol Prohibition in the 1920's.

The very people who gain most from our porous borders are not the illegal immigrants who simply want to feed their families and are not the people who consume the recreational substances imported by the smugglers. Instead, the criminal gangs, businessmen (of dubious ethics), and government bureaucrats (on both sides of the border) are the people who gain most from the porous border. According to the Daily Mail, it costs from $4,000-$10,000 to move one illegal immigrant to the USA.   It is no coincidence we hear meaningless drivel coming out our political leaders saying that the voice of the people is wrong. They claim that Arizona is racist. But if it is, why are 30+ percent of Hispanics living in that state supporting a law which puts them at greatest risk of being profiled and hassled by the law? Yes, one can make the racism argument based on the percentage of Whites supporting this law. Yet, when the law has significant support among minorities, it means something else is at play - and must be understood.

As I am more familiar with the costs of educating a child, I'll use some slightly dated statistics to illustrate my points. Let's say that it costs $10k to educate a child in a high cost state such as New York. Special education (ESOL - English for speakers of other languages, Handicapped education, etc.) may double that price for affected students. What happens to a state that is burdened with educating large numbers of illegal immigrant children? Well, a rough breakdown for educational funding is - Local Government: 45%, State Government: 45% and Federal Government: 10%. In the mainstream class in which I student taught, 25% of the class required ESOL assistance. That's a lot more than 10% of the costs for the 20 kids in the class. Is the Federal government properly compensating the school systems for the added burden of educating these children? No!!! So who gets suck with the bill? The state and local tax payer. Is this fair? No!!!! The above noted situation is quite common in areas with large numbers of illegal immigrants - and the states are being crushed by the under funded mandates imposed by Uncle Sam....

But what should we do about this?  The problem is not just illegal immigration, but it is a vicious circle of problems related to drug crime, people in need of jobs, and people on both sides of the border profiting from illegal trade. First, we must defang the drug cartels - legalize the controlled substances, tax them, and destroy the profit margin that makes it possible to ply their trades. Next, we need to slow down the rate of immigration of low skilled labor. I propose making Mexico a buffer zone, where these immigrants would be required to attend certified English language training schools before coming to the USA. All immigrants would be required to demonstrate a rudimentary knowledge of the Anglo-Saxon tongue before being allowed into the USA. But this would not be enough - they would have to bid for the right to come to the USA - market based visas. Instead of the money going to the Coyotes (and associated criminal enterprises), it would go to the US Government instead. And finally, all of this money gained from market based visas would need to be distributed to the states providing services for these immigrants.

Of course, there are political concerns. I'd want for the immigrants coming to the USA using these visas to be ineligible for US citizenship. They would have the protection of American law, but not affect American politics, as they could not vote. This would blunt the impact of immigration for at least one generation - probably enough to eliminate the fears from the states most affected by immigration.....

Please note that this is only an incomplete starting point for a thought experiment. We need better solutions than we have now, and our government is ill equipped to provide them without meaningful public participation in political debates.

A long needed thaw - something I never thought I'd see....

This is what most Caribbean nations dependent on tourism feared - the United States and Cuba gradually warming up to each other. There are so many things which should be binding the two nations together, but for bad politics (on both sides) and an assassinated American President that got in the way of common sense.

One person told me that addiction is similar to having to choose between opening two doors. The first door will allow you to exit the room. The second door will have you beaten up by a gorilla. The addicted person keeps repeatedly choosing the second door, while the non-addict will quickly choose the first door and leave the room. When the addict is asked why he keeps choosing the same door, the addict will respond with something to the effect - well, it can eventually change, can't it?

Our policy towards Cuba has been very much like that of the person who keeps opening up the wrong door - the Castro regime has not been ousted, and it has become even more entrenched over the years. Many people want to punish Cuba for its actions of 53 years ago, but most people alive today weren't alive when the embargo was put in place. What good does punishing a country do when the people being punished are not responsible for the problem. This punishment seems to be a misguided approach to keeping the first generation of Cuban exiles happy and voting according to their current patterns.

Most people don't know that it is perfectly legal for Americans to visit North Korea, a country more troublesome to American interests, and spend money there. Yet, in a country that has not been shown to sponsor terrorism (save, in the figments of collective Washington, DC political imagination), it is effectively illegal for Americans to be there. Something is very wrong - and it likely has to do with American political paralysis.

There are issues that will need to be negotiated before a full thaw has occurred. And they have nothing to do with promoting democracy in Cuba. Instead, they will have to do with trademarks and the exports of certain goods. For example, Bacardi Rum got its start in Cuba. The family took the brand along with them when they left Cuba, and established it in Puerto Rico. Do you think they can afford to have the Cubans sell rum under the Bacardi name after the embargo is lifted? Another example is Cohiba cigars. The brand available in the USA is made in the Dominican Republic, while the brand available in most of the world is made in Cuba. How will this get resolved?

If anyone brings up the idea that Cuba stole property from its rightful owners, it should be noted that Russia and China have done the same thing, and that the United States has relationships with these countries. In fact, one might find the history of Smirnoff Vodka interesting, as the trademark left Russia - and when Russians resurrected it in their own right, a "peaceful" settlement was reached. This makes me comfortable with the idea that both the United States and Cuba will resolve issues like this to their mutual satisfaction.

Obama, like him or hate him, is a person who plays the long game. The game with Cuba will play out long after Obama is out of the game. It will take time to negotiate and resolve the issues that have arisen over the 53+ years that we have had an embargo. And the negotiations have only just begun....

Stalemate - The all American way

It's been several months since our president floated the balloons which he hoped would morph into an American health care system - and I'm very disappointed at the results. Not only do we have nothing we can be proud of, but we've shown that our political system is completely dysfunctional. Even the pundits on Sunday Morning talk shows are starting to talk about the need for a third party - to break the log jam and address many of the issues America needs to tackle now.

The so called "tea parties" are showing increased voter frustration at government. Right now, they tend to tag the Democrats with the responsibility for our mess. But once they put the Republicans in charge, they will find them just as impotent in getting an agenda passed. When will they learn that Washington itself is the problem? But even if they realize this, it will not be enough. Approximately 80% of Federal spending is mandated - Who wants to tell our seniors that they have to die earlier so that we don't spend as much paying for their health care? I certainly don't. Who wants to tell our seniors that they can't retire on time, because we've squandered the "investments" which were meant to pay for their retirements? I certainly don't. But who wants to pay more into a system to cover expenses which were inadequately funded that are now coming due with the Baby Boomer retirements? I certainly don't. And if the rest of America is like me, then we have problems. We are going to be forced into making some very hard and unpopular choices - and will have hell to pay for decades of inaction.

I propose some simple actions:

1. Immediately push forward the dates to collect social security at full benefit levels by three years. Early retirement would take place at 65 instead of 62.
2. For those who have already retired and are collecting Social Security before the enaction of proposal #1 above, a new Federal Estate tax of 10% (on all affected persons' estates) to bulk up the coffers of Social Security.
3. Increasing the quotas for new immigrants, so that they can bulk up the funding for Social Security. (If we aren't growing our population by native birth rate, we might as well import new immigrants to help pay for current expenses.)
4. Implementing an import tariff based on the balance of payments. When we are earning more money from exports than we are paying out for imports - there is no tariff change, or there will be a slight reduction to put the payments in balance. When we are not earning enough money from exports to pay for the goods and services we import, we raise the tariff enough to buy fewer enough foreign goods to being our payments into balance.
5. Replacing a significant portion of America's income taxes with equivalent consumption taxes to spur investment. We could use a floor, where everyone gets a consumption tax rebate, so that the net tax change to our poor would be nil - yet, we'd discourage the needless consumption of underpriced foreign goods that are putting American workers on the unemployment lines.
6. Implementing the "Pickens Plan" to shift America's energy use from expensive imported oil to renewable resources such as wind power.

One problem - do we trust our government NOT to hide net tax increases to fund their pet pork projects?

The disgruntled blogger.