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.

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

Happiness is a warm gun.

It is a little ironic that the title of one Beatles' tune is "Happiness is a warm gun" when one of the Beatles died because of a crazy man with a gun.  Obviously, we need to make sure that crazy people do not get or have guns. But how do we do that when one of our fundamental rights would be impinged?

Unlike many pro gun people, I am willing to listen to arguments that might affect my right to keep and bear arms.  I am not afraid of my neighbors, nor do I think that I need a gun for self defense. I do not have any intention of walking into stores with my guns on display, as this would be a shout for attention and not have anything about my right to keep and bear arms. But I do worry now and then that there is a slow erosion of our right to keep and bear arms as a check and balance against the power of an over reaching government.

Using guns as a tool of revolution is an important right.  Yet, it's not a right that our founding fathers felt would be exercised often.  They felt that the inefficient structure of our government, with multiple sovereigns would provide a check and balance against tyranny. 
Sadly, there was one big problem.  America chose "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" above "Peace, Order, and Good Government".  

The American myth would have us believe in the rugged individual, someone who needs no help from his friends.  The myth is embodied in the idea of the American Cowboy, someone who rides alone on the range, and only comes into town when delivering cattle to the railroad's stockyards.  If you look at the same Cowboy from Japanese eyes, they see a group forming to take care of a task, and focus on the function of the group and not the individual.  The truth lies somewhere in the middle of these positions.

I used the phrase "Peace, Order, and Good Government" in an earlier paragraph.  And this is what a lot of people think when they think of Canada.  They are just as prosperous as America, and yet, few people fear extreme poverty.  They have avoided warehousing their poor, and they treat their poor more humanely than we do.  No Canadian fears going broke because of medical bills, nor do Canadians worry about a Military Industrial complex starving the civilian economy of the funds needed for government to serve the people.

Canadians do not have a bill of rights that has the same force as those in the United States' Constitution. They have gradually traded freedom for security - but have done so, knowing what they have traded for. Two hundred and forty years ago, Americans would call them kin. But that was before the war of 1812. Now, we call them kindred folk - a very big difference, one that acknowledges the different evolution paths of our nations.

Am I advocating that we sacrifice our right to own guns for safety?  Definitely not!  But I feel that we should look at our neighbor to the North and learn from the things they are doing right - and then try to do them better.  One thing I can say, we'd never see bombastic windbags like Trump, Cruz, Santorum and others running the country.  Instead, we'd see a more middle of the road (albeit a little too far to the left for most Americans' tastes) leadership that focuses on the needs of the 95% instead of the 5%.

Abandon Ship!

And now the rats are fleeing the ship.  We now are hearing the clarion call from some of the most important conservative media that Trump should either play the game according to the rules, or the GOP will find a way to abandon him for its own survival.  Sadly for the GOP, the die was cast a long, long time ago.  And when they could have gotten rid of the cancer called Donald Trump, they dilly dallied until it was too late to do anything meaningful to stop Trump.

The soul of a political party is tested now and then.  The Democrats were tested when Bill Clinton was impeached by the house.  No one abandoned him, when he was guilty of a "petty" felony.  They were addicted to the money he knew how to bring to his party. The Democrats failed their test, but I'm not sure they could have passed it without tearing the party apart.  This season, it's the Republican's turn.  And they are failing with no excuse. When political leaders are saying that Trump is a con artist who has no business being president, but they support him anyway in the same breath - this is an example of the ethical and moral bankruptcy of the party. This is a colossal failure with no mitigating factors - and no excuses for their (expected) eventual loss in November.

This is a year where the GOP should have been able to easily win the presidency.  All they had to do was stop leaning towards the extreme right, and let Hillary's failings do her in.  In a news cycle that just reported that the Clinton Foundation placed a well heeled contributor in an important government security post, Trump kept making an ass out of himself, wasting another good chance to rightfully attack Hillary for "business as usual".

Trump is likely making a bogus claim that his taxes are being audited.  I'll bet that he doesn't release his taxes because he'll be shown to be a less than successful businessman who is engaged in many questionable deals.  Trump's history in making deals show that he knows how to prosper at the expense of others.  I can only imagine if this tendency holds true about a presidential run.  After losing miserably, he can set himself up as the ringmaster of another media circus, having a networked radio/TV show available over the air or on the internet, where he'll make more money than he ever did with NBC.  He'll continue to claim he was cheated, and people will pay to hear his nonsense.

Where does this leave the GOP?  The way I see it, they would be smart to abandon the racist wingnuts in their base, and go back to the honest conservatism of a William Buckley and Barry Goldwater.  If they also abandon the evangelicals, they might be a smaller party which fights for survival at first.  But they will be free to promote a more coherent and more palatable policy - something that could easily hurt the Democrats if presented by a charismatic leader like Ronald Reagan. 

By now, you may be wondering who I'm going to vote for.  And I think it will be the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson.  In New York, the Democrat running for president almost always wins the state. Since I don't like Hillary, and I am disgusted with Trump, I think it's a safe bet for me to give Johnson the vote - and hope that they get more votes than the GOP this year.  If this happens, all political hell will break loose - and maybe, just maybe, the political elite will realize that they have to do something for the rest of us, lest we vote them out....