Chaos in the house

From what I understand, our forefathers thought that the Speaker of the House of Representatives would be America's most important political position, and not the office of the President.  However, it is the presidency which has become the most important office - and for good reason. As Harry Truman said: "The Buck Stops Here!"

Lately, no sane man would consider the position of Speaker of the House.  Rep. Boehner resigned, as he felt that he couldn't control the extremists in his party and get them to vote on "must pass" bills needed to keep the government running. He was tired of the responsibilities of the office, and decided to retire instead of destroying himself by staying in the battle. But this left Rep. McCarthy next in line for the office.

There are many reasons why McCarthy should not be Speaker of the House. But I won't go into the ones that many Democrats might bring up.  Instead, I'll trust his judgement that he is not the right man for the job, and speculate that he did not want to take the blame for a likely government shutdown (which would likely happen by the time this entry is made public). He's smart enough to know that the same angry people who are propelling Trump's candidacy are also the same people who no longer trust political insiders to do anything to address their concerns.  They feel they have nothing to gain by keeping the present elite in charge, so they are willing to collapse the system to make their voices heard.

But what does this mean for our "democracy"?  

If the House was designed as a place where the people could vent their feelings, and the Senate was a place to prevent short term feelings from mucking up the system, then what happens when the legislative branch is dominated by a party which is unable to govern? To me, this forces a president (most likely from the opposing party) to govern by edict and by novel interpretations of existing law.  This is very dangerous, as power keeps shifting from the legislative branch to the executive branch - and this power is subject to fewer checks and balances as time goes on.

Eventually, one party will control the two elected branches of government.  And if the party is as dysfunctional as today's GOP, then I have serious concerns. The angry mob that is disrupting the functions of the House could gain control of the executive branch - and that could be the end of the republic.

Why such a concern?

Let's take an inflammatory issue such as abortion.  Many scholars thought that Roe vs. Wade was a horrible decision - not because of which side won, but because it forced society to adapt too quickly to change.  Later rulings have softened the blow, and have rolled things back a bit.  But they (SCOTUS) have always relied on judicial precedent to guide them in new rulings.  What would happen if a new, replacement elite were to ignore precedents? The loss of abortion rights in themselves might not be that onerous. But could you imagine possible government intrusion in a woman's reproduction to make sure that all fetuses are tracked and accounted for?  

Long term government policies that cross administrations could also be overturned at a whim.  Could you imagine the lunacy of a rapid rapprochement with North Korea?  Heck, Cuba and Iran have never been as much trouble to the US as the DPRK has been, and yet they get all the press these days because of a slow and careful movement towards normalization with these countries.  Would we kill NAFTA without serious thought? Possibly. But this is why our government was designed to implement change slowly - so that we don't make the mistakes often made when the voice of the mob drowns out the voice of reason.

But what role should an elite play?

This question has been central to American polity since the days of Jefferson and Hamilton. As for me, like Hamilton, I believe that there is a natural elite that tends to form in any society. But like Jefferson, I also believe that to be free, "the tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of tyrants."  America has been a stable republic because its design provides for a greater tolerance of instability in the system.  I only hope that the design keeps working - and I'm not too sure of this any longer....

The boys of October

If I could change one (of many) things in history, this ball park would be standing and the one in Chavez Ravine would never have been built.  Alas, history never follows a script. And if it could, there would be too many ad-libs.

This season, at least, both New York baseball teams have been scheduled for post-season play - as happened many times in the past, when there were three major league teams in the five boroughs.  By the time this entry is made public, there is a high likelihood that one (or both) of them will be eliminated from eligibility to play in the World Series.

- - - - - -

For many generations, Baseball has been the one sport that has reflected the ethos of America - for better and worse.  It has reflected corruption in both players (Chicago Black Sox) and owners (Charlie Cominsky).  It has reflected the racial prejudices of this country with segregated baseball teams and leagues.  It has reflected unrestrained greed.  But yet, it has also reflected what is best in America - a nation with a cultural language which has been shared by almost all as they assimilate into the larger whole.

I grew up when New York City baseball was at a nadir.  The Dodgers and Giants had already departed for the West Coast, leaving the New York region with a single baseball franchise, the Yankees, which was being treated like a cash cow by its owners.  By the time CBS took over the franchise, the Yankees were heading for a last place finish - for the first time since before Babe Ruth joined the team. And CBS had no clue about what it could do with the team.  (Contrast this with Ted Turner, who made the Braves a centerpiece of his entertainment empire about 25 years later.)  The Mets were a joke - a group of has-beens and never-will-bes that couldn't win - even if the other team didn't show up.  

- - - - - -

The nature of the game of baseball is virtually unique among sports.  It doesn't follow a clock, save the interruptions mandated by modern day advertising. It is both an individual sport and a team sport - where a batter is opposed by the nine other players on the field. An individual may sacrifice his chance to be on-base in order to advance a runner to a better position - much like in real life, where someone might "fall on his sword" to protect someone else.  It is a game where both the individual and team is celebrated, and as such unusual among sports.  (Yes, we may think of Quarterbacks in American Football. But in many ways, they are simply hands-on field managers, and not much more than that in an overall view of the game.)

- - - - - -

Baseball idioms have infused themselves into almost every part of American life - even sex. When people differ in what "first base" and "second base" refers to, they do have an idea of how "far" one got (or how much was achieved) when in the act of "love making".  Many decades after the poem was written, people still understand why there is no joy in Mudville. And in my generation, many still knew of Baseball's Sad Lexicon - where bear cubs could make a giant hit into a double - long after the Giants departed the Polo Grounds, and long after Tinker, Evers and Chance have passed away.

Since the month of October will be Baseball's last hurrah before football season takes hold, I'd like to leave you with the immortal poem by Franklin Pierce Adams....

These are the saddest of possible words:

"Tinker to Evers to Chance."

Trio of bear cubs, and fleeter than birds,

Tinker and Evers and Chance.

Ruthlessly pricking our gonfalon bubble,

Making a Giant hit into a double –

Words that are heavy with nothing but trouble:

"Tinker to Evers to Chance."

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.

Making America Great Again

In a recent issue of "The Economist" there were 4 separate mentions of Trump's candidacy for POTUS.  One of them was an editorial piece where the magazine states that it doesn't want Trump for a candidate, because of his offensive nature.  The problem here is that they do not address the root of the problem - the political elite in much of the Western world (I should say its "democracies") has done little to address the need of the average citizen in these countries.  The rich are getting richer (especially in the USA), and everyone else is losing ground.  In short, the "Trickle Down" policies that the GOP has promoted has been shown not to work - on a worldwide basis.

Normally, I'd agree with The Economist.  But in this case, the "Angry White Men" supporting the Trump candidacy may be on to something.  Trump is financing his candidacy with his own money, showing virtually everyone else (save maybe, Bernie Sanders) to be political whores of the financial elite. Even the Bushes can't prostitute themselves enough to raise enough campaign funds to compete with Trump.  There may be only two or three Republicans who stand a remote chance for the long term: Cruz, Carson, and Fiorina. And Cruz is trying to stay in Trump's shadow, hoping that Trump will self destruct after cleaning out most of the opposition, so that he can grab a ready made base.

The same forces at work that benefit Trump are also benefiting Bernie Sanders.  He is the true "Anti Wall Street" person (read: "Not Hillary Clinton") running in this election, and he is getting the Liberal equivalent to Trump's base - save Sanders' base is more educated and more aware of what is going on.  Hillary's performance is so lackluster, that an unannounced Joe Biden beats her in the polls against all GOP candidates.  (And Biden is being floated as a candidate for POTUS, because the people who fund the Democrats are just as afraid of Sanders as the GOP funders are afraid of Trump.)

Now, let's look at this in the context of world affairs.  Moderate Muslims are being pushed out of Syria and Iraq due to the growth of ISIS.  It is interesting to note that the wealthiest Muslim nations of the Middle East are doing nothing to help these refugees - it is the nominally Christian countries of Europe who are being forced to absorb these people.  And the problem is that most people may change their nationality and customs easy, but they do not follow a reworked adage: "When in Rome, Worship as the Romans do."  So many people become isolated, and tend to live in ghettos instead of being assimilated into the larger society.  

There is push-back coming from the "Angry White Men" of Europe.  In places like Denmark, the far right party runs the country, and says that no Muslims need enter. Even though Europe has a below zero population replenishment rate, the hard right rightfully worries about the changes to their societies that these uninvited immigrants bring.  No one from the traditional political elite is discussing the drawbacks to social change - so the "common" person is taking affairs in his own right, and voting a non functional elite out of office, replacing with people who may listen to their concerns.

A while back, Mark Steyn wrote a book called America Alone - The End of the World as We Know It.  One review of this book notes:


Why has Mark Steyn's book "America Alone" been labeled "alarmist" by his opponents? Look at the title: America Alone. Its meaning is obvious, but concerning what? When the Soviet Union fell, America was left standing as the sole super power in the world. But that is not the meaning of America Alone. However, do you remember what Nikita Kruschchev said? America would fall from within, without one shot fired. America would destroy herself through societal softness and the Soviets would walk in and take over.

Steyn states that Muslims have adopted this concept of a country falling from within, beginning in Europe. Through immigration, Muslims are establishing themselves as a stronghold. Belgium, Sweden, England, Denmark, the Netherlands, and France are on their way to becoming majority Muslim and geo-political. In fact, he says, Eurotopia is fast becoming "Eurabia."

Three events are rapidly leading to Eurabia:
1. Demographic decline
2. The unsustainability of the advanced Western social-democratic state
3. Civilizational exhaustion

Do you remember years ago forecasters urged population control? Europe heeded this warning and now faces two factors that will change it drastically: its population is aging and couples are not reproducing themselves.

...

With an aging population and declining birthrate and a swelling benefits package supplied by the government, who will pay for this social welfare? Answer: incoming immigrants with high birthrates.

Therein, Steyn says, lies the problem. While people of Europe have abandoned their churches and religious beliefs, Islam immigrants bring with them "a religion, and an explicitly political one." In fact, if a European wants to marry a Muslim, he must convert, or as they call it, revert. Muslims believe that everyone is born Muslim--he/she must find that calling. And no one may leave the religion.

How pervasive are Islam and Muslims in Europe? "Go to any children's store in Amsterdam or Marseilles or Vienna or Stockholm. Look at women in headscarves or full abaya. That's the future"

...

In France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden, riots over equal rights have disturbed traditional peace. Women feel safer walking neighborhoods in Muslim garb in order to be left alone by Muslim men. When Muslims take over, they take the land and distribute it to Muslims, creating reverts out of the native people. Because the United States doesn't take land, Muslims consider the US weak and defeatable. As Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong of Singapore said in 2004, " The central issue is America's credibility and will to prevail".

Steyn concludes in outlining America's exceptional nature and how it can prevent Muslim reversion of an entire country.

Sadly, there are many of us (including myself) who believe that Steyn is correct.  Although I have nothing against Islam, I do have something against the cultures of the Middle East where Islam has flourished - their core nature prevents people from looking at themselves and their culture critically, and stands in the way of progress.  (Please note that this is not an indictment of Islam as it is of tendencies in the Muslim world in the Middle East to enforce rigid conformity among the masses and subjugate those masses.)

So we go back to Trump's candidacy.  What do we do about it?  For me, I prefer to see Trump win the GOP nomination, as he is more "Liberal" than many of the wingnuts in his party.  (For example, some of his ideas about healthcare make sense - when he isn't pandering to the official GOP party line.) If Trump wins the nomination, it is possible that the GOP may undo its "Southern Strategy" and become a more moderate political party. And if both Trump and Sanders get their parties' POTUS nominations, meaningful campaign finance reform could take place, as the political whores may find that it is better to be freelancers than to be pimped out by the likes of the Koch Brothers.

Am I sure of this?  No.  But I see the signs of world turmoil, and we ignore the needs of the common person at our own peril....

The Iran Deal.... What the average political hack misses.

This is a picture I dare not blow up any further (pun intended) - it is of "Fat Man", the plutonium based bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki.  And it is a little knowledge of the Manhattan Project and Nobel Prize winning scientist Glenn Seaborg that is needed to understand what is "in between the lines" of the deal recently cut with Iran.

According to nonuclear.se, Plutonium is a man-made nuclear explosive; it is created inside all nuclear reactors when uranium is bombarded with neutrons. Some uranium atoms can absorb a neutron without fissioning; when that happens, they are transmuted into plutonium atoms. Plutonium has become the nuclear explosive of choice in the world’s nuclear arsenals. Therefore, the goal of this deal had to be to stop Iran from developing a Plutonium based nuclear arsenal - Iran still could tell its hard-liners that they can produce a bomb.  The P5+1 (The permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany) gets to be able to tell its hard-liners that Iran will not be able to produce Plutonium based bombs, explaining why this is so important in private.

No deal is perfect.  But this deal allows both sides to save face.  If anyone is worried about what will happen to Israel, they shouldn't be - the history of the US and the USSR shows how Mutual Assured Destruction helped prevent World War 3. (Or, I should say, that this war was fought via proxies and with money - a much safer form of warfare for all sides.) The Iranians may be crazy, but they are not insane.  The last thing they want to do is provoke the Israelis into exploding 1 of their estimated 100-200 warheads over Tehran.

If one looks at the size of a ball that represents the amount of fissile Plutonium needed for a bomb, it's easy to see that one could easily transport that much material anywhere on the globe.  Years ago, my high school had some non weapons grade "Yellowcake" (Uranium) - and I expect that 64 Kilos of the stuff would be much larger than the ball above.  In short, Iran has signed off on a deal which prevents its fissile material from being used by non-state operatives.  (That means: No Uranium or Plutonium in the hands of Hamas or Hezbollah.)

I'm not sure if Iran will live up to the letter of this deal.  But I expect that there will be many people interested in keeping everyone honest - and I'd bet that the Iranians are serious, if only because they prefer not to ignite an arms race between it, the Saudis and Egypt....

Jorge Ramos vs. Donald Trump - No Subtlety Where Subtlety is Most Needed

I am not a fan of how Jorge Ramos acted at Trump's question and answer session.  Would Ramos have treated the current president this way?  Probably not.  However, Trump is not the president yet, and he has to subject himself to the full onslaught of the press - some of which are actively (but covertly) agitating to end his run for the presidency.  

- - - - - -

Since I am not a Spanish speaker, I do not watch Univision. I am told that Ramos has the reputation in the Spanish speaking communities that Walter Cronkite had in mine a generation or two ago.  With this being said, I had to wonder - why was he cutting in front of other journalists to pose his questions to Trump?  Why couldn't he wait his turn, like other journalists there?

There was only one easy to come up with answer to these questions - Trump's campaign people may have been avoiding Ramos's request for an interview with Trump, so that he could explain his positions on immigration to Ramos in detail.  Trump is a bombastic demagogue whose message is more of style than of substance. He attracts angry old white men who feel that their nation has been ruined by newcomers. Yet, reality proves Trump otherwise.  First world nations that actively accept immigrants usually outperform their peers.

Ramos is not innocent here. From what I understand, he has had a bug up his ass in regard to the issue of immigration for a while. The idea that a nation has a right to reject (and send home) uninvited, illegal immigrants may be abhorrent to him - which is the opposite of where Trump stands. But the people who watch Ramos' news reports have much to benefit from uncontrolled borders. So he can not have an objective viewpoint on this issue.

- - - - - - -

What is really happening here?  The average Trump Supporter has no clue about the real nature of illegal immigration.  Mexican immigration to the USA (illegal and legal) has fallen, now that there are greater legal opportunities to provide well for their families. Mexico is also helping the USA keep other foreigners from crossing the border to illegally work here. (Many of these people are illegally being denied asylum here because of the civil unrest in their home countries.  Of course, the combined issue of the narcotics trade, illegal immigration, and American demand for both illegal drugs and workers never gets mentioned for the cause of their countries' unrest.)  But the real problem is that the vast number of illegal immigrants simply overstay their visas and absorbed into the cash economy.

Trump supporters actually believe that a 40 foot wall and mandatory deportations for all illegal immigrants will keep unwanted foreigners out of the USA and keep them from taking jobs from Americans.  This is complete B.S.!  But what would happen if we were to develop a realistic plan to deal with the illegal immigrants already here?  What would it look like?

- - - - - -

One of the complaints that many "conservatives" have with allowing the illegals to stay here is that they jump in the line for citizenship, and that this benefits the "liberals".  This is not as true as it sounds, as most illegals prefer to stay out of sight of the government, and choose to avoid things like voting fraud - simply to keep as low a social profile as possible and avoid detection from the INS.
So I pose the question: "Why not give these people only 'American National' status, but not ever let the illegal immigrants gain full American citizenship?"  The nationals would have the following rights:

• The right to work anywhere in the USA (and pay taxes)
• Eligible for a US Passport (in the same way as residents of American Samoa and Swains Island).

But they would have the following restrictions:

• No right to vote or hold public office.
• (In this case) permanently ineligible for American citizenship.

This way, they could not affect American voting patterns, nor do they gain much from jumping ahead of the immigration queue.  But by being legal participants in the labor market, they can actively negotiate higher market rate prices for their labor, pushing labor prices up, not down as they currently are doing....

What about their children, you may ask? To me, this is a simple question.  If the child came over the border before the age of consent, they could immediately become American Nationals.  But after serving in the military or performing other appropriate community service, they could apply for citizenship at the age of consent.

Doesn't this reward people for breaking our laws?

Sadly, our economy has already done that - these people have often created their own jobs in the cash economy, and we have already been rewarded by lower priced goods and services they provided us for our cash.  

My question is: "Why don't we bring their labor efforts into the open where we can tax their income?"  Conservative types have no answer for this.  They think that an Albanian operating a food cart on 6th Avenue in NYC is taking work away from Americans.  But what kind of native born American is willing to do this kind of work?  We already know that much of the back breaking harvest time farm work is done by immigrants (legal and illegal). Would we see a rush of Americans to do this back breaking labor?  I doubt it!

What will likely happen if we keep these immigrants in an "illegal" status?

As I see it, they will lose respect for more of our laws over time, and flow into the "illegal" economies - drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc. - where their experience of working in the cash economy is an asset instead of being a liability.  Can we afford to risk this?  I doubt it.

- - - - - -

So I have a question - when will the United States become serious in what needs to be done in regard to illegal immigration?  Hopefully, it will be sooner instead of later....

Campaign Zero - Something worth taking a look at

I don't often put a advocacy group's graphic on my page without some editing.  But I was a little lazy today, and I also did not want to take anything out of context.

- - - - - -

The folks that organize around the phrase "Black Lives Matter" (BLM) have been getting a lot of press these days.  But what are they really campaigning for (or against)?  As I see it, they are trying to get society to deal with the structural racism hidden in society, rules and regulations that most white people take for granted as benign, but have become very harmful to poor blacks.  And they have some good points....

One of the things we've learned from the Ferguson, MO incidents is that the municipality made a good amount of money from poor people being unable to advocate for themselves after minor contact with the law.  For example, a jaywalking infraction (when was the last time anyone you know got ticketed for this in the USA?) could require a person to appear before a court.  Without adequate and inexpensive mass transit (and convenient court schedules), this person might not be able to appear, causing a default judgement to be assessed against the person.  This person, not being able to afford paying the assessment would have a warrant issued to bring the person into the local jail, causing this person to have a record - and not be able to get a job.  The police did not reflect the makeup of the community, and were totally alienated from the people whom they were supposed to serve. Therefore, BLM has a point to make when it comes to "broken windows policing". (This was also a factor in the Baltimore riots....)

All communities should be overseeing their police forces.  All too often, the law enforcers get a "hall pass" on the degree which they can stretch the law in enforcing the law.  How often in the past was the Billy Club used to "Tenderize" a suspect?  All too often.
In today's world, the police are still much better, but not perfect.  In McAllen Texas, there was a recent incident where a police officer wrongfully slammed a 15 year old black girl to the ground - and this was the same officer who wrongfully pulled out his gun during the same incident - would he have done this to a white girl?  No.  This is why we need citizen oversight - to hold the police accountable to the public they serve. 

I'm not sure about you, but I want to limit the police force's ability to use force.  Given the above mentioned incident, it frightens me that we depend on violence to keep our citizenry in line.  What is the next step?  Yes, the threat (and potential use) of violence is often needed.  But we tend to abuse it in this country - we forget to be civil and polite first, then things escalate out of control.

Now, I'm concerned about the militarization of the police in this country.  If the police get military surplus equipment, they will want to find excuses to use it. And they do.  This could help America become a police state if the wrong demagogues get elected.  (Can you imagine what would happen if a bombastic real estate developer actually ran a local police force?  I'd be very afraid - and we have a person like this running for POTUS!)  Years ago, this country made the decision to separate military aircraft development from civilian aircraft development, as they had their own unique needs.  The same now goes for the tools used to impose a nation's or community's will - a military needs to impose its rule without much regard to those in opposition, while a police force must be sensitive to the needs of the entire community.

I could write several entries on the issues raised by BLM/Campaign Zero.  But instead, I figure it best that their manifesto be examined, as they make some very good points....