It is Sunday before the Tuesday election, and over 40 million Americans have already voted. Trump, who has violated a lot of the "rules" of running a political campaign is doing so again.
He is campaigning in the so-called "blue states" that rarely vote for Republican candidate. He is also drawing huge crowds there. Seven different states are on his schedule today.
Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, is following the "rules" and campaigning in two of the "battleground" states.
Seven appearances for Trump and only two for Clinton with two days left.
That raises the question: does she think she is that far ahead, or can she only physically do two appearances in one day?
Since the last post, Trump has become a much better candidate. He has gotten off of Twitter, and has kept on message. His speeches are smooth and coherent. His advertising is quite well done
He has drawn huge crowds everywhere he has gone. Enthusiastic crowds.
Clinton has been Clinton, with her team only drawing small, unenthusiastic crowds, except of course, when she has an entertainer with her to draw a crowd....entertainers like the crude, vulgar and racist Jay-Z, or the fanny wagging J-LO, or even anti-cop and vulgar Beyonce.
Strange bedfellows, indeed. But they say politics makes strange bedfellows.
Her money has bought the best advertising and "ground game" money can buy. Apparently the money cannot buy love, but it can buy votes. And the Democrat ground game has always been good at stealing votes.
The FBI gave Clinton another clean bill of health for breaking the laws with her email usage. That is not surprising. Obama has totally corrupted the Department of Justice, the FBI and just about every other Federal Agency in Washington. One cannot really believe what they say or do any more.
The polls, as usual, are all over the place, with the average giving Clinton a slight lead within the margin of error. Some are outliers and give Trump a lead. The individual state polls make it a very close race.
Who will win on Tuesday? Will we even know by Wednesday? This is so hotly contested, that barring the quite unexpected landslide for one of them, one can look for lawsuits and challenges from both sides. That, of course, will only divide our population even more. And the courts are not a good place to decide elections.
We should all hope and pray for a landslide for one or the other. Our country really needs to get this election behind us.
That does not seem to be in the cards.
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Monday, October 3, 2016
The Trump Phenomenon------Falling Into the Trap
After he had lost a lot of momentum after the conventions by taking on the Khans and other errors, Trump got things back together. He did very well most of August and into September, gaining momentum back and even edging past Hillary Clinton in a number of the polls.
The came the debate. It was watched by around 90 million Americans. It was Trump's opportunity to really put Hillary away.
Of course, everyone knew the debate was going to be set up for Hillary, and Trump should have known it as well, and prepared for it. Instead, he was an amateur and did not do the hours of preparation necessary.
The moderator, of course, did not ask Trump important questions. Instead Trump was asked about completely inconsequential things like birtherism and tax returns. Trumps answers were off the cuff and unprepared....just as one might expect from an amateur. There was no effort to turn the questions back on the moderator as he probably should have done.
On the other side, Hillary was asked softball questions that allowed her to give canned responses consisting of the age old Democratic gobbledygook that they have been saying for decades without there ever having been any positive change. Trump was unable to really inject himself into that side of the debate.
This gave the advantage to Hillary, and she ran with it. She clearly was the "winner" of the debate.
The most important part of the debate from her standpoint was that she was able to lay a trap for Trump by asking him about "Miss Piggy." Trump fell for it. This move got Hillary inside Trump's OODA Loop just like he got inside the loops of so many of his Republican opponents in the primaries
Not only did he fall into the trap, like with the Khans, he kept doubling down on the issue instead of moving on. It became the "news" on the mainstream media for a week or more.
Trump lost all of the momentum and gains he had made. He is now back to the post convention situation with a lost lead and lost momentum......and just a bit over a month to go.
There are two more debates. Trump has to take them seriously and prepare while still getting out and campaigning. He also needs to get off Twitter. It only makes him appear to be not serious.
Can he do it? Maybe. There will be a lot more attacks on him from all directions. Will his ego and nature allow him to respond properly, or will he over do the response?
He is doing a lot of advertising into the election as he should. Most of the ads seem effective, but will be only if they are well placed and reach enough undecided voters.
This is an election between two very flawed candidates, one a rank amateur in politics and the other an experienced, hardened politician with a very shady, perhaps even criminal, background.
Who will win?
It is pretty easy to see who will lose.
The came the debate. It was watched by around 90 million Americans. It was Trump's opportunity to really put Hillary away.
Of course, everyone knew the debate was going to be set up for Hillary, and Trump should have known it as well, and prepared for it. Instead, he was an amateur and did not do the hours of preparation necessary.
The moderator, of course, did not ask Trump important questions. Instead Trump was asked about completely inconsequential things like birtherism and tax returns. Trumps answers were off the cuff and unprepared....just as one might expect from an amateur. There was no effort to turn the questions back on the moderator as he probably should have done.
On the other side, Hillary was asked softball questions that allowed her to give canned responses consisting of the age old Democratic gobbledygook that they have been saying for decades without there ever having been any positive change. Trump was unable to really inject himself into that side of the debate.
This gave the advantage to Hillary, and she ran with it. She clearly was the "winner" of the debate.
The most important part of the debate from her standpoint was that she was able to lay a trap for Trump by asking him about "Miss Piggy." Trump fell for it. This move got Hillary inside Trump's OODA Loop just like he got inside the loops of so many of his Republican opponents in the primaries
Not only did he fall into the trap, like with the Khans, he kept doubling down on the issue instead of moving on. It became the "news" on the mainstream media for a week or more.
Trump lost all of the momentum and gains he had made. He is now back to the post convention situation with a lost lead and lost momentum......and just a bit over a month to go.
There are two more debates. Trump has to take them seriously and prepare while still getting out and campaigning. He also needs to get off Twitter. It only makes him appear to be not serious.
Can he do it? Maybe. There will be a lot more attacks on him from all directions. Will his ego and nature allow him to respond properly, or will he over do the response?
He is doing a lot of advertising into the election as he should. Most of the ads seem effective, but will be only if they are well placed and reach enough undecided voters.
This is an election between two very flawed candidates, one a rank amateur in politics and the other an experienced, hardened politician with a very shady, perhaps even criminal, background.
Who will win?
It is pretty easy to see who will lose.
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
The Trump Phenomenon.......Reality Strikes
As noted before, Donald J. Trump achieved the Republican nomination for President while breaking almost all of the rules for politicians that have been developed over history.
Having done so, he failed to recognize that once he was nominated, the strategy and tactics used during the primaries would no longer work. Once he got in the big arena, the mainstream media put him in their sights, and proceeded to parse every word he said and use them to beat him up.
And he provided them plenty of ammunition in the first weeks. It cost him a month in which the media and the Democrat they serve did their best to brand him however they wanted. In those weeks, his poll numbers fell accordingly. No surprise there.
In August, he has seemed to get things under better control, and he has stopped making the undisciplined statement and tweets that we saw during the primaries. This appears to have helped with the poll numbers.
To have a chance of winning the election, he is going to have to get the branding the media and his opponent have done to him reversed. This is difficult to do now. One cannot do it with rallies, however well attended. There he is preaching to the choir.
To reach the biggest part of the electorate, he is going to have to do it with media. During the primaries, he got free media from everyone. Now, only Fox and a few others report on him positively. The rest of the media, best described as Democrat operatives with bylines will only report him in a very negative way.
That means he will have to buy advertising, and therefore do a lot of fundraising. He has taken some pride in self funding much of his campaign so far, though he has been raising money since the nomination.
He will need to do much more in order to buy the advertising he will need.
Perhaps his biggest issue from the beginning has been illegal immigration. During the primaries, he was able to get by with generalizations. We are going to deport all illegals is very easy to say, and appealing to many, but again ugly reality raises its head.
Trying to deport 12 million illegals immediately is just impossible to do. Even if that is what is wanted, the resources to do so do not exist, nor will they. We have a system of laws in place that deal with the procedures for doing so, and although they are not being used by the current administration they would have to be followed by a Trump administration. The hope that the laws could be changed to facilitate mass deportation is not justified because Democrats would filibuster it in the Senate even if Republicans would pass it.
Trump appears to have realized that, and is modifying the policy a bit. We do not know how much change there would be, but he has said that he would follow the law. That is at least something that Democrats have failed to do for many years.
Some Trump supporter will be critical of any change, but my view is that the change is necessary and proper. Of course, many of those critics are people who would drive the bus over the cliff to stand for "principle." A good leader would not do that.
Trump is meeting today with Enrique Pena Nieto, the President of Mexico, in what is a very interesting development. That will be followed shortly with what is billed as a speech giving details about his immigration policy going forward. These things could very well make or break his candidacy.
Whatever he says and does today, Trump must face the reality that in order to get his ideas into the body politic, he cannot rely on the media for free publicity. He has to raise the money and buy ads.
So, we will see how it goes.
Having done so, he failed to recognize that once he was nominated, the strategy and tactics used during the primaries would no longer work. Once he got in the big arena, the mainstream media put him in their sights, and proceeded to parse every word he said and use them to beat him up.
And he provided them plenty of ammunition in the first weeks. It cost him a month in which the media and the Democrat they serve did their best to brand him however they wanted. In those weeks, his poll numbers fell accordingly. No surprise there.
In August, he has seemed to get things under better control, and he has stopped making the undisciplined statement and tweets that we saw during the primaries. This appears to have helped with the poll numbers.
To have a chance of winning the election, he is going to have to get the branding the media and his opponent have done to him reversed. This is difficult to do now. One cannot do it with rallies, however well attended. There he is preaching to the choir.
To reach the biggest part of the electorate, he is going to have to do it with media. During the primaries, he got free media from everyone. Now, only Fox and a few others report on him positively. The rest of the media, best described as Democrat operatives with bylines will only report him in a very negative way.
That means he will have to buy advertising, and therefore do a lot of fundraising. He has taken some pride in self funding much of his campaign so far, though he has been raising money since the nomination.
He will need to do much more in order to buy the advertising he will need.
Perhaps his biggest issue from the beginning has been illegal immigration. During the primaries, he was able to get by with generalizations. We are going to deport all illegals is very easy to say, and appealing to many, but again ugly reality raises its head.
Trying to deport 12 million illegals immediately is just impossible to do. Even if that is what is wanted, the resources to do so do not exist, nor will they. We have a system of laws in place that deal with the procedures for doing so, and although they are not being used by the current administration they would have to be followed by a Trump administration. The hope that the laws could be changed to facilitate mass deportation is not justified because Democrats would filibuster it in the Senate even if Republicans would pass it.
Trump appears to have realized that, and is modifying the policy a bit. We do not know how much change there would be, but he has said that he would follow the law. That is at least something that Democrats have failed to do for many years.
Some Trump supporter will be critical of any change, but my view is that the change is necessary and proper. Of course, many of those critics are people who would drive the bus over the cliff to stand for "principle." A good leader would not do that.
Trump is meeting today with Enrique Pena Nieto, the President of Mexico, in what is a very interesting development. That will be followed shortly with what is billed as a speech giving details about his immigration policy going forward. These things could very well make or break his candidacy.
Whatever he says and does today, Trump must face the reality that in order to get his ideas into the body politic, he cannot rely on the media for free publicity. He has to raise the money and buy ads.
So, we will see how it goes.
Thursday, August 4, 2016
The Trump Phenomenon-----The Conversationalist
In my 58 year experience in politics, I have found that one thing that is learned by practicing politicians is to be careful and precise in the language used in a campaign. If one does not, then the candidate leaves oneself open to misconstruction of what is said. And opponents will leap at the opportunity.
The prior two posts talk about how Donald Trump has broken all of the rules of politics, and yet he has emerged as the nominee of the Republican Party for the office of President of the United States. Given the circumstances, that is an amazing feat for someone who is clearly a novice at retail politics.
Once he secured the nomination, he needed to pivot a bit away from the style of campaign he had been running. During the primaries, the media really gave him a lot of exposure that other Republican candidates didn't get. The reason, of course, is that the media is almost entirely Democratic, and they viewed Trump as the easiest for their candidate to beat.
Prior to the nomination, Trump's approach to the campaign was more conversational than a prepared group of talking points. When he spoke, it was right off the top of his head. He talked more like he was having a conversation at a cocktail party (after a couple of hours of drinking). His statements were broad and imprecise. He got away with it because the press let him.
Trump's big mistake has been not realizing that the minute he got the nomination, the press would turn on him with great vigor. He should have seen it coming, but he clearly did not.
Instead of turning his attention toward Hillary and Obama, the morning after he attacked Ted Cruz. Then he gets involved with criticizing the Khans.
He has not seen yet that he must have some discipline over his mouth or let the media destroy him. They will happily do so, and are proceeding with that as I write.
Every undisciplined thing he says will be parsed, misconstrued, and misquoted by almost every media outlet in the world.
Get smart, Mr. Trump. Put a governor on your mouth. Get on message and stay there. Let petty stuff go. You are on the big stage now. Act like it, or you will make Hillary Clinton the next President of the United States.
The prior two posts talk about how Donald Trump has broken all of the rules of politics, and yet he has emerged as the nominee of the Republican Party for the office of President of the United States. Given the circumstances, that is an amazing feat for someone who is clearly a novice at retail politics.
Once he secured the nomination, he needed to pivot a bit away from the style of campaign he had been running. During the primaries, the media really gave him a lot of exposure that other Republican candidates didn't get. The reason, of course, is that the media is almost entirely Democratic, and they viewed Trump as the easiest for their candidate to beat.
Prior to the nomination, Trump's approach to the campaign was more conversational than a prepared group of talking points. When he spoke, it was right off the top of his head. He talked more like he was having a conversation at a cocktail party (after a couple of hours of drinking). His statements were broad and imprecise. He got away with it because the press let him.
Trump's big mistake has been not realizing that the minute he got the nomination, the press would turn on him with great vigor. He should have seen it coming, but he clearly did not.
Instead of turning his attention toward Hillary and Obama, the morning after he attacked Ted Cruz. Then he gets involved with criticizing the Khans.
He has not seen yet that he must have some discipline over his mouth or let the media destroy him. They will happily do so, and are proceeding with that as I write.
Every undisciplined thing he says will be parsed, misconstrued, and misquoted by almost every media outlet in the world.
Get smart, Mr. Trump. Put a governor on your mouth. Get on message and stay there. Let petty stuff go. You are on the big stage now. Act like it, or you will make Hillary Clinton the next President of the United States.
Saturday, June 18, 2016
The Trump Phenomenum----Breaking the Rules
It has been a year since Donald Trump announced for the presidency. In that year he has gone from being laughed at for thinking he could actually win to being at least the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. Amazing.
How did he do it? Certainly not in a conventional way. In fact, he broke many of the "rules" for running for office.
My first experience in politics was in 1958, when a student in college. Since then I have been engaged in politics, though I am retired now. As a candidate in eight elections and an active participant in many other campaigns, there were certain rules that one learned the follow.
The first was "money is the mother's milk of politics." In other words, money, and raising a lot of it, is usually the key to winning. Advertising is costly, and has grown even more so as the years go by. As the population has risen, advertising has become more and more the only way to reach most voters. This is why our elected officials spend so much time fund raising. Money provides them the power.
Though not completely, Trump has ignored this rule for the most part. Self funding, with some money volunteered, has financed his campaign to date. He has done very little advertising, and none in the major media. Instead, he worked the media, freely giving interviews to all comers. He has held rallies, but no ad buys.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has raised nearly $200 million, and has already reserved large ad buys for the general election.
The second rule that one learns early on in politics is "you don't pick a fight with someone that buys ink by the barrel and paper by the ton." Of course, that refers back to an earlier time before the electronic media became so dominant, but the point remains the same. Don't fight the media. They can kill you if they want.
Trump, of course, has ignored that rule as well. Every speech I have heard, he has taken on the media, even though they gave him all of the free publicity. Now that he is the presumptive nominee of the GOP, most of the media has now turned on him, and will demonize him as best they can. I suspect it will make what they did to Sarah Palin look mild in comparison.
Another rule in politics is that "you have to go along to get along." That essentially means that you don't fight the party establishment or its powerful members if you want to be successful.
Trump, of course, has done the opposite. He has turned the party establishment on their collective ears. He has apparently won the nomination having done that.
That has embittered most of them, and they continue to oppose him. That means that although he beat them in the primaries, they can still deny him the election. We will just have to wait and see.
In any event, I believe this at least marks the beginning of the end of the Republican Party as it has been. It can either morph into a broader based party with considerably less influence by its old establishment, or go the way of the Whigs.
What Trump has done is hit a real nerve with a large segment of the population. Bernie Sanders has hit much the same nerve, with just a different constituency. Americans have grown tired of the "business as usual" in Washington.
It remains to be seen if enough of them vote to change it.
How did he do it? Certainly not in a conventional way. In fact, he broke many of the "rules" for running for office.
My first experience in politics was in 1958, when a student in college. Since then I have been engaged in politics, though I am retired now. As a candidate in eight elections and an active participant in many other campaigns, there were certain rules that one learned the follow.
The first was "money is the mother's milk of politics." In other words, money, and raising a lot of it, is usually the key to winning. Advertising is costly, and has grown even more so as the years go by. As the population has risen, advertising has become more and more the only way to reach most voters. This is why our elected officials spend so much time fund raising. Money provides them the power.
Though not completely, Trump has ignored this rule for the most part. Self funding, with some money volunteered, has financed his campaign to date. He has done very little advertising, and none in the major media. Instead, he worked the media, freely giving interviews to all comers. He has held rallies, but no ad buys.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has raised nearly $200 million, and has already reserved large ad buys for the general election.
The second rule that one learns early on in politics is "you don't pick a fight with someone that buys ink by the barrel and paper by the ton." Of course, that refers back to an earlier time before the electronic media became so dominant, but the point remains the same. Don't fight the media. They can kill you if they want.
Trump, of course, has ignored that rule as well. Every speech I have heard, he has taken on the media, even though they gave him all of the free publicity. Now that he is the presumptive nominee of the GOP, most of the media has now turned on him, and will demonize him as best they can. I suspect it will make what they did to Sarah Palin look mild in comparison.
Another rule in politics is that "you have to go along to get along." That essentially means that you don't fight the party establishment or its powerful members if you want to be successful.
Trump, of course, has done the opposite. He has turned the party establishment on their collective ears. He has apparently won the nomination having done that.
That has embittered most of them, and they continue to oppose him. That means that although he beat them in the primaries, they can still deny him the election. We will just have to wait and see.
In any event, I believe this at least marks the beginning of the end of the Republican Party as it has been. It can either morph into a broader based party with considerably less influence by its old establishment, or go the way of the Whigs.
What Trump has done is hit a real nerve with a large segment of the population. Bernie Sanders has hit much the same nerve, with just a different constituency. Americans have grown tired of the "business as usual" in Washington.
It remains to be seen if enough of them vote to change it.
Thursday, March 31, 2016
The Trump Phenomenon and the GOP
A year ago when I was contemplating this year's election and the race for the GOP nomination, we were considering a host of candidates: governors, senators, and the like. The GOP field looked wide and deep. Everyone was confident that the GOP would nominate one of those traditional politicians and have a very strong chance to win the presidency.
What a difference a year makes. In June, billionaire Donald Trump burst on the scene, surprising everyone.
Within weeks, Trump had sucked the air out of many of the traditional politicians' campaign. His media savvy and celebrity left little room for other candidates who were less well funded. Soon, one by one, they began to drop out.
Few really took Mr. Trump seriously in those days. It was just an instant sort of thing and he would fade when faced with actual campaigning. Nobody really wanted to take him on. Those that did almost immediately regretted it.
Then he started winning. Not only was he winning, but he got a pretty good lead. Suddenly, the depleted band of politicians in the race took notice. So did the Republican establishment after most of their favorites bit the dust.
For the last two months there has been a concerted effort by the establishment and their PACs, the remaining candidates and their PACs, and the media to stop Trump, whatever it may take. No holds barred.
This barrage has seeming slowed the Trump bandwagon, and certainly has a chance to derail him. It will be close.
So what has caused this phenomenon? It is really easy to tell. He burst on the scene with issues that a lot of voters are very concerned about, but which got short shrift from the establishment Republicans.
Illegal immigration and the need to secure our borders.
The harm that unfettered free trade has done to our manufacturing base and its now unemployed workers.
The weakened military and as an adjunct, the total failure to provide good care for our veterans.
These issues and others resounded with a lot of voters across the political spectrum. They turned out for Trump at rallies and at the polls. The befuddled GOP just could not see what anyone could see in a brash, egotistic, non politically correct rich guy like Trump.
I think that what they saw was someone, anyone, who would stand up for the issues they were interested in and thought were vital. That is pretty simple.
Too simple for politicians who have spent their careers coddling the people who provided them money, and therefore power. Too simple for politicians who are more interested in their own welfare and that of their donors instead of the welfare and interests of the voters who elected them.
Trump is very clearly not a politician, and is woefully unprepared to make a traditional political campaign. It is almost as if he did it on a lark, and then was surprised by the outpouring of support from the grassroots voters. He has had no plan, no "ground game." The fact that he continues to do well in many jurisdictions is amazing to me.
The entire array of political forces are against him, yet he continues to win. Perhaps it is time for those forces to ask themselves why that is happening.
The Republican Party has utterly failed to deliver on promises made. The people have elected them to make changes in Washington, yet the leadership continues down the same old path of taking care of the money people and letting the rest of their voters go.
So we get Trump. It is amazing to me to see the forces arrayed against Trump, and wonder whether those same forces arrayed against Obama and the Democrats with the same aggression might have made a Trump unlikely.
What a difference a year makes. In June, billionaire Donald Trump burst on the scene, surprising everyone.
Within weeks, Trump had sucked the air out of many of the traditional politicians' campaign. His media savvy and celebrity left little room for other candidates who were less well funded. Soon, one by one, they began to drop out.
Few really took Mr. Trump seriously in those days. It was just an instant sort of thing and he would fade when faced with actual campaigning. Nobody really wanted to take him on. Those that did almost immediately regretted it.
Then he started winning. Not only was he winning, but he got a pretty good lead. Suddenly, the depleted band of politicians in the race took notice. So did the Republican establishment after most of their favorites bit the dust.
For the last two months there has been a concerted effort by the establishment and their PACs, the remaining candidates and their PACs, and the media to stop Trump, whatever it may take. No holds barred.
This barrage has seeming slowed the Trump bandwagon, and certainly has a chance to derail him. It will be close.
So what has caused this phenomenon? It is really easy to tell. He burst on the scene with issues that a lot of voters are very concerned about, but which got short shrift from the establishment Republicans.
Illegal immigration and the need to secure our borders.
The harm that unfettered free trade has done to our manufacturing base and its now unemployed workers.
The weakened military and as an adjunct, the total failure to provide good care for our veterans.
These issues and others resounded with a lot of voters across the political spectrum. They turned out for Trump at rallies and at the polls. The befuddled GOP just could not see what anyone could see in a brash, egotistic, non politically correct rich guy like Trump.
I think that what they saw was someone, anyone, who would stand up for the issues they were interested in and thought were vital. That is pretty simple.
Too simple for politicians who have spent their careers coddling the people who provided them money, and therefore power. Too simple for politicians who are more interested in their own welfare and that of their donors instead of the welfare and interests of the voters who elected them.
Trump is very clearly not a politician, and is woefully unprepared to make a traditional political campaign. It is almost as if he did it on a lark, and then was surprised by the outpouring of support from the grassroots voters. He has had no plan, no "ground game." The fact that he continues to do well in many jurisdictions is amazing to me.
The entire array of political forces are against him, yet he continues to win. Perhaps it is time for those forces to ask themselves why that is happening.
The Republican Party has utterly failed to deliver on promises made. The people have elected them to make changes in Washington, yet the leadership continues down the same old path of taking care of the money people and letting the rest of their voters go.
So we get Trump. It is amazing to me to see the forces arrayed against Trump, and wonder whether those same forces arrayed against Obama and the Democrats with the same aggression might have made a Trump unlikely.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Restarting
The grand project that I was writing just kind of petered out. It occurred to me that every decade was much the same, except it kept getting worse.. So I lost my momentum.....and my interest in the subject. My apologies.
What is now occurring in our body politic is rather extraordinary, and I hope to put down some ideas about it over the next while.
I will refer back to my blog on June 15, 2014. In that post I mentioned the problem with money in politics, and pointed out that nobody seemed to care as long as they got their "stuff."
Obviously, this year people have started to care about the two parties and their directions. A lot of Democrats want a lot more stuff, so we have Bernie Sanders doing well. On the other hand, voter on the Republican side are tired of sending people to Congress to change things and having them stymied by the old order, or co-opted by it. So we have Donald Trump.
This will provide plenty to muse about the rest of the year.
But enough for today. It's nap time.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Great Changes, Delayed
I started a series called Great Changes in Progress a while back intending to bring the discussion decade by decade to the present. Unfortunately, that has been delayed a bit. My sweet bride has been having a bout with breast cancer. Mammograms, biopsies, two surgeries, and she will start radiation treatments next week.
The cancer was ductile in situ, meaning we caught it early before it was able to spread, and the second surgery assured us as much as possible that all of the tumor has been removed. So we are very thankful to say the least. The radiation should take care that it does not recur.
As a result, the continuation of the series will have to await the time when I can get my mind back on it.
I do intend to finish it. For what it will be worth.
The cancer was ductile in situ, meaning we caught it early before it was able to spread, and the second surgery assured us as much as possible that all of the tumor has been removed. So we are very thankful to say the least. The radiation should take care that it does not recur.
As a result, the continuation of the series will have to await the time when I can get my mind back on it.
I do intend to finish it. For what it will be worth.
Friday, July 11, 2014
Great Changes in Progress; Part I
Introduction
After I posted Part I it occurred to me that this needed some kind of introduction so any reader might understand where I am going. I think great changes are coming to our country, some of which are already underway. What follows is my thoughts about these changes, starting with some history. This history is not intended to be all inclusive. It is all from my memories of the times unless I have provided a link. I am starting with the 1960s because this is the time I entered adulthood. Some of the trends had been in progress for many years before, but 1960 seems as good a point to start as any.
I do not know whether anyone is interested in my thoughts. I am doing this as an exercise for myself. But readers and comments are welcome. If you think I have made a factual error, please let me know and I will correct it if I agree.
**********************************************************************************
When I sat down to write the reflections after my 75th birthday, I first read those comments posted after my 74th, and determined that in that year, not much had changed.
Upon further reflection, I realize that that is not true. We are undergoing great changes in our country, culturally and politically. As an old timer, that is a bit unsettling.
I suppose every generation as it reaches elderhood thinks the younger generations have lost their minds, or is getting off the track, or are failing somehow. Mine is probably no different.
My thought today is that we have failed the younger generations.....our children and grandchildren. We have failed them both in our actions and our inactions.
My cohort (which is pre-baby boomer) had a great childhood. America was ascendant, everyone that wanted to work had jobs, and although the Cold War was in progress, and we had the "police action" in Korea, we had relative peace at home.
That world ended on November 23, 1963 when President Kennedy was assassinated. From that date, it seemed that the world we had known simply fell apart.
We had already gotten committed in Viet Nam, and that commitment soon escalated, even though there was no broad public support for the war. This of course led to the anti-war protests, which gradually escalated throughout the decade and beyond until the end of the war.
This was paralleled by the great civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr. and others. Although peaceful, this movement too frequently incited violence from die-hard segregationists.
Through the 1960s and well into the 1970s, these two movements led to a great deal of civil unrest throughout the country.
At the same time, our culture rapidly changed. The old social mores were thrown out, and license took their place. A revolution took place in our music, language and in sexual relationships. The Baby Boomers really fundamentally altered our society as they came of age.
With these revolutions came the beginnings of some really harmful trends. Divorce rate soared, as did the number of out of wedlock births. The concept of family began to fall apart, abetted by the welfare requirement that made a household ineligible if there was a man in the house. This latter requirement virtually destroyed the African American family and did significant harm to other groups as well.
All of the social and cultural trends remain in place today.
The economy has also seen great changes which stem from events and policies that began in the 1960s.
When Lyndon Johnson escalated the war in Viet Nam, he also began the War on Poverty. Nobody likes poverty, but LBJ determined that he was going to wage both of those very expensive wars without raising the necessary revenue to even start to pay for them. He would borrow the money.
This, of course, was very inflationary. Theretofore, the Bretton Woods Agreement had made the US dollar the world's reserve currency, used in all international trade. Other governments could freely convert the dollars they held into gold from the US Treasury.
The "guns and butter" approach by LBJ left the US with huge deficits, both fiscal and in trade, and other nations, particularly Switzerland and France, began to convert their dollars to gold. This forced Nixon, in 1971, to close the gold window, essentially ending to Bretton Woods Agreement, and detaching the dollar from gold. This made the dollar a purely fiat currency. It has also led to very large changes in the nation's economy which have been very costly.
More in Part II.
After I posted Part I it occurred to me that this needed some kind of introduction so any reader might understand where I am going. I think great changes are coming to our country, some of which are already underway. What follows is my thoughts about these changes, starting with some history. This history is not intended to be all inclusive. It is all from my memories of the times unless I have provided a link. I am starting with the 1960s because this is the time I entered adulthood. Some of the trends had been in progress for many years before, but 1960 seems as good a point to start as any.
I do not know whether anyone is interested in my thoughts. I am doing this as an exercise for myself. But readers and comments are welcome. If you think I have made a factual error, please let me know and I will correct it if I agree.
**********************************************************************************
When I sat down to write the reflections after my 75th birthday, I first read those comments posted after my 74th, and determined that in that year, not much had changed.
Upon further reflection, I realize that that is not true. We are undergoing great changes in our country, culturally and politically. As an old timer, that is a bit unsettling.
I suppose every generation as it reaches elderhood thinks the younger generations have lost their minds, or is getting off the track, or are failing somehow. Mine is probably no different.
My thought today is that we have failed the younger generations.....our children and grandchildren. We have failed them both in our actions and our inactions.
My cohort (which is pre-baby boomer) had a great childhood. America was ascendant, everyone that wanted to work had jobs, and although the Cold War was in progress, and we had the "police action" in Korea, we had relative peace at home.
That world ended on November 23, 1963 when President Kennedy was assassinated. From that date, it seemed that the world we had known simply fell apart.
We had already gotten committed in Viet Nam, and that commitment soon escalated, even though there was no broad public support for the war. This of course led to the anti-war protests, which gradually escalated throughout the decade and beyond until the end of the war.
This was paralleled by the great civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr. and others. Although peaceful, this movement too frequently incited violence from die-hard segregationists.
Through the 1960s and well into the 1970s, these two movements led to a great deal of civil unrest throughout the country.
At the same time, our culture rapidly changed. The old social mores were thrown out, and license took their place. A revolution took place in our music, language and in sexual relationships. The Baby Boomers really fundamentally altered our society as they came of age.
With these revolutions came the beginnings of some really harmful trends. Divorce rate soared, as did the number of out of wedlock births. The concept of family began to fall apart, abetted by the welfare requirement that made a household ineligible if there was a man in the house. This latter requirement virtually destroyed the African American family and did significant harm to other groups as well.
All of the social and cultural trends remain in place today.
The economy has also seen great changes which stem from events and policies that began in the 1960s.
When Lyndon Johnson escalated the war in Viet Nam, he also began the War on Poverty. Nobody likes poverty, but LBJ determined that he was going to wage both of those very expensive wars without raising the necessary revenue to even start to pay for them. He would borrow the money.
This, of course, was very inflationary. Theretofore, the Bretton Woods Agreement had made the US dollar the world's reserve currency, used in all international trade. Other governments could freely convert the dollars they held into gold from the US Treasury.
The "guns and butter" approach by LBJ left the US with huge deficits, both fiscal and in trade, and other nations, particularly Switzerland and France, began to convert their dollars to gold. This forced Nixon, in 1971, to close the gold window, essentially ending to Bretton Woods Agreement, and detaching the dollar from gold. This made the dollar a purely fiat currency. It has also led to very large changes in the nation's economy which have been very costly.
More in Part II.
Great Changes in Progress, Part II
We left Part I with the end of the gold standard. This was the pivotal point in this history as will be shown.
1972 brought the election, and Watergate. The Viet Nam War was still in progress, with the attendant demonstrations and domestic violence from the anti-war crowd. With Nixon's re-election, he was able, at least some what, to pacify Viet Nam, and our troops were pretty rapidly with drawn, leaving a viable, but needy South Vietnamese government in charge, dependent upon American aid to be viable.
At the same time, shocks in the economy were constant, a result of the abandonment of the gold standard and a de facto devaluation of the dollar. OPEC caused oil prices to skyrocket, and the result was inflation throughout the economy.
The entire remainder of the decade saw inflation and a stagnant economy. This was commonly called "stagflation."
The 1970s was not a good decade for the United States. Stagnation, inflation, scandal dominated the scene. Viet Nam was ultimately lost when Congress pulled the aid from the South Vietnamese government, which promptly fell to the North, rendering the 52,000 American live lost purposeless.
We continued to have high inflation and energy woes through the end of the decade.
One may now ask why the gold standard was so important. What that did was require the US Government to exercise some fiscal restraint or face losing our gold. Without the convertibility, the government and the Federal Reserve had the ability to spend and print money as they wished, without an immediate apparent penalty, even though there would be an invisible penalty. Politicians love that kind of money availability, for they can then spend their way to re-election after re-election. And they did.
One thing that occurred in the overall economy was the beginning of the financialization of it. Manufacturing jobs began their decline, and Wall Street began to grow in power and influence. Money was "free" more or less.
And the invisible penalty began to be paid. Inflation adjusted earnings for men age 25 and up peaked in 1972, just as the gold standard was axed and the dollar devalued. They have never recovered to that point. Only the top quintile has done better, and particularly the top 5%. And these latter groups do better only when you count the households, not individuals.
We heard a lot about the "misery index" back in those days. Voters tended to hold the politicans responsible for that, and they were certainly partly to blame, but the Federal Reserve had the power to rein in the excesses, but failed to do so.
The president being forced to appoint a tough Chairman of the Federal Reserve marked the end of the decade. Paul Volcker would, in 1980, bring inflation to it knees. And that is where we will start Part III.
1972 brought the election, and Watergate. The Viet Nam War was still in progress, with the attendant demonstrations and domestic violence from the anti-war crowd. With Nixon's re-election, he was able, at least some what, to pacify Viet Nam, and our troops were pretty rapidly with drawn, leaving a viable, but needy South Vietnamese government in charge, dependent upon American aid to be viable.
At the same time, shocks in the economy were constant, a result of the abandonment of the gold standard and a de facto devaluation of the dollar. OPEC caused oil prices to skyrocket, and the result was inflation throughout the economy.
The entire remainder of the decade saw inflation and a stagnant economy. This was commonly called "stagflation."
The 1970s was not a good decade for the United States. Stagnation, inflation, scandal dominated the scene. Viet Nam was ultimately lost when Congress pulled the aid from the South Vietnamese government, which promptly fell to the North, rendering the 52,000 American live lost purposeless.
We continued to have high inflation and energy woes through the end of the decade.
One may now ask why the gold standard was so important. What that did was require the US Government to exercise some fiscal restraint or face losing our gold. Without the convertibility, the government and the Federal Reserve had the ability to spend and print money as they wished, without an immediate apparent penalty, even though there would be an invisible penalty. Politicians love that kind of money availability, for they can then spend their way to re-election after re-election. And they did.
One thing that occurred in the overall economy was the beginning of the financialization of it. Manufacturing jobs began their decline, and Wall Street began to grow in power and influence. Money was "free" more or less.
And the invisible penalty began to be paid. Inflation adjusted earnings for men age 25 and up peaked in 1972, just as the gold standard was axed and the dollar devalued. They have never recovered to that point. Only the top quintile has done better, and particularly the top 5%. And these latter groups do better only when you count the households, not individuals.
We heard a lot about the "misery index" back in those days. Voters tended to hold the politicans responsible for that, and they were certainly partly to blame, but the Federal Reserve had the power to rein in the excesses, but failed to do so.
The president being forced to appoint a tough Chairman of the Federal Reserve marked the end of the decade. Paul Volcker would, in 1980, bring inflation to it knees. And that is where we will start Part III.
Sunday, June 15, 2014
More Reflections, After My 75th Birthday
Three quarters of a century have come and gone, and there is much to reflect upon.
There are new scandals in our government since the last birthday, and some that we knew about then appear much worse than we thought back then.
Our politics are proving even more corrupt than I feared, and it is not confined to one political party. The dominant wing of the minority party is also corrupt.
What I refer to is the dominance of money in our politics, and the fact that politicians of both parties take money, in the form of political contributions, and pass out special legislative and regulatory favors to those who contribute.
A lot of those same politicians amazingly acquire fortunes while on the government payroll.
What the politicians do is give those individuals and corporations advantages economically that are not available to everyone else.
Special tax breaks, subsidies and regulations are all enacted to give those "friends" of politicians a leg up.
One example might be the Keystone Pipeline, which lacks only Obama's approval to be constructed. This would result in a cheap, and environmentally friendlier way of delivering the Canadian oil to our Gulf Coast. But Obama will not approve the pipeline, so it is now being delivered, at a cost of $30 per barrel, by rail. This is a lot more environmentally dangerous, of course. Why the hold up? Guess who owns the railroad? None other than Berkshire-Hathaway, Warren Buffet's company. Obama's big friend.
Everyone has seen how the megabanks have cheated and defrauded their way to great riches, got themselves bailed out at taxpayers' expense in 2008, then continued down the same path to this day. Not a single major individual at any of the big banks has been prosecuted. They are too big to fail and too big to jail. Why? Check out their huge campaign contributions to Obama and major members of his party. Also check out the contributions to politicians belonging to the members of the dominant wing of the other party.
This list could go on ad infinitum.
In our politics now, money is the only name of the game for most.
And too few people even seem to care.....as long as they get their stuff.
There is no rule of law in this country now that is applicable evenly to all.
Sad.
There are new scandals in our government since the last birthday, and some that we knew about then appear much worse than we thought back then.
Our politics are proving even more corrupt than I feared, and it is not confined to one political party. The dominant wing of the minority party is also corrupt.
What I refer to is the dominance of money in our politics, and the fact that politicians of both parties take money, in the form of political contributions, and pass out special legislative and regulatory favors to those who contribute.
A lot of those same politicians amazingly acquire fortunes while on the government payroll.
What the politicians do is give those individuals and corporations advantages economically that are not available to everyone else.
Special tax breaks, subsidies and regulations are all enacted to give those "friends" of politicians a leg up.
One example might be the Keystone Pipeline, which lacks only Obama's approval to be constructed. This would result in a cheap, and environmentally friendlier way of delivering the Canadian oil to our Gulf Coast. But Obama will not approve the pipeline, so it is now being delivered, at a cost of $30 per barrel, by rail. This is a lot more environmentally dangerous, of course. Why the hold up? Guess who owns the railroad? None other than Berkshire-Hathaway, Warren Buffet's company. Obama's big friend.
Everyone has seen how the megabanks have cheated and defrauded their way to great riches, got themselves bailed out at taxpayers' expense in 2008, then continued down the same path to this day. Not a single major individual at any of the big banks has been prosecuted. They are too big to fail and too big to jail. Why? Check out their huge campaign contributions to Obama and major members of his party. Also check out the contributions to politicians belonging to the members of the dominant wing of the other party.
This list could go on ad infinitum.
In our politics now, money is the only name of the game for most.
And too few people even seem to care.....as long as they get their stuff.
There is no rule of law in this country now that is applicable evenly to all.
Sad.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
About Modern liberals
Andrew Klavan of PJ Media had an interesting post today entitled "A Pause for Life" in which he states something very close to my view of liberals, or Democrats, or Progressives, which are really all pretty much the same. I don't capitalize the term "liberal" because to do so might confuse things because a Liberal (classical) is something entirely different.
I don't really like the terms we all seem to use in a shorthand way to classify folks with different political philosophies. Terms like liberal, conservative and progressive are very difficult to use to describe the complexity of political thought. The meaning of the terms seem to be adjusted with some frequency.
I have always considered myself a classical Liberal.....Jeffersonian, with a touch of Jacksonian populism. That is a far cry from modern liberalism (or progressivism), but is also not really adequately described by the terms "conservative" or "libertarian".
I have dear friends who are liberals as well as many who describe themselves as conservatives. I often disagree with the former on policy, and occasionally with the latter.
However I might disagree however, the following quote really describes how I feel about the disagreement:
I don't really like the terms we all seem to use in a shorthand way to classify folks with different political philosophies. Terms like liberal, conservative and progressive are very difficult to use to describe the complexity of political thought. The meaning of the terms seem to be adjusted with some frequency.
I have always considered myself a classical Liberal.....Jeffersonian, with a touch of Jacksonian populism. That is a far cry from modern liberalism (or progressivism), but is also not really adequately described by the terms "conservative" or "libertarian".
I have dear friends who are liberals as well as many who describe themselves as conservatives. I often disagree with the former on policy, and occasionally with the latter.
However I might disagree however, the following quote really describes how I feel about the disagreement:
In moments when I do pause, it comes back to me that, while people like Barack Obama or Harry Reid may be small, dishonest and corrupt individuals whose actions and philosophies are antithetical to the greatest ideals of the American state, many of the people who voted for them are far better than the men they voted for. They are people of good will who make their political decisions in keeping with their reason and traditions and in accord with what they think they know. So many of their hopes for the country are the same as mine. Often it’s only the methods we disagree on.
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
LEAVING HOME
On my twelfth birthday, my family and I moved into our new home on the west side of Lubbock. We came from Austin, where I was born and completed elementary school.
The move, of course, meant that I was leaving behind all of the friends of my lifetime to that point, and coming to a town where I knew not a soul.
That was rather traumatic for a twelve year old. And so, on our second day, we had a very serious dust storm....called haboobs nowadays. Talk about trauma.
We settled in that summer and I started school at J. T. Hutchinson Junior High that fall. And started making friends, and continued to do so. Many of those original friends are life-long friends. No need for names....they know who they are, and I am afraid if I tried to start naming them I would leave one out.
Except for a brief sojourn away at college and a brief stop in Midland for a year and a half, Lubbock was my home for 62 years. I love Lubbock and the people there. I married my wife there and we had our daughter there, and raised her until she left for college. Lubbock is/was home.
Times change, however. Our daughter went away for college, and except for a brief boomerang, has returned only for very brief visits.
She now lives in the area just south of Ft. Worth, has a small farm, and a full time job. Because she had so little time to come to Lubbock and visit, and because we wanted to be able to have her in our life much more than had been possible, my wife and I decided to move closer to her, and bought a home near Granbury, Texas.
More trauma! Murphy's Law is alive and well, as we have discovered. The remodeler screwed up, and from then on it seems like everything that could break down, did. Moving to a new place to live is not for sissies, I can tell you.
Of course, we miss all of our dear friends, and that is the sad part. On the other hand, we see our daughter with great frequency, and are able to participate in her life much more than we could before. That makes the whole thing worthwhile.
Otherwise, I would feel like I did when I was twelve coming into a new town.
But enough of that. I hope to blog more....it has been almost a year since the last one. I don't know if anyone is really interested in that, but it gives an elderly guy something to do.
On my twelfth birthday, my family and I moved into our new home on the west side of Lubbock. We came from Austin, where I was born and completed elementary school.
The move, of course, meant that I was leaving behind all of the friends of my lifetime to that point, and coming to a town where I knew not a soul.
That was rather traumatic for a twelve year old. And so, on our second day, we had a very serious dust storm....called haboobs nowadays. Talk about trauma.
We settled in that summer and I started school at J. T. Hutchinson Junior High that fall. And started making friends, and continued to do so. Many of those original friends are life-long friends. No need for names....they know who they are, and I am afraid if I tried to start naming them I would leave one out.
Except for a brief sojourn away at college and a brief stop in Midland for a year and a half, Lubbock was my home for 62 years. I love Lubbock and the people there. I married my wife there and we had our daughter there, and raised her until she left for college. Lubbock is/was home.
Times change, however. Our daughter went away for college, and except for a brief boomerang, has returned only for very brief visits.
She now lives in the area just south of Ft. Worth, has a small farm, and a full time job. Because she had so little time to come to Lubbock and visit, and because we wanted to be able to have her in our life much more than had been possible, my wife and I decided to move closer to her, and bought a home near Granbury, Texas.
More trauma! Murphy's Law is alive and well, as we have discovered. The remodeler screwed up, and from then on it seems like everything that could break down, did. Moving to a new place to live is not for sissies, I can tell you.
Of course, we miss all of our dear friends, and that is the sad part. On the other hand, we see our daughter with great frequency, and are able to participate in her life much more than we could before. That makes the whole thing worthwhile.
Otherwise, I would feel like I did when I was twelve coming into a new town.
But enough of that. I hope to blog more....it has been almost a year since the last one. I don't know if anyone is really interested in that, but it gives an elderly guy something to do.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Reflections upon my 74th birthday
Nothing much important happened in June of 1939. America was still mired in a long running Depression. Much of the rest of the world was as well. Around the world, many of the great powers were marching toward war, but it was not until September that the Second World War broke out with Germany's invasion of Poland.
It wasn't until December 1941 that America was attacked by the Empire of Japan, which unleashed the mighty power of our country against the Germans and the Japanese.
My Sis and I, of course, knew nothing about this until we were older, and our early lives were not much affected by the war. The mobilization for the war did have the effect of ending the Depression, but with rationing, it was hardly noticeable.
Ice was still delivered for the ice box (no refrigerator then) and the milkman still delivered pasteurized (but not homogenized) milk to the back door.
The war was there, but we were confident we would win.
A 1944 picture in my scrapbook shows me with a military style helmet and a toy rifle. I suppose this would not be politically correct now.
The war years went fleeing by. There was some awareness of what was going on, but the only real effects it had on our lives was the rationing. I can remember the stamps for sugar, gasoline and the like. Mother would use egg yolks on her stockings because they just could not be replaced. One didn't do much driving. Tires were just impossible to replace.
Toward the end of the war we moved to a new and larger house on the cliffs above Shoal Creek. Behind our house was a cliff, and below that a virtual wilderness, right in the middle of town. All kinds of critturs inhabited the area, and the creek had fish in it. This was paradise for a growing boy.
All of the boys in the neighborhood had a Red Ryder BB gun, and we almost daily deployed to the woods to hunt whatever we could find. It turned out that about all we could sneak up on were large red wasp nests in the trees. That earned us all numerous stings from time to time.
Later, in 1951, we moved to the South Plains. Talk about culture shock! But we soon got used to it, made friends of a lifetime, and went on about our business.
The post war years were fabulous for the most part. Our economy was sound and growing. Everyone was excited about what the future would bring. Perhaps every generation thinks that its coming of age years were the best years ever, but I don't think any generation had it as well as ours.
America after the war was proud, strong and very free. As yet, the government did not control so many aspects of our lives. It was limited in scope.
For many of those years we had a fear of nuclear war, but not so much until the Russians launched Sputnik in 1957. Suddenly, they had the means to deliver a nuke to our shores.
The "missile gap" among other things, led to the election of John F. Kennedy in 1961, with Lyndon B. Johnson as his running mate. JFK was the first of a "new generation" to take office, and created a great deal of excitement. Although he made some errors, he also had some successes. His commitment to land a man on the moon and return within a decade was symbolic of the confidence Americans had in their country.
As Kennedy took office, a new generation of youth were beginning to come of age: the Baby Boomers. They were to change America in drastic ways.
With the assassination of John Kennedy in 1963, the whole mood of the nation turned darker. Instead of having pride in our country, the Boomers had little but criticism. Over the next decade and a half, they changed our politics greatly. Everything became about race, gender and whatever other category that our people could be divided into. Instead of Americans, we became everything else: African-Americans, Mexican Americans, Anglo-Americans, American Indians; the poor; gays, lesbians, and so on.
The onset of affirmative action together with LBJ's War on Poverty divided the country into those who depended upon big government for favors, and those who just wanted the government to leave them alone. Too many have become dependent upon the government for their well being, and vote accordingly.
There is no argument that the poor should not be cared for, or that racial segregation was not terrible and needed to be ended. Racial discrimination just cannot be tolerated. Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream that should apply to everyone:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Perhaps everyone should be judged, not by their classification, but by their character.
Big business has always depended upon government favors. But what we now seem to have is an oligarchy that uses the various groups dependent upon the government to stay in control of the government. At least one can conclude that from a study of campaign contributions to political candidates of both parties. This is fine for the people that clip coupons for a living, for the big bankers, and for those who are entitled to various government benefits of one kind or another. But it is terrible for our great middle class and the small businesses that class depends upon.
Just take a look at how the huge financial institutions perpetrated some of the greatest frauds in history that led to the financial crash of 2007-08, and to the depression that has followed it, but have totally escaped prosecution. Then take a look at the political donations to our president for 2008. They were led by the perps, and it bought them the attorney general and his chief deputy for criminal prosecutions, both of whom worked for a big law firm that represented most of the institutions. No wonder there have been no prosecutions.
There are plenty of laws. Since 1963, thousands of arcane things have been criminalized. There are thousands of pages of criminal statutes and tens of thousands of pages of federal regulations. Every citizen is presumed to know each and every one of them, however vague or arcane. Federal prosecutors have the sole discretion to bring charges, so the result is that if you make an enemy in the government, they can probably find some statute or regulation you may have violated, then prosecute you for it.
This gives the government almost unlimited power, far in excess of the powers it should have. If we have a Nixon, or as we have seen, an Obama, this creates a great danger to America.
If you want to know what happened to our country, just look carefully at the years between 1963 and 1980. The radicals that created so much change during those years now inhabit the Congress, the Administration, the government agencies, and our schools and colleges. We have instance now where a convicted terrorist from that era now holds a responsible job at Columbia University, and the leader of the terror group is ensconced at the University of Chicago and is a close friend of the president.
My generation failed to stop this. I am not sure we could have. Our politics is controlled by the big money not by ideals or principles.
Who is going to step up? Hopefully, the two generations that followed the Boomers will come awake and return our government to its proper course.
Certainly, we cannot return to the idyllic days of my youth. Too much has happened for that. But we can restore our country to constitutionally limited government like we used to have.
It wasn't until December 1941 that America was attacked by the Empire of Japan, which unleashed the mighty power of our country against the Germans and the Japanese.
My Sis and I, of course, knew nothing about this until we were older, and our early lives were not much affected by the war. The mobilization for the war did have the effect of ending the Depression, but with rationing, it was hardly noticeable.
Ice was still delivered for the ice box (no refrigerator then) and the milkman still delivered pasteurized (but not homogenized) milk to the back door.
The war was there, but we were confident we would win.
A 1944 picture in my scrapbook shows me with a military style helmet and a toy rifle. I suppose this would not be politically correct now.
The war years went fleeing by. There was some awareness of what was going on, but the only real effects it had on our lives was the rationing. I can remember the stamps for sugar, gasoline and the like. Mother would use egg yolks on her stockings because they just could not be replaced. One didn't do much driving. Tires were just impossible to replace.
Toward the end of the war we moved to a new and larger house on the cliffs above Shoal Creek. Behind our house was a cliff, and below that a virtual wilderness, right in the middle of town. All kinds of critturs inhabited the area, and the creek had fish in it. This was paradise for a growing boy.
All of the boys in the neighborhood had a Red Ryder BB gun, and we almost daily deployed to the woods to hunt whatever we could find. It turned out that about all we could sneak up on were large red wasp nests in the trees. That earned us all numerous stings from time to time.
Later, in 1951, we moved to the South Plains. Talk about culture shock! But we soon got used to it, made friends of a lifetime, and went on about our business.
The post war years were fabulous for the most part. Our economy was sound and growing. Everyone was excited about what the future would bring. Perhaps every generation thinks that its coming of age years were the best years ever, but I don't think any generation had it as well as ours.
America after the war was proud, strong and very free. As yet, the government did not control so many aspects of our lives. It was limited in scope.
For many of those years we had a fear of nuclear war, but not so much until the Russians launched Sputnik in 1957. Suddenly, they had the means to deliver a nuke to our shores.
The "missile gap" among other things, led to the election of John F. Kennedy in 1961, with Lyndon B. Johnson as his running mate. JFK was the first of a "new generation" to take office, and created a great deal of excitement. Although he made some errors, he also had some successes. His commitment to land a man on the moon and return within a decade was symbolic of the confidence Americans had in their country.
As Kennedy took office, a new generation of youth were beginning to come of age: the Baby Boomers. They were to change America in drastic ways.
With the assassination of John Kennedy in 1963, the whole mood of the nation turned darker. Instead of having pride in our country, the Boomers had little but criticism. Over the next decade and a half, they changed our politics greatly. Everything became about race, gender and whatever other category that our people could be divided into. Instead of Americans, we became everything else: African-Americans, Mexican Americans, Anglo-Americans, American Indians; the poor; gays, lesbians, and so on.
The onset of affirmative action together with LBJ's War on Poverty divided the country into those who depended upon big government for favors, and those who just wanted the government to leave them alone. Too many have become dependent upon the government for their well being, and vote accordingly.
There is no argument that the poor should not be cared for, or that racial segregation was not terrible and needed to be ended. Racial discrimination just cannot be tolerated. Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream that should apply to everyone:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Perhaps everyone should be judged, not by their classification, but by their character.
Big business has always depended upon government favors. But what we now seem to have is an oligarchy that uses the various groups dependent upon the government to stay in control of the government. At least one can conclude that from a study of campaign contributions to political candidates of both parties. This is fine for the people that clip coupons for a living, for the big bankers, and for those who are entitled to various government benefits of one kind or another. But it is terrible for our great middle class and the small businesses that class depends upon.
Just take a look at how the huge financial institutions perpetrated some of the greatest frauds in history that led to the financial crash of 2007-08, and to the depression that has followed it, but have totally escaped prosecution. Then take a look at the political donations to our president for 2008. They were led by the perps, and it bought them the attorney general and his chief deputy for criminal prosecutions, both of whom worked for a big law firm that represented most of the institutions. No wonder there have been no prosecutions.
There are plenty of laws. Since 1963, thousands of arcane things have been criminalized. There are thousands of pages of criminal statutes and tens of thousands of pages of federal regulations. Every citizen is presumed to know each and every one of them, however vague or arcane. Federal prosecutors have the sole discretion to bring charges, so the result is that if you make an enemy in the government, they can probably find some statute or regulation you may have violated, then prosecute you for it.
This gives the government almost unlimited power, far in excess of the powers it should have. If we have a Nixon, or as we have seen, an Obama, this creates a great danger to America.
If you want to know what happened to our country, just look carefully at the years between 1963 and 1980. The radicals that created so much change during those years now inhabit the Congress, the Administration, the government agencies, and our schools and colleges. We have instance now where a convicted terrorist from that era now holds a responsible job at Columbia University, and the leader of the terror group is ensconced at the University of Chicago and is a close friend of the president.
My generation failed to stop this. I am not sure we could have. Our politics is controlled by the big money not by ideals or principles.
Who is going to step up? Hopefully, the two generations that followed the Boomers will come awake and return our government to its proper course.
Certainly, we cannot return to the idyllic days of my youth. Too much has happened for that. But we can restore our country to constitutionally limited government like we used to have.
Monday, June 10, 2013
A bit of perspective
This month I was going to post a bit about my thoughts upon turning 74, but other things have arisen that needs to be addressed first.
We have all been reading about the "scandals" in the current Obama Administration. The last one, that of the NSA snooping, needs to be put into some perspective.
When the program was started in 2007, there was no really good software available to get a lot of detail from the program. Since then, software that can do amazing things has been developed. This is a good program, and could help combat terrorism if used properly.
Obama wants us to trust the government on this, and, IF we could, I would have no problem with it, as long as it was not used for other than combatting terrorism.
This is where the other "scandals" come into play.
From the beginning, the Obama Administration has just ignored laws it didn't like. They do not feel like they are required to follow the immigration laws, for instance.
The Justice Department is rife with favoritism. They will not prosecute lawbreakers like those responsible for the 2008 financial train wreck, caused almost entirely by fraudulent behaviors by banks and bankers. There are many other such issues. The entire department has been unduly politicized.
The Administration lied and lied over the Benghazi attack.
There is a whole litany of acts and omissions by that bunch which render them completely untrustworthy.
Congress needs to vigorously inquire into this NSA program to make certain the law is and will continued to be used to protect our citizens, and not snoop on them for political purposes. Protections need to be put into place to make them accountable to the people. Absent that, it needs to be stopped.
We have all been reading about the "scandals" in the current Obama Administration. The last one, that of the NSA snooping, needs to be put into some perspective.
When the program was started in 2007, there was no really good software available to get a lot of detail from the program. Since then, software that can do amazing things has been developed. This is a good program, and could help combat terrorism if used properly.
Obama wants us to trust the government on this, and, IF we could, I would have no problem with it, as long as it was not used for other than combatting terrorism.
This is where the other "scandals" come into play.
From the beginning, the Obama Administration has just ignored laws it didn't like. They do not feel like they are required to follow the immigration laws, for instance.
The Justice Department is rife with favoritism. They will not prosecute lawbreakers like those responsible for the 2008 financial train wreck, caused almost entirely by fraudulent behaviors by banks and bankers. There are many other such issues. The entire department has been unduly politicized.
The Administration lied and lied over the Benghazi attack.
There is a whole litany of acts and omissions by that bunch which render them completely untrustworthy.
Congress needs to vigorously inquire into this NSA program to make certain the law is and will continued to be used to protect our citizens, and not snoop on them for political purposes. Protections need to be put into place to make them accountable to the people. Absent that, it needs to be stopped.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Making Believe; Or, What if You Suddenly Became President?
That interesting thought occurred to me this weekend as I sat on my back patio watching my English Setter make the rounds in the yard. What if an ordinary person suddenly became Presdident of the United States? What would ordinary folks want to do policy wise if they had the power?
So I thought I would ask on this blog: what policies would you pursue if you had the power? So, post yours here in the comments if you wish. I will share this on FB, so one can post in the comments there as well. Please be serious; if there is a demand for a similar, unserious, exercise, I will do a blog on that later.
In that spirit, I will post my first thoughts on policies to pursue below:
1. The first thing I would do is propose to Congress a Constitutional Amendment requiring that the Federal budget be balanced except in times of national emergency declared by the President, and approved by two thirds of the House and Senate. Such an amendment would need to include:
a. A time limit to bring the budget into balance upon passage of no more than 5 years;
b. A requirement that the budget and accounting therefore be according to generally accepted accounting priciples required of taxpaying businesses;
c. A requiremnt that entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare be budgeted separately from the general budget, and require that they be maintained in a solvent situation according to actuarial standards required of the private sector;
d. Some reasonable method of enforcement.....I would deprive any Congressman or Senator who voted for an unbalanced budget of their right to hold Federal office, and cancel their retirements and benefits (LOL).
Getting this through the absolutely corrupt Congress would be a problem, I recognize.
2. I would propose legislation, including a Constitutional Amendment if necessary, to require full disclosure on a publicly available website within 3 days of all political contributions from whatever source and in any amount. Such legislation should also include:
a. A requirement that any organization that substantially engages in efforts to influence elections or legislation be included. That would include the large organizations that are tax exempt and free from any reporting now.
b. The legislation should also require prompt disclosure by elected officials and staff of contacts by lobbyists or campaign donors or their agents made with intent to affect legislation or actions by the executive.
c. Presence of lobbyists when legislation is being marked up, or rulings of the executive are being written, should be prohibited. Let the dang folks we elected write it all up. Keep the big money out of it.
Repeat comment about corruption in Congress (which also extends to the executive branch as well. Please note that aside from prohibiting lobbyists from writing their own bills or rulings as they do now, this only requires disclosure of there the money comes from.
3. I would order, or request legislation to require that before any Federal rule or regulation is adopted, that a thorough cost/benefit study be done, and that nothing can be adopted unless the benefits outweigh the costs.
4. Abolish, or drastically reorganze the following federal departments and agencies:
a. The Department of Homeland Security. This has become an abomination. The few useful functions that it serves can be put under other departments;
b. The Department of Energy. This organization hinders energy development, and has never been useful for much of anything. What it does that needs to be done can be done with a much smaller agency;
c. The Department of Education. This department has done irreparable harm to education. Matters of education, including the financing thereof should be left to the states and local governments. Most of them are hooked on the federal money, so that should be made to the states in block grants without strings, and phased out over 7 to 10 years.
d. The Federal Reserve should be abolished. It is a privately owned organization that was given total power over our money in 1913. It has used that power solely for the benefit of its owners. Functions of the Federal Reserve, including the Federal Open Market Committee should be moved to the Treasury, with strict prohibitions against the "revolving door" we see now between the big banks, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. It is time to bring control over our money back to the people and to their elected government.
Repeat comment about corruption. It is endless.
5. It has to go somewhere: bring the boys and girls (ground troops) home from overseas. Now. We should only have ground troops out of the country where they are required by treaty obligations, or are necessary to protect our diplomatic missions or existing air and naval bases. We need a strong Navy to protect our maritime interests and a strong Air Force to protect the homeland. We also need a good and mobile Army just in case, but they should not be deployed constantly like they have been.
6. The Drug War. This has to be discussed. I have been in the law business for 49 years. Have been a judge and before that a prosecutor. The one conclusion that I have come to is that what we are doing about drugs does not work. I have come to believe that it is counter productive is some ways. I would propose that a thorough study be done of very aspect of the drug situation, from enforcement to treatment. A thorough cost/benefit analysis has to be done. Drugs are a scourge upon our society, but so is the "war." Our policies on drugs, like before with alcohol, have created massive criminal organizations that are beyond our control. We have to reconsider what we are doing. If I had an answer, I would post it, but I do not. As a partial solution we might consider with marijuana what we finally, and sensibly, did with alcohol....legalize it, regulate its sale, tax the hell out of it, and prohibit driving and similar activities while using it. This is a terribly difficult area to deal with but we must find some answers somehow. We will need a lot of luck.
OK. I am going to stop. Criticism and comments are welcome. Feel free to disagree....I may end up disagreeing with myself. Just no personal attacks. That will not be tolerated.
So I thought I would ask on this blog: what policies would you pursue if you had the power? So, post yours here in the comments if you wish. I will share this on FB, so one can post in the comments there as well. Please be serious; if there is a demand for a similar, unserious, exercise, I will do a blog on that later.
In that spirit, I will post my first thoughts on policies to pursue below:
1. The first thing I would do is propose to Congress a Constitutional Amendment requiring that the Federal budget be balanced except in times of national emergency declared by the President, and approved by two thirds of the House and Senate. Such an amendment would need to include:
a. A time limit to bring the budget into balance upon passage of no more than 5 years;
b. A requirement that the budget and accounting therefore be according to generally accepted accounting priciples required of taxpaying businesses;
c. A requiremnt that entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare be budgeted separately from the general budget, and require that they be maintained in a solvent situation according to actuarial standards required of the private sector;
d. Some reasonable method of enforcement.....I would deprive any Congressman or Senator who voted for an unbalanced budget of their right to hold Federal office, and cancel their retirements and benefits (LOL).
Getting this through the absolutely corrupt Congress would be a problem, I recognize.
2. I would propose legislation, including a Constitutional Amendment if necessary, to require full disclosure on a publicly available website within 3 days of all political contributions from whatever source and in any amount. Such legislation should also include:
a. A requirement that any organization that substantially engages in efforts to influence elections or legislation be included. That would include the large organizations that are tax exempt and free from any reporting now.
b. The legislation should also require prompt disclosure by elected officials and staff of contacts by lobbyists or campaign donors or their agents made with intent to affect legislation or actions by the executive.
c. Presence of lobbyists when legislation is being marked up, or rulings of the executive are being written, should be prohibited. Let the dang folks we elected write it all up. Keep the big money out of it.
Repeat comment about corruption in Congress (which also extends to the executive branch as well. Please note that aside from prohibiting lobbyists from writing their own bills or rulings as they do now, this only requires disclosure of there the money comes from.
3. I would order, or request legislation to require that before any Federal rule or regulation is adopted, that a thorough cost/benefit study be done, and that nothing can be adopted unless the benefits outweigh the costs.
4. Abolish, or drastically reorganze the following federal departments and agencies:
a. The Department of Homeland Security. This has become an abomination. The few useful functions that it serves can be put under other departments;
b. The Department of Energy. This organization hinders energy development, and has never been useful for much of anything. What it does that needs to be done can be done with a much smaller agency;
c. The Department of Education. This department has done irreparable harm to education. Matters of education, including the financing thereof should be left to the states and local governments. Most of them are hooked on the federal money, so that should be made to the states in block grants without strings, and phased out over 7 to 10 years.
d. The Federal Reserve should be abolished. It is a privately owned organization that was given total power over our money in 1913. It has used that power solely for the benefit of its owners. Functions of the Federal Reserve, including the Federal Open Market Committee should be moved to the Treasury, with strict prohibitions against the "revolving door" we see now between the big banks, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. It is time to bring control over our money back to the people and to their elected government.
Repeat comment about corruption. It is endless.
5. It has to go somewhere: bring the boys and girls (ground troops) home from overseas. Now. We should only have ground troops out of the country where they are required by treaty obligations, or are necessary to protect our diplomatic missions or existing air and naval bases. We need a strong Navy to protect our maritime interests and a strong Air Force to protect the homeland. We also need a good and mobile Army just in case, but they should not be deployed constantly like they have been.
6. The Drug War. This has to be discussed. I have been in the law business for 49 years. Have been a judge and before that a prosecutor. The one conclusion that I have come to is that what we are doing about drugs does not work. I have come to believe that it is counter productive is some ways. I would propose that a thorough study be done of very aspect of the drug situation, from enforcement to treatment. A thorough cost/benefit analysis has to be done. Drugs are a scourge upon our society, but so is the "war." Our policies on drugs, like before with alcohol, have created massive criminal organizations that are beyond our control. We have to reconsider what we are doing. If I had an answer, I would post it, but I do not. As a partial solution we might consider with marijuana what we finally, and sensibly, did with alcohol....legalize it, regulate its sale, tax the hell out of it, and prohibit driving and similar activities while using it. This is a terribly difficult area to deal with but we must find some answers somehow. We will need a lot of luck.
OK. I am going to stop. Criticism and comments are welcome. Feel free to disagree....I may end up disagreeing with myself. Just no personal attacks. That will not be tolerated.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Friday, January 25, 2013
The DC Circuit opinion.
Very interesting. If this holds up, and I believe it will, this will end up putting even bigger limitations on "recess" appoints than ever.
Amazing that these days a Federal Court of Appeals will uphold the plain meaning of the language in the Constitution.
Will Obama appeal to the Supremes, or will he not take the chance?
***************************
Rand Paul to John Kerry: If it was wrong to bomb Cambodia without Congress’s approval, why is bombing Libya without approval okay?
From over at Hot Air. Kerry and the leftist Democrats are the biggest hypocrites in history, with a lot of lying as well.
Kerry thought bombing Cambodia to assist our own troops was somehow criminal without Congress' approval, but somehow it is OK to bomb Libya without any approval. And just because the President wanted to assist people who turn out to be our enemies.
Hope and Change.
Tar and feathers!
*******************************
I see where West Va. Democrat Manchin can go along with stronger background checks on gun buyers.
You know, that sounds good, but who is going to do the background checks on those that steal guns? LOL
The current background checks would do the job pretty well if the governments involved would keep up the databases. Unfortunately, they will just throw up more red tape, but won't get the crazies in the databases. Silly.
But this is more about control that it is about guns, anyway. Am seriously considering re-joining the NRA just to thumb my nose at the controllers.
Doubt if I will be able to vote are support any politician that votes to "strengthen" gun control without addressing getting the crazies in the databases and taking steps to limit their capability to get possession of the guns. Democrats will probably oppose that simply because so many of them would make the list. LOL
***************************
Aussies hit black gold. It could be the equal of Saudi Arabia. You can bet they will exploit it. Just as you can bet that the Luddites (Democrats) here in the US will try to impede our development of our own resources.
These new processes are going to revolutionize the energy business, and all of the industries that need abundant energy.
That means a lot more jobs and a lot more commerce, while at the same time, it makes the Middle East more irrelevant.
That will mean that Democrats will fight it, just like they are fighting the Keystone Pipeline.
What in the world are those people thinking?
The DC Circuit opinion.
Very interesting. If this holds up, and I believe it will, this will end up putting even bigger limitations on "recess" appoints than ever.
Amazing that these days a Federal Court of Appeals will uphold the plain meaning of the language in the Constitution.
Will Obama appeal to the Supremes, or will he not take the chance?
***************************
Rand Paul to John Kerry: If it was wrong to bomb Cambodia without Congress’s approval, why is bombing Libya without approval okay?
From over at Hot Air. Kerry and the leftist Democrats are the biggest hypocrites in history, with a lot of lying as well.
Kerry thought bombing Cambodia to assist our own troops was somehow criminal without Congress' approval, but somehow it is OK to bomb Libya without any approval. And just because the President wanted to assist people who turn out to be our enemies.
Hope and Change.
Tar and feathers!
*******************************
I see where West Va. Democrat Manchin can go along with stronger background checks on gun buyers.
You know, that sounds good, but who is going to do the background checks on those that steal guns? LOL
The current background checks would do the job pretty well if the governments involved would keep up the databases. Unfortunately, they will just throw up more red tape, but won't get the crazies in the databases. Silly.
But this is more about control that it is about guns, anyway. Am seriously considering re-joining the NRA just to thumb my nose at the controllers.
Doubt if I will be able to vote are support any politician that votes to "strengthen" gun control without addressing getting the crazies in the databases and taking steps to limit their capability to get possession of the guns. Democrats will probably oppose that simply because so many of them would make the list. LOL
***************************
Aussies hit black gold. It could be the equal of Saudi Arabia. You can bet they will exploit it. Just as you can bet that the Luddites (Democrats) here in the US will try to impede our development of our own resources.
These new processes are going to revolutionize the energy business, and all of the industries that need abundant energy.
That means a lot more jobs and a lot more commerce, while at the same time, it makes the Middle East more irrelevant.
That will mean that Democrats will fight it, just like they are fighting the Keystone Pipeline.
What in the world are those people thinking?
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Romney Care bills finally come due. This is one of the reasons I had to hold my nose real hard when I voted for Romney. he is an establishment Republican, and like them, he is more of a Democrat than like a large part of the Republican base. It is the power of the establishment that keeps giving us the wimpy Presidential nominees. Time to say "no more."
Poor old Democrat Deval Patrick is now meeting the obligations that Obama will have to meet in a couple of years when Obamacare finally hits at full strength.
"The health reform that Mitt Romney passed in 2006 in Massachusetts presaged President Obama's, and its results are showing what we can expect nationwide. The latest warning comes in a huge new tax increase proposed by Governor Deval Patrick."
*******************
Chivalry is dead. The women's libbers have now reached the pinnacle of equality. Now they have an equal right to die in combat.
I am wondering how they are going to carry the 60-80 pounds of comabat gear. Will the guys in the unit have to help them?
This absurd bit of political correctness is just going to get some people killed.
But it is an insight into how Democrats think only politically, and not practically.
Fools.
Update. NRO chimes in on the issue:
"What’s wrong with current physical requirement standards for infantry soliders? Is this official implying that more woman-friendly standards will have to be developed? The male/female upper-body strength difference is by now tediously well documented. There is no question that the average woman (and yes the average enlistee is often quite average indeed) especially in our overweight times, will have difficulty, say, carrying a wounded comrade to safety and walking for days dressed in full “battle rattle.” Study after study shows that women get injured at at least twice the rate of men — and this is in a military where women are not doing the most physically demanding jobs."
This just gets more absurd as time goes by. People will die because of this foolishness. Politial correctness has run amok. And it would not be politically correct for me to say what I really think, so I won't.
*****************
Boby Jindal is taking on the Republican establishment. A job that needs doing.
"“By obsessing with zeroes on the budget spreadsheet, we send a not-so-subtle signal that the focus of our country is on the phony economy of Washington, instead of the real economy out here in Charlotte, and Shreveport (La.), and Cheyenne (Wyo.),” Jindal is set to say at one point in the speech. At another, he will argue that “Washington has spent a generation trying to bribe our citizens and extort our states,” adding: “As Republicans, it’s time to quit arguing around the edges of that corrupt system.”
He is very much on the right track. The whole Washington setup is corrupt and getting worse by the day. By trying to be Washington insiders, the Republicans have become as corrupt as the rest of it.
Our country is not Washington, D.C., nor is it the liberal northeastern corridor. It is all of us; but in Washington, only those interests are represented.
It is time for the people to take back their country from the corrupt politicians. If the Republicans won't do it, then we need to have another party.
More from Jindal:
“Our objective is to grow the private sector. We need to focus our efforts on ideas to grow the American economy, not the government economy. If you take nothing else away from what I say today, please understand this – We must not become the party of austerity. We must become the party of growth.”
This is what Romney and the establishmant Republicans forget. It is not about Washington, it is about the rest of us.
********************
Slow day today. Other chores to do, and it is an absolutely beautiful day outside.
I did notice that Harry Reid's filibuster reform was agreed to by the Republicans, but accomplishes nothing except to save the rears of some democratic senators who now won't have to vote on gun control.
I think I would have preferred to make them actually vote on it. But they are safe now.
The story is here on HuffPo. They, of course, don't mention the gun control issue. And they quite naturally do not like it.
Romney Care bills finally come due. This is one of the reasons I had to hold my nose real hard when I voted for Romney. he is an establishment Republican, and like them, he is more of a Democrat than like a large part of the Republican base. It is the power of the establishment that keeps giving us the wimpy Presidential nominees. Time to say "no more."
Poor old Democrat Deval Patrick is now meeting the obligations that Obama will have to meet in a couple of years when Obamacare finally hits at full strength.
"The health reform that Mitt Romney passed in 2006 in Massachusetts presaged President Obama's, and its results are showing what we can expect nationwide. The latest warning comes in a huge new tax increase proposed by Governor Deval Patrick."
*******************
Chivalry is dead. The women's libbers have now reached the pinnacle of equality. Now they have an equal right to die in combat.
I am wondering how they are going to carry the 60-80 pounds of comabat gear. Will the guys in the unit have to help them?
This absurd bit of political correctness is just going to get some people killed.
But it is an insight into how Democrats think only politically, and not practically.
Fools.
Update. NRO chimes in on the issue:
"What’s wrong with current physical requirement standards for infantry soliders? Is this official implying that more woman-friendly standards will have to be developed? The male/female upper-body strength difference is by now tediously well documented. There is no question that the average woman (and yes the average enlistee is often quite average indeed) especially in our overweight times, will have difficulty, say, carrying a wounded comrade to safety and walking for days dressed in full “battle rattle.” Study after study shows that women get injured at at least twice the rate of men — and this is in a military where women are not doing the most physically demanding jobs."
This just gets more absurd as time goes by. People will die because of this foolishness. Politial correctness has run amok. And it would not be politically correct for me to say what I really think, so I won't.
*****************
Boby Jindal is taking on the Republican establishment. A job that needs doing.
"“By obsessing with zeroes on the budget spreadsheet, we send a not-so-subtle signal that the focus of our country is on the phony economy of Washington, instead of the real economy out here in Charlotte, and Shreveport (La.), and Cheyenne (Wyo.),” Jindal is set to say at one point in the speech. At another, he will argue that “Washington has spent a generation trying to bribe our citizens and extort our states,” adding: “As Republicans, it’s time to quit arguing around the edges of that corrupt system.”
He is very much on the right track. The whole Washington setup is corrupt and getting worse by the day. By trying to be Washington insiders, the Republicans have become as corrupt as the rest of it.
Our country is not Washington, D.C., nor is it the liberal northeastern corridor. It is all of us; but in Washington, only those interests are represented.
It is time for the people to take back their country from the corrupt politicians. If the Republicans won't do it, then we need to have another party.
More from Jindal:
“Our objective is to grow the private sector. We need to focus our efforts on ideas to grow the American economy, not the government economy. If you take nothing else away from what I say today, please understand this – We must not become the party of austerity. We must become the party of growth.”
This is what Romney and the establishmant Republicans forget. It is not about Washington, it is about the rest of us.
********************
Slow day today. Other chores to do, and it is an absolutely beautiful day outside.
I did notice that Harry Reid's filibuster reform was agreed to by the Republicans, but accomplishes nothing except to save the rears of some democratic senators who now won't have to vote on gun control.
I think I would have preferred to make them actually vote on it. But they are safe now.
The story is here on HuffPo. They, of course, don't mention the gun control issue. And they quite naturally do not like it.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
The head of Germany's Bundesbank on monetary policy in the current situation:
Jens Weidmann: 'wrong and dangerous' to rely on ECB to resolve crisis
Central banks can only buy time:
""Monetary policy can only buy more time. It is like a painkiller which will not erase the reasons but can cause risks and side effects," he said. "
This is really simple, and most knowledgeable observers already knew this.
What are they buying time for? Do they even know, or are they just kicking the can down the road as long as they can until the whole world financial system blows up?
Whatever the central banks the world over intend to be doing, the beneficiaries are the very large financial institutions around the world. And it is all being done at the ultimate epense of the middle clsses worldwide.
******************************
Gold and guns.
A friend with whom I have done some business, Art Massey of Blanchard and Co. sent me this:
*******************
Quote of the Day:
"I know some of you may have a distressingly partisan view of the festivities in Washington. You may not be on board with all the jubilation. So look at it this way: Today marks the midpoint of the Obama presidency. In other words, this is hump day. It's all downhill from here!"
-Mark Steyn
The end of the Obama Administration is now getting closer every day. Well, that's a relief.
*****************
Will Britain exit the European Union?
Prime Minister Cameron has promised a referendum, but in 2017. Why the wait? I suspect that he is afraid the the voters would really vote to do so. Of course, what the voters may want is not what the politicians want. They alwys "know better" than mere people about things like that.
Reuters has an article on this. I doubt there will ever be a referendum.
Big business and big government........cronies forever. To the detriment of all of the rest of us.
Tim Carney of the Examiner has a short piece on this.
"Big Business can afford the added costs of regulations. It can hire up the former senators as its lobbyists to tweak the rules. It can hire the former Food & Drug Administration Commissioners as its lawyers to work around the rules. And it will always get a disproportionate amount of the subsidies."
Who gets hurt? You got it. The little guys.
"Corporate-federal collusion was embodied in ObamaCare, largely written by drugmakers, vociferously supported by hospitals, and driving business to private insurers. Obama’s stimulus was a huge gift to corporate America, with its plethora of subsidies. In the fiscal cliff deal, Obama insisted on a raft of corporate tax extenders. Obama’s “New Economic Patriotism” is a dress for corporate welfare to wear to the prom. Obama supported TARP. He bailed out GM. He signed cash for clunkers. He has set new records in export subsidies. I could fill a book with this sort of thing."
Both political parties have sold out the middle class.
**************************
How optimistic are Americans? Well, Gallup has a poll out that says not very.
"Gallup: American Optimism Hits Lowest Point Since Carter Administration"
When you look at the clowns that are running the country, it is easy to see why. We have the worst president since Jimmy Carter, and the Congress could hardly get any worse than it is now.
A thorough application of tar and feathers is badly needed in Washington.
The head of Germany's Bundesbank on monetary policy in the current situation:
Jens Weidmann: 'wrong and dangerous' to rely on ECB to resolve crisis
Central banks can only buy time:
""Monetary policy can only buy more time. It is like a painkiller which will not erase the reasons but can cause risks and side effects," he said. "
This is really simple, and most knowledgeable observers already knew this.
What are they buying time for? Do they even know, or are they just kicking the can down the road as long as they can until the whole world financial system blows up?
Whatever the central banks the world over intend to be doing, the beneficiaries are the very large financial institutions around the world. And it is all being done at the ultimate epense of the middle clsses worldwide.
******************************
Gold and guns.
A friend with whom I have done some business, Art Massey of Blanchard and Co. sent me this:
"The biggest impact the Bundesbank's (Germany's Central Bank) actions have, though, according to Brebner and Xiao (Deutsche Bank commodity analysts Daniel Brebner and Xiao Fu ), is that they lend further credibility to the shiny yellow metal.
The analysts conclude, "we view the repatriation and upgrade of old gold by the Western World’s central banks as a further positive in gold’s evolution as a legitimate form of money.""
This would be my view as well. It appears than the central banks are remonitizing gold without actually saying that they are.
After the CBs have their ducks in a row, and have their gold in their vaults, what will happen next? We all know that the huge debts in the world cannot be repaid, but they are all denominated in fiat currencies. Would the world governments pull an FDR and confiscate all privately held gold, then devalue the existing fiat currencies, and issue new money?
If they decide they can screw the majority of the people that way, they may well do it.
A question was asked in a poll the other day if the government tried to confiscate guns, would you give up yours? 65% said no.
Ask the same question about gold. Would you give up your gold (if you have any) so the government could screw you out of the value of it? People did under FDR.....and got screwed.
*******************
Quote of the Day:
"I know some of you may have a distressingly partisan view of the festivities in Washington. You may not be on board with all the jubilation. So look at it this way: Today marks the midpoint of the Obama presidency. In other words, this is hump day. It's all downhill from here!"
-Mark Steyn
The end of the Obama Administration is now getting closer every day. Well, that's a relief.
*****************
Will Britain exit the European Union?
Prime Minister Cameron has promised a referendum, but in 2017. Why the wait? I suspect that he is afraid the the voters would really vote to do so. Of course, what the voters may want is not what the politicians want. They alwys "know better" than mere people about things like that.
Reuters has an article on this. I doubt there will ever be a referendum.
Big business and big government........cronies forever. To the detriment of all of the rest of us.
Tim Carney of the Examiner has a short piece on this.
"Big Business can afford the added costs of regulations. It can hire up the former senators as its lobbyists to tweak the rules. It can hire the former Food & Drug Administration Commissioners as its lawyers to work around the rules. And it will always get a disproportionate amount of the subsidies."
Who gets hurt? You got it. The little guys.
"Corporate-federal collusion was embodied in ObamaCare, largely written by drugmakers, vociferously supported by hospitals, and driving business to private insurers. Obama’s stimulus was a huge gift to corporate America, with its plethora of subsidies. In the fiscal cliff deal, Obama insisted on a raft of corporate tax extenders. Obama’s “New Economic Patriotism” is a dress for corporate welfare to wear to the prom. Obama supported TARP. He bailed out GM. He signed cash for clunkers. He has set new records in export subsidies. I could fill a book with this sort of thing."
Both political parties have sold out the middle class.
**************************
How optimistic are Americans? Well, Gallup has a poll out that says not very.
"Gallup: American Optimism Hits Lowest Point Since Carter Administration"
When you look at the clowns that are running the country, it is easy to see why. We have the worst president since Jimmy Carter, and the Congress could hardly get any worse than it is now.
A thorough application of tar and feathers is badly needed in Washington.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Texas without Federal money? Believing in the 10th Amendment
I see that Rep. James White has filed a bill in Austin that would set up a select committee to study what would happen if Texas lost its Federal funding. He says because the Feds might go broke, but what if Texas decided that the Feds demanded too much in return for the money. Seems like a great idea to me.
""We always talk about Tenth Amendment rights but there are Tenth Amendment responsibilities. If Texas is an independent nation or if we continue to be a part of the United States, which I am for, we still need to have a strong Texas," he said."
The Texas Tribune has the story. It is the best site that I know for Texas political coverage.
********************************
Would you give up your guns?
Bill Katz over at Urgent Agenda points out a new Fox Poll where that question was asked. The result was not a surprise.
"If the Government passed a law to take your guns would you give up your guns or defy the law and keep your guns?"
The answer: Defy the law and keep guns = 65%; Give up the guns = 22%; Don't Know = 13%
A few years back, Canada tried to require its people to register their guns. So many refused to do so that they abandoned the attempt.
Why won't liberals ever learn?
*******************
Filibuster reform? The Hill has a story on Harry Reid's proposals to "reform" filibusters. Of course, Harry wants to be able to use his majority in the Senate to run over the minority even more than he has the past few years.
There are negotiations going on between him and Mitch McConnell, but Reid seems to often beat poor Mitch when the chips are down.
Of course, in two years, the shoe may be on the other foot, with Republicans holding the majority.
I am afraid that the Senate has gone from a great deliberative body to an "in your face" no compromise, partisan group that cannot get anything done right.
Tar and feathers for them all.
****************
Study: "Debt Problem Began Four Decades Ago"
The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank has let the truth out, if anyone will pay attention. Good old LBJ, with his War on Paverty and Vietnam War, both paid for by bringing Social Security revenues into general revenue (requiring the SS Trust Fund to take government IOUs) and by just borrowing money started the problem.
"[A]fter 1970, both revenues and expenditures increased on average relative to the previous two decades; however, revenue increased marginally while expenditures increased significantly... on average, the government spent 2.4 percent of GDP more than it received in revenue during the 38-year period."
There you go. All of these years we have been borrowing from the future for our instant gratification, and to allow the politicians to maintain their power at our chidren's expense.
Who will stop the madness? Not any of the politicians in Washington, that's for sure. Some talk a good game, but there is never a chance that spending will be controlled.
But what can't go on forever, won't. What will happen to the country when we run out of our kids' money?
The story is in Townhall.
********************
The inauguaral address.
I know it happed. Did not watch it. Have not read it. Only know it happened from story headlines discussing it, but I have not read the stories. Don't intend to. It is a waste of one's time.
Also will not read, or read about, any Republican responses. Another waste of one's time.
When politicians of all stripes talk these days, it is virtually all lies and obfuscation.
Watch what they do. If you do, you will find little difference between them. They are all doing a very poor jobs for most Americans, but doing quite well for themselves and the very rich, particularly the big banks.
Time to throw them all out.
Texas without Federal money? Believing in the 10th Amendment
I see that Rep. James White has filed a bill in Austin that would set up a select committee to study what would happen if Texas lost its Federal funding. He says because the Feds might go broke, but what if Texas decided that the Feds demanded too much in return for the money. Seems like a great idea to me.
""We always talk about Tenth Amendment rights but there are Tenth Amendment responsibilities. If Texas is an independent nation or if we continue to be a part of the United States, which I am for, we still need to have a strong Texas," he said."
The Texas Tribune has the story. It is the best site that I know for Texas political coverage.
********************************
Would you give up your guns?
Bill Katz over at Urgent Agenda points out a new Fox Poll where that question was asked. The result was not a surprise.
"If the Government passed a law to take your guns would you give up your guns or defy the law and keep your guns?"
The answer: Defy the law and keep guns = 65%; Give up the guns = 22%; Don't Know = 13%
A few years back, Canada tried to require its people to register their guns. So many refused to do so that they abandoned the attempt.
Why won't liberals ever learn?
*******************
Filibuster reform? The Hill has a story on Harry Reid's proposals to "reform" filibusters. Of course, Harry wants to be able to use his majority in the Senate to run over the minority even more than he has the past few years.
There are negotiations going on between him and Mitch McConnell, but Reid seems to often beat poor Mitch when the chips are down.
Of course, in two years, the shoe may be on the other foot, with Republicans holding the majority.
I am afraid that the Senate has gone from a great deliberative body to an "in your face" no compromise, partisan group that cannot get anything done right.
Tar and feathers for them all.
****************
Study: "Debt Problem Began Four Decades Ago"
The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank has let the truth out, if anyone will pay attention. Good old LBJ, with his War on Paverty and Vietnam War, both paid for by bringing Social Security revenues into general revenue (requiring the SS Trust Fund to take government IOUs) and by just borrowing money started the problem.
"[A]fter 1970, both revenues and expenditures increased on average relative to the previous two decades; however, revenue increased marginally while expenditures increased significantly... on average, the government spent 2.4 percent of GDP more than it received in revenue during the 38-year period."
There you go. All of these years we have been borrowing from the future for our instant gratification, and to allow the politicians to maintain their power at our chidren's expense.
Who will stop the madness? Not any of the politicians in Washington, that's for sure. Some talk a good game, but there is never a chance that spending will be controlled.
But what can't go on forever, won't. What will happen to the country when we run out of our kids' money?
The story is in Townhall.
********************
The inauguaral address.
I know it happed. Did not watch it. Have not read it. Only know it happened from story headlines discussing it, but I have not read the stories. Don't intend to. It is a waste of one's time.
Also will not read, or read about, any Republican responses. Another waste of one's time.
When politicians of all stripes talk these days, it is virtually all lies and obfuscation.
Watch what they do. If you do, you will find little difference between them. They are all doing a very poor jobs for most Americans, but doing quite well for themselves and the very rich, particularly the big banks.
Time to throw them all out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)