Our educational system must be even worse than I thought when people can't recognize, understand, or cope with famous words spoken or written by well-known individuals.
Every year for quite some time (about 30 years), NPR has presented the Declaration of Independence on-air. They recently also started tweeting it out. The last couple of years, a number of people have complained because they thought that NPR was releasing a screed against President Trump! They didn't recognize it as the Declaration of Independence. First, what does it say that people don't recognize one of the two most important documents in their country's history? Secondly, what does it show if they mistake a call for freedom from the tyrannical government of King George III for a plea against what Donald Trump is doing as President?
Today, I saw someone post and attribute the famous "Pale Blue Dot" speech of Carl Sagan. I then saw a bunch of people react negatively to it. They were claiming it is not true; that Sagan must be a political hack, a leftist, one of those environmental activists; even that the earth is flat and therefore the whole speech is inaccurate; etc. Yes, this was said about one of our greatest astronomers and astrophysicists about the subject he knew best! A call for people to be better to one another was met with derision and hatred. Go figure.
I've seen people complain about the words of Lincoln, Jefferson, Hawking, Franklin, Roosevelt (pick one), de Grasse-Tyson, King, Jr., and many others. I've seen GOP people complain about how leftist the words of Ronald Reagan, their Republican Godhead, were before being told that the words were his! It's actually fun to watch them stammer, stutter, and try to walk back their angry retorts. Again, it just goes to show how far we've changed that anything Reagan said in the 80s is now considered leftist and progressive... and that members of the GOP don't even recognize his words!
When did America stop thinking? Or, more precisely, when did a certain segment of America decide to leave the thinking to others? Why is ignorance the default setting now?
-
You were bored and searching for something to read when serendipity brought you to my blog. Many blog responses and emails later, things see...
-
Okay, I admit it. I’m a loon. I’m crazy. Anyone who knows me well will give me that patient smile and slow shake of the head I’ve gotten so ...
-
I have been a Batman fan for many years, owning probably around 1000 comics starring the character, spanning from the 1970s through today. ...
August 7, 2019
July 15, 2019
GOP Lies
For at least the last 20 years, the GOP has been telling lies through the media about various groups of people. The reason for this is to inure you to the speech and to those people so that they can move on to the next step: making you afraid of those people.
For example, they have been telling the public at large that Muslims are bad people. It doesn't matter to them that Muslim violence and issues account for far less than 1% of any crime in America, they keep saying it. Then, finally, when a single Muslim does something violent, they turn around and say, "See, we told you so." It doesn't matter that hordes of White Americans have done the exact same crimes thousands of times, maybe more, they point to the one Muslim as the culprit of this crime and then start making you afraid of all Muslims.
They have been telling you for two decades (really, since the late 1970s, but in earnest over the last twenty years) that Black and Brown people are a huge problem. They are more violent than you. They are more crafty than you. They will rape your women. They will steal from you. Then, when a Black or Brown person is caught doing one of these crimes, they say, "See, we told you so." The White Americans who are in charge of every aspect of the criminal system then give those Black and Brown people harsher sentences, get away with murdering them, and make sure they are put forth as examples of what they've been saying. They completely ignore and sweep aside the thousands of white Americans who have done the exact same crimes. If a white person can't be ignored, then they get greatly reduced sentences for the same crimes and are out to rape, murder, steal, whatever that much sooner.
The GOP has been telling us for at least two decades that women don't know how to control their bodies. They make bad decisions about those bodies and they must be legislated so that they can't make these poor decisions. It doesn't matter that these bills mostly target Black and Brown mothers (and low-income White mothers). It doesn't matter that they have no plans to care for the increased birth rate that results from these bills-- once the child is born, it isn't their concern anymore. It doesn't even matter that more women are dying in childbirth due to these laws.
The facts simply don't matter to the GOP anymore. Statistics don't matter. Hell, reality doesn't matter anymore. Only the feelings of anger, oppression, and fear matters to them at this point. If they can't sell you on the pros of their plan -- and, let's face it, they don't have any plans; they refuse to actually govern anymore -- they will certainly do everything in their power to ensure you are enraged or scared of the other guy's plan.
Don't be fooled by this rhetoric.
For example, they have been telling the public at large that Muslims are bad people. It doesn't matter to them that Muslim violence and issues account for far less than 1% of any crime in America, they keep saying it. Then, finally, when a single Muslim does something violent, they turn around and say, "See, we told you so." It doesn't matter that hordes of White Americans have done the exact same crimes thousands of times, maybe more, they point to the one Muslim as the culprit of this crime and then start making you afraid of all Muslims.
They have been telling you for two decades (really, since the late 1970s, but in earnest over the last twenty years) that Black and Brown people are a huge problem. They are more violent than you. They are more crafty than you. They will rape your women. They will steal from you. Then, when a Black or Brown person is caught doing one of these crimes, they say, "See, we told you so." The White Americans who are in charge of every aspect of the criminal system then give those Black and Brown people harsher sentences, get away with murdering them, and make sure they are put forth as examples of what they've been saying. They completely ignore and sweep aside the thousands of white Americans who have done the exact same crimes. If a white person can't be ignored, then they get greatly reduced sentences for the same crimes and are out to rape, murder, steal, whatever that much sooner.
The GOP has been telling us for at least two decades that women don't know how to control their bodies. They make bad decisions about those bodies and they must be legislated so that they can't make these poor decisions. It doesn't matter that these bills mostly target Black and Brown mothers (and low-income White mothers). It doesn't matter that they have no plans to care for the increased birth rate that results from these bills-- once the child is born, it isn't their concern anymore. It doesn't even matter that more women are dying in childbirth due to these laws.
The facts simply don't matter to the GOP anymore. Statistics don't matter. Hell, reality doesn't matter anymore. Only the feelings of anger, oppression, and fear matters to them at this point. If they can't sell you on the pros of their plan -- and, let's face it, they don't have any plans; they refuse to actually govern anymore -- they will certainly do everything in their power to ensure you are enraged or scared of the other guy's plan.
Don't be fooled by this rhetoric.
April 12, 2019
Pregnancy in America
I suggest the following laws be proposed and debated.
Deterrents:
Somehow, though, I don't think these suggestions will even be considered nor do I think these laws would make it even up for a vote. During the debate, I bet these white, male, "pro-life" politicians will laugh at the suggestions that males be held equally accountable for the pregnancy. I know already that they won't even consider plans to educate, care for, feed, or otherwise provide for the best welfare of the child once it is born as they have systematically attacked all of these institutions already.
These people are not pro-life. They are simply against women's rights because they know that to keep women "in their place" is to keep the men in power and to keep the current power structure strong. Women are a threat and this group is scared of them.
Deterrents:
- All male rapists must be either chemically or physically castrated after conviction.
- If the father of a child does not help care for the child, either by missing childcare visits, payments, or similar, the father will be chemically castrated until such time as he is able to fulfill his minimum duties as a parent (i.e., he makes restitution for the missed childcare).
- All children of male rapists that are not wanted by the mother must be given to the rapist to raise.
- Vasectomies can only be performed after the age of 25 and with a partner's, or the person's parents, consent. There is a waiting period of a minimum of 7 days to get a vasectomy. The person requesting a vasectomy must watch an hour-long video on the dangers of the surgical procedure and the joys of parenthood.
- In Texas, both the male and female participants will be tried and, if convicted, sent to the death penalty if the woman has an abortion. DNA testing is mandatory to determine with the greatest accuracy who the father of the child is.
- Males must wear athletic supporters and protective cups whenever performing any sports activity or dangerous activity to ensure their reproductive organs are safe from harm. Anyone found to be willfully harming the penis or testicles can be arrested and confined for up to 5 years or a fine of $25,000 per offense.
- Males must see a doctor a minimum of once a year and have their reproductive organs checked, including providing a semen sample to check for sperm viability.
- Increased federal funding and mandated minimum staffing for foster care.
- Increased federal funding and facilities for pregnant mothers to help ensure successful pregnancies and births. Alternately, a program by which all pregnant women get free healthcare while pregnant and for a pre-determined time after pregnancy to ensure both the mother and child are healthy long-term.
- Funding for and research into accessibility to medical care to ensure that all pregnant women have "reasonable" access to healthcare. Reasonable will be defined to mean within a 1-hour car, bus, or train ride from the person's home, a fully-staffed hospital, clinic, or other facilities that can perform all identified healthcare needs for a mother and child through the age of 5.
- Increased funding and accessibility for mental healthcare for pregnant mothers and post-partum women.
- Increased federal funding and increased access to food and post-birth medical care to ensure as many children that are conceived live to see the age of 5 (an age where mortality rates drop significantly).
- Federally mandated vaccinations.
- Increased federal funding for schools and all education programs.
- Federal funding for childcare services after birth so the parent(s) can go back to work, if needed, or can get child care services when required.
- Federal minimum time off requirements of at least 6 months for both the mother and father to care for the newborn baby.
Somehow, though, I don't think these suggestions will even be considered nor do I think these laws would make it even up for a vote. During the debate, I bet these white, male, "pro-life" politicians will laugh at the suggestions that males be held equally accountable for the pregnancy. I know already that they won't even consider plans to educate, care for, feed, or otherwise provide for the best welfare of the child once it is born as they have systematically attacked all of these institutions already.
These people are not pro-life. They are simply against women's rights because they know that to keep women "in their place" is to keep the men in power and to keep the current power structure strong. Women are a threat and this group is scared of them.
March 6, 2019
Don't Go Gentle Into that Good Night
The comic book industry is in turmoil. It is, once more, on the edge of being wiped out. It makes a product that is (at least currently) overpriced (averaging around $4 US for 22-28 pages of episodic story) and very niche.
I'm a huge comic book fan. I prefer the superhero genre but have dipped my toe into other genres that comic books support. I have collected comics for about 40 years and have an embarrassing number of them bagged, boarded, and boxed in my basement. And I've read them all. I even worked in a comic book store for almost 3 years as well as practically working at two of the comic book stores I used to frequent (so much so that I was allowed to watch the store and check out customers when the staff needed a bio break).
I have comics that were purchased for 10 cents. Many were bought for 75 cents, where the price stayed for about a decade or so. Then comics prices edged up to $1.00 followed very quickly by another boost to $1.25 and then $1.50. As I mentioned above, now comics are pretty set around the $3.99 range, give or take. But, here's the thing: you aren't getting much more story at that price than you were 30 years ago. Matter of fact, the Big Two publishers (DC Comics and Marvel) seem to be re-imagining, re-creating, or otherwise re-booting the same stories from the 1980s and 1990s that were their biggest successes and hoping long-time fans don't notice and they draw newer fans. But they are even failing with that, because the original (better) stories are available in many formats, including the original comics themselves, trade paperbacks, cartoons, and even movie versions. We've seen it all and done it all.
So, the audience, in a time where real wages have declined almost 10 percent in the last decade due to inflation and stagnant pay increases, has to ask themselves, Is it worth it to pay $4 for 22-28 pages of an episodic medium when I can get an entire live-action comic-book story told to me via Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, on TV, or in the movies for the same or only slightly more money? I would argue the answer is No.
Needless to say, a small section of the predominantly white, male, straight audience went apeshit. They saw any hiring of a female writer or artist as being "SJW"-ing at its worst. They claimed that female writers and artists were producing inferior work. They claimed that the new characters or changed versions of existing characters were somehow worse than the original. Basically, they got seriously butt-hurt because, somehow, everything they knew and were the gatekeepers for, was trying to broaden and expand its appeal.
An argument can be made that the companies made many of these changes in a ... haphazard manner. Maybe more thought could have gone into it. I mean, there were successes; Miles Morales (half-Black, half-Latino) caught on because, at first, he didn't replace the original Peter Parker Spider-Man. Miles was introduced first in an alternate universe. Readers could choose to continue reading about Peter Parker or they could start reading about this new guy over in this other world where that world's Peter Parker had died fighting crime. He became a hit.
Ms. Marvel actually became a hit, too, and I think some of it had to do with the fact that the original character was still around. Some of the other changes happened too quickly, or without enough build up to or interest in the new character. I don't know anyone who was looking for a replacement Bruce Banner or The Hulk... they just decided to kill off the character and replace him with a young Asian fellow. And the book's sales suffered. Same too with the introduction of RiRi Williams -- there wasn't enough of a build up or connection to Tony Stark to have this genius Black girl suddenly taking over his role in the Marvel Universe.
The point is, the industry, seeing falling sales, looked at their demographics and saw mostly 20-50-year-old white males and said, I wonder if we can get more people to read our books. Whether you agree or disagree with how they handled it, they decided to go for more female readers and to see if they could maybe pull in some minority readers with characters of different ethnicities and sexuality. They even decided to look within their ranks and realize they were an industry dominated by the same demographic and decided to make an effort to bring more diversity to their writing, art, and other aspects of the business. They were sometimes hamfisted in how they made this transition and didn't always give their existing readership time to ease into the transitions being made, and there was a lot of backlash. But, if the number one axiom of writing is "write what you know," then the industry was going to continue to be niche unless they broadened their available pool of knowledge.
I'm a huge comic book fan. I prefer the superhero genre but have dipped my toe into other genres that comic books support. I have collected comics for about 40 years and have an embarrassing number of them bagged, boarded, and boxed in my basement. And I've read them all. I even worked in a comic book store for almost 3 years as well as practically working at two of the comic book stores I used to frequent (so much so that I was allowed to watch the store and check out customers when the staff needed a bio break).
Price and Value
While the art, paper, and printing processes have all improved a great deal from the 1970s when I first started reading comics, the stories haven't really changed much. Yes, they have waxed and waned between being more or less adult in their storytelling, more or less explicit in the art, but the core storytelling is the same; it is a soap opera featuring people with extraordinary powers reacting and interacting with the rest of the world.I have comics that were purchased for 10 cents. Many were bought for 75 cents, where the price stayed for about a decade or so. Then comics prices edged up to $1.00 followed very quickly by another boost to $1.25 and then $1.50. As I mentioned above, now comics are pretty set around the $3.99 range, give or take. But, here's the thing: you aren't getting much more story at that price than you were 30 years ago. Matter of fact, the Big Two publishers (DC Comics and Marvel) seem to be re-imagining, re-creating, or otherwise re-booting the same stories from the 1980s and 1990s that were their biggest successes and hoping long-time fans don't notice and they draw newer fans. But they are even failing with that, because the original (better) stories are available in many formats, including the original comics themselves, trade paperbacks, cartoons, and even movie versions. We've seen it all and done it all.
So, the audience, in a time where real wages have declined almost 10 percent in the last decade due to inflation and stagnant pay increases, has to ask themselves, Is it worth it to pay $4 for 22-28 pages of an episodic medium when I can get an entire live-action comic-book story told to me via Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, on TV, or in the movies for the same or only slightly more money? I would argue the answer is No.
The -Isms
Recently, a thing called "Comics-gate" cropped up wherein a bunch of "fans" (I use the term loosely) of the medium jumped on publisher's throats because they were replacing existing, long-time characters with newer versions that reflected a non-white, non-male perspective. Peter Parker was replaced with Miles Morales. Bruce Banner was killed off and a new, younger genius, Amadeus Cho took his place as The Hulk. She-Hulk was given a higher profile. A new Ms. Marvel who was Muslim and of Middle-Eastern descent replaced the older, white character. Some characters were suddenly gay. You get the picture; the industry was trying to get more readers by going after untapped markets.Needless to say, a small section of the predominantly white, male, straight audience went apeshit. They saw any hiring of a female writer or artist as being "SJW"-ing at its worst. They claimed that female writers and artists were producing inferior work. They claimed that the new characters or changed versions of existing characters were somehow worse than the original. Basically, they got seriously butt-hurt because, somehow, everything they knew and were the gatekeepers for, was trying to broaden and expand its appeal.
An argument can be made that the companies made many of these changes in a ... haphazard manner. Maybe more thought could have gone into it. I mean, there were successes; Miles Morales (half-Black, half-Latino) caught on because, at first, he didn't replace the original Peter Parker Spider-Man. Miles was introduced first in an alternate universe. Readers could choose to continue reading about Peter Parker or they could start reading about this new guy over in this other world where that world's Peter Parker had died fighting crime. He became a hit.
Ms. Marvel actually became a hit, too, and I think some of it had to do with the fact that the original character was still around. Some of the other changes happened too quickly, or without enough build up to or interest in the new character. I don't know anyone who was looking for a replacement Bruce Banner or The Hulk... they just decided to kill off the character and replace him with a young Asian fellow. And the book's sales suffered. Same too with the introduction of RiRi Williams -- there wasn't enough of a build up or connection to Tony Stark to have this genius Black girl suddenly taking over his role in the Marvel Universe.
The point is, the industry, seeing falling sales, looked at their demographics and saw mostly 20-50-year-old white males and said, I wonder if we can get more people to read our books. Whether you agree or disagree with how they handled it, they decided to go for more female readers and to see if they could maybe pull in some minority readers with characters of different ethnicities and sexuality. They even decided to look within their ranks and realize they were an industry dominated by the same demographic and decided to make an effort to bring more diversity to their writing, art, and other aspects of the business. They were sometimes hamfisted in how they made this transition and didn't always give their existing readership time to ease into the transitions being made, and there was a lot of backlash. But, if the number one axiom of writing is "write what you know," then the industry was going to continue to be niche unless they broadened their available pool of knowledge.
Media
In 1978, Warner Bros made you believe a man could fly. In 1989, audiences were treated to the first decent age of comic books in movies with Michael Keaton's uttering of, "I'm Batman." In 2000, the second great age of comic book movies began with X-Men and was followed by a steady stream of increasingly good movies leading up to the creation of the MCU (Marve Cinematic Universe), which became the high-water mark.
In an era where we can go to the films and see "real people" being superheroes on the big screen for $10 a couple of times per year, it becomes hard for a comic book fan to justify paying $4 a month for each title of each character he or she is interested in, not to mention all the addendum titles, specials, one-shots, and special events the comics industry throws at readers. I mean, if you want to follow Batman and not even counting all his "Bat-family" titles (like Catwoman, Batwoman, Batgirl, Nightwing), you're looking at Batman, Detective Comics, The Dark Knight, Batman and Robin, and probably Justice League. So, that's at least $20 a month, or $240 a year, not including special titles, annuals, one-shots, and other titles where he may guest-star. Now, as a viewer with limited funds, compare that to, say, 4-6 tent-pole, big, can't-miss superhero movies a year at $10 a ticket.
Now, let's look at TV and paid subscriptions. Just off the top of my head, you can currently watch: Arrow, Black Lightning, Flash, Supergirl, Legends, Legion, Daredevil, Punisher, Luke Cage, Gotham, Iron Fist, Jessica Jones, iZombie, Walking Dead, Lucifer, The Gifted, The Runaways, The Tick, Preacher, and Agents of Shield. There are Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Spider-Man cartoons from Marvel and Justice League and Young Justice from DC.
In other media, superheroes have had a strong showing in various video games, including fighting games, MMOs, and strategy games. I'm not even going to list all of those here, there are so many.
Again, it comes down to economics -- if you have limited entertainment dollars, are you going to spend $4/mo or $48 a year on a comic book that is often only part of the story (they are primarily episodic stories, remember) or are you going to take that same $50 and get an infinitely replayable video game, go to 4-5 movies, or watch the same type of stories on TV?
The Present
The people who write and draw comic books are very talented. An argument can be made that they create the content that is then transported over to other media where it is more successful. However, the counterargument is that most of the movies are using tried-and-true stories from the characters' pasts and not anything from the new era of comic books. We keep seeing the same origin stories, the same four X-Men stories, the same couple of Batman tales in the movies and on TV. Plus, there are 80+ years of good stories still to mine for other productions. Because of this, it's hard to see the comic book medium surviving in its present incarnation. The people who write comics today would just transition over to writing the same stories for TV and movies and video games. The same stories would be told, they just wouldn't be told in the comic book format going forward.
The Future
I do see ways for the comic book medium to survive, however. I wouldn't bring up this topic if I didn't see a silver lining. I think the following changes could benefit the industry:
- Issue Price: They have to get the price down. If you can sell comics for $2 or less per issue, I think you have a chance.
- Issue Quality: Lessen the quality of the paper and inks used.
- Issue Schedule: Many titles shouldn't be on a monthly cycle. Team books, in particular, should only come out 3-6 times a year. Characters who are "overpowered," like Superman, Thor, Hulk, etc., should be published per-story. I.e., Rather than having a monthly Superman title, you solicit story concepts for the character, pick the 1-2 best stories, and publish those as an omnibus edition once or twice a year. This way, the reader gets the best of the best stories and doesn't have to wade through months of filler or setup or transition writers.
- Publishing Style: Instead of publishing as a monthly magazine, take a page from Manga and make books. Work on the best 100-page story(ies) for Batman and publish it as a book for $25 instead of spreading that 100-page story out over a year of smaller comics. When you factor in weather delays, the grind of trying to publish X number of comics per month, printing issues, shipping delays, etc., you would actually be saving yourself, and your readers, a lot of headaches by publishing in a Manga book style.
- Online: Shift to a predominantly online-only market; no physical books. This will most likely destroy the direct market and means you will have few physical copies on bookshelves or in racks on a stand in a grocery market, but you do away with many of the issues listed in Style, above. This also ties into Price and Quality, as you can set up a process to make one "PDF" file of the comic in question and then everyone buys the rights to view or download that one copy. This should lower the cost and increase profits, over time. And no more of this selling an online copy for the same cover price -- we're too savvy for that. We know you are making one electronic copy of the item that we all then have access to; creating one master should NEVER be as expensive as all the paper, ink, printing, and shipping costs of each individual comic each month!
- Story: I shouldn't have to mention this, but with the plethora of re-boots, re-imaginings, and thinly-veiled sequels to previous work, I feel I have to: write good, original, new stories. Stop going to the Civil War well. Stop re-hashing Watchmen. Just stop. You have talented people who, I'm sure, have incredible stories they want to tell-- let them! I don't want to see Secret Wars 2, 3, or 13. I won't give you money for a more modern rewrite on Crisis on Infinite Earths. Just... stop. Please.
Comic books can survive as an industry. But the industry is quickly making itself redundant by being too expensive when compared to other, similar media that can provide the viewing audience with the same stories. Unless it is willing to make some changes, it will cease to exist as we know it now. Can it change to meet the demands of the fractured media landscape now and in the future? I'd like to think so. If there is one thing I have taken away from my decades of reading comic book stories it is to always have hope!
January 10, 2019
Speech and Debate
What I would like to see in the next Presidential election cycle at the debates is a new set of rules put in place. And appoint moderators that will expressly follow those rules. I'd also like to see rules like this applied to politic ads, as well.
I think that these simple rules can keep the debate lively, focused on what the candidate will do once in office, and give the audience a reason to watch. Too often the debates (and especially in the last election cycle) turned into diatribes about what "the other party" wanted to do or what "the other candidate" wanted to do... that isn't helpful. Also, it often is not true. You cannot speak for someone else. You don't know where they are coming from, what they plan to do, or how their mind may have changed.
In addition, by focusing on the candidate's position, it is easier for the audience/voter to hold that candidate accountable once they get into office. You must answer questions directly, responsibly, and on-record in front of both a live crowd and the millions watching the debate. It gives you a chance to talk about you -- and only you.
If these same rules are applied to political ads, then the punishment for those would be slightly different. The company/group providing the ad will be asked to re-edit the ad to remove the offending piece. If they are caught airing an ad that infringes on one of those rules a second time, that company/group cannot provide any more ads for that campaign season at all, for any candidate.
The rule will be doubly-applied to both the company/group name (The X Group to Elect Candidate Y, or whatever Super PAC, PAC, Candidate Committee, or grass-routes group) AND to the people who make up that group. So, for example, if Jim Walsh is the founder of a Super PAC that releases two ads that are deemed to violate one or more of the rules above, that Super PAC cannot release any more ads at all AND Jim Walsh (and all his coworkers at that Super PAC) also cannot be involved in any more ads during that election cycle, for any candidate.
These rules, and others like them, can keep the political climate open, fair, and more positive. If the audience can only hear what a candidate will do for them, they have a better chance of picking a viable candidate and hold that candidate accountable. No more attacking. No more fearmongering. No more divisiveness in the election cycle.
Rule 1: No talking about the other party
- When asked a question of any type or style, all answers must be from YOUR perspective. You cannot talk about "well, according to my opponent ..." or "the philosophy of the [other party] is to ...". None of that. All questions must be answered based on your own position, your own desires, your own reasoning.
Rule 2: No pejorative words toward or attacks aimed at the other party
- You are not allowed to use ANY negative words toward the other party. Your ads and your words cannot be deemed to attack the other candidate(s) position or perceived faults. This seems like it should be covered in #1, but I want it stated outright and for the record. No use of "snowflake" or "childish" or anything harsher. No fear-monger ads that misrepresent or make something seem more dire or dangerous than it is. Nada.
Rule 3: No false statements
- If you are saying something and the fact-checking crew catches you in an outright lie, you get one warning. If they catch you in another lie, you pay a penalty. Lies will be determined by factual content within your statement, not normative statements.
Punishments
- If you break any of the rules, the punishment for that infraction is that your microphone is cut off immediately and you do not get to finish your statement (or, in the case of Rule 3, it is cut off on the second lie within the same answer).
- Once your mic is cut off, the moderator will immediately respond to the audience why the microphone was cut off and move to the next question for the next candidate.
I think that these simple rules can keep the debate lively, focused on what the candidate will do once in office, and give the audience a reason to watch. Too often the debates (and especially in the last election cycle) turned into diatribes about what "the other party" wanted to do or what "the other candidate" wanted to do... that isn't helpful. Also, it often is not true. You cannot speak for someone else. You don't know where they are coming from, what they plan to do, or how their mind may have changed.
In addition, by focusing on the candidate's position, it is easier for the audience/voter to hold that candidate accountable once they get into office. You must answer questions directly, responsibly, and on-record in front of both a live crowd and the millions watching the debate. It gives you a chance to talk about you -- and only you.
If these same rules are applied to political ads, then the punishment for those would be slightly different. The company/group providing the ad will be asked to re-edit the ad to remove the offending piece. If they are caught airing an ad that infringes on one of those rules a second time, that company/group cannot provide any more ads for that campaign season at all, for any candidate.
The rule will be doubly-applied to both the company/group name (The X Group to Elect Candidate Y, or whatever Super PAC, PAC, Candidate Committee, or grass-routes group) AND to the people who make up that group. So, for example, if Jim Walsh is the founder of a Super PAC that releases two ads that are deemed to violate one or more of the rules above, that Super PAC cannot release any more ads at all AND Jim Walsh (and all his coworkers at that Super PAC) also cannot be involved in any more ads during that election cycle, for any candidate.
These rules, and others like them, can keep the political climate open, fair, and more positive. If the audience can only hear what a candidate will do for them, they have a better chance of picking a viable candidate and hold that candidate accountable. No more attacking. No more fearmongering. No more divisiveness in the election cycle.
January 8, 2019
Petty By Nature
People are petty and vindictive by nature. This is doubly true when those people are in politics. Why is it that Trump thinks that anything he does will last more than a year after another person takes the office? Hell, even Republicans are starting to listen to their constituents and hear that they want universal healthcare, don't want a wall, want stronger EPA regulations, etc.
The only way I see what he's done/doing working long-term is if the next person in the office (regardless of party) does what he did and puts the least qualified people into place again. Anyone who actually is qualified to lead the various gov't departments will reverse everything their predecessors did, too.
Now, when a new person takes office, especially if he/she is a Democrat, the petty nature of politics will decree that the person will sit at his/her desk and write out a shit-ton of EOs that will... yes, you guessed it... undermine and/or undo everything that Trump ever signed.
And, frankly, this is why compromise is the key to politics. If all parties agree, then the next power shift won't bring about a slew of reversals. But, when you have an idiot like Trump take office, who based all decisions on his own lack of education as well as a petty and vindictive nature, you will see the next party that takes office reciprocate in kind.
So, keep talking, Trump. Keep bringing forth your conspiracies, lies, and idiocy. Keep proving how important education is in our leadership. Keep being petty and vindictive. You won't be more than an obscene and unqualified footnote in history after you are pushed out of office.
The only way I see what he's done/doing working long-term is if the next person in the office (regardless of party) does what he did and puts the least qualified people into place again. Anyone who actually is qualified to lead the various gov't departments will reverse everything their predecessors did, too.
I imagine that we'll also see the next president put into the appropriate policing agencies (FBI, Homeland Security, et al) people with a decidedly anti-Trump bent. Even if he avoids impeachment and manages to keep his job until the next election after he is gone from the office he will have to constantly look over his shoulder.
Remember what he did the first few weeks of taking the office: he sat down and signed a record number of Executive Orders that, while many of them wound up being unConstitutional and/or unneeded, those that were left basically were designed to undo what the Democrats and Obama had managed to accomplish for 8 years. After those EOs went into effect, we started to see flaws in the economy, funding issues in various areas, and the general populace getting angry.
Now, when a new person takes office, especially if he/she is a Democrat, the petty nature of politics will decree that the person will sit at his/her desk and write out a shit-ton of EOs that will... yes, you guessed it... undermine and/or undo everything that Trump ever signed.
And, frankly, this is why compromise is the key to politics. If all parties agree, then the next power shift won't bring about a slew of reversals. But, when you have an idiot like Trump take office, who based all decisions on his own lack of education as well as a petty and vindictive nature, you will see the next party that takes office reciprocate in kind.
So, keep talking, Trump. Keep bringing forth your conspiracies, lies, and idiocy. Keep proving how important education is in our leadership. Keep being petty and vindictive. You won't be more than an obscene and unqualified footnote in history after you are pushed out of office.
Addendum
Others are coming to that same conclusion. Link
November 30, 2018
The Mueller Investigation Explained
Let me start by telling you a story:
The Mueller investigation is the same thing. As a duly appointed officer of the law, Mueller was tasked with determining if there was collusion between Trump and the Russians (speeding). As he started searching, he found anomalies that lead him to find other possible crimes (seatbelt, drugs, murder), which he has passed off to the appropriate other agencies to investigate, charge, and detain those involved.
I'm not sure why this is so hard for some to understand. All these complaints by Trump, his cronies, and those who are still, for some reason, in his camp concerning the Mueller investigation and how wide-ranging the probe seems to be getting are stupid. He is doing what any investigator is supposed to do: follow the trail wherever it leads. And, so far, like the example above, the one crime he was tasked to investigate has quickly led to further crimes. This is both understandable and common when the FBI is tasked with investigating someone.
Trump claims there is no collusion, that the investigation is overreaching, and that he has done nothing wrong. Yet, Mueller has gotten guilty pleas and indictments against 33 people so far. He has sent a number of people to jail. And, what we're learning now, is that Trump is so fearful of the investigation that he is trying to get those who have been indicted to be "double-agents" for him by bringing back intel on what Mueller is investigating so that Trump can prepare his counterattacks. Trump is promising pardons to those who will help him. These are not the actions of someone with nothing to hide; quite the opposite, it is what we would expect from someone who is guilty and knows he's guilty.
I look forward to the Mueller investigation finishing and seeing just how many people go to jail, how many are indicted, and how many crimes are laid at Trump's feet. I don't think it will kick him out of office, which is a pity. And I don't think his crimes will even sway a majority of his ardent believers, which is worse. They are the ones who are most hurt by this man being the President, yet they are so scared and angry that they will follow him to Hell.
Let's say you are driving along above the speed limit. A cop pulls you over for speeding. He walks up to your window to ask for your license and registration but notices you are not wearing your seatbelt. As he explains to you about the seatbelt, he notices a strange scent emanating from your car.
He asks you to exit your vehicle and, using his suspicion of drug use, searches your car. He finds drug paraphernalia on the passenger seat under a blanket. Now he asks you to take a drug test and it comes back positive. This prompts him to call in backup and continue the search in earnest.
Under the driver's seat, duct-taped to the chair, he finds the brick of cocaine you are trafficking. He then pops the trunk and finds the dead body of the informant you've killed.
He arrests you for:But all the cop did was pull you over for speeding. How did it go so wrong? Well, because he followed the law and that initial crime allowed him to find many other crimes for which you could be prosecuted.
- Speeding
- Not wearing a seat belt
- DUI
- Carrying drug paraphernalia
- Drug possession (possibly with the intent to distribute)
- Murder
The Mueller investigation is the same thing. As a duly appointed officer of the law, Mueller was tasked with determining if there was collusion between Trump and the Russians (speeding). As he started searching, he found anomalies that lead him to find other possible crimes (seatbelt, drugs, murder), which he has passed off to the appropriate other agencies to investigate, charge, and detain those involved.
I'm not sure why this is so hard for some to understand. All these complaints by Trump, his cronies, and those who are still, for some reason, in his camp concerning the Mueller investigation and how wide-ranging the probe seems to be getting are stupid. He is doing what any investigator is supposed to do: follow the trail wherever it leads. And, so far, like the example above, the one crime he was tasked to investigate has quickly led to further crimes. This is both understandable and common when the FBI is tasked with investigating someone.
Trump claims there is no collusion, that the investigation is overreaching, and that he has done nothing wrong. Yet, Mueller has gotten guilty pleas and indictments against 33 people so far. He has sent a number of people to jail. And, what we're learning now, is that Trump is so fearful of the investigation that he is trying to get those who have been indicted to be "double-agents" for him by bringing back intel on what Mueller is investigating so that Trump can prepare his counterattacks. Trump is promising pardons to those who will help him. These are not the actions of someone with nothing to hide; quite the opposite, it is what we would expect from someone who is guilty and knows he's guilty.
I look forward to the Mueller investigation finishing and seeing just how many people go to jail, how many are indicted, and how many crimes are laid at Trump's feet. I don't think it will kick him out of office, which is a pity. And I don't think his crimes will even sway a majority of his ardent believers, which is worse. They are the ones who are most hurt by this man being the President, yet they are so scared and angry that they will follow him to Hell.
July 30, 2018
Elementary, My Dear Watson
The CBS show "Elementary" became one of my favorites. I liked how it brought forward Sherlock Holmes to the 21st century. I enjoyed many of the updates they made to the storyline, characters, and mythos of the character. Don't get me wrong, I also enjoyed "Sherlock" on the BBC, and it did pretty much the same work of bringing the characters forward to modern times, but it didn't stretch as far as Elementary did in recasting characters.
The biggest editorial decision Elementary made was to cast Watson as a woman. This led to the second biggest decision they made: to have Watson and Holmes just be friends and colleagues, like in the books, even though the characters were now male and female. Nearly every show on TV with male and female co-leads has a 'will they, won't they' vibe that, in most cases, ruins the show. People start "'shipping" the characters, talking about when they will get together, debating about how it will affect the show (spoiler: almost always negatively), and wondering if they will get married.
What I have constantly wondered is whether a TV show can simply present a heterosexual male and female being close confidants, working together, and having mutual respect for one another. This show finally did it. Through the current episode of season 6, Holmes and Watson simply respect one another's skill sets and intelligence and use their close working relationship to help them confidently delegate tasks. Sometimes Holmes takes more of the lead on a case and sometimes it is Watson. Sometimes one does the grunt work, sometimes both, sometimes the other.
Each has been shown to have a healthy sex life, but not with each other. Sometimes Holmes, due to his quirky behaviors, oversteps a bit into Watson's personal life, but she recognizes it for what it is (he has many personality quirks, bordering on autism) and knows it comes with the territory of being Holmes' friend.
Both characters have shown a 'got your back' attitude toward the other, as well. Each has stood up to both authority and criminals for their partner without hesitation. Both know the other person well enough to know when to lie, to tell the truth, or otherwise to defend the other when accused of something. Each has successfully defended the other against accusations, frame-ups, and possible physical assaults. They have each helped the other to move on from hard and painful life lessons.
I hope that, in the final few episodes remaining before the series is canceled at the end of this season, the writers do not force Holmes and Watson together romantically. I hope that the show remains one of the few to have aired where colleagues can just work well together, regardless of gender. I really liked this show and will miss it.
The biggest editorial decision Elementary made was to cast Watson as a woman. This led to the second biggest decision they made: to have Watson and Holmes just be friends and colleagues, like in the books, even though the characters were now male and female. Nearly every show on TV with male and female co-leads has a 'will they, won't they' vibe that, in most cases, ruins the show. People start "'shipping" the characters, talking about when they will get together, debating about how it will affect the show (spoiler: almost always negatively), and wondering if they will get married.
What I have constantly wondered is whether a TV show can simply present a heterosexual male and female being close confidants, working together, and having mutual respect for one another. This show finally did it. Through the current episode of season 6, Holmes and Watson simply respect one another's skill sets and intelligence and use their close working relationship to help them confidently delegate tasks. Sometimes Holmes takes more of the lead on a case and sometimes it is Watson. Sometimes one does the grunt work, sometimes both, sometimes the other.
Each has been shown to have a healthy sex life, but not with each other. Sometimes Holmes, due to his quirky behaviors, oversteps a bit into Watson's personal life, but she recognizes it for what it is (he has many personality quirks, bordering on autism) and knows it comes with the territory of being Holmes' friend.
Both characters have shown a 'got your back' attitude toward the other, as well. Each has stood up to both authority and criminals for their partner without hesitation. Both know the other person well enough to know when to lie, to tell the truth, or otherwise to defend the other when accused of something. Each has successfully defended the other against accusations, frame-ups, and possible physical assaults. They have each helped the other to move on from hard and painful life lessons.
I hope that, in the final few episodes remaining before the series is canceled at the end of this season, the writers do not force Holmes and Watson together romantically. I hope that the show remains one of the few to have aired where colleagues can just work well together, regardless of gender. I really liked this show and will miss it.
Addendum
The show was originally going out on a 13 episode order in season 6. However, the network upped that to 21. I hope that the writers don't fill those remaining 8 episodes with some sort of surprise relationship between Watson and Holmes for the series finale. I will admit I've been getting a bit of a vibe from the show that they might. Even if they do, the writers have earned my trust that they could possibly do it in a way that makes sense for, and respects, the characters as they have been presented for the previous five seasons. Here's hoping!SPOILERS BELOW
One other choice the writers made that I thought was brilliant was introducing Irene Adler ("the Woman"; the one person to have bested Holmes) as also being Moriarty. Arthur Conan Doyle, writing in the era he was, would never have made the male protagonist's main antagonist be a woman, so it was nice of the modern writers to see the similarities between the one person (who wasn't named Moriarty) who beat Holmes and the evil antagonist that Professor Moriarty became and make them one and the same person. Plus, the woman who played Irene Adler in the TV show (Natalie Dormer) was a really good choice.June 26, 2018
What's Being Done
Destroy education because uneducated people can't fight back.
Assault wages and savings because poor people can't fight back.
Cripple healthcare (or make it costly) because sick people can't fight back.
Foment racism and division because disorganized people can't fight back.
Assail the mind and senses because tired people can't fight back.
Control the rhetoric because confused people can't fight back.
Change the laws so the people can't fight back.
This is how you change a democracy into an authoritarian regime.
Assault wages and savings because poor people can't fight back.
Cripple healthcare (or make it costly) because sick people can't fight back.
Foment racism and division because disorganized people can't fight back.
Assail the mind and senses because tired people can't fight back.
Control the rhetoric because confused people can't fight back.
Change the laws so the people can't fight back.
This is how you change a democracy into an authoritarian regime.
April 2, 2018
Trump Supporters
Trump supporters supposedly voted for him and continue to support him because he was not a mainstream government guy. He was the "religious" and "moral" choice. He spoke to them.
Yet:
- The religious choice didn't actually go to church (except for his THREE weddings), does not know the Bible, and does not act in a Christian manner.
- The moral choice has never been a moral person, doesn't follow the moral teachings of the Bible, and has done some decidedly amoral and immoral actions both before and since taking office.
- The candidate who 'spoke to them' has since done everything in his power to take money, jobs, healthcare, and voting rights away from those same people.
When a commandment of the Christian Bible says not to commit adultery, every indication is that Trump committed adultery, and these supporters have to take a twisted, convoluted approach to find justification for Trump's actions within the Bible, you've lost. Period. You are proving you aren't a Christian, you are proving that the reasons you claim to have voted for the candidate are false, and you prove that you want to have the things taken from you that he has taken from you.
I guess that is what it comes down to for me in the end-- these people claim to be Christian, claim to support Trump as the Christian candidate, and then act in what any outside observer can only say is a decidedly unChristian way. They aren't really Christians, are they? But Hillary Clinton, who does go to church regularly, does want to help the poor and needy, does want to follow the basic tenets of the Christian faith runs for office, they boo her, ignore her, call her a criminal, and shout her down. Hunh? Obama, who has been a Christian since at least his college years, went to church regularly, and actually had a minor scandal involving the pastor at his Christian church speaking badly about Muslims, is seen as a Muslim terrorist by these people. What? How can you have a scandal where you both ARE and ARE NOT Christian happen during the same election cycle?
And how do they continue to support a guy who takes jobs from them, food off their table, money out of their bank/mattress? I mean, Trump has, so far, proven that he has no clue how the economy works, how government works, and has managed to screw up nearly everything that has been a source of comfort and positivity in these peoples' lives, yet they still continue to support him?
At this point, I have to start questioning anyone who is still a Trump supporter's education level and intelligence. I mean, fool you once, shame on him, but fool you twice, three times, a dozen times, shame on YOU. You must be an idiot.
Yet:
- The religious choice didn't actually go to church (except for his THREE weddings), does not know the Bible, and does not act in a Christian manner.
- The moral choice has never been a moral person, doesn't follow the moral teachings of the Bible, and has done some decidedly amoral and immoral actions both before and since taking office.
- The candidate who 'spoke to them' has since done everything in his power to take money, jobs, healthcare, and voting rights away from those same people.
When a commandment of the Christian Bible says not to commit adultery, every indication is that Trump committed adultery, and these supporters have to take a twisted, convoluted approach to find justification for Trump's actions within the Bible, you've lost. Period. You are proving you aren't a Christian, you are proving that the reasons you claim to have voted for the candidate are false, and you prove that you want to have the things taken from you that he has taken from you.
I guess that is what it comes down to for me in the end-- these people claim to be Christian, claim to support Trump as the Christian candidate, and then act in what any outside observer can only say is a decidedly unChristian way. They aren't really Christians, are they? But Hillary Clinton, who does go to church regularly, does want to help the poor and needy, does want to follow the basic tenets of the Christian faith runs for office, they boo her, ignore her, call her a criminal, and shout her down. Hunh? Obama, who has been a Christian since at least his college years, went to church regularly, and actually had a minor scandal involving the pastor at his Christian church speaking badly about Muslims, is seen as a Muslim terrorist by these people. What? How can you have a scandal where you both ARE and ARE NOT Christian happen during the same election cycle?
And how do they continue to support a guy who takes jobs from them, food off their table, money out of their bank/mattress? I mean, Trump has, so far, proven that he has no clue how the economy works, how government works, and has managed to screw up nearly everything that has been a source of comfort and positivity in these peoples' lives, yet they still continue to support him?
At this point, I have to start questioning anyone who is still a Trump supporter's education level and intelligence. I mean, fool you once, shame on him, but fool you twice, three times, a dozen times, shame on YOU. You must be an idiot.
January 11, 2018
Fear and Loathing in America
In my experience, most hate and anger stems from fear: fear of the unknown, fear of consequences, fear of loss, fear of something. Lately, Americans and much of the world have been reacting in anger to a lot of different things: homosexuals and homosexuality, dispossessed people/immigrants, change. And I simply don't get why they are so afraid.
President Trump rode to power on a message of fear. He told Americans to fear immigrants, to fear gays, to fear Democrats, to fear change. He promised to do things to stem the fear. He was going to build a big, beautiful wall. He was going to send all the immigrants away. He was going to protect your job in an out-dated and failing industry. He was going to make America look to America first and foremost.
But, as has been proven by the world and by his first year in office so far, none of those things are things to be afraid of so he cannot enact his policies. Immigrants are actually vital to America's growth and continued economic dominance. Why fear immigrants? Immigrants start more companies than any other group of people. In addition, every non-partisan report you can find shows that by embracing immigrants you actually lessen the chances of terrorism. Those immigrants are too busy creating jobs, raising families, trying to fit, and being grateful for being out of the oppressive regime, war, or whatever caused them to flee in the first place to want to commit terrorism. And increasing the vetting process? Creating "extreme vetting"? I'm not sure that is possible. America already has the most stringent process that takes years and numerous background checks and interviews to make it through as it is.
How we treat those immigrants is important, though. If we just dump them in the rural south and expect them to be okay, then we might create home-grown terrorists. If we truly embrace them, however, the sky's the limit for them and for us.
Fearing gay people, transexuals, etc.? There is literally nothing there to fear. They just want to be left alone, to marry and divorce and live their lives just like everyone else. The world won't end, religion will be fine, and people won't see any more overt acts of sexuality that they are uncomfortable with and fear than they do right now. But they get the safety of the law on their side when medical emergencies arise when their loved ones die and other circumstances. All liberties that non-LGBTQ people take for granted now extend to all people. Period. That's a good thing.
The two political parties in America didn't use to fear each other. It used to be that Republicans and Democrats were simply people who had somewhat different priorities. They could sit down and work toward some common, middle ground and reach a consensus. Repubs would put up with a few more dollars going to a social program and the Dems would put up with an easing of regulation here or some more defense spending there. But they didn't fear and hate each other. It was all civil.
Somewhere around the 1990s, that really started to change. And, before Obama took office, the Republican leadership was already saying they would block anything he and the Democrats put forward, even if it was beneficial. So, we had eight years of works projects blocked, eight years of infrastructure proposals blocked, eight years of gridlock and bitterness. Now, with Trump in office, you have someone who can't get anything passed. And, the one thing the Republicans did pass will likely harm America and the very Americans they claim to serve. Why do they fear the common man so much?
What America needs more than anything right now is someone to lead us from a position of love and acceptance. Obama tried, but was blocked by right-wing rhetoric which, even when patently proven false, too many bought into. We need someone like a Reagan or a Clinton, who both made us feel good about being American and who were both able to build bridges between the Democrats and Republicans and get a lot of really good legislation passed. Or someone like a Kennedy, who got both sides of the aisle working together toward incredible achievements. The last thing we need is someone in office who may be unfit for the job, who definitely isn't smart enough for the job, and whose only position is of fear and loathing.
In your own life, look toward your fears and really evaluate them. Why are you afraid? Is there really something there to be afraid of? Can talking it out, researching it, or confronting it help you to move past it and on to something better?
Let's all try to be better. Let's all try to ignore the bombast and rhetoric that surrounds us on a daily basis. Let's all try to talk with people who challenge our beliefs and our assumptions -- and I mean really listen to them -- and see that maybe they aren't so different from us as we previously thought. Maybe then we can realize that we're all in this together, that we can ensure that it all works out, and that there isn't really that much to be afraid of.
Except spiders. Of course I don't include spiders. :-)
President Trump rode to power on a message of fear. He told Americans to fear immigrants, to fear gays, to fear Democrats, to fear change. He promised to do things to stem the fear. He was going to build a big, beautiful wall. He was going to send all the immigrants away. He was going to protect your job in an out-dated and failing industry. He was going to make America look to America first and foremost.
But, as has been proven by the world and by his first year in office so far, none of those things are things to be afraid of so he cannot enact his policies. Immigrants are actually vital to America's growth and continued economic dominance. Why fear immigrants? Immigrants start more companies than any other group of people. In addition, every non-partisan report you can find shows that by embracing immigrants you actually lessen the chances of terrorism. Those immigrants are too busy creating jobs, raising families, trying to fit, and being grateful for being out of the oppressive regime, war, or whatever caused them to flee in the first place to want to commit terrorism. And increasing the vetting process? Creating "extreme vetting"? I'm not sure that is possible. America already has the most stringent process that takes years and numerous background checks and interviews to make it through as it is.
How we treat those immigrants is important, though. If we just dump them in the rural south and expect them to be okay, then we might create home-grown terrorists. If we truly embrace them, however, the sky's the limit for them and for us.
Fearing gay people, transexuals, etc.? There is literally nothing there to fear. They just want to be left alone, to marry and divorce and live their lives just like everyone else. The world won't end, religion will be fine, and people won't see any more overt acts of sexuality that they are uncomfortable with and fear than they do right now. But they get the safety of the law on their side when medical emergencies arise when their loved ones die and other circumstances. All liberties that non-LGBTQ people take for granted now extend to all people. Period. That's a good thing.
The two political parties in America didn't use to fear each other. It used to be that Republicans and Democrats were simply people who had somewhat different priorities. They could sit down and work toward some common, middle ground and reach a consensus. Repubs would put up with a few more dollars going to a social program and the Dems would put up with an easing of regulation here or some more defense spending there. But they didn't fear and hate each other. It was all civil.
Somewhere around the 1990s, that really started to change. And, before Obama took office, the Republican leadership was already saying they would block anything he and the Democrats put forward, even if it was beneficial. So, we had eight years of works projects blocked, eight years of infrastructure proposals blocked, eight years of gridlock and bitterness. Now, with Trump in office, you have someone who can't get anything passed. And, the one thing the Republicans did pass will likely harm America and the very Americans they claim to serve. Why do they fear the common man so much?
What America needs more than anything right now is someone to lead us from a position of love and acceptance. Obama tried, but was blocked by right-wing rhetoric which, even when patently proven false, too many bought into. We need someone like a Reagan or a Clinton, who both made us feel good about being American and who were both able to build bridges between the Democrats and Republicans and get a lot of really good legislation passed. Or someone like a Kennedy, who got both sides of the aisle working together toward incredible achievements. The last thing we need is someone in office who may be unfit for the job, who definitely isn't smart enough for the job, and whose only position is of fear and loathing.
In your own life, look toward your fears and really evaluate them. Why are you afraid? Is there really something there to be afraid of? Can talking it out, researching it, or confronting it help you to move past it and on to something better?
Let's all try to be better. Let's all try to ignore the bombast and rhetoric that surrounds us on a daily basis. Let's all try to talk with people who challenge our beliefs and our assumptions -- and I mean really listen to them -- and see that maybe they aren't so different from us as we previously thought. Maybe then we can realize that we're all in this together, that we can ensure that it all works out, and that there isn't really that much to be afraid of.
Except spiders. Of course I don't include spiders. :-)
January 9, 2018
#MeToo and Sexual Predatory Behavior
I am concerned about the #MeToo movement and the subsequent firings of a plethora of men in a variety of industries, but mostly in Hollywood. I am concerned that these firings are happening with little to no investigation and, so far, no actual criminal filings or legal proceedings having happened.
I am all for getting abusive, predatory men out of the workspace so that women (and men) can feel safe. I applaud that, actually. But, and this is important, we have a system based on "innocent until proven guilty." I fear that the rush to judgment may cause some good people to lose their jobs with little more than an unfounded accusation of wrongdoing.
When I was in college, I was seeing a girl. We were not officially dating, we didn't go out, and we certainly were not exclusive in any way -- we just hooked up when it was convenient. One day, another girl asked the first girl to introduce her to me, which she did. This other girl and I hit it off very well and became something of an item. The first girl was hurt. I learned later from another friend that she was hurt enough that she told some of the other girls that she was going to go to the Dean and (falsely) accuse me of rape to "get back at" me. Luckily, all the other girls present were my friends, they realized that her doing that was wrong on many levels, and they talked her out of maliciously, and falsely, accusing me.
But, what if they hadn't? Even an unfounded accusation of rape would have likely changed my life forever! When my female friends told me of this, I know I turned all sorts of pale and was scared. Even the accusation without proof or substantiation would have likely ended my college career. That may have changed my entire life's path, my circle of friends, everything from that moment on. And that is just with an accusation. What if I was judged guilty without a hearing/trial and only on one person's (false) statement? Who knows how long and how hard I would have had to fight that accusation. I was very lucky to have such good friends who would stand up for me and talk her out of making a false accusation to simply get back at me for "dumping her."
So, having been on that side of things (or very nearly), I have a unique perspective on the fragility of position and I understand how malicious, unfounded accusations can change everything in an instant. Some of the men being accused today have had long-term rumors of their predatory behavior. Some have even paid financial settlements so that these activities will not come to light. In these circumstances, I agree that firing them is the right, and only, choice. There is existing evidence to show their pattern of behavior and wrongdoing to make this determination and act on it. In my opinion, they should also be charged and go to jail for their acts.
In some cases, however, I'm reading about nothing more than a couple of accusations with little or no substantiation. In some cases, it seems like little or no investigation into the matters has occurred. (I mean, really, is 12 hours enough time to do a full, "thorough" investigation into something that starts as a "she said, he said" situation?) Yet the man is fired and blacklisted immediately. What if some of these women are just jumping on an emotional bandwagon and using it to maliciously, and fallaciously, oust someone they don't like? What if there is no pattern of behavior or corroborating evidence (multiple witnesses, physical evidence like phone calls, emails, notes, etc.)? Do we summarily dismiss a man just because a woman accuses him? If anyone answers yes, then I start to get worried. Not every woman has pure motives and is telling the truth about assault, harassment, or rape. Not every man is a sexual predator, and just like no man should be believed without proof, neither should every woman be believed without some proof/evidence.
Also, what about a person's ability to change? In a few of these cases, I'm reading about accusations that are years, sometimes decades, old. If there are no new accusations, then maybe the man has changed? Maybe he has learned from his behavior and has changed it? Should we be firing and blacklisting someone who two decades ago was a lothario who harassed people but then, through some means, learned the error of his ways and changed? Isn't that a guy whom we want to keep around and maybe hear his perspective on things? Maybe he can shine a unique light on the situation from which other predatory males can learn something? I decry that the man was once this way, but I applaud him for changing, too.
Again, let me state clearly: if there is evidence that a man has committed any sort of harassment, assault, or rape, I want him out. I want him charged with those crimes, I want him to go to jail, and I want him blacklisted. But, please, take the time to fully investigate before simply throwing the man out. While I believe most women would not make up something as serious as a harassment, assault, or rape allegation, the fact that some women would makes me press pause and want to ensure we're all fully informed before blacklisting and ruining the life of anyone. I think we owe them that much, at least.
I am all for getting abusive, predatory men out of the workspace so that women (and men) can feel safe. I applaud that, actually. But, and this is important, we have a system based on "innocent until proven guilty." I fear that the rush to judgment may cause some good people to lose their jobs with little more than an unfounded accusation of wrongdoing.
When I was in college, I was seeing a girl. We were not officially dating, we didn't go out, and we certainly were not exclusive in any way -- we just hooked up when it was convenient. One day, another girl asked the first girl to introduce her to me, which she did. This other girl and I hit it off very well and became something of an item. The first girl was hurt. I learned later from another friend that she was hurt enough that she told some of the other girls that she was going to go to the Dean and (falsely) accuse me of rape to "get back at" me. Luckily, all the other girls present were my friends, they realized that her doing that was wrong on many levels, and they talked her out of maliciously, and falsely, accusing me.
But, what if they hadn't? Even an unfounded accusation of rape would have likely changed my life forever! When my female friends told me of this, I know I turned all sorts of pale and was scared. Even the accusation without proof or substantiation would have likely ended my college career. That may have changed my entire life's path, my circle of friends, everything from that moment on. And that is just with an accusation. What if I was judged guilty without a hearing/trial and only on one person's (false) statement? Who knows how long and how hard I would have had to fight that accusation. I was very lucky to have such good friends who would stand up for me and talk her out of making a false accusation to simply get back at me for "dumping her."
So, having been on that side of things (or very nearly), I have a unique perspective on the fragility of position and I understand how malicious, unfounded accusations can change everything in an instant. Some of the men being accused today have had long-term rumors of their predatory behavior. Some have even paid financial settlements so that these activities will not come to light. In these circumstances, I agree that firing them is the right, and only, choice. There is existing evidence to show their pattern of behavior and wrongdoing to make this determination and act on it. In my opinion, they should also be charged and go to jail for their acts.
In some cases, however, I'm reading about nothing more than a couple of accusations with little or no substantiation. In some cases, it seems like little or no investigation into the matters has occurred. (I mean, really, is 12 hours enough time to do a full, "thorough" investigation into something that starts as a "she said, he said" situation?) Yet the man is fired and blacklisted immediately. What if some of these women are just jumping on an emotional bandwagon and using it to maliciously, and fallaciously, oust someone they don't like? What if there is no pattern of behavior or corroborating evidence (multiple witnesses, physical evidence like phone calls, emails, notes, etc.)? Do we summarily dismiss a man just because a woman accuses him? If anyone answers yes, then I start to get worried. Not every woman has pure motives and is telling the truth about assault, harassment, or rape. Not every man is a sexual predator, and just like no man should be believed without proof, neither should every woman be believed without some proof/evidence.
Also, what about a person's ability to change? In a few of these cases, I'm reading about accusations that are years, sometimes decades, old. If there are no new accusations, then maybe the man has changed? Maybe he has learned from his behavior and has changed it? Should we be firing and blacklisting someone who two decades ago was a lothario who harassed people but then, through some means, learned the error of his ways and changed? Isn't that a guy whom we want to keep around and maybe hear his perspective on things? Maybe he can shine a unique light on the situation from which other predatory males can learn something? I decry that the man was once this way, but I applaud him for changing, too.
Again, let me state clearly: if there is evidence that a man has committed any sort of harassment, assault, or rape, I want him out. I want him charged with those crimes, I want him to go to jail, and I want him blacklisted. But, please, take the time to fully investigate before simply throwing the man out. While I believe most women would not make up something as serious as a harassment, assault, or rape allegation, the fact that some women would makes me press pause and want to ensure we're all fully informed before blacklisting and ruining the life of anyone. I think we owe them that much, at least.
UPDATE
More quickly than I expected, a report came out that seems to mimic much of what I say here. The Aziz Ansari issue is in that gray area of only 1 person condemning him, and the reports indicating it is much more of a bad sexual encounter where Mr. Ansari either didn't notice or ignored her dislike for where things were going. Is this sexual assault or just a bad date/bad sexual encounter?
https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/1/17/16897440/aziz-ansari-allegations-babe-me-too
https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/1/17/16897440/aziz-ansari-allegations-babe-me-too
August 16, 2017
Trump Lies? Really?
I keep seeing posts similar to this in my FB feed:
"In my lifetime have I never seen or heard of a President being scrutinized over every word he speaks, humiliated by the public to the point of wanting to hurt someone, slander, ridicule, insulted, lied to, threatened to murder him, threatened to rape our Beautiful First Lady, and have his children also insulted and humiliated." (This is a direct quote pulled from one of the most recent posts on FB.)
Really? "In [your] lifetime"? I guess you must have died before President Obama, eh? Because most of that stuff comes up within milliseconds of a Google search for Obama. Obama was threatened with death often (remember all those effigies burned and hanged? What about those carrying signs saying he should be assassinated? What about Ted Nugent's repeated calls for Obama's death?); slandered (the whole birther movement, among others); ridiculed, lied to, and insulted (too many times and topics to even list here, and most often by the Republican leadership in Congress); Michelle was threatened with rape, death, and racist name calling on a regular basis. For the most part, most people seemed to stay away from threatening or attacking the Obama daughters, so I guess that point stands out from the above.
I get it: you are a Republican, a conservative, or simply just a fan of Trump. You want to defend him. That's fine. But why say things that are so patently untrue and so easy to prove false? Is your memory so short?
There are plenty of things you can slam Obama for that are legitimate. You may not have agreed with the choices he made or the direction he took the country. But, why do you feel the need to exaggerate, lie, or otherwise overstate how bad your candidate has it when we literally just stopped eight years of some of the worst examples of all of that?
The other issue I have is that Trump brings most of it on himself. He makes wildly false statements, and then people get upset when the news and individuals call him on it. He exaggerates things that are easily proven as exaggerations, and people get upset when he's called on it. He simply makes stuff up out of whole cloth and, when the news calls on him to provide so much as one shred of proof for these stories, people get upset. Really? But they can't remember the exact same thing happening to Obama at nearly every speech he made? How about that famous time one of the Republicans interrupted his State of the Union speech by yelling "You lie!" at the top of his lungs? Or that time that the President called the Republican leadership into the Oval Office, talked with them about the health care vote, they were shown on video both entering and leaving the White House, and yet they claimed to not go at all, let alone talk with the President that day?
I don't care which party is in the White House. When a President lies, he should be called on it. Anyone who threatens the President with harm or death should be investigated by the Secret Service and possibly incarcerated. A President's words should always be scrutinized.
Simply put: If Trump is going to lie so often, so easily, about so many easily proved things, then he gets what he deserves.
"In my lifetime have I never seen or heard of a President being scrutinized over every word he speaks, humiliated by the public to the point of wanting to hurt someone, slander, ridicule, insulted, lied to, threatened to murder him, threatened to rape our Beautiful First Lady, and have his children also insulted and humiliated." (This is a direct quote pulled from one of the most recent posts on FB.)
Really? "In [your] lifetime"? I guess you must have died before President Obama, eh? Because most of that stuff comes up within milliseconds of a Google search for Obama. Obama was threatened with death often (remember all those effigies burned and hanged? What about those carrying signs saying he should be assassinated? What about Ted Nugent's repeated calls for Obama's death?); slandered (the whole birther movement, among others); ridiculed, lied to, and insulted (too many times and topics to even list here, and most often by the Republican leadership in Congress); Michelle was threatened with rape, death, and racist name calling on a regular basis. For the most part, most people seemed to stay away from threatening or attacking the Obama daughters, so I guess that point stands out from the above.
I get it: you are a Republican, a conservative, or simply just a fan of Trump. You want to defend him. That's fine. But why say things that are so patently untrue and so easy to prove false? Is your memory so short?
There are plenty of things you can slam Obama for that are legitimate. You may not have agreed with the choices he made or the direction he took the country. But, why do you feel the need to exaggerate, lie, or otherwise overstate how bad your candidate has it when we literally just stopped eight years of some of the worst examples of all of that?
The other issue I have is that Trump brings most of it on himself. He makes wildly false statements, and then people get upset when the news and individuals call him on it. He exaggerates things that are easily proven as exaggerations, and people get upset when he's called on it. He simply makes stuff up out of whole cloth and, when the news calls on him to provide so much as one shred of proof for these stories, people get upset. Really? But they can't remember the exact same thing happening to Obama at nearly every speech he made? How about that famous time one of the Republicans interrupted his State of the Union speech by yelling "You lie!" at the top of his lungs? Or that time that the President called the Republican leadership into the Oval Office, talked with them about the health care vote, they were shown on video both entering and leaving the White House, and yet they claimed to not go at all, let alone talk with the President that day?
I don't care which party is in the White House. When a President lies, he should be called on it. Anyone who threatens the President with harm or death should be investigated by the Secret Service and possibly incarcerated. A President's words should always be scrutinized.
Simply put: If Trump is going to lie so often, so easily, about so many easily proved things, then he gets what he deserves.
June 26, 2017
On Racism
I don't get racism. The idea of condemning an entire group of people for real or perceived issues strikes me as odd.
If you were to take the skin off of any human being, you would be hard pressed to tell whether that person was white, black, Asian, Hispanic, or anything else. Under the hood, so to speak, we are all virtually identical. The amount of melanin we have shouldn't be used to determine much of anything, except maybe how easily one will burn in the sunshine.
Think about it this way: most cars are fairly identical under the skin. Some have slightly bigger or smaller engines, some have slightly better or worse braking systems, some have some added bells and whistles, but, otherwise, they are all fundamentally the same underneath. It doesn't really matter if the shell of aluminum and plastic that makes up the body is painted white, black, yellow, or brown, the car will run the same.
Same with people.
The idea of race being a determiner for anything is a dream. It comes, primarily, from slavers during the triangle slave trade of the 1700 and 1800s and from Nazi Germany during WW2. The people behind both of those situations were biased and in the business of manufacturing differences based on skin color, and all of those opinions have been debunked over and over again.
When I was growing up, I had a bully who was black. HE was a dick, so I blamed HIM for being that dick. The vast majority of black people I've met have been non-dickish people. So too with whites, Asians, and Hispanics; I've met some individuals who were dicks to me, but overall the vast majority have been worthwhile people. Why would I paint an entire group of people with the same brush as one or two?
America is currently over 70% white. Statistically speaking, that means you are probably going to run into more dicks who are white than any other race. Should you, as a white person, be racially biased against your own race whenever you run into those occasional dicks? If you are not condemning your own race, yourself included, for a few dicks, why are you doing the same for another race?
If someone is a dick to you, be angry at that individual. Don't use your anger to paint with broad strokes an entire group of people who happen to look like that dick.
If you were to take the skin off of any human being, you would be hard pressed to tell whether that person was white, black, Asian, Hispanic, or anything else. Under the hood, so to speak, we are all virtually identical. The amount of melanin we have shouldn't be used to determine much of anything, except maybe how easily one will burn in the sunshine.
Think about it this way: most cars are fairly identical under the skin. Some have slightly bigger or smaller engines, some have slightly better or worse braking systems, some have some added bells and whistles, but, otherwise, they are all fundamentally the same underneath. It doesn't really matter if the shell of aluminum and plastic that makes up the body is painted white, black, yellow, or brown, the car will run the same.
Same with people.
The idea of race being a determiner for anything is a dream. It comes, primarily, from slavers during the triangle slave trade of the 1700 and 1800s and from Nazi Germany during WW2. The people behind both of those situations were biased and in the business of manufacturing differences based on skin color, and all of those opinions have been debunked over and over again.
When I was growing up, I had a bully who was black. HE was a dick, so I blamed HIM for being that dick. The vast majority of black people I've met have been non-dickish people. So too with whites, Asians, and Hispanics; I've met some individuals who were dicks to me, but overall the vast majority have been worthwhile people. Why would I paint an entire group of people with the same brush as one or two?
America is currently over 70% white. Statistically speaking, that means you are probably going to run into more dicks who are white than any other race. Should you, as a white person, be racially biased against your own race whenever you run into those occasional dicks? If you are not condemning your own race, yourself included, for a few dicks, why are you doing the same for another race?
If someone is a dick to you, be angry at that individual. Don't use your anger to paint with broad strokes an entire group of people who happen to look like that dick.
February 17, 2017
Proving Plutocracy
A "plutocracy" is one form of an "oligarchy" wherein the small group of people who run things is made up of the wealthy. While many have been sidetracked by the current administration's hyperbole and lies, the Republicans in Congress have been destroying the work of decades. And why are they doing it? Because their corporate, wealthy, billionaire masters pull their strings and tell them to.
The Republicans in Congress have started to destroy EPA rules and laws to protect endangered species and environments. What is most curious is that, in a representative democracy such as America, those in Congress are supposed to enact the will of the people they represent. And stats show that well over 80% of all people, regardless of politics, are in favor of protecting the environment and animals. So, why would Congress do these things?
Because big business finds it inconvenient. Big business wants to be able to log anywhere, to mine anywhere, to drill anywhere. They don't like having to submit EPA forms proving they won't hurt animals or the environment. They hate looking at all that potential in National Parks and Monuments and not being allowed to move in with big machinery and destroy it. They hate having to spend a little extra to make sure there is clean water to drink and fresh air to breathe.
And big business is who pays for the Republicans' to get into office. They are the ones who write the bills for Republicans and ask them to turn those bills into law. Big Business is the one pulling the strings. (This is not to say that Democrats don't get money from big business and the super-wealthy; however, the Republicans have a much tighter, pro-business/anti-regulation stance fundamentally, and big business can pull those strings much more easily for Republicans than for Democrats, who traditionally have a pro-environment, pro-regulation stance.)
The richest few, I think, believe that they will always have drinkable water and clean air to breathe. Of course, history shows otherwise; you may hurt the poorest first, then the middle classes next, but, sooner or later, the effects of unrestrained business will hurt even those who can afford the best, afford the necessities even as they sky-rocket in price and scarcity.
Clean water is good for everybody. Clean air is good for everybody. Protecting animal and plant species and environments is good for everybody. And here's why: most medications, including new discoveries, come from plants and animals. And, sometimes, those plants and animals are only found in the most delicate of environments. How many cures have we destroyed in the Amazon rain forest already, that we will never know about?
Did you know that without customers, most business fail? So, if the poor and the middle class don't have clean water and clean air, they die or move away and cannot buy your goods or services. Your business dies, just as your customers and customer base dies. It is actually in your best interest to be regulated.
Did you know that the regulation business employs thousands of people? By forcing existing businesses to regulate, the government created a ton of jobs and more economic wealth. By doing away with those regulations, business is killing other business and putting people out of work, weakening the economy and hurting their own customer base.
Republican leaders are going back to their constituents and finding them angry. They are being attack on health care, the environment, and regulations by members of their own party because they are not doing what their people want them to do. They are not listening. These leaders are fleeing from their own constituents, ducking out of meetings, and "needing" police escorts because they refuse to do the will of the people they serve.
The people have to take back control of Congress. If over 80% of people like the environment and want to regulate whether businesses can drill, mine, or pollute there, contact your representative by phone or (snail) mail/postcard. They cannot ignore a ton of phone calls and mail arriving at their offices. Be polite, courteous, and consistent in your message. And, if they don't listen, DO NOT VOTE FOR THEM IN THE NEXT ELECTION!
#revolution
The Republicans in Congress have started to destroy EPA rules and laws to protect endangered species and environments. What is most curious is that, in a representative democracy such as America, those in Congress are supposed to enact the will of the people they represent. And stats show that well over 80% of all people, regardless of politics, are in favor of protecting the environment and animals. So, why would Congress do these things?
Because big business finds it inconvenient. Big business wants to be able to log anywhere, to mine anywhere, to drill anywhere. They don't like having to submit EPA forms proving they won't hurt animals or the environment. They hate looking at all that potential in National Parks and Monuments and not being allowed to move in with big machinery and destroy it. They hate having to spend a little extra to make sure there is clean water to drink and fresh air to breathe.
And big business is who pays for the Republicans' to get into office. They are the ones who write the bills for Republicans and ask them to turn those bills into law. Big Business is the one pulling the strings. (This is not to say that Democrats don't get money from big business and the super-wealthy; however, the Republicans have a much tighter, pro-business/anti-regulation stance fundamentally, and big business can pull those strings much more easily for Republicans than for Democrats, who traditionally have a pro-environment, pro-regulation stance.)
The richest few, I think, believe that they will always have drinkable water and clean air to breathe. Of course, history shows otherwise; you may hurt the poorest first, then the middle classes next, but, sooner or later, the effects of unrestrained business will hurt even those who can afford the best, afford the necessities even as they sky-rocket in price and scarcity.
Clean water is good for everybody. Clean air is good for everybody. Protecting animal and plant species and environments is good for everybody. And here's why: most medications, including new discoveries, come from plants and animals. And, sometimes, those plants and animals are only found in the most delicate of environments. How many cures have we destroyed in the Amazon rain forest already, that we will never know about?
Did you know that without customers, most business fail? So, if the poor and the middle class don't have clean water and clean air, they die or move away and cannot buy your goods or services. Your business dies, just as your customers and customer base dies. It is actually in your best interest to be regulated.
Did you know that the regulation business employs thousands of people? By forcing existing businesses to regulate, the government created a ton of jobs and more economic wealth. By doing away with those regulations, business is killing other business and putting people out of work, weakening the economy and hurting their own customer base.
Republican leaders are going back to their constituents and finding them angry. They are being attack on health care, the environment, and regulations by members of their own party because they are not doing what their people want them to do. They are not listening. These leaders are fleeing from their own constituents, ducking out of meetings, and "needing" police escorts because they refuse to do the will of the people they serve.
The people have to take back control of Congress. If over 80% of people like the environment and want to regulate whether businesses can drill, mine, or pollute there, contact your representative by phone or (snail) mail/postcard. They cannot ignore a ton of phone calls and mail arriving at their offices. Be polite, courteous, and consistent in your message. And, if they don't listen, DO NOT VOTE FOR THEM IN THE NEXT ELECTION!
#revolution
February 15, 2017
Where We Are
One of the things that frustrates me the most about this Nationalistic movement is that it is predicated on things that President Obama actually tried to do. He wanted to put a bunch of people to work on infrastructure. He wanted to get people training so that they could go from coal and gas to solar and wind (and others). He wanted to do a lot of things within the borders to get people working, get people spending money, and get people happy again.
And the Republicans blocked him every step of the way. They blocked his works bill for infrastructure every single time the Democrats put it forth... while refusing to bring forth their own works bill or work with Dems to make a bill they would pass. They blocked his bills for putting money toward re-educating people. They blocked nearly ever piece of legislation that the Dems put forth toward 'making America great again' and refused to help on bills that the Dems pleaded with them for bipartisanship. President Obama even put forth a moderate Supreme Court nominee nearly a year before leaving office, a person that many Repubs openly stated was a good choice and someone they would consider, and then the Repubs refused to do their job and, at the least, vet the candidate.
If you read pretty much any news that is not American news over the last 8 years, you would see that President Obama overcame the negative perception of the country built up over the previous 8 years of President Bush and got the world looking at America as a leader and innovator. The rest of the world praised Obama with his policies of sanctions against Syria, Russia, and others. The rest of the world saw those sanctions working and forcing the sanctioned countries to do things differently. You would read about how world leaders liked, praised, and enjoyed working with Obama, trusted him and his stance on things.
Now, those same leaders and news organizations openly mock the current American administration. They fear the isolationism and nationalism that the current administration states is its goal. They worry about the nationalists in their own countries as they surge because of the results of "BRexit" and the American presidential election. After America leading the way out of the recent economic collapse, the world fears that America's isolationism will stall that same economic recovery and even reverse it. Basically, the world is scared.
The current administration lies. It claims that Obama didn't try to do the many, many things he tried. It lies about who is at fault for where we are now. It lied about cleaning out the muck of Washington DC. It lied about cracking down on Wall Street (who it called liars more than once). The current administration uses executive orders when it doesn't need to. It threatens temper tantrums if it doesn't get its way, and seems to not understand how government actually works. The current administration is in constant attack mode against a press that is simply pointing out the many, obvious, provable facts that are out there. If they will lie about those things, what else are they lying about?
I can't help but imagine where we would be today if the Republican party had actually taken President Obama's many requests to work with him to heart and done it. Imagine how much better the ACA (Obamacare) would be today. Imagine if they had worked with him on his works bills and then helped pass it... we would be 8 years ahead on fixing old bridges, repairing old dams, maintaining old sewers, and fixing streets (among many other things). Imagine how the historically low murder rates and unemployment rates would be even lower if any one of Obama's retraining/education bills had been allowed to pass by the Repubs.
There comes a point where you have to set aside your differences, realize that things are failing, and work with the opposition to make it right. You have to realize that your constituents need you to lead, compromise, and do what is best for as many different people as possible, instead of needless throwing rancor and aspersions at the other party.
That, by itself, in today's political world, is a pretty revolutionary thought, isn't it?
And the Republicans blocked him every step of the way. They blocked his works bill for infrastructure every single time the Democrats put it forth... while refusing to bring forth their own works bill or work with Dems to make a bill they would pass. They blocked his bills for putting money toward re-educating people. They blocked nearly ever piece of legislation that the Dems put forth toward 'making America great again' and refused to help on bills that the Dems pleaded with them for bipartisanship. President Obama even put forth a moderate Supreme Court nominee nearly a year before leaving office, a person that many Repubs openly stated was a good choice and someone they would consider, and then the Repubs refused to do their job and, at the least, vet the candidate.
If you read pretty much any news that is not American news over the last 8 years, you would see that President Obama overcame the negative perception of the country built up over the previous 8 years of President Bush and got the world looking at America as a leader and innovator. The rest of the world praised Obama with his policies of sanctions against Syria, Russia, and others. The rest of the world saw those sanctions working and forcing the sanctioned countries to do things differently. You would read about how world leaders liked, praised, and enjoyed working with Obama, trusted him and his stance on things.
Now, those same leaders and news organizations openly mock the current American administration. They fear the isolationism and nationalism that the current administration states is its goal. They worry about the nationalists in their own countries as they surge because of the results of "BRexit" and the American presidential election. After America leading the way out of the recent economic collapse, the world fears that America's isolationism will stall that same economic recovery and even reverse it. Basically, the world is scared.
The current administration lies. It claims that Obama didn't try to do the many, many things he tried. It lies about who is at fault for where we are now. It lied about cleaning out the muck of Washington DC. It lied about cracking down on Wall Street (who it called liars more than once). The current administration uses executive orders when it doesn't need to. It threatens temper tantrums if it doesn't get its way, and seems to not understand how government actually works. The current administration is in constant attack mode against a press that is simply pointing out the many, obvious, provable facts that are out there. If they will lie about those things, what else are they lying about?
I can't help but imagine where we would be today if the Republican party had actually taken President Obama's many requests to work with him to heart and done it. Imagine how much better the ACA (Obamacare) would be today. Imagine if they had worked with him on his works bills and then helped pass it... we would be 8 years ahead on fixing old bridges, repairing old dams, maintaining old sewers, and fixing streets (among many other things). Imagine how the historically low murder rates and unemployment rates would be even lower if any one of Obama's retraining/education bills had been allowed to pass by the Repubs.
There comes a point where you have to set aside your differences, realize that things are failing, and work with the opposition to make it right. You have to realize that your constituents need you to lead, compromise, and do what is best for as many different people as possible, instead of needless throwing rancor and aspersions at the other party.
That, by itself, in today's political world, is a pretty revolutionary thought, isn't it?
February 7, 2017
Executive Orders
When you have both houses of Congress decidedly on your side, you shouldn't need to enact very many Executive Orders (EO). You can introduce actual legislation that Congress can pass through the two houses and make law. Whether you liked him or not, Obama passed legislation in the first two years of his presidency because most of Congress was Democrat. He didn't need EOs to go around a hostile Congress.
So, why is Trump going the route of EOs? Why is he trying to circumvent the law creation and enactment system in place? He should, like Obama, be taking advantage of the Congress being "on his side" while it is (historically, the Congress will change to Democrat control at the two-year mark). Is it because not all Republicans are behind him? Maybe they are seeing cracks in the visage?
One of the best parts of going through the legal process of law creation is that many eyes see the legislation and, often, they can find the loopholes and unclear sections, point them out, and it can be rewritten. The EOs are not currently going through that process. Instead, Steve Bannon is writing them late at night, doesn't understand legalese, and is making very poorly worded orders that are hard to follow and will likely be overturned in Federal court.
Everything about Trump's first few weeks in office smells fishy. Hell, it appears he is not even reading the EOs he is signing. The constant leaks from the White House indicate a house in disarray, where Trump doesn't even know the contents of the EOs he's signing. In one case, he apparently became upset after learning that Bannon made himself a part of the NSC in an EO. But Trump didn't read it before signing it, so didn't know that was part of the EO? If you were President, and signing something that would, effectively, become a law, wouldn't you read it before signing it? (one of many sources) There are even some who question whether or not Trump can read. Here's one video where the gentleman makes a pretty convincing, if circumstantial argument.
Also, the literal number one item on Trump's "First 100 Days" document was getting term limits for Congress in place using a Constitutional Amendment. Yet that hasn't happened. It hasn't, to my knowledge, even been discussed. Yet, this might be the most effective thing Trump could do, getting turnover of the many 60+ year old, male, white Congresspeople for younger people of various ethnicities, backgrounds, and sexes. People who actually understand things like the social media, the immediacy of news and information today, the Internet (remember the Senator who didn't know what he was talking about and thought the Internet was made up of tubes?), how science works, and what's really happening to real people in the real world. I mean, if you are in Congress for decades, making $250k+ a year, with free healthcare for life, and all the other perks of Congress, you may just lose sight of how an average American, making less than $50k a year, who has to buy his own healthcare (or risk going without), and doesn't get the other perks has to live.
These are, indeed, interesting times. It remains to be seen how long they will last or how they will end.
#revolution
So, why is Trump going the route of EOs? Why is he trying to circumvent the law creation and enactment system in place? He should, like Obama, be taking advantage of the Congress being "on his side" while it is (historically, the Congress will change to Democrat control at the two-year mark). Is it because not all Republicans are behind him? Maybe they are seeing cracks in the visage?
One of the best parts of going through the legal process of law creation is that many eyes see the legislation and, often, they can find the loopholes and unclear sections, point them out, and it can be rewritten. The EOs are not currently going through that process. Instead, Steve Bannon is writing them late at night, doesn't understand legalese, and is making very poorly worded orders that are hard to follow and will likely be overturned in Federal court.
Everything about Trump's first few weeks in office smells fishy. Hell, it appears he is not even reading the EOs he is signing. The constant leaks from the White House indicate a house in disarray, where Trump doesn't even know the contents of the EOs he's signing. In one case, he apparently became upset after learning that Bannon made himself a part of the NSC in an EO. But Trump didn't read it before signing it, so didn't know that was part of the EO? If you were President, and signing something that would, effectively, become a law, wouldn't you read it before signing it? (one of many sources) There are even some who question whether or not Trump can read. Here's one video where the gentleman makes a pretty convincing, if circumstantial argument.
Also, the literal number one item on Trump's "First 100 Days" document was getting term limits for Congress in place using a Constitutional Amendment. Yet that hasn't happened. It hasn't, to my knowledge, even been discussed. Yet, this might be the most effective thing Trump could do, getting turnover of the many 60+ year old, male, white Congresspeople for younger people of various ethnicities, backgrounds, and sexes. People who actually understand things like the social media, the immediacy of news and information today, the Internet (remember the Senator who didn't know what he was talking about and thought the Internet was made up of tubes?), how science works, and what's really happening to real people in the real world. I mean, if you are in Congress for decades, making $250k+ a year, with free healthcare for life, and all the other perks of Congress, you may just lose sight of how an average American, making less than $50k a year, who has to buy his own healthcare (or risk going without), and doesn't get the other perks has to live.
These are, indeed, interesting times. It remains to be seen how long they will last or how they will end.
#revolution
January 23, 2017
Lying Liars and the Lies They Tell
What I learned in grade school, junior high, and high school is that if a person lies about the small things, they will lie about everything and they cannot be trusted with anything.
Trump has decided to lie. And he lies about the stupidest, smallest, least significant things possible. It makes no sense. If he is going to lie about things we can look out our proverbial window and see the truth of, then what will he do when something big and important comes along?
I accept he won the Presidency. I don't completely understand it, and I'm still shaking my head over the Electoral College's first chance to live up to and perform its duty as mandated in the Constitution yet refusing to do it, but I accept the results.
I cannot, however, accept the lies. I was always taught that lying is bad. Granted, we all lie every day... you know, those little white lies that everyone uses. How are you? Fine (but you're really not fine at all; you're sick, you're mentally exhausted, you're on your last nerve). Did I wake you? No (it's 3:30 am, and you were having that awesome dream where 1980's Adrienne Barbeau is throwing sandwich pickles at your bare feet, of course you were asleep).
If you voted for Trump because of religion, the lying must really gall you. I mean, most religions directly or indirectly say that lying is sinful. And yet he does it about everything. Even the most easily researched topics and least complicated areas. Why?
When I was younger, what I discovered was that the people around me that lied regularly and often usually lied at the biggest, most important times. If the teacher found out something, that person would lie to the teacher's face, accusing others or shifting blame. In one case, that person accused me and it took getting a half-dozen friends who knew I was elsewhere to get involved to shift the blame back where it belonged. In another case, someone I generally trusted, but played fast and loose with the truth, stole something of value from me that I never got back. The same person actually used a teacher's confusion over who we were to steal my higher grade in a class we both had with that teacher (still an acceptable grade, but lower than I earned; and, yes, this also points out the age and infirmity of that teacher who couldn't tell two similarly-sized, blond boys apart in his classroom).
If Donald Trump wants to lie about something as simple as the size of the gathering for his inauguration, what does he gain by it? I mean, it takes about 10 seconds to make a Google search and see pictures from a dozen or more inaugurations, and see at a glance that fewer went to his than to many others. So why state it was the largest ever? What does he get by doing that?
One person may have the answer. This was tweeted by Anna Rescouet-Paz:
That makes a lot of sense. This liar wants to set up the ability to lie again and again. He wants to make lying so regular, that those who listen to him will not know or, and this is the key part, question the lies he speaks. He wants to keep his base distrustful and aggressive toward everyone else. He wants to further divide the nation.
And he may succeed. Because the people who want to hear this are coming from an emotional place. They are emotionally invested in Trump and in his lies, and they do not want to hear or accept facts that run counter to that emotion. They believe that foreigners are bad, are going to kill them, and are taking their jobs, even when there is no evidence to prove it. They believe that other races are out to get them somehow, even as the fact of being employed by, or working with, other races has never been an issue for them. They believe that Trump can bring back jobs even though those jobs have been gone for 20 years and are never coming back, but new jobs for which they could retrain are already here.
I can't help but wonder what Trump and his administration will say if and when something big happens. What if we have another attack on our soil? Can we trust that anything said by him will be true? What if Russia pushes toward global expansion and world war? Will Trump tell us truly, or let the Russians do what they plan? What about North Korea and Kim Jong Crazy? He claims to have missiles now that can reach America... will Trump tell us if that is the case, and what will he say if he does?
To counter lies and misinformation, I get my news from a variety of sites. I read a little right, a little left, and a lot of foreign press (who, generally, don't have a dog in the fight). I try to find the consistent facts and I believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle. But I know I'm also fairly uncommon in my quest for truth and facts from news. I fear for the Average American who listens to his or her echo chamber and simply reinforces the emotional truth they already believe in, facts and evidence be damned.
I fear where this president could lead the nation, even while I cautiously hope he has an epiphany and realizes how big and important the job he just undertook will be. I hope I'm wrong about him, but history shows that lying liars usually just keep telling bigger and bigger lies until they are stopped.
Trump has decided to lie. And he lies about the stupidest, smallest, least significant things possible. It makes no sense. If he is going to lie about things we can look out our proverbial window and see the truth of, then what will he do when something big and important comes along?
I accept he won the Presidency. I don't completely understand it, and I'm still shaking my head over the Electoral College's first chance to live up to and perform its duty as mandated in the Constitution yet refusing to do it, but I accept the results.
I cannot, however, accept the lies. I was always taught that lying is bad. Granted, we all lie every day... you know, those little white lies that everyone uses. How are you? Fine (but you're really not fine at all; you're sick, you're mentally exhausted, you're on your last nerve). Did I wake you? No (it's 3:30 am, and you were having that awesome dream where 1980's Adrienne Barbeau is throwing sandwich pickles at your bare feet, of course you were asleep).
If you voted for Trump because of religion, the lying must really gall you. I mean, most religions directly or indirectly say that lying is sinful. And yet he does it about everything. Even the most easily researched topics and least complicated areas. Why?
When I was younger, what I discovered was that the people around me that lied regularly and often usually lied at the biggest, most important times. If the teacher found out something, that person would lie to the teacher's face, accusing others or shifting blame. In one case, that person accused me and it took getting a half-dozen friends who knew I was elsewhere to get involved to shift the blame back where it belonged. In another case, someone I generally trusted, but played fast and loose with the truth, stole something of value from me that I never got back. The same person actually used a teacher's confusion over who we were to steal my higher grade in a class we both had with that teacher (still an acceptable grade, but lower than I earned; and, yes, this also points out the age and infirmity of that teacher who couldn't tell two similarly-sized, blond boys apart in his classroom).
If Donald Trump wants to lie about something as simple as the size of the gathering for his inauguration, what does he gain by it? I mean, it takes about 10 seconds to make a Google search and see pictures from a dozen or more inaugurations, and see at a glance that fewer went to his than to many others. So why state it was the largest ever? What does he get by doing that?
One person may have the answer. This was tweeted by Anna Rescouet-Paz:
 |
| Tweet posted by Anna Rescouet-Paz, January 21, 2017 |
And he may succeed. Because the people who want to hear this are coming from an emotional place. They are emotionally invested in Trump and in his lies, and they do not want to hear or accept facts that run counter to that emotion. They believe that foreigners are bad, are going to kill them, and are taking their jobs, even when there is no evidence to prove it. They believe that other races are out to get them somehow, even as the fact of being employed by, or working with, other races has never been an issue for them. They believe that Trump can bring back jobs even though those jobs have been gone for 20 years and are never coming back, but new jobs for which they could retrain are already here.
I can't help but wonder what Trump and his administration will say if and when something big happens. What if we have another attack on our soil? Can we trust that anything said by him will be true? What if Russia pushes toward global expansion and world war? Will Trump tell us truly, or let the Russians do what they plan? What about North Korea and Kim Jong Crazy? He claims to have missiles now that can reach America... will Trump tell us if that is the case, and what will he say if he does?
To counter lies and misinformation, I get my news from a variety of sites. I read a little right, a little left, and a lot of foreign press (who, generally, don't have a dog in the fight). I try to find the consistent facts and I believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle. But I know I'm also fairly uncommon in my quest for truth and facts from news. I fear for the Average American who listens to his or her echo chamber and simply reinforces the emotional truth they already believe in, facts and evidence be damned.
I fear where this president could lead the nation, even while I cautiously hope he has an epiphany and realizes how big and important the job he just undertook will be. I hope I'm wrong about him, but history shows that lying liars usually just keep telling bigger and bigger lies until they are stopped.
Trump is the Man
I want this known: the legal process of electing a President has concluded. The Electoral college voted and, right or wrong, good or bad, it has chosen Trump as the winner with more than 270 electoral votes. I completely accept this. And, therefore, I completely accept Trump as our legally sworn-in President.
However, I disagree with nearly all of his platform as President. I think his plans, such as they are, will take the country backward in some cases and will actively harm the nation in others.
I absolutely do not agree with the whole "build a wall" plan. First, the Mexicans I know personally are hardworking, energetic people who want the American dream and go after it with gusto. They work hard, often 2, 3, 4 jobs at a time. They are willing to take on some pretty shitty jobs just to get work and make money, jobs that the average American sees as beneath them to work. Mexicans open businesses. They employ others. They have a strong work ethic, most I know are strongly religious, and most are strongly pro-family, and they are a tight-nit group. Just the sort of people you want immigrating to your country.
What we should be doing, rather than building a wall, is increasing talks and relations with Mexico. Getting more of them to immigrate legally. Looking for skilled workers, like programmers, managers, and builders, and entrepreneurs who want to open businesses and welcoming them in with open arms. If we do that, the need for a wall will virtually disappear and we bring more wealth into the country as they open those businesses and work those jobs here.
We don't need a nationalistic approach to jobs and trade. We just need to stop thinking that any trade deal with a country is better than no trade deal at all. We need to show countries, like China, that if they are going to cap and trade clause our goods coming into their country, then we will do the same to theirs. That will cause them to rethink their priorities, which allows us to ease trade barriers to them over time -- win win. NAFTA has been an unmitigated success for the countries involved; no need revoke it or back out of it. Is it time to look at possible tweaks and revisions? Sure. That is always a good thing, and all countries should do it from time to time. But backing out completely? That's the sign of someone with a narrow perspective or a lack of information, not a visionary leader.
In many cases, companies don't need to be actively harmed by taking jobs out of the country, they just need incentives to keep as many as possible within the country. We need to be looking at how to provide incentives for the companies to keep the profits here, in the country, without penalizing them. Companies are fairly predatory creatures and the seek out the greatest profits -- how can we incentivize them to keep a job in the USA with workers that make salaries and have benefits, versus giving that job to someone in a foreign country that makes 1/5 the salary and, often, has no benefits to pay? Well, as I roll from this into the ACA discussion, one way would be to switch to a universal, single-payer insurance system, which would take a huge chunk of money the company has to pay US employees out of the equation, closing the wage gap slightly between the US worker and the foreign worker.
Repealing healthcare? Why? Is the ACA (aka Obamacare) really that bad? Of course not. Any plan the Republicans come up with will mimic or copy much of what is in the ACA today. So why repeal the entire thing only to replace it with something that will, likely, be about 70-80% the same?
Trump has yet to make a truthful or verifiable statement about the ACA, and that seems to indicate that he either doesn't understand it or is willfully ignorant about how well it has worked. Is it great legislation? Hell no. It has way too many loopholes that need to be closed, it would be far better as a single-payer system, and we need to browbeat the pharmaceutical and health insurance companies that exist into lower prices and better service (as all single-payer systems around the world have done, to the betterment of the peoples' health in those nations). Again, tweaks and revisions are all that is needed. Hell, even Republicans are questioning the Republicans' desire to repeal this legislation without having a firm, verifiable plan that the people can read and comment on first. That's really all the Republicans need to do, too. Just present a better plan or a better revision to an existing plan and let the American people decide if it should be enacted. Maybe a repeal isn't needed. Either way, the American people will still think the Republicans are doing a good job leading the country and listening to its people. Right now, there are many who feel they aren't listening at all... even to their own like-minded constituents on this topic (and others).
His plans to deregulate the banking industry? Well, Clinton and "W" did that, and we achieved one of the worst financial collapses in the country, and it took years and re-regulation to dig out of it. Why do what has already proven not to work? Dodd-Frank is a good thing. It keeps the banking industry honest in its dealings with its customers and the nation. Deregulating energy companies so they can amp up production and go after harder and harder to reach energy reserves? Again, we've done that, many times, in the past. Each time it has achieved sick people, destroyed ecosystems (like drinkable water) and caused millions and billions in health, property, and clean up damages. Why would we ever do that again? It has proven not to work, time and again.
Questioning climate change? Well, here's the thing; every other nation (including China!) is leading the way to cleaner energy. Some countries, like India are actively promoting solar and wind at a massive rate. And, this is the kicker, they get most of the technology from the US. The rest of the world going green is actively helping the US economy. Now, imagine if the US stopped arguing over climate change and, instead, continued to add jobs and incentivize the green industries? Hell, we'd have thousands of new jobs, thousands more exports, and millions more dollars pumping into local economies. What if those areas where coal is played out and the mines are closed were where we built solar panel factories? What if where shale gas would be pumped, and ruining the local ground water, instead we built a large wind turbine factory? What if, in those area where oil wells are running dry, we built solar roadway production factories? What if we built desalination plants and water turbine and geothermal factories, employing people to make the technology of the future, rather than continuing to protect and prop up the existing oil industry? This is visionary leadership, not deregulating and allowing the gas and oil industry to plunder our national parks and monuments, clear-cutting forests, and destroying what limited drinking water resources the nation has.
The one area that I agree with Trump is that our federal government needs to be cleaned up. We absolutely need term limits in Congress to get turnover and fresh ideas. We need to do away with gerrymandering and rigged elections. However, I question how he is going about doing it. How is electing people who literally have no clue about the jobs they are nominated for (DeVos, Romney, Carson, et al) going to achieve success? How is having one of the architects of the last economic collapse in your cabinet going to help you "clean up the swamp"? It makes no sense.
So, I completely accept that this man is now our legally chosen President. As you can see, however, I do not accept his platform. I think it is narrow, short-sighted, and could harm the nation over time. I hope I'm wrong, and I hope he surprises me (and us), but his first, stumbling steps have not been promising.
However, I disagree with nearly all of his platform as President. I think his plans, such as they are, will take the country backward in some cases and will actively harm the nation in others.
I absolutely do not agree with the whole "build a wall" plan. First, the Mexicans I know personally are hardworking, energetic people who want the American dream and go after it with gusto. They work hard, often 2, 3, 4 jobs at a time. They are willing to take on some pretty shitty jobs just to get work and make money, jobs that the average American sees as beneath them to work. Mexicans open businesses. They employ others. They have a strong work ethic, most I know are strongly religious, and most are strongly pro-family, and they are a tight-nit group. Just the sort of people you want immigrating to your country.
What we should be doing, rather than building a wall, is increasing talks and relations with Mexico. Getting more of them to immigrate legally. Looking for skilled workers, like programmers, managers, and builders, and entrepreneurs who want to open businesses and welcoming them in with open arms. If we do that, the need for a wall will virtually disappear and we bring more wealth into the country as they open those businesses and work those jobs here.
We don't need a nationalistic approach to jobs and trade. We just need to stop thinking that any trade deal with a country is better than no trade deal at all. We need to show countries, like China, that if they are going to cap and trade clause our goods coming into their country, then we will do the same to theirs. That will cause them to rethink their priorities, which allows us to ease trade barriers to them over time -- win win. NAFTA has been an unmitigated success for the countries involved; no need revoke it or back out of it. Is it time to look at possible tweaks and revisions? Sure. That is always a good thing, and all countries should do it from time to time. But backing out completely? That's the sign of someone with a narrow perspective or a lack of information, not a visionary leader.
In many cases, companies don't need to be actively harmed by taking jobs out of the country, they just need incentives to keep as many as possible within the country. We need to be looking at how to provide incentives for the companies to keep the profits here, in the country, without penalizing them. Companies are fairly predatory creatures and the seek out the greatest profits -- how can we incentivize them to keep a job in the USA with workers that make salaries and have benefits, versus giving that job to someone in a foreign country that makes 1/5 the salary and, often, has no benefits to pay? Well, as I roll from this into the ACA discussion, one way would be to switch to a universal, single-payer insurance system, which would take a huge chunk of money the company has to pay US employees out of the equation, closing the wage gap slightly between the US worker and the foreign worker.
Repealing healthcare? Why? Is the ACA (aka Obamacare) really that bad? Of course not. Any plan the Republicans come up with will mimic or copy much of what is in the ACA today. So why repeal the entire thing only to replace it with something that will, likely, be about 70-80% the same?
Trump has yet to make a truthful or verifiable statement about the ACA, and that seems to indicate that he either doesn't understand it or is willfully ignorant about how well it has worked. Is it great legislation? Hell no. It has way too many loopholes that need to be closed, it would be far better as a single-payer system, and we need to browbeat the pharmaceutical and health insurance companies that exist into lower prices and better service (as all single-payer systems around the world have done, to the betterment of the peoples' health in those nations). Again, tweaks and revisions are all that is needed. Hell, even Republicans are questioning the Republicans' desire to repeal this legislation without having a firm, verifiable plan that the people can read and comment on first. That's really all the Republicans need to do, too. Just present a better plan or a better revision to an existing plan and let the American people decide if it should be enacted. Maybe a repeal isn't needed. Either way, the American people will still think the Republicans are doing a good job leading the country and listening to its people. Right now, there are many who feel they aren't listening at all... even to their own like-minded constituents on this topic (and others).
His plans to deregulate the banking industry? Well, Clinton and "W" did that, and we achieved one of the worst financial collapses in the country, and it took years and re-regulation to dig out of it. Why do what has already proven not to work? Dodd-Frank is a good thing. It keeps the banking industry honest in its dealings with its customers and the nation. Deregulating energy companies so they can amp up production and go after harder and harder to reach energy reserves? Again, we've done that, many times, in the past. Each time it has achieved sick people, destroyed ecosystems (like drinkable water) and caused millions and billions in health, property, and clean up damages. Why would we ever do that again? It has proven not to work, time and again.
Questioning climate change? Well, here's the thing; every other nation (including China!) is leading the way to cleaner energy. Some countries, like India are actively promoting solar and wind at a massive rate. And, this is the kicker, they get most of the technology from the US. The rest of the world going green is actively helping the US economy. Now, imagine if the US stopped arguing over climate change and, instead, continued to add jobs and incentivize the green industries? Hell, we'd have thousands of new jobs, thousands more exports, and millions more dollars pumping into local economies. What if those areas where coal is played out and the mines are closed were where we built solar panel factories? What if where shale gas would be pumped, and ruining the local ground water, instead we built a large wind turbine factory? What if, in those area where oil wells are running dry, we built solar roadway production factories? What if we built desalination plants and water turbine and geothermal factories, employing people to make the technology of the future, rather than continuing to protect and prop up the existing oil industry? This is visionary leadership, not deregulating and allowing the gas and oil industry to plunder our national parks and monuments, clear-cutting forests, and destroying what limited drinking water resources the nation has.
The one area that I agree with Trump is that our federal government needs to be cleaned up. We absolutely need term limits in Congress to get turnover and fresh ideas. We need to do away with gerrymandering and rigged elections. However, I question how he is going about doing it. How is electing people who literally have no clue about the jobs they are nominated for (DeVos, Romney, Carson, et al) going to achieve success? How is having one of the architects of the last economic collapse in your cabinet going to help you "clean up the swamp"? It makes no sense.
So, I completely accept that this man is now our legally chosen President. As you can see, however, I do not accept his platform. I think it is narrow, short-sighted, and could harm the nation over time. I hope I'm wrong, and I hope he surprises me (and us), but his first, stumbling steps have not been promising.
December 14, 2016
How're You Doing?
If you voted for Trump because he was an outsider, how is that working out for you?
He hasn't even taken office, and he is already acting like an insider with his cabinet choices. And his improper statesman decisions are affecting the US's relationships with other countries. His lack of knowledge of protocol has already had a deleterious effect on Taiwan and China. His improprieties have seen him have a normal citizen (his daughter) in a formal meeting with dignitaries and a love-fest for regimes that the US is currently struggling against, like Russia.
If you voted for Trump because he promised to "drain the swamp," how is that working out for you?
He hasn't even taken office, and he is already filling the swamp with new creatures, muck, and mire so as to make it as thick and uninviting as possible. It is as if he typed "opposite" whenever doing a search for someone to fill a cabinet position. He has already dropped his idea of trying to get Congressional term limits (one of the few ideas he had that I could get fully behind). He is already putting in place people who caused, or were a part of, some of the worst issues the country has had to deal with in the last 20 years as members of his cabinet.
If you voted for Trump because he was going to force companies to stay in the US, how is that working out for you?
He had to be reminded of his specific promise to 'force' Carrier to keep 'all the jobs' in the US, wasn't able to, said he managed to keep 1100 jobs in the US (which turned out to be about 720), and gave Carrier such lucrative incentives to stay that other companies are looking to it as a playbook for how to get tax credits and other incentives from the government. Saving less than 40% of jobs is not a viable plan to keep businesses in the US. His strong "35% tax" quickly became incentives and tax breaks instead.
If you voted for Trump because he was such a strong business leader, how is that working out for you?
More and more reports of how poorly run his actual business is, more reports of how his (mostly) silent business partners keep the business afloat, and more reports of how he just doesn't understand what the term 'conflict of interest' is or means.
Basically, unless you voted for him for his sexist and racist stances, you are probably already showing signs of disappointment as he goes against every plank and platform he ran on. I know the people who were pro-Trump on my FB feed and other places have been strangely quiet since he started to make actual decisions and ignored everything he supposedly stood for during the campaign. Which, in the end, means you voted pro-racism and sexism. How's that working out for you?
And he hasn't even taken office yet.
He hasn't even taken office, and he is already acting like an insider with his cabinet choices. And his improper statesman decisions are affecting the US's relationships with other countries. His lack of knowledge of protocol has already had a deleterious effect on Taiwan and China. His improprieties have seen him have a normal citizen (his daughter) in a formal meeting with dignitaries and a love-fest for regimes that the US is currently struggling against, like Russia.
If you voted for Trump because he promised to "drain the swamp," how is that working out for you?
He hasn't even taken office, and he is already filling the swamp with new creatures, muck, and mire so as to make it as thick and uninviting as possible. It is as if he typed "opposite" whenever doing a search for someone to fill a cabinet position. He has already dropped his idea of trying to get Congressional term limits (one of the few ideas he had that I could get fully behind). He is already putting in place people who caused, or were a part of, some of the worst issues the country has had to deal with in the last 20 years as members of his cabinet.
If you voted for Trump because he was going to force companies to stay in the US, how is that working out for you?
He had to be reminded of his specific promise to 'force' Carrier to keep 'all the jobs' in the US, wasn't able to, said he managed to keep 1100 jobs in the US (which turned out to be about 720), and gave Carrier such lucrative incentives to stay that other companies are looking to it as a playbook for how to get tax credits and other incentives from the government. Saving less than 40% of jobs is not a viable plan to keep businesses in the US. His strong "35% tax" quickly became incentives and tax breaks instead.
If you voted for Trump because he was such a strong business leader, how is that working out for you?
More and more reports of how poorly run his actual business is, more reports of how his (mostly) silent business partners keep the business afloat, and more reports of how he just doesn't understand what the term 'conflict of interest' is or means.
Basically, unless you voted for him for his sexist and racist stances, you are probably already showing signs of disappointment as he goes against every plank and platform he ran on. I know the people who were pro-Trump on my FB feed and other places have been strangely quiet since he started to make actual decisions and ignored everything he supposedly stood for during the campaign. Which, in the end, means you voted pro-racism and sexism. How's that working out for you?
And he hasn't even taken office yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)