Nothing could ever be enough to repay the black community of the United States for the holocaust that was committed against enslaved people and their descendants by American policies and the people of the United States. I believe the reparations debate is basically happening inside out. America's leadership should have long ago asked for and sought out a way to make some costly propitiation to the descendants of the enslaved.
I do volunteer much of what little I have to this endeavor. Because while it can never be enough, I'm going to need an installment plan.
Thursday, April 11, 2019
Sunday, January 13, 2019
The Steve King Mess
The Steve King mess reveals how far Republicans have to go to distance themselves from racism.
When I became a Republican in November in 2010, it was to pursue lower taxes, smaller government and a pronounced reduction to non-sponsored immigration. I had no idea what white supremacy, the KKK, and other hate groups, have to do with that.
And yet it should not have been so difficult for me to trace. The 1787 text of the Constitution itself permitted the trade of enslaved human beings across the ocean until 1818. People who were enslaved were reduced to three fifths of the apportionment for representation in Congress. The fact that, to this day, the three-fifths clause is still bandied about as "less racist" than full apportionment for the enslaved, is ridiculous. The simple fact that the Northern founders allowed such a thing to enter the foundational document of our government has caused problems to this day.
And yet it does no good to rage at the Founders. We need a new Constitution - one on which all citizens of the United States start on an equal footing.
And yet even racism may not be our biggest problem. The Federal budget deficit is set to consume the entire economy. Had we held to what was good in the Constitution - the written, clear-language limits on the scope of the Federal government - we would not be in this budget mess.
And if we looked at our fellow human beings and saw a fellow human being and not someone to dictate supremacy over, we wouldn't be in this Steve King mess.
When I became a Republican in November in 2010, it was to pursue lower taxes, smaller government and a pronounced reduction to non-sponsored immigration. I had no idea what white supremacy, the KKK, and other hate groups, have to do with that.
And yet it should not have been so difficult for me to trace. The 1787 text of the Constitution itself permitted the trade of enslaved human beings across the ocean until 1818. People who were enslaved were reduced to three fifths of the apportionment for representation in Congress. The fact that, to this day, the three-fifths clause is still bandied about as "less racist" than full apportionment for the enslaved, is ridiculous. The simple fact that the Northern founders allowed such a thing to enter the foundational document of our government has caused problems to this day.
And yet it does no good to rage at the Founders. We need a new Constitution - one on which all citizens of the United States start on an equal footing.
And yet even racism may not be our biggest problem. The Federal budget deficit is set to consume the entire economy. Had we held to what was good in the Constitution - the written, clear-language limits on the scope of the Federal government - we would not be in this budget mess.
And if we looked at our fellow human beings and saw a fellow human being and not someone to dictate supremacy over, we wouldn't be in this Steve King mess.
Sunday, July 15, 2018
You know what's even more cruel
Than separating kids at the border? It's bombing them, Laura Bush. News flash on that, by the way. Don't know if you were aware of that. You know, because your husband ordered an undeclared war against the nation and people of Iraq, a 'worst in the century' type of decision wasn't backed by any reasonable American national security objective. A war we're literally still paying for, because your husband couldn't see fit to balance a single budget during his eight years in office. A war whose veterans - loyal almost to a fault and courageous beyond anything demanded of a 'veteran' of the Texas Air National Guard - are still receiving care for their physical and psychological wounds. A war which destabilized an entire region and that made American troops targets of the Iranian theocratic regime's IEDs - a regime we couldn't attack because we already had our hands full, propping up a corrupt government in Iraq.
We should indeed hope that the kids being separated at the border are treated to better and more tender mercies than the more than 1,000 killed in the undeclared, unnecessary war in Iraq.
What's happening on the U.S. Southern Border is very bad, but rather than work to solve it, isn't it easier to post something online, complaining about a leader's regime you don't like?
See, I can do it too.
We should indeed hope that the kids being separated at the border are treated to better and more tender mercies than the more than 1,000 killed in the undeclared, unnecessary war in Iraq.
What's happening on the U.S. Southern Border is very bad, but rather than work to solve it, isn't it easier to post something online, complaining about a leader's regime you don't like?
See, I can do it too.
Wednesday, July 4, 2018
The New Second Amendment
Given the mass killing and death caused by guns over the last several years, from the Pulse nightclub attack to the tragic deaths of 17 people in Parkland, Florida, I cannot help but begin to wonder if the Second Amendment is functioning in anything like the capacity which the Founders intended.
Part of the lost history of the Second Amendment is that states once had far more military power than the Federal government. States had militias and navies. A large part of the reason that the War of 1812 was not as great of a success for America as it could have been was that many state militias did not participate. The Constitution was written by the Founding Fathers, many of whom had contentious state governments to contend with, and the votes to enact the Constitution were far from unanimous. It was Thomas Jefferson who had promised a Bill of Rights, and when it was enacted just a few years after the Constitution itself, what we now think of as "gun rights" was literally very high on the list. Several states had "right to bear arms" clauses in their state constitutions, and my theory is that the states demanded that the Federal government abjure itself of the power to collect guns en masse and thereby horde so much power to itself. You could go all the way back to Bacon's Rebellion in 1676 to look at the consequences (popular rebellion) of a state that won't defend its people or let them at least defend themselves.
However. The actual text of the Second Amendment has been nagging me lately. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Doesn't it seem like the part about a well regulated Militia that's necessary to the security of a free state comes first? Now I've heard the grammatarians pick this one apart and they tell me it's a subordinate clause, that the action part of the amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms part." Really? Did Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin really sit around going, "You know what? Let's put in a completely subordinate and irrelevant fluff clause into the Second Amendment, with no bearing on the understanding or interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms part of the Amendment. That's just how we will regulated Militia conduct ourselves regulated Militia going forward."
Not so much, right?
And then there's this other problem with the Second Amendment. There are places where it seems to be overly applied - like when psychotic teenagers purchase rapid-fire weapons. And there are places where it seems like the Federal government - if it really was protecting citizens against dumb state laws - would want to throw out the "well regulated Militia" part and protect a citizen's allegedly expressed right to own a gun. What about dangerous places across the country, where break-ins, assaults and other crimes are common - and yet in many of these places, gun regulations are so strict that people can't have firearms they need to protect themselves. Why don't the "it's a subordinate clause" Second Amendment firebrands step in and effectively stop local governments from denying people their rights? Nobody is arguing that every single man, woman, and near-adult person who's still legally a child but who could still bear a firearm is a candidate for the militia, let along the regular military. A terminally ill cancer patient could possibly have the strength to level a pistol and pull the trigger at a dangerous intruder, but no one is suggesting that such a person be recruited up as squad leader in the 101st Airborne.
And this exposes a paradox within the Second Amendment. The Founders started by writing about the need for a properly function militia - roughly, a bunch of more-or-less organized citizen-soldiers - being necessary to keep the security of a free state. But the Amendment then takes the very big leap of logic and - depending on how you want to weight your understanding of the words - grants the right to keep and bear arms to "the people."
And this is what's really staggering - and easy to miss - in the Second Amendment. "The people" could well mean everyone who is physically in the United States- and this is where Second Amendment absolutists get going - and by a plain-language reading of the text it would seem tough to prove them wrong. But this understanding of the Second Amendment is exactly what put deadly weapons in the hands of every mass shooter, murderer, terrorists, criminal, and insurrectionist in American history, since, apparently, the right to keep and bear arms, by the most literal reading, can't be infringed!
I think we can agree that's a little insane?
Again, did the Founding Fathers place the right to bear arms deeply within the context of citizen-soldiers and the security of a free state as pure and total fluff? The several Presidents who have signed gun control legislation and the temporarily responsible people in Congress who limited even free Americans' possession of machine guns and true automatic fire weapons like carbines - let alone heavier weaponry like rocket launchers and portable missiles - didn't seem to think so.
So why does Dylan Klebold get a HiPoint 995? Why does Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz get an AR-15?
The Founding Fathers would want us to figure this out - and even if they were demented lunatics who didn't, it would be incumbent on us to do so. The current morass of policies and procedures isn't working. We need a new and more relevant sense of what the right to bear arms in a free society means for the next few centuries - a sense that does not simply enable mass killings on one hand and hypocritically limit the ability of free people to defend themselves on the other. We must also protect rights of sporting people to wield guns responsibly when hunting, and the dream - however hackneyed and improbable - that if America were invaded by a hostile foreign power, we'd all rise up, Militia all, and with our crazed collection of hundreds of millions of individual firearms, give that invader hell on Earth. Finally, I give the argument that firearms protect us from government tyranny at least a little weight, and I think that the Federal government as devised needs that counterweight.
But we need a new Second Amendment.
Look. The Founders were geniuses. If nothing else, it's hard to write that well. The Second Amendment has protected many lives from criminals, factored into the thoughts of at least one invader, and fostered a culture of national defense, responsible gun ownership, and self-defense that few other nations on Earth have.
I think the first changes, though, that need to happen is that it be clear that not just "the people" have a right to bear arms. I think it needs to be clarified to "law abiding-citizens, of sound mind." I think its crucial to properly fund the large establishment we have going to do background checks on gun purchases. And I think that our communities should be more tightly knit - yes, like in the olden days.
That's all I've got.
Part of the lost history of the Second Amendment is that states once had far more military power than the Federal government. States had militias and navies. A large part of the reason that the War of 1812 was not as great of a success for America as it could have been was that many state militias did not participate. The Constitution was written by the Founding Fathers, many of whom had contentious state governments to contend with, and the votes to enact the Constitution were far from unanimous. It was Thomas Jefferson who had promised a Bill of Rights, and when it was enacted just a few years after the Constitution itself, what we now think of as "gun rights" was literally very high on the list. Several states had "right to bear arms" clauses in their state constitutions, and my theory is that the states demanded that the Federal government abjure itself of the power to collect guns en masse and thereby horde so much power to itself. You could go all the way back to Bacon's Rebellion in 1676 to look at the consequences (popular rebellion) of a state that won't defend its people or let them at least defend themselves.
However. The actual text of the Second Amendment has been nagging me lately. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Doesn't it seem like the part about a well regulated Militia that's necessary to the security of a free state comes first? Now I've heard the grammatarians pick this one apart and they tell me it's a subordinate clause, that the action part of the amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms part." Really? Did Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin really sit around going, "You know what? Let's put in a completely subordinate and irrelevant fluff clause into the Second Amendment, with no bearing on the understanding or interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms part of the Amendment. That's just how we will regulated Militia conduct ourselves regulated Militia going forward."
Not so much, right?
And then there's this other problem with the Second Amendment. There are places where it seems to be overly applied - like when psychotic teenagers purchase rapid-fire weapons. And there are places where it seems like the Federal government - if it really was protecting citizens against dumb state laws - would want to throw out the "well regulated Militia" part and protect a citizen's allegedly expressed right to own a gun. What about dangerous places across the country, where break-ins, assaults and other crimes are common - and yet in many of these places, gun regulations are so strict that people can't have firearms they need to protect themselves. Why don't the "it's a subordinate clause" Second Amendment firebrands step in and effectively stop local governments from denying people their rights? Nobody is arguing that every single man, woman, and near-adult person who's still legally a child but who could still bear a firearm is a candidate for the militia, let along the regular military. A terminally ill cancer patient could possibly have the strength to level a pistol and pull the trigger at a dangerous intruder, but no one is suggesting that such a person be recruited up as squad leader in the 101st Airborne.
And this exposes a paradox within the Second Amendment. The Founders started by writing about the need for a properly function militia - roughly, a bunch of more-or-less organized citizen-soldiers - being necessary to keep the security of a free state. But the Amendment then takes the very big leap of logic and - depending on how you want to weight your understanding of the words - grants the right to keep and bear arms to "the people."
And this is what's really staggering - and easy to miss - in the Second Amendment. "The people" could well mean everyone who is physically in the United States- and this is where Second Amendment absolutists get going - and by a plain-language reading of the text it would seem tough to prove them wrong. But this understanding of the Second Amendment is exactly what put deadly weapons in the hands of every mass shooter, murderer, terrorists, criminal, and insurrectionist in American history, since, apparently, the right to keep and bear arms, by the most literal reading, can't be infringed!
I think we can agree that's a little insane?
Again, did the Founding Fathers place the right to bear arms deeply within the context of citizen-soldiers and the security of a free state as pure and total fluff? The several Presidents who have signed gun control legislation and the temporarily responsible people in Congress who limited even free Americans' possession of machine guns and true automatic fire weapons like carbines - let alone heavier weaponry like rocket launchers and portable missiles - didn't seem to think so.
So why does Dylan Klebold get a HiPoint 995? Why does Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz get an AR-15?
The Founding Fathers would want us to figure this out - and even if they were demented lunatics who didn't, it would be incumbent on us to do so. The current morass of policies and procedures isn't working. We need a new and more relevant sense of what the right to bear arms in a free society means for the next few centuries - a sense that does not simply enable mass killings on one hand and hypocritically limit the ability of free people to defend themselves on the other. We must also protect rights of sporting people to wield guns responsibly when hunting, and the dream - however hackneyed and improbable - that if America were invaded by a hostile foreign power, we'd all rise up, Militia all, and with our crazed collection of hundreds of millions of individual firearms, give that invader hell on Earth. Finally, I give the argument that firearms protect us from government tyranny at least a little weight, and I think that the Federal government as devised needs that counterweight.
But we need a new Second Amendment.
Look. The Founders were geniuses. If nothing else, it's hard to write that well. The Second Amendment has protected many lives from criminals, factored into the thoughts of at least one invader, and fostered a culture of national defense, responsible gun ownership, and self-defense that few other nations on Earth have.
I think the first changes, though, that need to happen is that it be clear that not just "the people" have a right to bear arms. I think it needs to be clarified to "law abiding-citizens, of sound mind." I think its crucial to properly fund the large establishment we have going to do background checks on gun purchases. And I think that our communities should be more tightly knit - yes, like in the olden days.
That's all I've got.
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
So Josh Brolin
Has now played three supervillians - Thanos, Cable, and George W. Bush.
Actually, Cable might not count as a supervillian, spoiler alert. But two supervillians, that's non-negotiable.
Actually, Cable might not count as a supervillian, spoiler alert. But two supervillians, that's non-negotiable.
Sunday, April 1, 2018
Are we all Stephon Clark?
I voted for Donald Trump because America was at a perilous crossroads. We faced a choice as a country- between an independent destiny as a nation-state with a free market economy and a denigrated limited-sovereign entity beholden to the whims of collectivist internationalists. Electing Donald Trump was, therefore, an existential choice for Americans, and, in essence, a minorty-turned-Electoral College-majority of us choose to continue to exist.
It's increasingly obvious to me that this choice, however, has come at an incredible cost. For nearly three years, I've been oblivious as people - particularly people of color - told me through the media and pretty much to my face that Donald Trump terrified them. I was dismissive of their concerns and thought that, surely, the era of racial injustice and violence must be over.
Then Charlottesville happened and civilian, citizen counter-protester Heather Heyer was killed, allegedly by an insane person, linked to white supremacist groups, in a vehicular attack. Donald Trump's bizarre response to this incident was to condemn Antifa and say that there were "very fine people on both sides."
Very fine people? I've now had the time to gather my thoughts and I've done a moment or two of research, and the hog's feast of white supremacist lunatics who made up the Unite the Right rally do not fit that description by my definition. And again, I was almost willfully blind to the fact that Trump himself seems to be a thinly disguised racist lunatic.
On March 18, police officers in Sacramento, California, killed a young man by the name of Stephon Clark. At this time, we still do not have all the details of the attack, although we do have many details. I understand that police officers operate under a great deal of strain, and that the job is extremely challenging. I understand that people who serve in law enforcement have volunteered to risk their lives to defend our society and our lives, and I respect that fact. I do not pretend to be judge and jury of the police officers who undertook this action. In this moment, the police officers themselves are not my core issue. To my profound regret, the core issue, once again, has to be President Trump's response.
President Trump, through White House official communications, has called the Stephon Clark's killing a "local matter." This would be a perfectly reasonable statement if American history had begun on March 1, 2018. The Constitution does seem to place certain limits on the ability of Federal authorities to intervene in cases like this. But American history didn't start a few weeks ago. Oppression of black people goes back more than four centuries at this point.
The least problematic this statement could possibly be is that it demonstrates a staggering and presumably willful ignorance of the plight of black citizens within the United States. In 1967, black people were killed by Detroit police officers at the Algiers Motel, an incident chronicled in the film "Detroit". There have been untold other incidents of police violence against black people. For President Trump to not even address the issue in the context of a headline incident today is staggering and a breach of his duty as President of the American people.
President Trump seems to look at black citizens of the United States with much the same, if not even worse, eyes that he looks at the unlawful invaders who exploit America's easily-breached borders. Few if any people of the United States have earned a place in America more than the descendants of the enslaved. If such a thing can be earned, it was earned by generations of unpaid sacrifice and another century of legalized discrimination.
For the President to ignore the systemic and historical racism that has been so prevalent in the United States, and the ongoing issue of young, unarmed black men being killed by police, is unacceptable. This is not a 'local issue'. It is something that happens in many states, in a repeat pattern of behavior by law enforcement agents around the country. America deserves better. America should have a national consensus that the killing of unarmed black men by law enforcement is unacceptable. We should have Federal response, an impartial investigation, and leadership that is responsive to the outcry of its people.
I now do not know if I can, in good conscience, vote for President Trump when he runs for re-election in the year 2020.
It's increasingly obvious to me that this choice, however, has come at an incredible cost. For nearly three years, I've been oblivious as people - particularly people of color - told me through the media and pretty much to my face that Donald Trump terrified them. I was dismissive of their concerns and thought that, surely, the era of racial injustice and violence must be over.
Then Charlottesville happened and civilian, citizen counter-protester Heather Heyer was killed, allegedly by an insane person, linked to white supremacist groups, in a vehicular attack. Donald Trump's bizarre response to this incident was to condemn Antifa and say that there were "very fine people on both sides."
Very fine people? I've now had the time to gather my thoughts and I've done a moment or two of research, and the hog's feast of white supremacist lunatics who made up the Unite the Right rally do not fit that description by my definition. And again, I was almost willfully blind to the fact that Trump himself seems to be a thinly disguised racist lunatic.
On March 18, police officers in Sacramento, California, killed a young man by the name of Stephon Clark. At this time, we still do not have all the details of the attack, although we do have many details. I understand that police officers operate under a great deal of strain, and that the job is extremely challenging. I understand that people who serve in law enforcement have volunteered to risk their lives to defend our society and our lives, and I respect that fact. I do not pretend to be judge and jury of the police officers who undertook this action. In this moment, the police officers themselves are not my core issue. To my profound regret, the core issue, once again, has to be President Trump's response.
President Trump, through White House official communications, has called the Stephon Clark's killing a "local matter." This would be a perfectly reasonable statement if American history had begun on March 1, 2018. The Constitution does seem to place certain limits on the ability of Federal authorities to intervene in cases like this. But American history didn't start a few weeks ago. Oppression of black people goes back more than four centuries at this point.
The least problematic this statement could possibly be is that it demonstrates a staggering and presumably willful ignorance of the plight of black citizens within the United States. In 1967, black people were killed by Detroit police officers at the Algiers Motel, an incident chronicled in the film "Detroit". There have been untold other incidents of police violence against black people. For President Trump to not even address the issue in the context of a headline incident today is staggering and a breach of his duty as President of the American people.
President Trump seems to look at black citizens of the United States with much the same, if not even worse, eyes that he looks at the unlawful invaders who exploit America's easily-breached borders. Few if any people of the United States have earned a place in America more than the descendants of the enslaved. If such a thing can be earned, it was earned by generations of unpaid sacrifice and another century of legalized discrimination.
For the President to ignore the systemic and historical racism that has been so prevalent in the United States, and the ongoing issue of young, unarmed black men being killed by police, is unacceptable. This is not a 'local issue'. It is something that happens in many states, in a repeat pattern of behavior by law enforcement agents around the country. America deserves better. America should have a national consensus that the killing of unarmed black men by law enforcement is unacceptable. We should have Federal response, an impartial investigation, and leadership that is responsive to the outcry of its people.
I now do not know if I can, in good conscience, vote for President Trump when he runs for re-election in the year 2020.
Monday, March 26, 2018
Monday, March 19, 2018
Trump Has No Policy Soul and Should Be Opposed by a Strong Normal Republican
Trump has no policy soul, and should be opposed by a strong, normal Republican. Think Mitt Romney but with persuasive powers and passion. Putting in place tariffs such as Trump has proposed is idiotic and so idiotic that I felt no need to end the previous sentence.
We really only had two strong, normal Republicans in the twentieth century. Both are associated with peace and prosperity, and both laid the groundwork for a stronger America. They were Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan. Dwight Eisenhower and George H. W. Bush were acceptably good. Harding was decent, in the short time he had. Taft was alright I think, but Taft I'm still evaluating. Teddy Roosevelt projected a great strength and vitality, but put in place expansions of government, the trajectory of which has begun to undermine the Republic. Ford was blah. George W., don't get me started. And that's the twenty-first century anyway.
Nixon deserves his own category.
Fiscally, we are at third down and nineteen yards to go. Do we really want to be at fourth and twenty-three?
We really only had two strong, normal Republicans in the twentieth century. Both are associated with peace and prosperity, and both laid the groundwork for a stronger America. They were Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan. Dwight Eisenhower and George H. W. Bush were acceptably good. Harding was decent, in the short time he had. Taft was alright I think, but Taft I'm still evaluating. Teddy Roosevelt projected a great strength and vitality, but put in place expansions of government, the trajectory of which has begun to undermine the Republic. Ford was blah. George W., don't get me started. And that's the twenty-first century anyway.
Nixon deserves his own category.
Fiscally, we are at third down and nineteen yards to go. Do we really want to be at fourth and twenty-three?
Monday, January 29, 2018
If Trump is so bad, Etc. etc. etc. - It's the Same Post As Always
I'll spare everyone my "if Trump is so bad" Long Version list in favor of the short version:
1. Yes the cheesy stock market claim. Invest, you fools!
2. Farcial attempts at complaining about a tax bill that has brought literally billions of dollars back to America.
3. Apparent extremely limited terrorist activity, although I don't know if we'll be out of the woods in this century. Unlike the fascist and communist regimes of the twentieth century, we are fighting a far more patient and resilient enemy, whose Joker tactics require not the budget of nation-states but can be funded through gleanings like money laundering charitable donations.
OK number 3 was too long.
1. Yes the cheesy stock market claim. Invest, you fools!
2. Farcial attempts at complaining about a tax bill that has brought literally billions of dollars back to America.
3. Apparent extremely limited terrorist activity, although I don't know if we'll be out of the woods in this century. Unlike the fascist and communist regimes of the twentieth century, we are fighting a far more patient and resilient enemy, whose Joker tactics require not the budget of nation-states but can be funded through gleanings like money laundering charitable donations.
OK number 3 was too long.
Tuesday, January 9, 2018
Government by Parlimentarianism
Dear Liberals,
Today I make you the somewhat distressing (to me, anyway) admission that I will trade you 10,000 dead babies for an end to the cloture rule.
I'm kidding, of course. Abortion is wrong. But so is governance by the Senate Parliamentarian, an unelected official who has risen from obscurity to begin changing the very names of bills passed by our elected representatives.
Google "Senate Parliamentarian" and click News. I dare you. If you really understand American government, even the first-glance results should be chilling.
Today I make you the somewhat distressing (to me, anyway) admission that I will trade you 10,000 dead babies for an end to the cloture rule.
I'm kidding, of course. Abortion is wrong. But so is governance by the Senate Parliamentarian, an unelected official who has risen from obscurity to begin changing the very names of bills passed by our elected representatives.
Google "Senate Parliamentarian" and click News. I dare you. If you really understand American government, even the first-glance results should be chilling.
Saturday, December 2, 2017
Slam Dunk
Well, it's a slam dunk. Because former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn will plead guilty, Donald Trump will now be impeached, removed from office, indicted on criminal conspiracy charges, convicted, and imprisoned. Mike Pence will serve out a rump term and be defeated by a Democrat in 2020. Only white supremacists support Donald Trump, and they will be sad. Everyone else will be happy because Donald Trump is a bad person. America will be free again - free to do all the great things that happened before Donald Trump crashed the party.
In even shorter order - by 2018 probably, Republicans will probably lose the House and the Senate, too, in a Watergate-style running of the table, by righteous, victorious Democrats. The tax cuts, if they pass, will be repealed, and the Affordable Care Act will be enshrined forever - probably as a Constitutional amendment.
There's no way the media is blowing the Michael Flynn plea out of proportion - no way that anything is being misinterpreted. People in the media never jump to conclusions, and only level-headed, common-sense analysis is being applied by people with deep, structural knowledge of the situation and its context.
It's a great day!
There's no way that anything in this hyperlink contradicts my totally serious and straightforward blog post!
In even shorter order - by 2018 probably, Republicans will probably lose the House and the Senate, too, in a Watergate-style running of the table, by righteous, victorious Democrats. The tax cuts, if they pass, will be repealed, and the Affordable Care Act will be enshrined forever - probably as a Constitutional amendment.
It's a great day!
There's no way that anything in this hyperlink contradicts my totally serious and straightforward blog post!
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
'FANG' Companies are Global Marketing Platforms that Happen to be U.S. Based
Much like the liberal elite that refuses to give up office space to Donald Trump's rightful appointees despite a court order - yes, that's real - the kids at Facebook, Apple, Netflix, and Google do not seem to be aware that America is getting sick of them. If you don't believe America is a good country, why not be based in Belize or Vancouver? Why even be here? Isn't it funny that the very companies with the most anti-American agendas exist because of the American free market economy, ordered society, and (sort of) lassiez-faire policies from America's government? Does it even make sense?
Can I beat to death any more the fact that Mark Zuckerberg built a wall around his own house but opposes a wall to protect America from an illegal immigrant invasion?
Companies like GE and Ford may not have anything like FANG's stock prices, but at least they feel more pro-American.
The terrorists do not love you.
Can I beat to death any more the fact that Mark Zuckerberg built a wall around his own house but opposes a wall to protect America from an illegal immigrant invasion?
Companies like GE and Ford may not have anything like FANG's stock prices, but at least they feel more pro-American.
The terrorists do not love you.
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
Nightmares
The "Dreamers" - the illegal aliens brought here as part of a civil invasion force intent on despoiling America, should be deported as soon as possible without bringing about a humanitarian crisis. There should be no talk of amnesty, of a "path to citizenship", or even continued tolerance of their presence for more than the year or two it will take for them to make an orderly migration back to their home countries. Their DNA should be collected and stored in a national database. They must never be allowed to return. If they do return, they should be subject to summary deportation. There are more than seven billion people in the world who would like to come to America that have not broken our laws to be here.
The world must ask itself, if America is such a horrible country, why do people break laws and risk their own lives to come here? If we are a racist cesspit of hatred and demagoguery, why come here at all?
The world must ask itself, if America is such a horrible country, why do people break laws and risk their own lives to come here? If we are a racist cesspit of hatred and demagoguery, why come here at all?
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
A Sad Day for America - For Reasons Beyond What We Think
It is a sad day in the United States.
The President of the United States has been reduced to refereeing an open-air fist-fight, and has been sucked into a "who shot first" debate with equally crazed media.
Rather than bearing up the dignity of the office, or at least using a press availability to let off steam about the event, Trump insisted on making two categories of statements over and over again: one, that there were some 'good people' within the white nationalist/supremacist crowd. This in and of itself is at least extremely dubious, and would depend on Trump's ability to judge character from some apparent knowledge of the crowd he would claim to have. His second statement, that in essence, 'both sides were to blame', may have some degree of factual grounds, as "alt-left" groups such as Antifa and BLM are reputed to have violent track records as well. And yet, Trump bears a responsibility to know - and has a staggering lack of concern - for the fact of how his comments are going to be interpreted.
The Charlottesville event was marred by violent scuffles, many injuries, and the tragic death of a young woman, Heather Heyer. Those events have been reported elsewhere - indeed, the Internet is replete with reports, video and rhetoric, all of which are difficult to watch.
But regardless of the facts - which no doubt will continue to emerge - President Trump owes the nation a duty of clear communication and unambiguous condemnation of bigotry and hatred. In this he has unequivocally failed. Trump's words, approach, and timing were beyond poorly chosen, and it is very, very easy to take what he said - that "both sides are to blame" as an endorsement of white supremacist groups. Even this full length exchange adds only a tiny bit of nuance to Trump's blundering, light-on-facts response to the terrifying events of Charlottesville, and depends on an interpretation of facts that is, to say the least, controversial.
Trump always seems to assume that everyone is reading the exact same news feed and has processed the exact same line of thought that he has; when, obviously, nothing could be further from the truth. Even if groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter were directly responsible for violence in Charlottesville, most Americans have never heard of one (Antifa) and associate the other, Black Lives Matter, with peaceful protests and advocacy. Trump failed, even in his full remarks, to name either group, and it takes David Horowitz, who at least writes in full sentences, to air out the distinction.
Even if 'alt-left' groups were responsible for some degree of violence at Charlottesville, it is still at the very least deeply bizarre, and at worst, a clear signal to white supremacists, to attempt to lay equal blame - especially in the context of a murder, alleged to have been committed by a white supremacist on the scene. Say what you will about the 'alt-left' - and Antifa doesn't even have a website, I have yet to hear that the killed anyone at Charlottesville.
And in a greater context, a group focused on a racial minority like Black Lives Matters and a nebulous anti-fascist network again, without so much as a website, operate in the context of a country where white people remain the majority. The American popular mind has stewed in the imagery of the swastika, the Confederate flag, and white horror robes of the Ku Klux Klan for generations. Antifa and Black Lives Matters are much less well known and evoke much less of a gut level response for most of us. If Trump's goal was to somehow raise awareness of these groups - and the sad part is, it's quite possible that, if they are using violence to advance their beliefs, they too could be dangerous - then his backhand attempt at doing so more than backfired, as Americans are now far more focused on Trump's seeming association with white supremacists than any purported threat from the 'alt-left'.
~ ~ ~
This war has literally been fought before. It was called the Civil War and it claimed today's equivalent of millions of American lives. General Robert E. Lee, a statue of whom was the initial point of contention in the Charlottesville events, was defeated after four years of bloody struggle. His uniformed men surrendered in good order to General Ulysses S. Grant, signaling the end of that Civil War. The surrendering Confederate soldiers were paroled, and went in peace at that time. Grant even allowed them keep their horses, as he knew they would need them for spring plowing, and that the ravages of war had left the South more than impoverished enough.
Today we have great material prosperity as a society. Today horses are a tourist attraction. Today we scarcely remember Ulysses S. Grant at all, and we seem to have conflated Robert E. Lee with neo-fascism. I am no expert on Lee, but he seems, at least, far more dignified than the groups who would purport to act in his name. Lee, who was a slave owner, would offer no argument in the defense of slavery that we today would find persuasive, because there is no persuasive argument for the enslavement of another human being. And yet there is at least some small tragedy in the fact that the legacy of the the South - a misbegotten, hate-filled debacle as it was - now seems to be stripped of its last veneer of respectability. For if nothing else, the South fought well militarily, and was sustained by camaraderie and military genius, however misdirected, for years, against an enemy - the Union - that should have destroyed it within months. Robert E. Lee created a close circle of fellow commanders, and inspired great loyalty amongst those he served with, and respect from those he fought against. Although at least a century of struggle for black equality remained, the people Lee enslaved were liberated by the Union victory. And so. The white supremacists certainly have the wrong motivation for defending Robert E. Lee. But Lee's legacy is and must be more than as a slave owner. So too for Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, who's names Trump also bandied about.
It was once a hallmark of our society that we could recognize the good from the bad and appreciate a flawed person's virtues, recognizing flaws within ourselves and that we, too, are imperfect.
Today we commit every year hundreds of thousands of unborn children to death through a process of legally and medically sanctioned murder called abortion. Today those people who sanction this holocaust are Supreme Court Justices, Congresspeople, governors, and Senators. Even President Trump believes that abortion should be decided at the state level - as if universal moral truths change across state lines.
There may likely come a time when many of those who today - quite rightly - criticize the violence and hatred of white supremacists are themselves called to account for their very willing support of a regime that, since the implementation of Roe v. Wade, has killed millions of children. As tragic as Heather Heyer's death is, there are millions of children who never got the chance to live, cherish life, and choose to advocate and risk their lives for a cause they came to believe in.
History brings changes in the ideologies we value. Yes, Robert E. Lee believed in something that we now know to be a bad cause. And yet - how many supporters of the current holocaust regime have his dignity, leadership ability, or courage? How many are even worth making into a statue to eventually be torn down?
There may come a day when this wrong is righted and the current holocaust regime comes to an end. On that day, I'd like to believe that I can and will be able to see the virtues of those who support the current regime. We should all be able see the virtues in those who believed and believe, however misguidedly, that they were and are doing the right thing.
I don't know what path America is going to take from here. There are calls on every side for Donald Trump to be impeached - in many respects, for nakedly and unabashed political reasons. I don't know if Mike Pence would survive well in the shark-tank media environment, or if he has nearly Trump's belly fire for causes like bringing back American jobs or deporting criminal aliens. But that's a question for a different day. Today can only bring somber reflection for the lives, past and present, born and unborn, that have been lost to failed ideologies, and that we must see the humanity in each other if we are ever to form 'a more perfect Union.'
The President of the United States has been reduced to refereeing an open-air fist-fight, and has been sucked into a "who shot first" debate with equally crazed media.
Rather than bearing up the dignity of the office, or at least using a press availability to let off steam about the event, Trump insisted on making two categories of statements over and over again: one, that there were some 'good people' within the white nationalist/supremacist crowd. This in and of itself is at least extremely dubious, and would depend on Trump's ability to judge character from some apparent knowledge of the crowd he would claim to have. His second statement, that in essence, 'both sides were to blame', may have some degree of factual grounds, as "alt-left" groups such as Antifa and BLM are reputed to have violent track records as well. And yet, Trump bears a responsibility to know - and has a staggering lack of concern - for the fact of how his comments are going to be interpreted.
The Charlottesville event was marred by violent scuffles, many injuries, and the tragic death of a young woman, Heather Heyer. Those events have been reported elsewhere - indeed, the Internet is replete with reports, video and rhetoric, all of which are difficult to watch.
Trump always seems to assume that everyone is reading the exact same news feed and has processed the exact same line of thought that he has; when, obviously, nothing could be further from the truth. Even if groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter were directly responsible for violence in Charlottesville, most Americans have never heard of one (Antifa) and associate the other, Black Lives Matter, with peaceful protests and advocacy. Trump failed, even in his full remarks, to name either group, and it takes David Horowitz, who at least writes in full sentences, to air out the distinction.
Even if 'alt-left' groups were responsible for some degree of violence at Charlottesville, it is still at the very least deeply bizarre, and at worst, a clear signal to white supremacists, to attempt to lay equal blame - especially in the context of a murder, alleged to have been committed by a white supremacist on the scene. Say what you will about the 'alt-left' - and Antifa doesn't even have a website, I have yet to hear that the killed anyone at Charlottesville.
And in a greater context, a group focused on a racial minority like Black Lives Matters and a nebulous anti-fascist network again, without so much as a website, operate in the context of a country where white people remain the majority. The American popular mind has stewed in the imagery of the swastika, the Confederate flag, and white horror robes of the Ku Klux Klan for generations. Antifa and Black Lives Matters are much less well known and evoke much less of a gut level response for most of us. If Trump's goal was to somehow raise awareness of these groups - and the sad part is, it's quite possible that, if they are using violence to advance their beliefs, they too could be dangerous - then his backhand attempt at doing so more than backfired, as Americans are now far more focused on Trump's seeming association with white supremacists than any purported threat from the 'alt-left'.
~ ~ ~
This war has literally been fought before. It was called the Civil War and it claimed today's equivalent of millions of American lives. General Robert E. Lee, a statue of whom was the initial point of contention in the Charlottesville events, was defeated after four years of bloody struggle. His uniformed men surrendered in good order to General Ulysses S. Grant, signaling the end of that Civil War. The surrendering Confederate soldiers were paroled, and went in peace at that time. Grant even allowed them keep their horses, as he knew they would need them for spring plowing, and that the ravages of war had left the South more than impoverished enough.
Today we have great material prosperity as a society. Today horses are a tourist attraction. Today we scarcely remember Ulysses S. Grant at all, and we seem to have conflated Robert E. Lee with neo-fascism. I am no expert on Lee, but he seems, at least, far more dignified than the groups who would purport to act in his name. Lee, who was a slave owner, would offer no argument in the defense of slavery that we today would find persuasive, because there is no persuasive argument for the enslavement of another human being. And yet there is at least some small tragedy in the fact that the legacy of the the South - a misbegotten, hate-filled debacle as it was - now seems to be stripped of its last veneer of respectability. For if nothing else, the South fought well militarily, and was sustained by camaraderie and military genius, however misdirected, for years, against an enemy - the Union - that should have destroyed it within months. Robert E. Lee created a close circle of fellow commanders, and inspired great loyalty amongst those he served with, and respect from those he fought against. Although at least a century of struggle for black equality remained, the people Lee enslaved were liberated by the Union victory. And so. The white supremacists certainly have the wrong motivation for defending Robert E. Lee. But Lee's legacy is and must be more than as a slave owner. So too for Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, who's names Trump also bandied about.
It was once a hallmark of our society that we could recognize the good from the bad and appreciate a flawed person's virtues, recognizing flaws within ourselves and that we, too, are imperfect.
Today we commit every year hundreds of thousands of unborn children to death through a process of legally and medically sanctioned murder called abortion. Today those people who sanction this holocaust are Supreme Court Justices, Congresspeople, governors, and Senators. Even President Trump believes that abortion should be decided at the state level - as if universal moral truths change across state lines.
There may likely come a time when many of those who today - quite rightly - criticize the violence and hatred of white supremacists are themselves called to account for their very willing support of a regime that, since the implementation of Roe v. Wade, has killed millions of children. As tragic as Heather Heyer's death is, there are millions of children who never got the chance to live, cherish life, and choose to advocate and risk their lives for a cause they came to believe in.
History brings changes in the ideologies we value. Yes, Robert E. Lee believed in something that we now know to be a bad cause. And yet - how many supporters of the current holocaust regime have his dignity, leadership ability, or courage? How many are even worth making into a statue to eventually be torn down?
There may come a day when this wrong is righted and the current holocaust regime comes to an end. On that day, I'd like to believe that I can and will be able to see the virtues of those who support the current regime. We should all be able see the virtues in those who believed and believe, however misguidedly, that they were and are doing the right thing.
I don't know what path America is going to take from here. There are calls on every side for Donald Trump to be impeached - in many respects, for nakedly and unabashed political reasons. I don't know if Mike Pence would survive well in the shark-tank media environment, or if he has nearly Trump's belly fire for causes like bringing back American jobs or deporting criminal aliens. But that's a question for a different day. Today can only bring somber reflection for the lives, past and present, born and unborn, that have been lost to failed ideologies, and that we must see the humanity in each other if we are ever to form 'a more perfect Union.'
Tuesday, July 4, 2017
What I mean is it was so mean so in the mean time
There was once this decorum where former Presidents didn't jump in on Facebook about current policies. Luckily for Facebook's stock price, those days are behind us now.
For those who don't know, former President Barak H. Obama said that he thought the current healthcare reform bill, which is waddling, lost-duck like, through the hedge maze of Congress, is mean spirited.
Somehow, though, it's not mean to extort money at gunpoint from working people and hand it to everyone else as a health care subsidy.
The real problem is health care costs, something neither side does anything to address.
For those who don't know, former President Barak H. Obama said that he thought the current healthcare reform bill, which is waddling, lost-duck like, through the hedge maze of Congress, is mean spirited.
Somehow, though, it's not mean to extort money at gunpoint from working people and hand it to everyone else as a health care subsidy.
The real problem is health care costs, something neither side does anything to address.
Sunday, June 25, 2017
Trump Bump Slump Could Leave Stocks in the Dumps
Been wanting to write that headline for at least a week.
It speaks for itself.
I actually love equities ownership in major corporations, but everything is overvalued right now.
A 15% corporate tax rate, a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, a reduction in the marginal tax rates to pre-BHO levels and a shot of NAFTA repeal would unleash awesome - and by awesome, I mean adaquate - growth in the economy.
But I'm starting to wonder if you'll ever see it happen.
Happiness has to be out there somewhere. I am going to stop looking at politics so much until I can get directly involved.
It speaks for itself.
I actually love equities ownership in major corporations, but everything is overvalued right now.
A 15% corporate tax rate, a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, a reduction in the marginal tax rates to pre-BHO levels and a shot of NAFTA repeal would unleash awesome - and by awesome, I mean adaquate - growth in the economy.
But I'm starting to wonder if you'll ever see it happen.
Happiness has to be out there somewhere. I am going to stop looking at politics so much until I can get directly involved.
Wednesday, June 7, 2017
Oh my gosh Donald Trump just stop calling people about calling people about that meeting about that thing about Russia
Yeah like I said.
Ever notice how when Trump gets into these things, it's always shoulder-top deep and then he has to spend 97% of his energy to get back to his status quo?
Obviously there is some kind of Trump/Russia connection Donald Trump does not want us to know about.
I am way past assuming anything but the worst about The Donald.
The sad part is, the couple policy measures he's put in place aren't bad. He did a bit to try and stop burdensome regulations in my industry. He failed but he gave us a little time, and it's clear his Department of Labor - an unconstitutional, Unlawful Regime Element anyway - won't enforce the craze-o BHO-implemented idea that would have put even heavier ankle weights on my industry than we already have. As it is, the people I work with have an extra form or two to fill out, rather than a whole new packet.
Meh!
Ever notice how when Trump gets into these things, it's always shoulder-top deep and then he has to spend 97% of his energy to get back to his status quo?
Obviously there is some kind of Trump/Russia connection Donald Trump does not want us to know about.
I am way past assuming anything but the worst about The Donald.
The sad part is, the couple policy measures he's put in place aren't bad. He did a bit to try and stop burdensome regulations in my industry. He failed but he gave us a little time, and it's clear his Department of Labor - an unconstitutional, Unlawful Regime Element anyway - won't enforce the craze-o BHO-implemented idea that would have put even heavier ankle weights on my industry than we already have. As it is, the people I work with have an extra form or two to fill out, rather than a whole new packet.
Meh!
Thursday, May 18, 2017
The Latin Word for Circus is Circus
Donald Trump has been hemmed in by a bunch of puny dwarves left over from the Obama administration and has made his own problems worse by being a Democrat in elephant's clothing. Why appoint a National Security Advisor from the Obama administration? Why have an Attorney General with some sort of weird Russian ties? Why have weird Russian ties at all? This is not 1811 or 1943 and we are not holding our breath waiting for Russia to save the world.
Donald Trump should not need Russian hackers revealing the truth about Hillary's email servers to be elected President. He should be able to win on his own, but he is a crazy megalomaniac. And why would Russia help Trump? So that he will allow their oil fields to be developed with Western capital or something? Um..... isn't that called, like, what we wanted to do after we won the Cold War? If Russia becomes dependent on selling us oil, how will they ever invade Tacoma, Washington? They won't be able to, they'll just have to depend on sending 11 terrorists to attack our skyscrapers and murder us that way, like Saudi Arabia does. Yeah, I said it.
As P:l'O has pointed out himself (That emoji stands for Presidente: l'Orange which is what I call Donald Trump because he is huge and orange) there was a criminal administration called the Barak Hussein Obama Administration in the White House for eight years, shipping guns to Mexican criminals, shipping cash to Iranian terrorists, and demanding that men be allowed to go in to women's bathrooms. There was never a special prosecutor appointed. And yet in just half as many months as Obama had years, because of murky allegations about Russian ties, here comes a special prosecutor who my political-linguistic slapstick comedy style demands that I call Mullin' It: former FBI Director Robert Mueller. It is his job to mull things over. And I hope, just hope, that he has a mullet back there. A good Joe Dirt one. That would be like platinum-coated palladium for me.
I was told that if I wanted to cling to my guns and religion, I could keep them. I was told that we were going to make the Mexican border with less holes than a Swiss cheese grater again. I was told a lot of things, which I no longer believe, and I blame human nature. I further blame a departure from the Bible and the Constitution.
Robert Mueller being approved of by both Bush and Obama does not impress me. Both merely represent different flavors of maladministration and criminal negligence. Both oversaw - one benignly, one malignantly - the execution of a Holocaust against American children.
Trump is merely a circus act, one that I hope is among the last in a long train of abuses that began with Roe v. Wade.
Donald Trump should not need Russian hackers revealing the truth about Hillary's email servers to be elected President. He should be able to win on his own, but he is a crazy megalomaniac. And why would Russia help Trump? So that he will allow their oil fields to be developed with Western capital or something? Um..... isn't that called, like, what we wanted to do after we won the Cold War? If Russia becomes dependent on selling us oil, how will they ever invade Tacoma, Washington? They won't be able to, they'll just have to depend on sending 11 terrorists to attack our skyscrapers and murder us that way, like Saudi Arabia does. Yeah, I said it.
As P:l'O has pointed out himself (That emoji stands for Presidente: l'Orange which is what I call Donald Trump because he is huge and orange) there was a criminal administration called the Barak Hussein Obama Administration in the White House for eight years, shipping guns to Mexican criminals, shipping cash to Iranian terrorists, and demanding that men be allowed to go in to women's bathrooms. There was never a special prosecutor appointed. And yet in just half as many months as Obama had years, because of murky allegations about Russian ties, here comes a special prosecutor who my political-linguistic slapstick comedy style demands that I call Mullin' It: former FBI Director Robert Mueller. It is his job to mull things over. And I hope, just hope, that he has a mullet back there. A good Joe Dirt one. That would be like platinum-coated palladium for me.
I was told that if I wanted to cling to my guns and religion, I could keep them. I was told that we were going to make the Mexican border with less holes than a Swiss cheese grater again. I was told a lot of things, which I no longer believe, and I blame human nature. I further blame a departure from the Bible and the Constitution.
Robert Mueller being approved of by both Bush and Obama does not impress me. Both merely represent different flavors of maladministration and criminal negligence. Both oversaw - one benignly, one malignantly - the execution of a Holocaust against American children.
Trump is merely a circus act, one that I hope is among the last in a long train of abuses that began with Roe v. Wade.
Sunday, May 14, 2017
The Time to Launch is Growing Near
While Trump is a somewhat better President than Hillary would have been, it's clear - and this should not have surprised me - that he's slightly nuts.
Trump is not the solution. Republicans aren't the solution. Democrats aren't the solution. (The Green Party? Probably not the solution - no offense but I can count you guys on three and a half hands.)
However. There is a solution. Maybe not to the entire struggle of the human condition. Until Jesus comes back, that will go on.
But we can form a more perfect union.
I'll tell you a secret - we're the solution.
The time to launch the campaign will come soon. The signature issues probably won't surprise you. They've gone unaddressed for too long. It's time to tackle them.
But both parties will be included.
In spite of all I've seen and all the letdowns, I still believe that normal Americans, when mobilized on a massive scale, will stand for and work for and vote for something good.
Trump is not the solution. Republicans aren't the solution. Democrats aren't the solution. (The Green Party? Probably not the solution - no offense but I can count you guys on three and a half hands.)
However. There is a solution. Maybe not to the entire struggle of the human condition. Until Jesus comes back, that will go on.
But we can form a more perfect union.
I'll tell you a secret - we're the solution.
The time to launch the campaign will come soon. The signature issues probably won't surprise you. They've gone unaddressed for too long. It's time to tackle them.
But both parties will be included.
In spite of all I've seen and all the letdowns, I still believe that normal Americans, when mobilized on a massive scale, will stand for and work for and vote for something good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)