Trump reaction

Note: this section will not be G-Rated … Not even PG … it will be at least R …

WARNING: There will be obscenities and profane language past this point. I have been politic; you have been warned!

WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON! America (especially in its national media) is going fucking bonkers because one of its political leadership candidates talks of bawdy things (in a younger iteration) and shows that he is a God-damn, arrogant, loud-mouthed, profane, self-centered, self-absorbed, ruthless, son-of-a-bitch … so what else is new. Get the fuck over it. It ain’t the first time it has happened.

People are going ape-shit crazy calling him to withdraw his candidacy because he told some broadcast flunky off mic that he likes to fondle pretty women … what a bunch of fucking hypocrites. Damn, if there is a male in the room over, let’s say, 45 who hasn’t engaged in bowdlerized, locker-room talk about women and braggadocio about what they would like to do … excepting possibly those men who are gayer that the three-dollar bill … I probably would call them a liar and be right. I can’t say much about people younger than that because I haven’t sat in on many of their conversations, but what I have heard makes me think they aren’t much different.

Folks, take a fucking chill pill. The God-damned politically correct shit has to stop.

The problem with Trump is that he actually talks like he is one of the plebeians … you know, us common folks who actually worked for a God-damn living and not made a living getting paid by the government/state for a career.

I find all this faux-horror at Trump’s tax returns, his sexually explicit talks with people (especially those with recording devices, which is stupid, but then, what the hell, we live in a gotcha by the balls society these days), so freakingly fucking hypocritical that it sort of makes me want to stage a French Revolution here in the US? Trot out the guillotine for the “aristocracy”!!!!

Where is the Red Queen when we need her? Off with their fucking heads! 

I guess I have fallen a long way from my perch among the elites of the world as a college graduate who was the editor of one of the 1600 daily newspapers (at the time) in the USofA, assistant editor at another, editor at a three-times a week paper, and editor of four different weekly newspapers, not including a weekly and an every-other-day newspaper I produced in a war zone.

I no longer have much patience with progressives and those who education or position places them above the fucking masses. I am reminded to tell them, despite your fucking smarts, or God-damn worthless pieces of paper, social, economic or political positions, you stupid over-educated dumbshit assholes, you still put your panties on one leg at a time just like the rest of us idiots.

You know the people you find deplorable may be crude and rude, but they are people. They might not have high-fluting degrees or education, or even money or wealth, but they still are functioning human beings, who can – when called upon – actually have a thought or two in their head … and those thoughts just might be worth listening to. A lot may be stupid or silly thoughts, but given the facts, their common sense will usually win out.

So, Trump is a ruthless, fucking billionaire (or just a multi-millionaire, what does it matter) corporate slob of a businessman, that has never stopped such people from running and serving in public office before. Cue the damn Virginia planter class or the fucking Ivy League country club shit heads

The question you really should be asking yourself, you fucking dumbbells, is has he broken the law? How did he make those billions? By himself or surrounding himself and delegating to a vast corps of really competent deplorables?   I really don’t think he did it selling favors, like a former Senator from New York and Secretary of State, along with her sexually obsessed husband who is an ex-president now, who actually did “it” with a God-damn intern in the Oval Office … or was it her oval orifice … shit, I don’t even know any more ... much less really give a shit.

How many laws, lies, and other shit does Trump’s leading opponent have to break, say and do before you get the message that she really is a bunch of crappola. Do you really want that crappola? Do you really want the fucking status quo candidate to keep things running down the same God-damn track we have been going for the last 10 or so years … so be it … vote for the piece of shit.

Another question: Why is the “establishment” fucking going freaking ape-shit over the possibility of Trump being president? What is it they really are so fucking scared-shitless about? Do they know something about the checks and balances built into our system of governance that we don’t know that makes them think we can’t survive a loose-cannon? What is it that we have had for the last 25 fucking years? Cannons lashed down so tight their pussies squeak? I think they are just afraid he will upset the status quo and maybe, just maybe, fucking change the way things have been run in our fucking capital for that last shitting century or so. Maybe that is the change we need, fucking stupid America.

Now I am not saying anybody should vote for the jerk Trump, or anyone else, but I am saying look at what they say they want to do … ask yourself if those things are what you really want done or if they really are sustainable or just pipe dreams … or just products of your own envy of those who have shit you don’t. … then reach down and vote for the candidate who can win AND do the least amount damage to what freedoms you, as an individual, still have in this country.

One last point, a historical one: The last time the elite was in this much of an uproar, I think, was 1828. You know when that rude, crude and obscene Tennessean Andrew Jackson was elected and the Virginia planter class and the New England lawyers had a hissy fit over this frontier braggart capturing the White House. He was a populist too, if I remember my history correctly and really changed the course of politics and the shape of the American democratic republic. Is that what they are so afraid of?

Anyway, I apologize for my fucking profanity, but I am becoming more and more like the old fucking grunt soldier I was part time, rather than the urbane, cosmopolitan, liberal arts college-educated elite journalist I once was.

Still, I raise my rye on the rocks to all of you who are a) Americans and b) deign to read this rant. (tonight is was Canadian rye, tomorrow night it will be my Gordon’s vodka … I alternate nights on which poison I drink on the rocks).

May you all find your path blessed by the Divine, and you have the strength and courage to endure whatever travails may lie ahead of you personally and (if it so applies) as an American.

 

Footnote: This is a succinct summation why I don't give a fucking rat's ass about Trump's "hot-mic moment". OK, I am done

Bad Republicans

The Republican conspiracy

I read this article on the Huffington Post and I about fell out of my chair laughing. Why? Because the author’s premise is so silly.

First … the Republicans. TEA Party-nics and conservatives are not Democrats or progressives. They are the opposition. You know, people who oppose you. They should be expected to do what they can to make your policies and plans fail.

Now, it doesn’t take a savant to figure out that they don’t agree with policies like the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). So, if you are the elected representative of your particular area (and a majority of the people in the last election for your office voted for you) then it is pretty much a given that you represent at least some of their views and that should govern the way you vote. If your district doesn’t really like some law or policy, then it is your job to do what you can to overturn or change that policy.

The author of the article seems to think that Republicans are some terrible beasts because they don’t view the world through the same prism that he does. That is what is wrong with the world.

Reverse the shoe, say a war in Iraq. Is it not the right of the opponents of such a venture to do whatever they can to end it? It seems that was the progressives’ line just a few years ago.

Of course, they were chastised in much the same manner as the right is being assailed today. That is politics, folks.

I find it humorous to the absurd to watch various people and groups of people hammer their political opponents for their views in language that probably would have been reprehensible in my youth. However, the historian in me knows that the language of politics in the United States always has bordered on the rough and tumble.

I guess what I find most humorous is the view that everyone has to view the world through the same lens, the same philosophy, the same cultural view plate. I find it humorous, because it is so tragic and misguided that it really makes me want to despair, but I chose to laugh at my troubles rather than cry.

I wish, as Pappy used to say, I could knock some heads together in order to knock some sense into them.

People, we are all different. We all look at the world and see different visions. Depending on our experiences and cultural environment, we value different things. Some of these things we agree on the value of and others we profoundly disagree; however, the mere fact that we disagree doesn’t make us bad people.

Just because a person disagrees with you does not necessarily make that person evil … just different. Sometimes that person is evil, but it is not because they disagree with you.

The difference, as I see it, is a different view on how much responsibility the individual for his or her life. Are we, as individuals, supposed to be willing to accept the consequences of our choices? Are we supposed to be willing to accept that life is not fair and often sends adversity our way when we can ill afford it?

A lot of people say we are not. They say we are obligated to help all those less fortunate than we are. I would agree with part of that. I would say I have an personal obligation to make that choice, but that society, or the state, doesn’t not have the right to compel me to do it by force.

So to insist that anyone has a right to demand or compel another give them a good or service at a price less than they are willing to do it is, in my humble opinion, wrong. Even lifesaving medical care.

Another unfortunate aside: It seems to me that in our narcissism that seems to afflicted so many people, we seem to believe that we are supposed to live forever. Wrong answer, folks. We are mortal and every day here is a gift (that is why they call it “present”).

Sometimes, I think, in our quest for immortality, we forget that others have rights too. We forget it is not ours to demand that they forgo their rights just to our benefit. This is not to say that they can’t forgo those rights, but the choice is theirs and not ours.

Anyway, I love when progressives try to defend their demands, but it makes me want to laugh in their face when I hear them denigrate those who disagree with them. What was it Pappy used to tell me about the pot calling the kettle “black.”

Politics should stop being politics

Obama: Congress should stop bickering

The President thinks that the Republicans and Democrats should stop fighting and arguing over how the federal government spends its money. They should stop “manufacturing” crises and stop being “out of touch” with the American people.

TIME OUT!

Mr. President, what world are you living on, because it sure ain’t the same one the rest of America lives on.

Sorry, but the Republicans and the Democrats pretty much are doing what they are supposed to do: Represent the interests of the people who sent them there. Now that does not mean everybody in their district or state, but the people who voted and supported them. That, Mr. President, is how a representative democracy works. You don’t like that, then move to a different universe.

I know that I am a voice in the wilderness here, but, people, we have to understand that the US does not speak with one voice. It never has and it never will. Currently there are more that 310 million of us, each with our own mind and our own view of how things ought to be. Neither of the major political parties represents the view of the majority of Americans – especially on every issue. That is what makes politics politics.

Mr. President, you want Congress to pass a budget? Then call Harry Reid over in the Senate and tell him to pass the next budget bill that comes over from the House as is. Don’t play around with it, just pass it. And then you sign it. But, you and I know that isn’t going to happen.

And it hasn’t happened since the Republicans became the majority in the House. Every year, since 2009, the House dutifully passes the various and sundry authorizations and appropriations bills (like some 26 of them each year) and every year during that time the Senate has piddled and diddle and not one thing has it resolved. Why? Because the Democrats won’t accept what the Republicans have passed.

Every year, the Congress ends up passing a “continuing resolution” that, I guess, now extends all the way back to 2009 (it actually doesn’t but that is a different story). As Pappy used to say: That is one heck (he WAS a gentleman after all) of a way to run a railroad.

All continuing resolutions do is kick the can down the road to be dealt with again whenever it runs out.

So, the problem has not been in the House. It has been doing its job all along. And the problem is not with the Senate Republicans; they are just standing by what their House brethren have sent over. No, the problem lies on the other side of the aisle.

Now, I will guarantee you that you will not see it reported that way because it does not fit the establishment narrative of the problem.

I saw this back in 1994 when the GOP first took the House after being the minority party for more than 40 years. The establishment media was in a quandary. Over 40 years the reporters and pundits had established where they could go to get information and where the levers of power were. In an election, all that was washed away and it upset them. No longer could they go to the “usual suspects” and get the low-down on what was going on the backrooms and the cloakrooms of Capitol Hill. For a reporter who has spent years developing news source relationships, that is a very disconcerting feeling.

The new folks in power on the Hill, a bit chary of those who had developed such deep relations with their opponents, were less than welcoming to the established reporter and pundit class. So the feeling became mutual and the media bias grew to a deeper chasm.

Now, Mr. President, I know that neither you, nor any of your staff, or anyone else of note or power will read my ramblings (well, maybe someone at the NSA who is bored to death might), but please quit blaming others for your own lack of leadership.

The budgetary train wreck, the health care train wreck, the foreign policy train wreck, they are all your responsibility. Don’t slough them off on your minions. Don’t ask your co-equals in government (the ones who are to set the polices and priorities that you are to execute with the resources they give you) to do things that you apparently are unwilling to do.

Compromise is a two-way street and Congress is a co-equal with the Presidency (as is the Supreme Court). That is how the American republic was designed and how it is supposed to work. (Not by executive order and writ, as you just demonstrated with the setting up of new panels, etc., to sidestep the role of the uncooperative Congress – AND that is yet another rambling I will not digress into)

Nuff Said. Have a nice day. 

More rambling thoughts

Go win an election – Obama

President Obama sometimes gives the impression that as president, he is the only one who counts.  Sorry, the US government doesn’t work that way.

Gloating over the capitulation of his opponents in Congress on the issues of  what form of government funding was to be passed and how much debt the federal government would be allowed to take on, he told the losers they “needed to win an election.” The implication here, I suppose, is that the only election that counts is the presidential one. I guess if you think that the government should answer only to the president and be at his beck and call, that would be true but it is not what a democratic federal republic is all about.

You see, Mister President, your opponents on policy issues did win 232 elections in 2012 (out of 435 for seats in the House of Representatives), which means they hold a majority there. Now, if the US was a parliamentary system, it would mean that you would not be the elected leader of the United States … but that is a never-mind.

The point being is that not all power is supposed to reside in the White House and those people who control the other House were doing, essentially, what the people who voted them into office asked them to do.

No, Mister President (and your allies across the aisle in the House and across the hall in the Senate where they have control), that does not mean that those people who oppose you are extremists – despite being repeatedly labeled as such, nor racists – another favorite label being thrown around, nor hostage takers or terrorists or anarchists or arsonists or bombers. Despite your rhetoric to that effect, these people are not out to destroy the government, any more than one would hope you are. These merely are people who have a profound difference of opinion and world view than yours.

To me, it is tragic to see so many news stories and political pundits saying that the shutdown (such as it was) and the resistance to raising the debt ceiling was all the fault of the conservative Republicans and their Tea Party allies.

The shutdown did not have to happen and all the “painful” closures were not necessary. It doesn’t take much critical thinking to realize that the needed legislation had been passed by the House of Representatives but was blocked from passage by the presidential party loyalists in the Senate. It was those Senators who were holding the government hostage until they got what they wanted, not the other way around. Unfortunately, that was not nor will it be the way it was reported in the majority of the news dissemination outlets in the United States.

And now they are gloating over their victory and telling their opponents don’t ever oppose us again.

It is even more distressing to see liberal/progressive web sites like the Huffington Post headlining their page with demands that the loyal opposition bow down in obeisance to the righteousness of the progressives demands. What was it Churchill said about in victory? Something about magnanimity?

I read somewhere about how progressives are looking to create a country where it is the elite (themselves) who will perpetually be in power and those beneath them will just accept the justness of such an arrangement.

As for the other issue at the bar in the shutdown – Obamacare, or as it officially is known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – I am becoming increasingly of the opinion that it was designed to fail and that has been the intention of its “supporters” all along. I know that is being dreadfully cynical of me, but given the absolute disastrous train wreck the rollout of the “health insurance exchanges” this month, it is hard to believe that even our government and its contractors could be that incredibly incompetent. Those who know me know that I am loath to attribute to conspiracy anything that can be explained by mere incompetence, but this really has been pushing the envelope on that viewpoint.

I mean, nobody read the bill (supposedly) before it was passed and since then it seems that waivers and exceptions to its application have been the rule rather than the other way.

You see, here I tend to agree with the people who have been denigrated as Tea-baggers: I am of the opinion that the law, whatever it is, should be applied without regard to wealth, social status, gender, race, creed, religion, color, parentage or any of the plethora of other things that we use to divide us. In fact, I have feared the Balkanization of the United States for many years.

The law, in my humble opinion, should apply to all or to none at all. Unfortunately, this is not the case with the Obamacare law and its mind-boggling pages of regulations. To me, this is an egregious error, but I guess I am one of those bomb-throwers.

The funny thing to me is that, outside a few notable exceptions, I have met very few health care professionals who are in favor of Obamacare … actually most of them have expressed very negative views about the “reforms”.

As I discussed with one recently, the problem we have in the United States is not with our health care delivery system. It, in fact, is in really good shape, considering all the challenges it faces. Rather, the problem lies in how we are going to ration that delivery because it must be rationed. We have no other choice. Health care is a finite resource. We have only so many doctors, nurses, health care technicians and right on down to the porters and maids (not to mention the clerks and accountants in the billing offices).

To me the problem always has been how do you pay for all of that and who gets to decide who gets what? I am of the opinion that is not the in the purview of the US federal government, but since the bulk of the opinion makers in the US are now allied with national news dissemination organizations, all problems are nationalized (even if national solutions rarely are able to solve all problems).

I mean what would all the Bill O’Reillys, Anderson Coopers, Rachel Maddows, etc., do if they had to address merely local issues (even if they had some national implications) in all the various markets around the nation. They would not be able to cope.

I cite as a for-instance, an issue brewing in southern Maine over the use of the port facilities in South Portland to export Canadian oil. Currently, the facilities are used to pump oil from tankers from other places to Canada to feed its needs for heat, energy and transportation. The people who operate the pipeline, apparently plan to use the same facilities to take Canadian oil and export it to markets elsewhere in the world.

There are those around here are extremely put out that such a plan would be put forth at all. Of course, these people would dearly love to see the Port of Portland closed down, or so I overheard one supporter of a ballot initiative  to place such strict restrictions on the oil facilities that it would force them to close, tell another person today. They said something to the effect that so what if the 10 people working at the terminal were put out of work.

That would not be my point, however. Mine would say something about why should we in Portland be wanting to hurt so many Canadians?

However, I also know that this is not just about oil, but “tar sand” oil which those whose minds are focused on “protecting” the environment are so adamantly opposed to being developed. It doesn’t matter that the Canadians in Alberta are getting a good deal out of selling the oil, we just can’t have that happen, I guess.

And last but not least … I think the internet is a good thing. I think that letting people “blog” their thoughts and views is a good thing.

You see, apparently unlike the President of the United States, I think that blogging is of benefit and the more ideas, thoughts, points of view, etc., competing in the free market of politics the better … and may the better ideas float to the top.

Apparently, President Obama doesn’t agree and thinks that “bloggers” have too much influence. Well, I guess if your goal is to control the flow of information to the vast unwashed masses out there (note all the lengths the current administration has gone to combat leaks to reporters and the news media – which is predominately friendly to the Obama government), then the unrestrained freedom of social media and blogging would be more than disconcerting.

Just another sign that progressives and the president really don’t trust anyone but their fellow travellers.

Well, nuff said and nuff rambling for one post.

Who is blocking the solution to shutdown, debt limit?

Senate Democrats block progress on debt limit, shutdown

Reid nixes bipartisan compromise in Senate

The folks over the Huffington Post are all happy because the people they like in the Senate are all over throwing various compromise solutions back in the faces of the Republicans if they offer any.

 

NO SURRENDER! NO RETREAT!

 

I think the American people deserve a little bit better than this, but I understand the sentiment and it is a two-way street. However, having said that, it seems egregious to me that the Majority Leader in the Senate, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, rejected a compromise proposal by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, that had the support of at least six Democrats. Not enough to invoke cloture (should someone decide to filibuster it), but enough to pass the bill if all the Republicans bought into the measure.

So, the narrative remains that it all the Republicans’ fault. I am sorry, but that meme doesn’t fly anymore. This has become a situation where the progressives/liberals are saying “We won the White House. We still control the Senate. It don’t matter what the House says, especially since it is controlled by the opposition. What we want goes, period. End of sentence. End of story. And if you don’t like that you are a hostage-taking, kidnapping, baby-killing, ransom-demanding, terrorist bomber.”

If it were left to me, and I was the only one whose vote mattered, I would start with serious clearing out of the halls of Congress in November 2014 (if not sooner in those states where recall elections are permitted) and I would start with the liberals and progressives, and probably would continue on down to all the elected folks, and then start on the career staff that man all the policy-affecting offices in the congress members’ offices. Now, that is not going to happen, but it is what I would do.

Of course, there is little I could or would do with the blatant partisanship among the various news gathering and news disseminating organizations, other than call them on the fact that they are not fair and balanced, especially the ones in the broadcasting field but also including those in the traditional print media.

Sorry, but label what passes for journalism now as what it is: in the traditional sense of it, we are living again in the heyday of new era of Yellow Journalism.

Wikipedia's defines "Yellow Journalism"

Now, if you don’t know about Yellow Journalism, you need to go back a little more than a century or so, and look at the way the news was covered by the “majors” … not a pretty sight.

The “objective journalism” standard never really has been the norm, but for a brief shining period there in the 1950s and 1960s (and maybe into the 1970s and early 1980s) it was something that mainstream journalists professed as their goal. Not that they even came close, but it was the dream of a lot journalists that trained in that era.

So, I think it is time for us to let go of that illusion and realize that is not the case. Time to realize that everyone has a point of view and to them, it is fair and balanced and everyone else’s is prejudiced.

However, I would like to disabuse those who say that the House has no right to defund programs it doesn’t like. Sorry, but that dog don’t hunt. You may not like it, but the same thing was tried when the Iraq War went south. Remember the people who voted for the war before they voted against it? If you don’t remember that issue, then you need to have your memory checked because it wasn’t that long ago.

And just because some law has passed Congress, and has been upheld by the Supreme Court, does not mean that law is engraved in stone … and unless it is an amendment to the Constitution, it is not necessarily the supreme law of the land. Federal statutes do take precedence over state law, but that does not equal constitutional status.

If it were the case, then little things like the Fugitive Slave Act and the Volstead Act would still be the law of the land. Or Plessey v. Ferguson would still be in effect. Nope, laws can be changed. Courts can change their opinion on what is constitutional and what is not.

Even if it is a law, Congress (especially in the case of the House) has the prerogative to vote against providing any funds to enforce or put any law into effect. Heck, it has been underfunding immigration enforcement for years.

I really would hope, however, that more people would look at the situation unfolding in Washington, D.C., and recognize that despite the repetition of the canard that it all is the fault of the party that controls the House of Representatives, the fault for this mess does indeed lie elsewhere.

To me, the answer is obvious beyond debate.

Nuff said.

New Narrative: GOP moves goal posts

CNN: GOP changes demands to resolve impasse

I love politics … because it is so predictable … at least in the US.

Ok, to be out front – the way I see it – the shutdown could be ended today if the SENATE would pass the funding resolutions in its current hopper.

That won’t happen because the SENATE is holding out for one big omnibus continuing resolution to fund ALL government operations. It is either the omnibus spending bill or no bill – the so-called “clean CR” – according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and President Barack Obama.

However, I am seeing others starting to pick up on the point of view that what the House of Representatives is doing is IN FACT just what those silly dead white men 225 years ago wanted it to do in cases like this when they wrote the U.S. Constitution. This is exactly what those evil “framers” or “founders” of our government expected and wanted the House to do. It is performing its role as a check on the Senate and the Executive Branch (the president) by exercising its power over the purse.

Now, there are those, mainly progressives, who see this as a bad thing (although they were busy trying to defund military operations in Iraq just a few years ago), but it really is what people like James Madison and the others who sweated the summer of 1787 out in Philadelphia to contrive a more perfect union meant to happen.

What those less than three-score of gentlemen did really is quite remarkable, when  you look at the diversity (yes, Virginia, they were a diverse cultural lot) of the group and the interests that they represented.

It indeed was a grand compromise, that no one went home 100 percent satisfied with the result (the biggest rift was over the institution of slavery), but it still put in place a formula for governance that pretty well stood the test of time … until we all got complacent about it and for reasons discussed very well by the guru at Strafor (George Friedman) we have let ideologues grab the wheels of power.

(The roots of how we got here)

Still and yet, the government is functioning pretty much within normal designed operating parameters – despite the rather bizarre rhetoric and talking points being distributed by the leadership of the Democrat Party and its supporters.

As I told one person today, it ain’t time to man the barricades just yet.  Her concerns are well grounded, I told her, and not all people are quite as tolerant and generous as she might be but while we may be in the latter stages of the infamous “Cycle of Democracy”, there always is hope. Hope does spring eternal, despite what we might think in moments of despair as we watch/hear/read the news each day from various sources competing to get us to accept their view of world affairs.

That most of them – at least all those people who talk at us via the TV and Internet these days as well as those who we have elected to lead the government - really are being disingenuous (being charitable here) is most distressing and, as Pappy used to say, you just want to knock some heads together to knock some sense in them.

Does it not seem strange that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting can get a chunk of money (some $445 million) while the $100,000 that supposedly goes to the survivors of American service members killed in the line of duty (roughly two dozen since Oct. 1, including four killed in action in Afghanistan) has been suspended because the government can’t afford it?

Or how about a rally on the National Mall by supporters of amnesty for people who have entered the United States without the proper documentation or have overstayed the visits they said they were going to have when groups of aged veterans from World War II are denied access to the open-air memorial on the same mall and threatened with arrest if they come back?

How about people being denied access to their privately owned homes and businesses that happen to have ended up on property owned by the federal government in the creation of various national parks?

Or the National Institutes of Health enrolling a half-dozen or so sick children in special treatment programs even though they have been forbidden to do so by the Office of Management and Budget in the Executive Office Building next to the White House?

If that does not sound to you like misplaced priorities, then I would question whether you should reexamine those priorities. I definitely think there is some serious misrepresentation of issues going on here.

And no, the federal government is not going to default on its debt payments, unless someone in the executive branch really screws things up.

A) Under existing funding legislation (and that already passed by the House) funds are available to pay the interest on the national debt … hence, no need for a default because that is what is required. It is when you don’t make those payments that you default. It is a bit like paying your mortgage (even in the worst of times, if all you can do is pay the interest portion, the lender probably will not give you too much of a bad time).

B) The federal government does not need to raise the debt ceiling in order to make these payments, because it takes in enough money in taxes, tariffs, duties, etc., to cover the interest due along with a whole bunch of other things.

The debt ceiling debate is sort of like arguing over which credit cards you are going to try to pay this month, with one side let’s just raise the credit limit and the other side saying that it might be a good idea to start cut back on how much we are spending.

Unfortunately, what we are being treated to daily by those we have hired to run our government is a whole lot less than the truth and a whole lot of stuff to try to scare us into demanding that one political party’s viewpoint is the only acceptable one.

I don’t think so.

But that is enough of my random thoughts for this go around.

Nuff said.

No budget

Fiscal cliff?

Continuing resolution

Ok, I guess it covers it. The federal government is supposed to be operating on a budget that goes into effect on Oct. 1 every year. However, this session of Congress, like the session in 2010 and 2011, didn’t really pass a budget. It passed what is known as a “continuing resolution” which basically is kicking the can down the road, as one politician put it.

Being a product of political grid lock, such resolutions basically permit the government to continue functioning on the basis of previous budget authorization and spending laws. In this case, it seems that while the House did pass a budget (meeting its constitutional responsibility), the Senate as it has done every year since 2009 has found it  politically inexpedient to pass the budget, opting instead to authorize the government’s various agencies to continue spending for the next six months while a compromise is sorted out.

Unfortunately, apparently, the grand compromise from 2011 has to have a “budget” passed and not a continuing resolution or the great sequestration goes into effect.

Not bad politics, if you think about it. It is not like the Senate could not have passed a budget. It could have, and it could have been substantially different than the House-passed version. Then, however, the good senators would have had to have been on “the record” so to speak about what their budget priorities were. Not good.

So, the House has gone on record – and being controlled by Republicans – and that gives the Democrats a good foil to use during this election year … and relieves them of any responsibility for the fiscal affairs of the nation.

Personally, I think it is all porcine scatology. Well, even more than that: It is about “transforming” the country, as President Obama says. I may not approve the way the Obama Administration is going about this transformation, but it is getting a lot of help from the Senate, which is depressing. I also may not approve of the nature of the transformation, but until more people vote against it than for it, I will be in the minority and, therefore, must accept the results. That, folks, is what you do in a democratic republic.

Of course, that course may change … and I hope it does.

Executive orders?

Questions about Obama’s cybersecurity plans – PC World

About a month ago, I raised my own red flag on the issue that is troubling the computer magazine PC World. I need reiterate it again, I suppose.

I know that it may not be politically correct to say so, especially among those who really had a visceral hatred of George W. Bush, but our current president, Barack Obama, scares me every time he starts talking about using executive orders to implement something he can’t get passed by Congress. I would hope that this government by fiat would be upsetting to others as well.

We have seen this administration move much farther abroad than the previous administration in applying its changes to the law by executive rules, regulations and basically fiats on what laws to enforce and on whom they should be enforced. This must be a frightening trend to those of us who celebrate our civil liberties, economic rights and our basic freedoms.

If a president doesn’t need Congress to enact law, then why have a Congress (I know that may sound good, but it really is a bad idea)? This propensity of President Obama to use his executive orders to enact new law in such a broad spectrum of government policy is the reason I find him to a walking disaster area. He seems to be intent on advancing his agenda, regardless of the views of the American people who elect those people to represent them in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Granted, Congress is polarized. Being polarized just reflects the fact that the people are split very badly about what they think are the best policies to advance the nation. When there is no consensus, then inaction often is the best answer, despite what our elites and so-called opinion makers, or our media elites or the president and the political leaderships may think. Ironically, the system was designed for such inaction in the face of polarization.

If it was not for the War of Rebellion that saw the Southern states withdraw from Congress, then the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th Amendments would never have passed. But the slave-holding states did withdraw, did go into rebellion, did lose that rebellion, and basically lost whatever influence they had to keep the institution and to keep African-Americans in chattel bondage. However, they were able to resurrect apartheid and maintain it for many years until even that was overturned. (Note: It was the Democratic Party that was instrumental in maintaining the Jim Crow legislation and fought the civil rights reforms of the 1960s).

I hope those who go to the polls keep that thought in mind: Do they want to retain such polarization? Do they want to eliminate it? And to which side do they want the country to go? I hope that for a little bit of security that my fellow Americans are not willing to sacrifice even more of their liberty.

Initial reaction

I watched President Obama’s speech to the Democratic National Convention and I was impressed. He is a very good speaker and I should hope that he really believes in the things he said.
Having said that, I was left with my doubts. Why would I doubt? There was a dichotomy in his speech that left me wondering, “Does he really believe in what he saying?” because his rhetoric is not consistent, either within his speech or in his actions.
My question is this: Does he really believe in the law? Does he really believe in equality before the law? Does he really believe in contracts?
Unfortunately, both his rhetoric and his actions over the past few years lead me to question whether he really believes in the law, or that it be applied equally to all that come before it.
For example, if he really believed in equality before government, then all would pay the same rate of taxes to the government on the same kinds of income and wealth. That is not the case now. If you think it is, then you would be wrong.
No, we have decided to have a “progressive” system of taxation that increases the rate of your taxes as your income increases. We have decided to encourage certain behaviors by rewarding those who comply with our wishes with exemptions and deductions from their tax burden.
In addition, those who for whatever reason fail to achieve a certain income level, we have exempted them not only from paying federal income taxes, but we have agreed to give them other benefits and subsidies. That is not equality. That is discrimination, no matter how you describe it. Government is not in any way treating all citizens either fairly or equally.
Another example: I have no problem paying for education of young people or law enforcement or fire protection, but it is not the role of the federal government to provide those services.
Another example: This country has a law, called the bankruptcy code, and it applies to private companies – no matter what industry, no matter what size – the same. The president ignored that law because he said he wanted to save jobs. What gave him that right to ignore that law?
You see, I opposed the bailouts of Wall Street and Detroit. I thought at the time it was beyond the powers of the federal government to do what it did. I still think that is the case. Granted, it would have been a very serious situation and possibly thousands or millions would have been hurt. Guess what, thousands and millions of people were hurt. But, we would have survived it, just like America did in the Great Depression.
Note, Franklin Roosevelt did not end the Great Depression; World War II ended it. FDR did do some things, most notably restoring the outlook of the American people. It was not what he did that was right, but his positive outlook that was right. You can do wrong things with the right outlook and you will be surprised that things actually turn out better than you expected.
I agree that we should often act as a team, because in synergy there often is greater strength, but it should be a coalition of the willing and not the coerced. If we punish those for doing better than others then we discourage them from doing better.
Then there are contracts. Yes, I think all parties should abide by the articles of their contracts. Yes, often times groups try to shave those articles to their own benefit. That not only is to be expected but will happen, every time, all the time, no matter who is involved.
Yes, I think greed is wrong, but what one person defines as greed others define as righteous reward. Who has the right to define greed because it has to be defined before it can be punished. I am not qualified, and I know no one alive who is qualified to say what greed, or need or enough is.
I understand the rationale that the law should not apply to some people, particularly if they were not responsible for the circumstances they are in, but that is not my decision to make. It is not the federal government’s decision to make. Its job is to apply the laws as equally and equitably as humanly possible. If it doesn’t, then the law no longer reigns and we become a nation of men, governed by men and not by the principles that made this nation what it is and can be.
I don’t know how I am going to vote in November. I really don’t. There is a lot that can happen in the next two months. I do know that the Democrats have not sold me on their view of the world … but then again, neither have the Republicans, for that matter.

Thank you, Michael Moore

Michael Moore on presidential race
I don’t know if Michael Moore, the very progressive film producer who keeps churning out films that attack conservatives, knew he was doing it but he did make a very pertinent observation during an interview on the Huffington Post.
Disregard his comments on his expectation that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney will defeat incumbent President Barack Obama in November. He doesn't know any more than the rest of us on how the election will turn out.
No, his telling comment was on campaign finance and how political parties use it (or should use it).
"This election's going to be decided on who gets out the most people that day. Who's up at four in the morning, making sure that dozens, hundreds, thousands of people in their communities are getting out to vote. And the Republican machine that is set up and the money behind it to guarantee [what] is really the only important thing -- turnout on that day -- that's what looks pretty scary here."
Uh, did I miss something here? Isn’t that what a democratic-republic is all about? Isn’t that what the democratic process is all about? I thought, though I may be wrong here, that the objective in any election was to mobilize supporters and to get them to the polling station so that the person elected represented their interests. Isn’t that what elections are all about?
To me, the role of the parties, other than to define the issues that they support and recruit candidates to run for office who will represent those views on those issues, is to mobilize their supporters and get them out to vote for their candidates. That is the job of the party faithful, to get those voters who support their cause to the polls in sufficient numbers to make a difference. If they aren’t doing that, then what are they doing? They sure ain’t helping their candidates. If the Republicans do that better than the Democrats or the Green Party or the Libertarians, then shouldn’t they deserve to win?
Mister Moore is scared that the turnout on Election Day might not represent his views. He calls that pretty “scary.” What about majority rule, Mister Moore? What about people electing their representatives in a federal-republic? That is scary?
The hypocrisy of his statement should be obvious. He doesn’t believe that enough people will vote “against” Romney. He might be right and he might be wrong, but then again, he might just be in the minority. Did that thought even cross his mind?
It is said that Americans are spending too much money on our elections. It is even raising questions in the foreign press. Hello, we spend more money in this country advertising tooth paste than we do on political efforts. We literally spend more than a trillion on advertising and public relations communications efforts but spending less than .6 percent of that figure on communicating our political views is wrong? There has got to be a disconnect there.
Of course, you can always say that in a perfect world, people wouldn’t have to spend money on communicating political speech. Hello, who said the world is perfect? Yes, money corrupts, but money also makes a pretty good megaphone and amplifier for what you want to say. Unfortunately, you can’t have one without the other.
Still, thank you Mister Moore, you hit the nail on the head. Elections are about turnout. Elections are about the constituents making their preferences known. That is what elections in the United States are all about.

Medicaid: One size fits all?

Ryan plan sparks Medicaid debate

Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin representative/Republican vice presidential nominee, has brought up a good topic for debate: Should the states or the federal government administrate the Medicaid programs that pay for health care for the poor and the indigent.

That is a good question.

Is it better that the states decide the extent of the Medicaid program and who it helps or doesn’t help, or should that decision be a decision made by Congress, or a federal regulatory agency like the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services/Health Care Financing Administration?   Who is the CMMS/HCFA?

Most democratic-socialists will tell you that it needs to be a national program, while most federal-republicans will tell you it needs to be in the hands of the state governments which lie closer to the people. Where you fall out in that debate is the choice you have to make according to what you see the role of government being at each level.

I, for one, tend toward the traditional democratic-republican view point of Thomas Jefferson, even though I dearly love James Madison (and he is one of my personal heroes – even if this is the 100^th year of his disastrous War of 1812 when he shouldn’t have tried to play commander in chief in the field, but that is a whole other story), that government works best when it is closest to the people. In other words, the lower the level of government, the better it works for the benefit of the people.

This is especially true for communities. Communities and their governments, usually municipal or county/parish governments are far more responsive to the needs and desires of their constituents than state governments … and far more responsive than the federal government in Washington. This usually is because the constituents are neighbors to the people running the schools and city halls and let them know their views on their front lawns or over their back fences.

State governments, for similar reasons, usually are little more responsive to the needs of their states than the federal government, but that is partially by design … or malice aforethought, as I put it. Still, state governments can be more reflective and responsive to the demographic makeup and desires of its communities, something that is difficult, if not impossible, at the national/federal government level.

At the national level, in order to avoid being quite arbitrary and capricious in its law and rule making, the government must, basically, make everything “one size fits all.” That, I contend, is a recipe for disaster because problems come in all shapes and sizes and one size definitely doesn’t fit all.

The plan, by those really smart guys way back when, was for each state to be sort of a laboratory of solutions. Each state would try to solve the problems facing its residents, which may or may not be the same or even similar to the ones facing another state. Great idea, but the revolution in telecommunications may have doomed it.

Today, whether it is the Internet or television over cable and satellite, communications are nearly instantaneous, with all problems that are associated with information overload.

One of the complaints in the above article is that advocates for the poor don’t have the resources to go to 50 state capitals to make their cases for greater benefits for the poor and find it much more efficient to take their lobbying to just one place: Washington. But is that not the problem with our national government? Isn’t in the pockets of too many special interests and not looking out for the “general welfare” of the nation?

Of course, the problem with having 51 solutions instead of 1 solution is that it is time consuming and Americans are a notoriously impatient lot. We want our problems solved yesterday, if not sooner, and we don’t like debating over what ought to be done. Just do something, do it now, and make the problem/distraction go away. No need discussing it. No need to come to any compromises. Just do what I want and do it now.

Except sometimes what gets done isn’t what I want, or what my neighbors want, or what might work in some other place but isn’t going to work too well here. Hmmm. Maybe there is a better answer.

As I have said before, government governs best when it governs least, and the best way for that to happen is to leave in the hands of the level of government closest to the people.

Don’t look for that to happen anytime soon, however; the special interests in Washington have no interest in having to work any harder for their causes than they have to.

Real World

Example of the progressives'' mindset: Dumb and Dumber

 

The author of the linked article is a professor of linguistics out in California and he makes a plea to his fellow Democrats and progressives to use the language carefully or the plebeians might catch on that they are being talked down to.

To me, that is one of the problems with the so-called liberals and progressives: They tend to talk down to people they disagree with. You see, according to the above article, the problem with “low-information voters” (which probably includes the vast majority of voters) is they are not voting for what is in their material interest sometimes, but what feels right in their gut. This supposedly explains why sometimes people who are not filthy, obscenely rich sometimes vote against the liberals and for the conservatives, who usually are Republicans and not Democrats.

Now, these dumb people, who don’t know what is in their own interest, for their own good and obviously in the national interest, need to be courted, but unfortunately they are smart enough to know when someone is calling them dumb … and the professor points out they have figured out that calling them a “LIV” essentially is calling them dumb. Bad move.

Ok, what is the problem here? The problem is an entire mindset. There is a mindset that thinks that if a person has a certain background, a certain religious preference, looks a certain way, talks a certain way, then obviously they are too stupid … oops, silly, and dumb (which really means mute, but we are using it colloquially) and need to have those who are more educated, let’s say, more cosmopolitan, more learned, make all the important decisions for them. The implication is that they are too dumb to do what is “right” and they cling to their “bibles and guns.”

Sorry, wrong answer. I may not be the brightest bulb in the pack, but I long ago figured out not to put someone down because they don’t have some piece of paper or haven’t been to as much schooling as I have. Now, that, I contend, is really dumb.

For example, I don’t think anyone of my Canadian in-laws have more than a high school diploma (at best, and I know some don’t even come close) and yet, they can do things that leave me in the dust. Oh, sometimes I can bluff my way into maybe making them think I have a clue what they are talking about, but with my college degrees and 40 years of white collar jobs … I am almost always faking it. I do know a little, but that is because I was a journalist and when you are general journalist, you have to learn a little about a whole lot of subjects … as I say, you know enough to get yourself in really deep trouble (because others think you know what you are talking about).

Still, at least one of them has made (and lost and made) more money than I can ever dream of making. Another, well, he is smart as a whip (like his sister) and can figure out how to make things work that leave me totally baffled.

I have worked with people like that all my life. Just because someone has a college degree, or a professional degree, or seems to have a higher intelligence quotient than somebody else, it never makes them better. I have seen high school graduates who were better wordsmiths than people who had masters’ degrees and doctorates from prestigious universities.

I look out at the world today and I see far too many people dismissing others because of what they think they don’t have. Smart is not a piece of paper. Smart is not necessarily a lot of money. Smart can be a lot of things.

It is the reason that I try (and I admit, I am no more a success at this than probably the next man, but I do try) to treat each and every person I meet with the dignity and respect that I hope they will treat me. I don’t make fun of their accents, or their dress, or how much they weigh (like I should talk). I try to accept their lifestyles, even when I disagree with them. I sure as heck don’t try to say to them “Do as I tell you to do!”

I might try to convince them that maybe I have a better idea, but if they don’t agree … well, not much I can do about that.

It is sort of like the linked article. It seems to assume that conservatives and those who disagree with progressive premises are somehow on the lower end of the evolutionary scale. Well, I don’t agree, and I would hope that they would agree to disagree civilly.

I know my old progressive classmate out west probably thinks I am a lost cause, but as I keep trying to tell him: I just look at the world through a different prism. He ought to try it sometime.

But then, I do try to do so too … much to the frustration of my dear sweet wife when I get in to mode and start trying to argue things from what I perceive to be “their” perspective. It is great fun as an intellectual exercise, but it keeps me on my toes.

Still, my advice to people out there: Go with your gut. It almost never fails you. Be true to what you believe and at least you will have stood for something. That is all we can do.

Bush v. Gore redux

http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/18/justice-antonin-scalia-on-2000s-bush-v-gore-that-comes-up-all-the-time-and-my-usual-response-is-get-over-it/?hpt=hp_t2
I see where the progressives’ favorite whipping boy justice is telling them to get over the 2000 election.
Justice Anatonin Scalia is not necessarily one of my favorite justices but he is articulate and has definite views on how the U.S. Constitution is to be interpreted. I can respect that.
However, on the 2000 election: Yes, it is high time for people to get over it.
I would point out as he did that even if the lawsuit that the Gore campaign filed to circumvent the legal process in Florida to challenge election results and the secure ballot recounts had gone forward, and the wishes of the Gore campaign had been granted, http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/ Gore would have lost.
So, the court really did not decide the election. It only stopped what, in my humble opinion, was a very crude effort to hijack the election using the judicial system and give the loser the victory.
Of course, don’t tell Democrats that. They have spent the last 12 years throwing mud and doubt on the electoral process.
I suspect, although I hope my expectations are incorrect, similar mud and doubt will be thrown on this November’s ballot, especially if it is close.
Having spent many a night in local election offices, I know how hard these people work to get it right, for the most part.
However, I also know that stealing elections are a long American tradition (Particularly among Democrats: Can anyone say Pendergast and Dailey. IF you have never heard of them, then look them up.)
Let us hope that this year, it is different.

The world is not perfect

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/mitt-romney-taxes-tough-sell-hairball_n_1681636.html

Oh Joy, Oh Joy! Some of the Republican illuminati are not all the enthused by the presumed party nominee Mitt Romney. Obviously this portends that his campaign to unseat President Barack Obama will fail and the progressives will have four more years to change America into their vision of what it should be.

Let there be dancing in the streets. The GOP is not this monolith monster that is going to steam roll over all the “progressive” achievements of the last century and return everyone to slavery.

Since when was the GOP a monolith? Since when were conservatives a united force walking in lockstep? Are we talking social conservatives or fiscal conservatives or religious conservatives or the so-called political conservatives? What about the neo-conservatives? Oh, yes, we must believe they are all cut from the same mold.

Aren’t Christian fundamentalists just like business and corporate fundamentalists? I mean they are fundamentalists, right? Aren’t all fundamentalists exactly alike?

Hello, what world are you living on? Is any group a monolith? You have got to be kidding. So, some of the traditional elite in the Republican Party do not have shivers running down their leg that the Mormon Romney indicating that he walks on water and is the messiah. Does that mean they are just going to go home? I don’t think so.

It is almost an illusion to look at each crack that indicates that maybe somebody doesn’t agree with Romney on X issue or Y issue that doesn’t necessarily translate into that somebody either voting for President Obama or not voting. Wishful thinking more likely.

Who people decide to vote for really is a bit more complex, as well as simpler, than how as candidate stands on this or that issue. While most people might say that some issue made them vote for a candidate, what they really mean is that issue is the they are most cognizant of that tipped the balance of their perception of whom to vote for.

Yes, some people will just vote Democrat as much as some people will never vote Democratic, and vice-versa for the Republicans. But they make up only a slice of the electorate and the bigger slice is in the middle, where the voters muddle through a host of perceptions and considerations until they decide how they are going to vote. Some even flip coins.

The point being, I think, never gloat over what you perceive to be your enemies weaknesses and remember oft times your opponents are adherents to the old mantra that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” at least for this go around.

Also remember that leaders often don’t lead, and don’t always (without the direct application of the threat of physical force) make people vote the way they want them too. That is the secret of the secret ballot. People can, once in the polling booth, cast their ballots relatively anonymously. I am not so sanguine to suggest, however, that people around you are not perceptive enough to figure out for whom you voted. But, then you can always lie. That works too.

The problem is, despite what some people seem to want to think, candidates are not perfect. The world is not perfect and is not about to be perfected, even if progressives think it can be. All candidates have faults, depending on their supporters’ (and opponents’) perspective. Candidates are at best a compromise. They try to bridge the various factions within every political grouping to garner sufficient support at the ballot box to actually win an election. In reality, many voters going into vote metaphorically hold their noses while casting their ballot as the best of the worst.

To fail to recognize this is an indication of how people have become intolerant of compromise, the art of the possible and the heart of a democratic republic.

Like Ben Franklin said, we have given birth to a republic and now the question is after it has grown up, can we keep it one?

But then again, the world is not a perfect place nor will it ever be one.  So much for this random thought.

Negative campaigning

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-attacks-obama-negative-campaigning-negative-ad-own-193043427.html

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/15/democrats-to-romney-stop-whining-over-felony-remark/

This is an election year in America, and that means politicians of every stripe are out there campaigning along with all their supporters. You do know what that means? All hail negative (attacks on your opponents and everything he or she ever did or thought, however irrelevant) campaign tactics.

Presidential campaigns are no different, although this year we seem to be off to a faster start than usual. I guess that is a product of the demise of the smoke-filled rooms of yesteryear. Normally, we wouldn’t know who the candidates would be (other than probably the incumbent) before the party conventions in August.

Still, as marketing gurus and political consultants will tell you going back probably to the dawn of man that saying negative things about your opponent is always effective. In fact, to borrow part of the old cliché, it is American as apple pie.

Actually, a student of American history, particularly its elections and politics, will tell you that things today are relatively calm compared to some of the efforts of days gone by. Still, it doesn’t make it any better or the candidates any better and in fact it still makes candidates look rather ugly. (As my dear wife points out: It makes them look like children on a playground, rather than mature adults).

The sad thing is that you can imply something that obviously isn’t true and get away with it. Especially if your supporters get on the bandwagon and keep hammering away at it.

For example, I don’t care if President Obama’s birth certificate is a fake or not. It doesn’t matter. What matters is whether his policies and plans advance my liberty.

It doesn’t matter whether or not Mr. Romney was the titular head of a venture capital firm out to make a profit 12 years ago or not. What matters is whether his policies and plans protect my rights to life and the pursuit of happiness.

That is what matters  on Nov. 6, 2012.

Still, there are those who jump on issues like those and flog them like a dead horse.

I suspect that someone far smarter and better educated than I am could tell you why, but I have my own explanation. We, humans, just like to tear down people, especially people who have the opportunity to wield considerable authority. We could do better, we say with our puffed up chests. Maybe we could, but we aren’t so maybe we should go back in the teapot as Pappy used to say.

The founders were right that the people who cast their votes should be something more than followers. They should be thinkers too. But thinking is work … and we all know our attitude about work or anything that takes any effort: EEEEEEK!!!! Get that away from me, I don’t want to do it.

Of course, not thinking doesn’t do much good for the individual and their liberty, but then we will trade that for the security of knowing someone else is at the wheel, the throttle and the brake. It’s not our fault then. We can always blame someone else when the train wrecks.

But this train wreck will be our fault. People can stop negative campaigning by telling those who do it that they just lost their vote. Enough people do that, and I bet that those who try not to indulge in personal attacks (rather than attacks on issues that really matter) will benefit. That would be nice, and then those people might be more amenable to compromise, which is the life blood of politics and the art of the possible. We can’t have that. Only those pure of heart, or is ideology, need apply.