Category: Politics

By on

Greenland, not too long ago, was a hunk of ice that few people cared about. But then Greenland started to melt making it more feasible to exploit its natural resources and making the waterways surrounding the country more navigable. So now Trump wants it.

So even though Trump doesn’t believe in Global Warming, he wants to take advantage of the destruction Global Warming is causing. On one hand, nothing needs to be done to slow Global Warming because it isn’t happening and, even if it was, it has nothing to do with human activity. On the other hand, this vast hunk of ice that covers Greenland is disappearing, I guess for no particular reasoning, and Trump wants in on the action.

The contradictions here are mind boggling.

By on

I was talking with my brother about the Hitler/Trump comparison and I always end up in the same place. Trump just isn’t Hitler. Not even close. It is an impossible measurement. Hitler is one of the all time champion dictatorial monsters. Valid comparisons to Hitler are Stalin and Mao but Trump falls short in this competition. Way way short.

This doesn’t mean Trump isn’t dangerous, he just fails to match Hitler.

I think the Hitler comparison comes about because Hitler’s rule was so disastrous for the entire world. A lot of people died directly and indirectly during his rampage through history. He is the worst case scenario. Hitler is meant to scare people. But because Trump isn’t nearly as bad as Hitler the comparison fails to accomplish this task and might even be counter productive.

The danger of this comparison is that people will judge the comparison as faulty and dismiss the argument.

The real problem, as my brother pointed out, is that Trump is crossing lines that are intolerable in democracy. He is arresting people and taking over countries with very thin pretexts. He is condemning people to death without trial. He thinks the president can do anything he wants. He is no longer playing by the rules of American democracy so when is it all right for people who disagree with him to stop playing by those rules.

This is a much more difficult proposition and one we need to be very careful about. Political violence is terrible because once it starts, all bets are off. Once the bodies pile up, things get pretty bloody awfully fast. I, personally, would like to avoid that if at all possible. I may be wrong but I still think we aren’t at a point to stop playing by the rules.

By on

I have been looking for an example of what is wrong with the present political system that isn’t about Donald Trump doing something outrageous. This has been a difficult task because Trump is consistently behaving outrageously. It is so frequent that I started writing the present blog minutes before I discovered Trump kidnapped the Venezuelan president and his wife. I had to stop this blog to write another blog because kidnapping a president and taking over another country is pretty big news.

I now feel comfortable to return to the less outrageous, but concerning, actions of a politician I happen to like — Nancy Pelosi. She believes there is something wrong with Donald Trump’s mental capacity related to his advanced age. I happen to agree with her. The problem I have is her diagnosis is tainted by her previous toleration of Joe Biden’s declining mental capacity while he was president. She was quite willing to foist a declining senior citizen who also happened to be a Democrat on us until it became obvious to the general public that Biden was no longer capable of doing the job.

So thanks but no thanks for this helpful information about Trump. Her words here are meaningless because she changes her tune depending on what party the declining senior citizen is a member. The same criticism goes for all the many Republican and conservative pundits who delighted in pointing out Biden’s decline while presently ignoring the deteriorating health of Trump. How can you take seriously people who complain about putting an old man into power while simultaneously nominating a 78 year old man for president. Huh?

But Trump isn’t the same as Biden. Maybe, maybe not. The issue, however, is putting an aging person in a position of power. The health of 78 year old can change and change rapidly. It isn’t a particularly wise move particularly if you say you are concerned about an aging person in power. What makes putting a 78 year old in power in 2024 different from putting a 79 year old in power in 2020?

So talk all you want about your concerns but it doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in your opinion when you selectively use arguments that are important when your party is out of power and not so important when your party is in power. It is, in fact, irritating to hear such hypocrisy roll of the tongues of leaders who expect, in return, that you take it as received wisdom. So blah blah blah right back at you.

By on

I have to give Donald Trump credit. He chooses his enemies well. Nicolas Maduro is an unpopular asshole and difficult to defend as he is probably, at least passively, involved in the drug trade. A good portion of his own people are glad to see him go which puts people who question Trump’s action in the awkward position of saying but what about the law. Yeah, well, keep talking because I don’t think it is going to matter much. This would only matter if he had fucked it up and he didn’t.

People will be outraged. Rightfully so, but it will have little effect. What is the frequent theme for television heroes? A guy who doesn’t let the rules get in the way of him doing the right thing. Over and over again. The hero, if ever, is very rarely a rule following fussbudget. The hero isn’t going to get all the right forms completed and then signed off before arresting the villain. The hero is a rule breaking rouge, a bit of a scoundrel, who figures a way to get the villain despite those annoying rules.

This isn’t a television show and Trump is no television hero. Right. That is the theory any way. The reality, I’m afraid, is somewhat different because why has everyone been glued to their televisions for the past year waiting for Trump’s next move. The Trump show keeps coming up with different ways to shock and entertain us. What will he do next?

But this is an illegal operation, done without congressional authorization, against a head of a legally elected government. But but but and blah blah blah.

To be clear, I don’t support this in any way. I am saying that the outrage will be limited to the people who already hate the man. I doubt very much that anyone else will have their minds changed about him particularly when a Trump controlled Venezuelan government floods the energy markets with cheap oil. I hope I am wrong and the world will come to their senses and turn on Trump. Right now, I doubt it.

By on

Republicans are spreading the rumor that Barack Obama is actually running the country while old Joe Biden is sitting on the White House veranda drooling and soaking up the sun under a pile of warm blankets waiting to die. While there is no evidence that this is true, and I am convinced that Biden is presently up to the duties of his office and infinitely better president than that wastrel Donald Trump, I find Biden’s age worrisome. So when I hear these whispers about Obama being in charge, it comforts me.

Not because I believe it to be true but because it reminds me that the American system of government prevents the most powerful person in the world from having too much power. As we have witnessed in the past 20 years of partisan warfare, the President can do very little without the support of Congress and the approval of the Supreme Court. Biden doesn’t have either and thus little is being done right now. The only unchecked power he has, and it is mighty, is to send missiles flying in the event of a sneak attack. So who are the Republicans trying to scare here?

Not me. I like Obama and he also is popular with a large segment of the American Electorate. He is a young man particularly in comparison to both Biden and Trump. He is a recent president so he is up on the latest issues. Obama is a Democrat, Biden is a Democrat — is there much of a chance that Obama would be doing anything differently from Biden? Why should this concern me?

The Republicans spread this lie as if this should be upsetting. All I can say is good then. There is someone stable at the helm. And, if given the choice between a senile old man that is being manipulated by a younger known politician and a mad man who doesn’t take anyone’s advice but his own and who’s understanding of the bigger world stopped somewhere in middle school. I am going with the senior citizen.

The Republicans can continue to spread this vicious piece of gossip for however long they want to but I don’t think many people are gasping from the shock. They are undermining their strongest argument against Biden for no good reason. The only thing I can come up with is that they think the general public hates Obama as much as they do. They must have forgotten that Obama handily defeated the Republicans twice. I am happy to see them fumble around with this issue as I think a stronger and potentially more damaging case can be made regarding Biden’s age. Fortunately the Republicans aren’t able to grasp what that is.

By on

Mark Tapscott at the Epoch Times reports that, according to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR), Unions spent $25 billion dollars on 2022 election. Which is really kind of remarkable because Federal Elections Commission (FEC) reported that the total amount of money spent on political campaigns was 8.9 billion dollars. You might have spotted a glaring difference between the two organization’s figures. I certainly did.

Why the difference? First, and this is pretty important, the NILRR is anti-union. They want to demonize the union movement so they fiddled with the figures to make the actual 54 million labor spent on 2022 campaigns $25 billion. After this little switcheroo, the relative modest spending becomes outrageously large, especially with the untampered figures from corporations. $25 billion says unions are this powerful behemoth who have an endless supply of money to force their collectivist ways on the poor employers of America.

How did $54 million become $25 billion? NILRR’s much broader interpretation of union political spending can be found here: “the bulk of unreported political power is wielded by government union officials. They’re armed with the monopoly power to negotiate salaries, pensions, and hiring practices for entire swaths of federal, state, and local government workers. This makes monopoly bargaining in the public sector, by its very nature, political.” So, everything a union does is political and, therefore, must be included in political spending. Voila, you now have a rich monster with billions to spend facing those poor corporations who are just trying to run their business.

It’s a blatantly unfair comparison. Why isn’t the same standard applied to corporate spending? In non-union shops, which is close to 90% of all American worker’s experiences, the companies have this same monopoly power to negotiate salaries, pensions and hiring practices. When there are no unions, the worker is on his own and the company has all the power. Does the NILRR consider the money spent on Union Busting as political spending? Technically, I am sure it isn’t but by the NILRR broad definition of political spending, it definitely should be.

I am confident that when you add up all the Corporate Spending on salaries, benefits, HR policies and union busting, there would be a much higher amount of money for corporate political spending. Then we can talk political spending for both Corporations and Labor. Until then I think the FEC’s figures on money spent directly on political campaigns is the only fair way to appraise political spending. It gives a much different story about who is spending more money than Tapscott and NILRR.