Category: Politics

By on

The Texas Legislature is about to redraw the district boundaries for the US Congress in their state. Something, by the way, they just finished doing after the 2020 census. The problem is that the Republican majority in Congress is so small that Trump is trying to get Republican leaning states to gerrymander their district boundaries in order to gain more seats in 2024 election. All of this is perfectly legal and will probably happen.

California Democrats have threatened to redraw the congressional districts in their state if Texas follows through with their plan. Again all perfectly legal. In the meantime, real problems are being ignored in order to jerry rig Congress into something easier to control. Of course, this has to be done because the present political climate is so poisonous that achieving anything that resembles compromise is now impossible. Indeed, it is easier to redraw district boundaries than to work with one another for the good of their constituents.

Just one more distraction from all the real troubles of our country. Sadly it is both important and a colossal waste of time, money, and energy.

By on

I admitted the other day that I would love to see Donald Trump pardon Ghislaine Maxwell — mostly for the pure entertainment value of the experience. Upon thinking about, I have some reservations but I am still leaning to the hellfire that Trump will unleash. Here are my problems:

  1. Maxwell wants to get out of prison. She will do anything Trump wants to do so. This means, given her record of aiding and abetting a man engaged in human trafficking, she is capable of anything, so lying to protect Trump would be very much in her wheelhouse. Nothing coming out of her mouth can actually be trusted.
  2. Pardoning Maxwell is not the same as releasing the Epstein files that Trump’s Attorney General is so closely guarding. If Maxwell clears Trump without the release of the evidence regarding Epstein, we will probably learn nothing new.
  3. Given that Trump is the president she has to please, Maxwell had every reason to throw the Clintons and any other Democrat caught in Epstein’s web under the bus. So, in the short term, at least, Maxwell could torpedo the present Democratic Establishment. Personally, I am all for it. The sooner the debris from Democratic Party Past is cleared, the sooner we can get on with the business of defeating Trump and building a more representative Democratic Party. But it will be ugly. Really really ugly.

So pardoning her is not without repercussions. But one things is for certain, Donald Trump will release the hounds from Hell if he pardons Maxwell, and, if anyone deserves the Hounds from Hell, it is Donald Trump.

By on

Trump wants to resume using racist names for Washington’s football team.

I never understand why people clung to the Redskins name. It is obviously a racist name. Now, Donald Trump may not view it that way — mostly because he is White, and even if some Native Americans view Redskins as OK, other Native Americans do not. The only reason to resume the argument regarding the Redskins is to piss off people which is Trump’s whole game.

A sports team’s name would seem to be a low priority item to piss people off about but that is rarely a problem for Trump though he has an incredibly weak case to make. Tradition. Jesus. Americans used to have slaves. Women didn’t have the vote. Would tradition be a justifiable case to keep these two practices? Just because people have been calling the team a racist name for 100 years doesn’t mean we should continue — particularly when people have a problem with it.

But Trump wants to rumble about this and when he wants to rumble, there is no stopping him. It seems like a big waste of time. What harm occurs to the people who can no longer call the team the Redskins? None as far as I can see. The team still plays. The fans still watch. The only thing that is different is the name. “Go, Commanders” instead of “Go Redskins.”

Why not avoid aggravating people who object? But Trump doesn’t have an ounce of grace in him, he enjoys pissing people off. He has one speed — bull in china shop. At the end of his term, Trump will stand among the broken shards, gleefully proclaiming look what I have done. Quite an accomplishment — breaking everything. Quite another to build and to repair.

In the meantime, forget about Gaza, or tariffs, or healthcare, or immigration or homeless people or any one of a million more important things facing the country, let’s reopen an argument about the name of a football team.

By on

Because government programs like SNAP and Medicaid are paid for by the government, the government qualifies and monitors the people. who receive these benefits in order to ensure they aren’t buying liquor and cigarettes. There are legitimate arguments on whether this type of costly monitoring is necessary, however, I am willing to go along with them because if some people, in order to maintain programs that help the poor, need this kind of information in order to have them, I am all in. Qualify and monitor. These are the type of compromises that make governing in a politically diverse country possible.

What is annoying is the same oversight is not given to people who receive tax breaks. They just get the money and can do whatever they want with it including buying liquor and cigarettes. Now the notion here is that these good people are going to spend the money they received in tax breaks in investing money in their businesses thus creating more jobs however they are under no obligation to prove this. They could be spending the money on call centers located overseas and spa vacations for all we know. But no one asks them to show how they are spending these breaks on creating jobs here in America.

Here in lies the problem I have with tax breaks. They are unmonitored and given without nary a thought on how these windfalls are actually spent. So what, you might ask. Even if the jobs are created for call centers located in India and European vacations — this money eventually gets put back into the economy for the good of all. Right?

Well, yes but then very same thing can be said for giving money to the poor. Buying liquor and cigarettes at the local convenience store juices the American economy too. In fact, giving money to the poor is more likely to juice the American economy because the poor stay locally while the rich might wander off to Tahiti or Bali to spend their money.

Some people would argue that tax breaks are allowing the rich to keep their money and they should do anything they want with it. I would argue that it isn’t their money. The American people have a tax rate, whether you like that tax rate or not — it is the law. The tax obligation is the amount owed before tax breaks are calculated. The tax breaks then become government benefits — like Medicaid or SNAP.

If government benefits for the poor need to rigorously monitored then the same idea applies to tax breaks for the rich. I would like to see more tangible evidence that the rich are using their money wisely.

By on

Michael Bloomberg, ex-mayor of New York and billionaire, donated $5 million plus to Andrew Cuomo’s losing bid for mayor. Cuomo lost but is staying in the race because he thinks he can win in the general election. This leaves billionaire New Yorkers in the dilemma of which incredibly weak candidate (Cuomo or Adams) to throw their cash at in their effort to stop Mamdani.

Before you shed too many tears for Bloomberg, realize that he dropped all this money when it became apparent that Cuomo might lose and the people with money were desperately trying to drag Cuomo over the finish line. He probably knew he was flushing money down the toilet but he had to start somewhere, Cuomo’s losing campaign was as good a place to start as anywhere.

If a normal person were to donate $100 to a political campaign, it hurts a little. $5 million is a lot of dollars to drop on one mayoral campaign, yet Bloomberg seems to be more alarmed about a Socialist running the city than the fact he blew 5 million on a loser. Even after such a large loss of money, he is financially able to throw even more money at any candidate that might beat the Commie Mamdani. Think about it. He lost $5 million dollars and still has money burning in his wallet to give away to really lackluster candidates.

Bloomberg is also donating to other candidates running for city offices in the upcoming general election. This is not without consequence in how Bloomberg is seen at City Hall. Some officials might have the courage to vote against one of their bank rollers, but they certainly would feel obligated to sit down in a tony Manhattan eatery and listen to what Bloomberg has to say. Particularly if Bloomberg is paying. Bloomberg is getting access that the average New Yorker is unable to get.

If anyone has this type of cash, they also have enough cash to pay more taxes. Let’s face it if he is willing to panic contribute to a losing campaign, he can afford to drop some money in the public till for a better pay for government employees, better services for the poor, more money for education and a whole list of general welfare needs.

What about a law that if a person can contribute $1 million or more in any one campaign they must also pay an equal amount in taxes. It doesn’t discourage small contributors and big contributors get a reality check and, perhaps, think a bit harder before blowing their wad on losers like Cuomo.

By on

There is a debate going on right now on how fictional characters might have voted in the 2024 elections. Some people have speculated that Ron Swanson, a character on the television show Parks and Recreation, would have voted for Trump. Nick Offerman, the actor who played Ron Swanson, disagrees. A debate is now raging.

My only thought on the matter is who cares? Why are people getting so worked up over how a fictional character might have voted? They aren’t real people so they couldn’t have voted in the first place. More importantly, and I can’t stress this enough, is why are news organizations reporting on this incredibly irrelevant matter.

The media is jumping on this ginned up controversy because that is what makes the news business money — ginned up controversies. People want to see action and emotion. Controversies are the bread and butter of television. On the other hand, People don’t watch television to see reasonable people talking calmly about their opinions and then working towards a solution. This means that television executives exploit any controversy that might get people’s hackles rising.

Though, debating about Ron Swanson’s voting decision seems to be near the bottom of the ginned up controversies barrel. There is nothing there. Absolutely nothing. The person doesn’t exist. He can’t really have an opinion on the matter because of that. Still, despite this very important fact, people are getting worked up about this and actually to and froing about it like it matters. Such is the state of the American free press.

For the record, in case you are wondering, which I am sure you are because everybody in the civilized world is, I don’t care who Ron Swanson voted for.

By on

I remember when a lot of liberals thought George McGovern was going to be president because he was winning all of the Democratic primaries in 1972. I was also devastated when Richard Nixon crushed him the general election. Liberals, based on absolutely no real evidence, think that all the Democrats have to do is become even more liberal than they are presently are. And when the more liberal candidate got beaten, money was the problem.

There just wasn’t enough money to win. If liberals only had enough money, the people would vote sensibly. Donald Trump has proven the money theory wrong. It is about noise and media attention. Trump used very little of his own money instead he created a media feeding frenzy in which he made headlines every day saying outlandish things and the press would slavishly report them.

Zohran Mamdani, the new Democratic nominee for mayor of New York, may have the right stuff to get elected but I am yet to be convinced that he is the answer to the Democratic Party’s problem getting elected. I have been burned too many times — George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Jesse Jackson while more conservative Democrats seem to do better – think Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. There is a perception problem that liberals fail to see. Liberals see a young energetic well polished candidate. Other people might else sees a Muslim Communist.

This is why I am being cautious in my enthusiasm:

  1. New York City has a fundamentally different electorate. It is a different group than what one would find in Missouri or Ohio. Test driving well in New York, doesn’t mean he will test drive well in the rest of the country. Just because the most liberal candidate won in New York doesn’t mean this translates to the rest of the country.
  2. Andrew Cuomo, Mamdani’s main opponent, was a severely wounded candidate. He had to resign his last post because of credible reports of sexual harassing his employees. There is also growing evidence that he mishandled the AIDS crisis in his state. A lot of people didn’t like him and weren’t going to vote for him.
  3. In first round voting, Mamdani’s opponents got 57 percent of the vote. So even with a more liberal electorate than the rest of the United States, an awful lot of people voted for other candidates.
  4. Now that he is the Democratic candidate, the knives are out for Mamdani. His socialism becomes communism. His support of the Palestinians becomes his support of terrorism. People thought Obama was a Muslim without any evidence whatsoever what can the Republicans do with an actual Muslim.
  5. Making fun of establishment Democrats might be a lot of fun now but, in order to win, the Democrats need to keep everyone on board. There might be two former Democrats in the general election — Adams and Cuomo. Plausible alternates for people who might be afraid of Socialism. Gloating about your win is unseemly and irritating. A better use of Mamdani’s time, particularly now, would be reaching out to Cuomo and his supporters.

I wish Zohran Mamdani all the luck in the world. Right now, I am thinking he can win but a lot of work needs to be done to make that happen. Assuming Mamdani is going to win just because he is the Democrat in an overwhelming Democratic town is short sighted (see Guiliani, Rudy).

By on

The problem with nuanced explanations about emotionally charged situations is that people are getting pretty worked about it. People are seeing violence on the streets of Los Angeles. Saying things like we are handling the situation, the protesters are mostly peaceful, the president is breaking all historical protocol on how these situations are handled is fine when people are discussing budget deficits. It is all together a different story when you have rioters on the streets. The only appropriate answer is this is a big problem and we welcome all the help we can get.

Unfortunately the ever crafty Donald Trump doesn’t do nuance while Gavin Newsom can’t stop himself from trying to explain the unexplainable. Yes, this is a shit sandwich but it isn’t a lot of shit and we can get rid of shit if the President would only leave us alone to do our jobs. Don’t get me wrong, Newsom is absolutely right but sometimes being right doesn’t stop someone from looking ineffective in a dangerous situation.

Some of the protesters have gone over the line. Yes Trump provoked it and this certainly needs to be said but not by a man who has rioters loose in his state. Other people can point that out. Newsom needs to blunt an effective attack on his competence.

Admittedly Newsom is in a difficult situation. Trump is taking advantage of a situation he created. This doesn’t matter when police are under attack and cars are being set on fire. Newsom is already, somewhat undeservedly, trying to remove the egg from his face based on the January fires that devastated portions of the city. He does’t need more damage to his competence.

Middle-class people disapprove of rioting. They also have a tendency to vote. They might prefer, no matter how much they hate the man, a person who says this is wrong, the people who should take care of it aren’t taking care of it and I will take care of it as a better person for the job over someone giving a nuanced explanation of why there are rioters in his state and why he doesn’t need the President’s help.

So maybe, for the time being, a better plan would be to say I welcome the President’s help in getting this situation under control and immediately try to start working with Trump on containing the violence. This gives Trump some impetus to work with Newsom on resolving the problem.

Plus it might make things awkward for Trump who would then be forced to work with local authorities on a town they know well. If he preferred to go it alone. Newsom can say he tried to work with Trump but his assistance was declined. Thus, if things go South, and given Trump and his cronies penchant for going off half-cocked about things, it would probably go South pretty fast without the co-operation of Newsom and local authorities, then Trump would be holding the shit sandwich while Newsom could shrug his shoulders and say he tried.

There is a potential for blood in the streets because Trump and his cronies seem to be looking for a way to assert control. Unfortunately the potential for blood is already there. I don’t know about you but it sounds really dangerous for two different armed groups independently trying to put down a small riot than to have one co-ordinated force. Worse still it would be Democrat fighting Republican in the streets.

No doubt, this wouldn’t be a win for Newsom but it certainly would be better for him than looking like an incompetent ninny.

By on

Yeah, the Texas legislature is making sure that the Ten Commandments are on display in all Texas classrooms. How this might help improve Texas education is still a mystery but never mind children need to see the Ten Commandments because it is a foundational document for the American Constitution.

There are numerous foundational documents to the Constitution, why stop at the Ten Commandments?You could throw in the Magna Carta and English Common law if you wanted to give them a thorough knowledge of the basis for American Law. You might even post the Constitution if you really wanted to show them the basis of American law. But the Republicans are only interested in the Ten Commandments.

What now is going to happen for Texas students? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The problem here is that posting something doesn’t mean anyone is going to read it. Just one more of the numerous postings that go up in a classroom that most students will ignore. Furthermore posting the Ten Commandments without context is pointless particularly if the child is being raised by heathens. What do the authors of this law think is going to happen? If any child is so bold as to read the post that the child will be struck by a bolt of lightening and have a come-to-Jesus moment. Good luck with that.

Since Texas is a big state with lots of people, there are a lot of classrooms which need the Ten Commandments posted. This will cost a lot of money. For nothing. Absolutely nothing. It isn’t going to make heathens Christians and it isn’t going to give anyone a better understanding of American law. But lots and lots of money will be spent to make it happen. Money spent on getting the law passed. Money spent on the actual posters. Money spent on seeing that the law is being followed. Money spent on law suits defending the posters. All money that could have been spent on making Texas education better. What program that helps the poor will lose funding to promote this law?

The only conceivable benefit coming from this law is that Republicans get to gloat about passing a bill that promotes Christianity. All it is is a big middle finger to their opponents and nothing else. This from the Republican party who claim to believe in fiscal responsibility.

So Texas post away.

By on

The most mind boggling aspect about Qatar’s gift of an airplane to Donald Trump is his seeming lack of understanding that this is wrong and why he should pass on the gift. This isn’t a bottle of whiskey or a box of chocolates, this is an airplane.

There is a difference and, if he had paid attention to the HR presentations that most working stiffs suffer through every year, he would know why. The last company I worked for repeatedly reminded its employees that they never should take a gift over $100 because, even if everything is above board, it looks suspicious.

The best case scenarios on this, and I mean by that you can still plausibly claim to be honest, are still wrong. If someone has been kind or generous to you, you are more inclined to help them. This is unfair to other less generous customers and, more importantly, may cloud your judgment on what is right for the company. It shifts the power dynamic in a business relationship. The gift giver has this little bit of extra power over the gift receiver when making difficult decisions.

Trump, despite his unsubstantiated claim of being a good businessman, is clearly ignorant of modern business practices which are both pretty basic and universal. That he is unable to see the problem with this is shocking because I absolutely believe him. He doesn’t understand the power shift. He doesn’t understand why it would be wrong to give consideration to a country who has given him plane. I am sure he thinks it is all right to scratch your back if you scratch mine.

This should be more than troubling to Republicans. And lets face it, the Democrats just aren’t in any position to do anything about it. It has to come from Republicans. The sad thing is they think they are clinging to power. But whatever power they had is long gone. The only person who holds significant power in the Republican party is Trump. The rest are his lackeys. Sadly, they appear to be really suited for the role.