Tag: news

By on

No matter how much I want to blame Donald Trump for being the problem, he isn’t. He is a symptom of a problem. The problem with our system is that the system is the problem.

All this whining about gerrymandering is missing the point. Trump isn’t bad because he has decided to gerrymander. The system is bad because either party can gerrymander. And that is what is happening. Trump asked for 5 Congressional districts in Texas. So, California retaliates. Missouri is now retaliating because California retaliated against Texas. And round and round she goes. The problem is that either party can gerrymander. The whole strategy of both parties is to reduce the number of competitive congressional districts through gerrymandering.

This hardly seems like the forefather’s dreams of elections. Given the startling number of partisan dominated congressional districts, elections are pretty much a waste of time and money. Might as well have the party leaders of each district pick the candidate who will then go to Washington.

Gerrymander isn’t the only systematic problem with our democracy. There is the filibuster which requires a super majority in the Senate in order to make laws. The filibuster is not part of the constitution and is a Senate procedure that can be eliminated at any time by the Majority Party. We have had both Democratic and Republican Majorities in the past ten years, but neither party seems terribly interested in ending the filibuster as a simple majority would give the party in power to actually do things.

The Senate, which requires a super majority in order to pass laws, also is grossly undemocratic. Small rural states carry disproportionate power there. Every state gets two Senators. California with 37 million people gets the same number as Wyoming with little more than a half million people. This is difficult to change because a constitutional amendment would be required in order to make this happen. The idea that small rural states would give up power willingly is absurd. If I lived in a small state, I would certainly want to retain that power. So no change there is even possible.

So, because the legislative bodies are incapable of accomplishing anything and are incapable of instituting changes that would make their bodies functional, nothing gets done. It doesn’t matter who is in power.

The result then is Donald Trump. He lacks even a basic view of how government operates but he damn will has some ideas on getting things done. He does what he pleases and finds out later if it is OK and, even if it isn’t OK, he defends his right to do it. Maybe he will get away with it, maybe he won’t. The problem here is that the only way left to get things done in the USA is through near dictatorial power from the President. Trump’s lack of institutional knowledge or concern about precedent makes him the perfect executive to wield power.

Trump will be gone in 3 1/2 long years but the problem remains. It is illuminating that of the hundreds of democracies that have come into power since 1776, none of chosen to duplicate the American system and almost all emulate the British Parliamentary system where the political party who wins the election actually holds power until the next election.

Trump may be an asshole but the system is the problem and will remain the problem when he departs the White House.

By on

The Trump Administration is trying to prevent transgender people from buying guns. While this is clearly illegal, it could be good news. It is an admission that some people shouldn’t have guns. This seems to be a significant change in this NRA backed administration. The NRA is supporting the Trannies’ 2nd Amendment Rights while Trump and his gang are pushing for laws that will prevent them from buying guns.

There are presently laws that stop mentally ill people from getting guns but enforcement varies from state to state and the national registry is only as good as the states willing participation. If Trump is truly interested in keeping guns out of the hands of transgender people, what is he willing to do to about it. And, if transexuals are on this list, and it is so important to do so, what other mentally ill diagnosis should be on this list.

Of course, Transgender people shouldn’t be classified as mentally ill but if Trump believes that some mental illnesses make gun ownership dangerous, then the battle should be on defining those terms — who shouldn’t own a gun. Some Republicans are hoping the Democrats fight for Transexuals Rights to be locked and loaded. They are amused that they will be put in the position of defending gun rights. Don’t take the bait.

I much prefer a battle over what is defined as a mental illness that prevents people from purchasing guns. Instead of fighting for Transexual’s Second Amendment rights, let’s focus on what mental health issues should prevent a person from owning a gun and how to ensure that anyone that meets this criteria is on a list that prevents them from purchasing a gun.

Also we should never pass up an opportunity for a NRA/Trump rumble. Get the popcorn ready.

By on

I don’t like Trump — either the man or his chaotic policies — however I have to admit he is the master of confrontational politics. How this dimwitted asshole comes out on top is beyond me. The problem is he does.

Look at what he has mastered in the last few months. He maneuvered the Democrats into defending illegal immigrants, transexuals and criminals. All people worthy of defense but also marginalized people with tricky legal situations. More importantly, very few actual voters among them.

Think about Trump bringing troops into Washington. What the Democrats are saying is that there is no problem in Washington and that the crime rate is actually the lowest it has been in 30 years. True enough but it sounds rather lame in comparison to Trump’s sending in troops so you are safe to walk the streets of Washington. Instead of making a forceful anti-crime statement, the Democrats are saying you think crime is bad now, it was much worse 10 years ago. It reeks of passivity and inaction.

Immigrants are coming into the country illegally. Trump is taking an aggressive stand to prevent their entry and kicking out the ones he sees as criminal. What are the Democrats saying — we need immigrants and we can’t break up immigrant families if the children were born in USA. So the Democrats end up making a big falderal about the deportation of Kilmar Garcia — a legal immigrant whose wife has accused him of abuse. The Democrats reaction to Trump is this is a bureaucratic error, Trump’s response is that Garcia is a wife beating thug. How are the visuals on this?

Garcia deserves due process but the Democrats are missing the point — what are the Democrats going to do about illegal immigration. Yes, we need immigrants and yes we should not separate parents from their children — that isn’t, however, an answer to what are you going to do about illegal immigration. It sounds very much like you intend to do nothing and that becomes the problem. Worse still, it is hardly a rousing call to battle with the Republicans.

Then there are the drag queens. A target so big that it is impossible for the Republicans not to hit. The visuals on this are horrible. What the Democrats want the public to know is they are defending 13 year olds bullied in their schools and who need help with their gender identification. This is a complex problem and the country is beginning to suss it out. Unfortunately Trump has painted a much different picture. Instead of seeing the abused adolescent, they are seeing 6 foot 4 hunk with a blonde bouffant wig, costume jewelry, and an evening gown reading to kindergartners about how to get a sex change operation.

It’s not that I think the Democrats are wrong in any of this, its more that they are being suckered into defending unpopular positions over the bigger concerns of the average Americans. Trump pulls Democrats into debates that are nuanced and difficult to explain. Whenever they do try to explain it sounds like they are pro-criminal or pro-illegal immigration or pro-transexuals in the classroom. It doesn’t matter that this is untrue – perception is reality. At least, it is until someone changes the perception. This isn’t going to be done by Donald Trump. It has to be the Democrats.

Trump uses the media to dance to his tune. Talking only about the issues he wants to talk about while ignoring his weaknesses. Democrats should park themselves outside medical offices and ask people about their health insurance problems. A lot of people have good stories about shabby treatment from insurance companies — get it on the news. Every single day. Or go to grocery stores and ask customers about the higher prices they are paying. Connect to people with issues that everybody has. Widen the net of potential voters.

Or you can continue to talk about unpopular issues that the average voter cares very little about and, when you lose the election, you can stare confusedly into the abyss and wonder why this keeps happening.

By on

The raid on John Bolton’s house is more than a little worrisome. To start with, Bolton is a Republican who, at least on paper, agrees with Trump on most of the issues. He actually served in Trump’s first term as president. But Bolton disagrees with Trump and he personally seems to hate Trump. These type of disagreements, at least in the past, were a part of the big tent parties. You occasionally disagreed with each other. But Trump must have 100% allegiance to him.

So, if you won’t keep your mouth shut willingly, Trump is going to scare you into submission. Trump is using intimidation to stop his opponents from speaking. There is a big difference between calling a person stupid and opening a Department of Justice Investigation into a person’s activities.

If Bolton has nothing to hide what is he worried about? If only it was that easy. Investigations require lawyers to gather evidence to support your case. This, of course, means you have to have money in the bank to take on a Trump investigation. You have to take time out of your life to appear in court. So, even if you are found innocent, you lose time and money to Trump’s petty harassment. There might be people who would risk irritating Trump, but there also are people who will decide to keep their mouths shut instead.

It certainly seems to have shut down any criticism from anyone in the Republican party. Any Republican who disagrees with Trump is silenced — either by keeping their mouth shuts or through making their lives so miserable they quit or are pushed out in primaries. There is only Trump and what Trump says goes.

The deafening silence of party elders is baffling. I am talking about you Mitch McConnell (83 years of age) and you Chuck Grassley (91years of age). Here are two old men without a political future. Their political futures, and let’s face it their personal futures, have a very limited time line. They have nothing to lose. Why not raise a little Hell on your way out? What are they saving their gravitas for? Future power.

Trump’s behavior is so blatantly corrupt now that it is beyond shocking. He is selling presidential pardons. He owns stock in companies the government is doing business with. He openly shakes down business leaders for their spare change. He threatens anyone who crosses him with investigation. What line does Trump have to cross before these men speak up? There is very little power in nodding your head in agreement to everything Trump says. Yet they still continue to quietly nod.

Democracies occasionally put bad people in power. It is inevitable. They aren’t, however, the real problem, it is the people who keep their mouths’ shut hoping to hold onto what little power they have when any real power they had is long gone. They are powerless intimidated people who would rather give Trump what he wants than take him to task.

By on

One of the historical debates I remember in school was why did so many German Jews stay when they could see what Hitler was doing. Wasn’t the coming Holocaust obvious to them? Of course, anyone living after post-World War II know this but how could someone living at the time know it. No one until World War II could imagine such a horror as happening. Now, however, the world remembers the Holocaust as an example of how things can go terribly wrong with Facism and Nationalism. So much so that it taints every reference to Facism/Nationalism. People could end in concentration camps if this goes on much longer. Unlikely but still has to be seriously considered given our knowledge of history.

I am thinking about this now because friends recently discussed leaving the country because of Donald Trump. I am not talking about Ellen Degeneres or Rosie O’Donnell either. People I know. And my first thoughts were why on Earth would they leave the country. Things just aren’t that bad. But, because Donald Trump is Donald Trump, I have to question myself — what if I am wrong?

The key to getting out is to leave before it gets too bad. It is best to leave while you can still get your money out and other countries are accepting political refugees, before the madness turns from you are a terrible person to you are so terrible that deserves to die. So, because I am Gay and stand very near to people Trump hates, I need to assess the situation. There must be some sweet spot between leaving too soon and leaving too late. Right now I still have a great deal of hope and I am not particularly worried.

I just can’t imagine my neighbors sitting idly by while I get sent to a concentration camp. Even the ones that voted for Trump would raise the alarm and, so far, I think I am right. Every Trump outrage has been met with some resistance and, while under tremendous strain, Democratic institutions are functioning as they should. It doesn’t mean that this won’t change.

Trump is arresting immigrants and shipping them off to foreign country jails without due process. There are people who argue that potential immigrants don’t deserve due process because they aren’t citizens and therefore are denied the Constitutional
Rights Americans have to prevent autocratic rule breaking. The vast majority of Republicans seems to be willing to go along with this in order to stay in power. So we have a bully with a strong authoritarian streak we need to keep our eyes on.

Right now this all seems manageable but I continue to have this nagging feeling of what if I am wrong. The problem with Trump isn’t the man but his voters. I honestly can see what people see in him. All I see is a buffoon, a clown unworthy of his office. I didn’t think he would be elected president and yet he was which means I am missing something really important about his voters.

I clearly don’t understand them, their grievances or their anger. This is what scares me then. Maybe I am so out of touch that I am misunderstanding all the signals which are telling me to leave. Again, I don’t think so but it is a gamble on my part which makes me think I might end up like the German Jews who staid because they thought things would get better. Am I blinding myself to the obvious and keeping my sunny disposition about the future here in America because I can’t see what everyone else is seeing? Does this mean I will end up on a train car to Auschwitz?

By on

One of the enduring mysteries of American Tax laws is why do the Rich need so much help.

Let me start with tax laws because this is where the Rich do their best to milk the rest of us. A tax bill is money owed the government for services provided. Now you may not like to pay taxes (who does?) but the political institutions that guide our communal living has determined this is the money a person owes. Citizens have an opportunity to change these laws by electing people of a similar mind in the frequent elections held in this country.

It is the price for living here in the USA — the greatest country on the face of the earth, right? But the Rich are constantly complaining that they need more money in order to juice the economy and if you give them more money it will actually help everyone else because the Rich will be spending money on their businesses. So since the election of Reagan in 1980, taxes have been routinely cut and tax breaks have been instituted to such a degree that many rich people and companies presently pay absolutely no income taxes.

How is this working for everyone else? Have the rich fulfilled their promise to make the rest of us rich with their selfless spending. Surely the Americans must have the richest poor people on the face of the earth. They must be swimming in luxury — great health care, cheap housing, good public education.

But this isn’t the story. Why hasn’t all this largess to the Rich had any effect? Hmm. Let me think about this. Perhaps they haven’t been juicing the American economy. How could this be? They claim to love this country so much, why hasn’t all this love and money translated into a more stable economic situation for everyone else. What could be wrong?

The Rich do have an answer. They just need even more tax cuts. They just haven’t been given enough money to juice the economy. This means everyone else will have to suck it up when cutting government funded programs for the poor and the middle class. The American taxpayer simply can’t afford to help everyone and it is vital that the Rich get even more money then, and only then, will the rich have enough money to spend the rest of us into prosperity.

Let’s try a little thought experiment. What if, instead of giving money to the rich, we gave it to poor and the middle class. They will buy groceries, cars, air conditioners, and a whole array of products that, you got it, will juice the economy. In fact, because there are more just plain folk than there are rich people, it might just juice the economy better and faster than giving money to the rich. I don’t know but I would like to give it a try. Giving to the rich hasn’t exactly worked as promised.

But the budget. We haven’t collected enough in taxes to pay for all this help. Right. Because we are giving the Rich so much back in tax reduction, we are going into debt and unable to afford actions that might help everyone else. Get out your handkerchiefs. Why is it that the only time the Republicans care about the budget deficit is when it involves expanding programs that help the poor. They don’t give a damn about the budget deficits when they are cutting taxes for the Rich which has exactly the same effect — budget deficits.

The whole premise of helping the rich in order to help the poor is so demented. It is a topsy turvy Alice through the looking glass view of living. Our most economically secure citizens — the people with the most money, the best healthcare, luxury vacations, personal airplanes and such — always need our help while we can’t help our least economically secure citizens who don’t have money, or healthcare, or even a safe place to lay their head at night. Helping the poor is always seen as bad while helping the rich is necessary. How does this make sense?

That this story keeps being told, with a straight face no less, is depressing. Years of low taxation and cuts in social services have shown, it to be patently false. But hey ho, I’ve got mine.

Until I don’t.

By on

I don’t know why Russiagate is such a big deal. It may be a little shady but it falls within the acceptable shadiness of American politics. I know Republicans want to arrest Barrack Obama and the Democrats are calling Tulsi Gabbard a liar. Gabbard is talking about Russia’s ability to hack voting machines while Democrats are talking about campaign money going to Trump or, at least, anti-Democratic PACS. Republicans will investigate and prosecute and will be disappointed.

The idea that the Russians were using cash to influence the 2016 election seemed like a weak argument to begin with. I agree that the Russians aren’t supposed to spend money on American politics but if they did and their candidate wins, I’m not sure where the problem is. The American people voted and, sadly, found the Russian propaganda more convincing. That is on the Democrats. They choose a terrible candidate and ran a shitty campaign.

Then again the Democrats accusing Trump of being a Russian mole is hardly refuted here. If the Russians contributed cash to anti-Democratic organizations, they were clearly hoping for a Trump victory. The Democrats have every right to tell the story and make the charge of Trump being a Russian asset. They may be wrong but when has hyperbole been absent in a political campaign. For example, Trump called Zoran Mamdani a Communist. Mamdani, by any reasonable assessment, is a Socialist but calling him a Communist makes hims sound so much more horrible. Trump knows it and that is why he used the word Communist.

It would be easier to consider Gabbard’s accusations against the Obama Administration’s use of government agencies against his political opponents if Donald Trump was a model of probity but he most certainly isn’t. Trump gleefully threatens anyone who opposes him with government investigation. Why is it OK for Trump to investigate and Obama can’t? Isn’t this just regular campaign malfeasance?

It is just more screaming about nothing that matters to the average man and woman on the street. It won’t convince Trump supporters to abandon him and it won’t elect Democrats to office. It is political noise. Distractions from the tariffs and Medicaid and anything that has an actual effect on people’s lives. This meaningless noise will absorb media attention until it doesn’t.

Oh yes, then there is the Epstein files. I pretty sure that the Democrats will be disappointed with any release of the Epstein files. If the Biden White House had evidence that Trump was having sex with underage girls, I am fairly certain they would have released it during the 2024 campaign. They may have evidence that he had been to Epstein’s island and that he was friends with Epstein but I doubt there is any smoking gun because if they had that evidence why in God’s name didn’t they release in the 2024 campaign? I mean not releasing it would be some serious campaign malpractice.

And don’t say it is because Democrats would never do that shit because I don’t believe you.

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.