Tag: Politics

By on

Every time there is a mass shooting I have this momentary reflexive fear that the killer might be someone who I agree with politically because partisans will say that the problem is the politics of the person and not say something more directly responsible like guns. It matters why the person doing the shooting, did it. But, it doesn’t matter. All mass shootings are bad and the killer’s reasons are irrelevant. You can’t ban white men or trans people for the matter.

No one reason can explain every mass shooter’s motives. The shooter’s politics changes from instance to instance. The killings, however, continue. Of course, the recent shooting at the Minnesota Catholic school have charged partisans up and the problem is either white men or trans men depending on the political agenda of the writer.

Unfortunately, these identifications are unhelpful in helping prevent future mass shootings because the vast majority of white men and trans people aren’t going to shoot Catholic school children praying in church. In fact, 99.9999% of these people will never shoot children at any point whatsoever. So what makes this small number of people break, take up a gun and shoot strangers for no good reason?

The availability of guns is part of the problem. There is very little that can be done here as there is constitutional protection to carry arms, it is difficult to change the Constitution and there isn’t enough public support to even bother. So Gun Laws will not change. Any solution that calls for this is doomed to failure — at least right now. By all means, continue to bang your head against this wall but you are only going to get a bloody head.

These leaves us with addressing the mental health element which is another part of the problem. People who want to kill small children, for whatever reason, are mentally ill. There is no question in my mind and I think most people would agree with that. The question then becomes how do we stop crazy people from using their guns?

The most difficult hurdle to clear would be an acceptance that people need to submit to mental health assessments — particularly young people who are more susceptible to this type of behavior. This also involves a more restrictive take on mental health. Right now most people would say that going for a mental health check up is an option and not a requirement. You are free to be a crazy person — no matter that you are living on public sidewalks, no matter that you are a schizophrenic carry an AK47. Until you are actually hurt someone, you are free to be as crazy as you wish.

Personal rights and public safety are difficult issues to balance. I would argue because we have constitutional protection for gun rights than the government has a responsibility to assess a person’s psychological ability to responsibly carry them. It becomes a health issue instead of a gun rights issue. Every year of high school, every student needs to take a psychological evaluation. Not only could this help with mass shootings but also may help address homelessness, drug addiction and array of other social problem before they become serious problems.

If mental illness is the cause of school shootings then what is the mental health solution? So far the political class seems mired in pointless struggles about gun control and finger pointing at the the other side’s toxic politics neither of which is likely to change. What if we determine that good mental health is a personal responsibility and if we, as a country, can get early intervention with this very small number of people willing to shoot down small children we can address this without affecting anyone’s right to bear arms?

But you don’t have a right to be a crazy person — whether that manifests as shooting up a school or sleeping on public sidewalks.

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

The problem with the present party system is that both parties nominate people that some party members don’t like. Republicans are locked into only Trump supported candidates while ignoring any candidates who might hold differing opinions. The Democrats are a quibbling bowl of mush. The candidate is either a party stalwart who the partly elders foist on the members as the only electable candidate (See Joe Biden) or a left wing ideologue (See Bernie Sanders) who would have trouble winning a state that wasn’t located on either coast.

In almost 50 year of voting I have rarely ever voted for the person in the general election who I voted for in the primary. It’s almost always my second or third or even fourth choice. I am a party man so whoever gets the Democratic nomination almost always gets my sometimes less than enthusiastic vote. But I think they should know that it was less than enthusiastic.

I am not sure if it would change things but it might be helpful to know how genuinely popular the candidate is. Polls might point to this but actual voting would be confirmation of the weakness of the person and is the only accurate way to get this information.

So when you voted instead of seeing:

  1. Jenny Jones Republican
  2. John Smith Democrat

You would get an additional drop down box for each candidate:

  1. I am voting for candidate who I think will be a great President.
  2. I am voting for the lesser of two evils.

The candidate would get the vote for either option but if a candidate got a lot of I am voting for the lesser of two evils votes it might (might is the key word here) remind the candidate that yes they did win a lot of votes but that a lot of his voters are doing so as a last resort. I imagine a candidate who won and got 70% lesser of two evils might behave differently than a candidate who wins and gets a 10% lesser of two evils.

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

I try not to read too much news as I find it depressing and unhelpful. I am sorry but there is only so much time I am willing to give to Donald Trump’s shenanigans. There has to be more life than complaining about him so I was struck by a friend’s post in Facebook about Trump. I missed it and it was indeed shocking. Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, prostrated himself before Donald Trump in order to ensure that his company is exempt from Trump’s tariffs.

This isn’t the way government is supposed to work. Trump’s whole theory behind the tariffs is that he wants to bring back jobs to American workers. Yet, Cook, a large company with a large contingent of Chinese labor, bends the knee, buys a present for Trump and is now free from the high tariffs on Chinese manufacturing. Cook supposedly agreed to house more manufacturing in USA but the details don’t sound very promising. It sounds like a lot of paperwork on how Trump’s Team defines foreign made for Apple while allowing Apple to continuing making its phones in China.

So what did American Labor get out of this deal? Vague promises. All Cook had to do was throw a little gold Trump’s way and then, in public, kiss Trump’s abundant ass which I am pretty sure was the most unpleasant part of the whole deal for Cook. I am sure he would have preferred a much quieter deal without the cameras and the transfer of the gold present.

But that isn’t the way Trump operates. He doesn’t think tit for tat is wrong, he doesn’t think accepting gifts from anyone may be suspect, and he likes people to bow before him. I am not naive enough to think this doesn’t happen. It probably does. What is troubling is that Trump fails to see the problem with his behavior and that Cook consented to such a naked display of corruption.

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

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

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.