One thing I've learned since I started to do this, tongue-in-cheek seriously, is you can actually learn something new by blowing your pie hole. Somehow, in defending our government's role in providing for the general welfare I managed to inform myself of what that role should be and how we arrive at that balance. I'm real big on having our actions meet our original concepts. I don't know that those concepts should be referred to as values but I'm big on semantics too.
I don't believe in the idea of government largess. I don't think it's a legitimate function of the government. I also don't think there's much largess extended by the government no matter what we may have heard; at least not to the poor. We have managed to elevate big parts of this country from literal third world status in the last 50 years or so. Some people disapprove. I'm kinda proud of that. Glad I could help in my small way. It is as it should be for a very good reason. Grinding poverty drags down all of us from the working class to the famous 1%. We owe it to ourselves, through government to reduce things that are a drag on all of our prosperity. That's how you provide for the general welfare.
The truth is, through government, read taxes, no one should be forced to pay for anything that doesn't contribute to the common weal. That contribution to the common weal is the logic behind taxes.
Here's another truth. If we cut every dime of so called welfare spending from the federal budget we wouldn't gain so much as 5 % for other things. That percentage hasn't changed in 50 years. We would, however, lose a quantum percentage of the overall progress those expenditures have given all of us. That would be the definition of "counter-productive". I think that would be more readily obvious if the issue been cast in the realistic light I have shown above. It has occurred to me that is very important to know. I'm glad I now know it.
As devout congregants of any philosophy we have an obligation to charity for the sake of charity. As citizens of any government we have an obligation only to the general welfare. At least, in our system if we try to do otherwise our efforts all fall well short.
There is a big difference between the rich and malefactors of great wealth. I've known several people we would consider rich. They have been as honest as any other class of folks I've met. They seem nice enough. Some of their perceptions seem a little skewed to me but that's understandable. The primary fault seems to be an isolated kind of elitism. It's hard to understand things outside your experience no matter who you are. Honesty is a shared value no matter the amounts involved.
Because of the actions of a few malefactors the rich have been thoroughly demonized. People resent the increased access of the wealthy to members of our government, the increased input to the decision making process. As things stand that famous 1% pay about 24% of the overall taxes. If they don't have increased access; in the real world they should. Not disproportionate access but a reasonable say in how their contribution is spent. That's called "fair play". Yeah, that's a value and a basic concept. However, like all of our values and basic concepts it has to be limited by common sense. Daily we are reminded common sense isn't as common as we would like.
We tend to think of the 1% as this very small, very exclusive club. There are 313 million Americans. One percent is 3.13 million people. If you expand that to the upper 5% ya got more rich people than, say, firefighters, policemen, veterans or illegal aliens. It's a good thing most of them behave, just as it's a good thing most firefighters, policemen, veterans and even illegal aliens behave.
You also have more well to do people than we do in poverty. It's important we keep it that way.
So, what did I learn? Charity for the sake of charity is very important. Assistance from the government is not the same as charity because it must be limited to that which benefits all. That means assistance to the poor and the well- to- do should be limited to what benefits us all. There should be no undo resentment in either instance.
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Sunday, March 26, 2017
I Bet This Comes Up.
Given recent events the subject of the biennial or mid-term elections will be much discussed. Gee, ya think? So, let's add to the noise.
We do not have a parliamentary system. If we did, the health care vote failure would have resulted in a no-confidence vote and we would face another general election soon. In that system, the executive is also the head of the majority party or coalition. The heads of the various executive departments are also members of the legislature. Boy, I hope you know that. It would make it a much longer essay if you don't.
We manage government power differently. We limit government power differently. Oh Geez, now I'm gonna bore myself.
Our government was formed by men who were in rejection of unlimited executive and governmental power. They didn't like kings much so they set up a system that sequestered the executive power. They fiddled around with the weak-executive model of the Articles of Confederation for a bit and decided that just didn't work. They didn't pull a Conny writing flash mob one day. They'd been thinking about it for a bit.
Our system limits executive power on a slower time table with mid term elections whether we like it or not. I think it works pretty good. Thinking most of what government does doesn't work pretty good is something of a cottage industry. That industry will be on full display in the coming months.
Now, wait for it, wait for it. This is where I always say it's really kinda interesting. But it is. We tend to want to change a system when we don't like the result. We're not gonna change the Electoral College or the way we elect Congress or the rules of Scrabble, (Though I do have some thoughts on that.) no matter the amount of hot air expended.
Our time would be better spent in understanding why a thing works the way it does and manipulating that "why" if we think it necessary. Why we don't get that is interesting to me.
Every four years we elect a President. Stop me if you've heard this. He (so far "he") usually has coattails that bring members of his party in larger numbers into the Congress. Those elections usually have fairly large turn outs. People are motivated by a national appeal and pageant. There is no small measure of a cult of personality involved. I dunno, it just is.
Then we have the mid-terms two years later. The voter turnout is about half for these elections. It is the usual, all members of the House and a third of the Senate. There really isn't the national pageant aspect and no personality cult except the sitting executive is usually demonized to some degree. A kind of personality cult in reverse.
Since these national polls involve a very large sample you would think reduction of that sample wouldn't affect the outcome much but that's not what happens. Obviously, people are motivated to act by dissatisfaction more than they are by satisfaction. Talk radio and the Alt-Right movement are built on exploiting those feelings of exclusion and dissatisfaction. The party that's in power is satisfied and often smug. The "outs" are very dissatisfied and can't wait to vote their displeasure. They show up in disproportionate numbers. Congress can end up peopled with members with no real agenda except rejection and dissatisfaction. To oppose is the duty of the opposition. You can oppose very effectively from that position but it's very difficult to govern.
So, what's gonna happen next year? I dunno but look at the dynamic of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. A lot of people across the culture are very dissatisfied with the current executive. Are they right? That answer isn't part of this assignment but you would have to think the midterms will be a bloody affair. I think it's probable the "no confidence" vote will be held then. Since the '90s it's been the grassroots republicans that have made splashy backlashes in the mid-terms. There are a few things that haven't really been discussed. In the '98 mid-terms the republicans lost seats while pursuing either sex or impeachment. It was never clear which. That just doesn't happen. In 2006, G W was left with most of the curtains in the White House and little else. Frankly, had there been a possibility he could serve more than the two remaining years on his 2nd term he would have been impeached without a kiss. That was understandable. In 2016, I guess we have to say the republican presidential candidate was successful but that really depends on what your definition of success is. However, the republicans actually lost seats in both houses of Congress. That just doesn't happen. You have to think the dynamic of dissatisfaction is going to work against the republican members of Congress. Nineteen months is an eternity in politics so, I guess we'll see.
I think republicans are going to make an even harder right in response to their base and against their better judgment. The events in Washington are pushing the country to the left or at least more to the center. I can't imagine discussing taxes is going to help the republicans stem that tide at least not the way they intend to go about it. Right or wrong the rich have been thoroughly demonized. It has been pointed out the rich are even excluded from mention on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. The republicans show no signs of proposing anything that mildly acknowledges that demonization.
Those are the dynamics which is all I set out to discuss. I'll leave the predictions to you.
We do not have a parliamentary system. If we did, the health care vote failure would have resulted in a no-confidence vote and we would face another general election soon. In that system, the executive is also the head of the majority party or coalition. The heads of the various executive departments are also members of the legislature. Boy, I hope you know that. It would make it a much longer essay if you don't.
We manage government power differently. We limit government power differently. Oh Geez, now I'm gonna bore myself.
Our government was formed by men who were in rejection of unlimited executive and governmental power. They didn't like kings much so they set up a system that sequestered the executive power. They fiddled around with the weak-executive model of the Articles of Confederation for a bit and decided that just didn't work. They didn't pull a Conny writing flash mob one day. They'd been thinking about it for a bit.
Our system limits executive power on a slower time table with mid term elections whether we like it or not. I think it works pretty good. Thinking most of what government does doesn't work pretty good is something of a cottage industry. That industry will be on full display in the coming months.
Now, wait for it, wait for it. This is where I always say it's really kinda interesting. But it is. We tend to want to change a system when we don't like the result. We're not gonna change the Electoral College or the way we elect Congress or the rules of Scrabble, (Though I do have some thoughts on that.) no matter the amount of hot air expended.
Our time would be better spent in understanding why a thing works the way it does and manipulating that "why" if we think it necessary. Why we don't get that is interesting to me.
Every four years we elect a President. Stop me if you've heard this. He (so far "he") usually has coattails that bring members of his party in larger numbers into the Congress. Those elections usually have fairly large turn outs. People are motivated by a national appeal and pageant. There is no small measure of a cult of personality involved. I dunno, it just is.
Then we have the mid-terms two years later. The voter turnout is about half for these elections. It is the usual, all members of the House and a third of the Senate. There really isn't the national pageant aspect and no personality cult except the sitting executive is usually demonized to some degree. A kind of personality cult in reverse.
Since these national polls involve a very large sample you would think reduction of that sample wouldn't affect the outcome much but that's not what happens. Obviously, people are motivated to act by dissatisfaction more than they are by satisfaction. Talk radio and the Alt-Right movement are built on exploiting those feelings of exclusion and dissatisfaction. The party that's in power is satisfied and often smug. The "outs" are very dissatisfied and can't wait to vote their displeasure. They show up in disproportionate numbers. Congress can end up peopled with members with no real agenda except rejection and dissatisfaction. To oppose is the duty of the opposition. You can oppose very effectively from that position but it's very difficult to govern.
So, what's gonna happen next year? I dunno but look at the dynamic of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. A lot of people across the culture are very dissatisfied with the current executive. Are they right? That answer isn't part of this assignment but you would have to think the midterms will be a bloody affair. I think it's probable the "no confidence" vote will be held then. Since the '90s it's been the grassroots republicans that have made splashy backlashes in the mid-terms. There are a few things that haven't really been discussed. In the '98 mid-terms the republicans lost seats while pursuing either sex or impeachment. It was never clear which. That just doesn't happen. In 2006, G W was left with most of the curtains in the White House and little else. Frankly, had there been a possibility he could serve more than the two remaining years on his 2nd term he would have been impeached without a kiss. That was understandable. In 2016, I guess we have to say the republican presidential candidate was successful but that really depends on what your definition of success is. However, the republicans actually lost seats in both houses of Congress. That just doesn't happen. You have to think the dynamic of dissatisfaction is going to work against the republican members of Congress. Nineteen months is an eternity in politics so, I guess we'll see.
I think republicans are going to make an even harder right in response to their base and against their better judgment. The events in Washington are pushing the country to the left or at least more to the center. I can't imagine discussing taxes is going to help the republicans stem that tide at least not the way they intend to go about it. Right or wrong the rich have been thoroughly demonized. It has been pointed out the rich are even excluded from mention on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. The republicans show no signs of proposing anything that mildly acknowledges that demonization.
Those are the dynamics which is all I set out to discuss. I'll leave the predictions to you.
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
The Old West Musta Got Pretty Old
The more I think about it, it seems to me the old west just couldn'ta smelled very good. Horses smell bad. If you get a bunch of them together they smell really bad. Cows are pretty much the same. That doesn't even mention they're dumber than a bag of hammers. Then you add the ubiquitous privy to that and a July day couldn't have been all that pleasant. You gotta think any town would have been obvious from a distance, at least downwind. I wonder if they had unique aromas? Could a guy riding along on a bad smelling horse say to himself, "Oh, that must be Abilene." Would the horse know it was Topeka?
Not to mention the irregular bathing habits they had other problems. There was the presence of high octane liquor, high caliber, low muzzle velocity weapons and gambling. That seems to be what made the plots of most '50s TV shows although, not "Leave It To Beaver" which actually was a sophomoric joke. I was forty until I knew that but I had bathed regularly. I had discovered high octane liquor much earlier. But, I digress.
Some guys worked in tandem to address these problems. It's reasonable to assume Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday worked as partners. Earp controlled the violence and Holiday oversaw the gambling. It's amusing to note how mid-twentieth century TV writers skirted the fact Miss Kitty controlled the prostitution and had a hand in the liquor distribution. They never really explain what the rooms upstairs were for. Ya gotta figure Doc Adams did his share of abortions and gave out his share of mercury. An evening with Venus and a lifetime with Mercury. Look that reference up. You'll be either appalled or amused. I have wondered why prostitution hasn't been dealt with more realistically but then again a moralistic climate that spawned the strip tease as an industry probably can't stand up to "realistic" examination. Prudery is as odd as licentiousness. Actually, to my mind, licentiousness makes more sense.
One of the things I liked about "Gunsmoke" was a lot of people seemed to need a bath, a haircut and a better suit of clothes. It just seemed more realistic. Imagine what Hoss, a character in a different beloved show, had to smell like to get that nickname but he always seemed to dress nice. It's also one of the things I liked about "Unforgiven". The one guy actually got shot in a privy.
So, what's the point? Well, there's a couple. I guess, foremost, I'm interested in how we try to dress the past to make us look better so we might actually be better. I think it's misguided but kinda noble. I guess it informs me that in order to advance the future we have to be realistic about the past.
I, also, don't think it's realistic to assume people are immoral because we ascribe some sort of morality to them. I also don't think people are moral because they tell us they are. I especially don't think people are moral because they tell us they are.
Lastly: A good, smelly saloon is one of the few places I'm truly happy, to quote "Silverado".
Some guys worked in tandem to address these problems. It's reasonable to assume Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday worked as partners. Earp controlled the violence and Holiday oversaw the gambling. It's amusing to note how mid-twentieth century TV writers skirted the fact Miss Kitty controlled the prostitution and had a hand in the liquor distribution. They never really explain what the rooms upstairs were for. Ya gotta figure Doc Adams did his share of abortions and gave out his share of mercury. An evening with Venus and a lifetime with Mercury. Look that reference up. You'll be either appalled or amused. I have wondered why prostitution hasn't been dealt with more realistically but then again a moralistic climate that spawned the strip tease as an industry probably can't stand up to "realistic" examination. Prudery is as odd as licentiousness. Actually, to my mind, licentiousness makes more sense.
One of the things I liked about "Gunsmoke" was a lot of people seemed to need a bath, a haircut and a better suit of clothes. It just seemed more realistic. Imagine what Hoss, a character in a different beloved show, had to smell like to get that nickname but he always seemed to dress nice. It's also one of the things I liked about "Unforgiven". The one guy actually got shot in a privy.
So, what's the point? Well, there's a couple. I guess, foremost, I'm interested in how we try to dress the past to make us look better so we might actually be better. I think it's misguided but kinda noble. I guess it informs me that in order to advance the future we have to be realistic about the past.
I, also, don't think it's realistic to assume people are immoral because we ascribe some sort of morality to them. I also don't think people are moral because they tell us they are. I especially don't think people are moral because they tell us they are.
Lastly: A good, smelly saloon is one of the few places I'm truly happy, to quote "Silverado".
Monday, March 20, 2017
Wassamatta U.
This is turning into a theater of the absurd. Mulvaney told us the other day, with a straight face, how compassionate it was to literally urinate on the less fortunate among us and tell them it was raining. Of course, we have to do this for their own good and so we could spend more on the military. His goal is to go from spending 611 billion to spending 668 billion dollars to make us "great" again. That's absurd on its face. There are some who it fills with pride we can easily provide for the least fortunate and even the most despicable among us. Then there are those it just fills with resentment. Not hard to see where this guy comes down.
Mulvaney is the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. It's hard to imagine why a guy like that doesn't know if we cut every dime of "welfare" spending from the Federal Budget we couldn't produce 3% of the military budget. That would make his pronouncements, literally, insane. He'd probably be less dangerous if he were merely dishonest. Either way, dangerous, is the only way to describe his behavior.
You would think a guy like this would discuss our largest outlays on an annual basis and how we might address them. He didn't. He discussed "entitlements" as though they were some kind of welfare program. Nah. We pay for that. As a fact, the average person withdraws less from Social Security or Medicare than they pay in. You'd think the director of the OMB would know that. He must not.
Here's something else he doesn't seem to know. Our second largest annual expenditure is debt service on what's already been borrowed. It's about 300 billion a year. That's mostly the penalty and interest on the 13 trillion in hot checks GW wrote and the bills due for crashing the economy through malfeasance. Put 13 trillion on a credit card and tell me what your balance is 10 years later. The answer is 19 trillion for those of you slow on the uptake. Don't believe me? Read a damned newspaper. Not only that; the cost is going to approach 1 trillion annually within the next few years no matter what we do about marginal tax rates and then it really takes off exponentially. Compound interest is relentless. In a few years, we are looking at becoming Greece.
That brings us to someone else who, at least, is slow on the uptake. The cost of maintaining the national debt is tied to the Fed Funds Rate. The Fed Board have apparently decided it'll be good for the economy if the debt service we all pay is increased a couple percent. Good for who? In what way? Just asking that question should illustrate the absurdity of the decision. The Federal Funds rate is not paid by imaginary people to imaginary people with imaginary money. It's real money paid by real people to real people. There can be no decision that says it's good for all of us to increase the cost of using this money that can have the slightest toehold in reality, particularly if you propose to sweeten the pot even further by cutting upper tax rates.
Some days it looks like the whole thing is being run by Rocky and Bullwinkle and now it looks like Boris and Natasha wanna buy into the game. Yeah, stop that.
I would readily believe most conspiracy theories except for one hard fact of life that proves itself over and over again. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
Mulvaney is the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. It's hard to imagine why a guy like that doesn't know if we cut every dime of "welfare" spending from the Federal Budget we couldn't produce 3% of the military budget. That would make his pronouncements, literally, insane. He'd probably be less dangerous if he were merely dishonest. Either way, dangerous, is the only way to describe his behavior.
You would think a guy like this would discuss our largest outlays on an annual basis and how we might address them. He didn't. He discussed "entitlements" as though they were some kind of welfare program. Nah. We pay for that. As a fact, the average person withdraws less from Social Security or Medicare than they pay in. You'd think the director of the OMB would know that. He must not.
Here's something else he doesn't seem to know. Our second largest annual expenditure is debt service on what's already been borrowed. It's about 300 billion a year. That's mostly the penalty and interest on the 13 trillion in hot checks GW wrote and the bills due for crashing the economy through malfeasance. Put 13 trillion on a credit card and tell me what your balance is 10 years later. The answer is 19 trillion for those of you slow on the uptake. Don't believe me? Read a damned newspaper. Not only that; the cost is going to approach 1 trillion annually within the next few years no matter what we do about marginal tax rates and then it really takes off exponentially. Compound interest is relentless. In a few years, we are looking at becoming Greece.
That brings us to someone else who, at least, is slow on the uptake. The cost of maintaining the national debt is tied to the Fed Funds Rate. The Fed Board have apparently decided it'll be good for the economy if the debt service we all pay is increased a couple percent. Good for who? In what way? Just asking that question should illustrate the absurdity of the decision. The Federal Funds rate is not paid by imaginary people to imaginary people with imaginary money. It's real money paid by real people to real people. There can be no decision that says it's good for all of us to increase the cost of using this money that can have the slightest toehold in reality, particularly if you propose to sweeten the pot even further by cutting upper tax rates.
Some days it looks like the whole thing is being run by Rocky and Bullwinkle and now it looks like Boris and Natasha wanna buy into the game. Yeah, stop that.
I would readily believe most conspiracy theories except for one hard fact of life that proves itself over and over again. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
Sunday, March 19, 2017
Hey! Can You See?
It has always struck me that English is filled with little jokes. The employment of certain words and turns of phrase as a joke that have passed into the everyday language. Since I don't speak other languages I can have no idea if other speakers do this as well. I imagine they do but I've seen no literature. The French have a phrase ,"escalier", which refers to what you wish you had said earlier while you were on the stairs, leaving. I know of no other examples. People seem to have a playful nature. That's a good thing.
In English we refer to someone who is angry as being mad. That's a joke comparing the actions of a mad dog to a person who has lost his temper. It's so apt it has become a synonym.
Americans are sometimes fond of referring to an unfortunate circumstance as just so much tough shit. The British are more eloquent. They employ the phrase" hard cheese". If you are fond of sharp cheeses you know, first hand, exactly what they mean. I recommend coffee. The British also employ a really obscene image. Their use of the term "bloody" this or "bloody" that is a reference to menstruation. Did you think they had nicked themselves shaving?
I wonder if pew, as in church, has some association with pew, as in close proximity?
When we sleep, little crusties accumulate in the corners of our eyes. The proper word for those things is "smut". That has come to be synonymous with various forms of published obscenity.
Trying to define obscenity caused one Supreme Court Justice to remark he couldn't define it but he knew it when he saw it. In a way that almost echos the sentiment that "I don't know about art but I know what I like." Funny how things like that work out. The idea that there is some ober-class that can be unaffected by these things and are therefore qualified to decide what the "average" person can see is a laughable, mindless insult.
The internet and the fact everyone has a camera on their cell phone has rendered most debate about the distribution of "smut" moot. You show me yours, I'll show you mine. The cloak has been removed from even The House of Representative's cloak room. Wanna see what Donald sees in Melania? It's just a click away. You could see it as the democratization of....prudery? In the end there can be no pornography without prudery. It's all just a part of that tension that has to exist in human affairs in order to render meaning. It just is. Kurt Vonnegut submitted a thesis topic on the opposition of good and evil in simple tales that was rejected. He then made a career of just that kind of thing. It just is.
However, we still have to understand, quantify and explain these things, if not to our children at least to ourselves.
In the end it boils down to this: It's not what you hear, it's what you think of it. It's not what you see, it's what you think of it. It's not what you read, it's what you think of it. As we seem to always find, it's a matter of teaching people to think clearly. Some days that seems like a joke in and of itself.
In English we refer to someone who is angry as being mad. That's a joke comparing the actions of a mad dog to a person who has lost his temper. It's so apt it has become a synonym.
Americans are sometimes fond of referring to an unfortunate circumstance as just so much tough shit. The British are more eloquent. They employ the phrase" hard cheese". If you are fond of sharp cheeses you know, first hand, exactly what they mean. I recommend coffee. The British also employ a really obscene image. Their use of the term "bloody" this or "bloody" that is a reference to menstruation. Did you think they had nicked themselves shaving?
I wonder if pew, as in church, has some association with pew, as in close proximity?
When we sleep, little crusties accumulate in the corners of our eyes. The proper word for those things is "smut". That has come to be synonymous with various forms of published obscenity.
Trying to define obscenity caused one Supreme Court Justice to remark he couldn't define it but he knew it when he saw it. In a way that almost echos the sentiment that "I don't know about art but I know what I like." Funny how things like that work out. The idea that there is some ober-class that can be unaffected by these things and are therefore qualified to decide what the "average" person can see is a laughable, mindless insult.
The internet and the fact everyone has a camera on their cell phone has rendered most debate about the distribution of "smut" moot. You show me yours, I'll show you mine. The cloak has been removed from even The House of Representative's cloak room. Wanna see what Donald sees in Melania? It's just a click away. You could see it as the democratization of....prudery? In the end there can be no pornography without prudery. It's all just a part of that tension that has to exist in human affairs in order to render meaning. It just is. Kurt Vonnegut submitted a thesis topic on the opposition of good and evil in simple tales that was rejected. He then made a career of just that kind of thing. It just is.
However, we still have to understand, quantify and explain these things, if not to our children at least to ourselves.
In the end it boils down to this: It's not what you hear, it's what you think of it. It's not what you see, it's what you think of it. It's not what you read, it's what you think of it. As we seem to always find, it's a matter of teaching people to think clearly. Some days that seems like a joke in and of itself.
Friday, March 17, 2017
A Single Decision
There sure has been a lot of Nazi talk in our recent debate. It seems to get that way when we start to not like each other much. Nazi this; Nazi that. Yeah, how bout ya Nazi this.
Anyway, it got me thinking about Nazis in literature and popular entertainment. One recurring theme you see is: What if the Nazis had won? There's movies and books and episodes of popular TV series with just that theme. The real answer is that in 70 years we'd corrupt anyone and things would be pretty much the same. That's what happened to the Soviet Union. We co-opted them. We did it to the Japanese, we are doing it to the Chinese and we will do it to the "Mooslems" if we can get the dumb-asses out of the way. Our culture is so seductive it just plows forward. That's the demonstrated power of good ideas. But sometimes a single decision can change so much.
It got me to thinking about how things were and how they might have been. Until the beginning of the 20th century the big dog in American foreign policy was the British Empire. We had two factions: Anglophobes and Anglophiles. For the better part of a century war was confidently predicted to be imminent between we and the Brits. There were armed incidents on the Great Lakes from time to time; general friction. In ways it was kinda like our relations with the Soviets.
Wilson was an Anglophile. It seems reasonable to say his conduct led to the decision to engage in the European War. What would have happened if we had followed Washington's dictum and just sat it out?
Well, the indications are the two sides would have fought to an uneasy standstill. It's easier to see what would not have happened.
There probably would not have been a Great Depression. That would mean there wouldn't have been the great dislocation that led to Hitlerism. Thus, no WWII. Probably no FDR. Maybe no nuclear weapons. The Russian Revolution either would not have occurred or the Russian Succession wouldn't have been so disruptive. Probably no Cold War. The end of the Colonial System would not have been so sudden and violent. The Vietnam War wasn't just part of the Cold War it was a feature of the end of the Colonial System. Modern Africa would look a lot different. Who can say what China would look like without the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. Those are large things. A couple small things here are Daylight Savings Time or War Time which became permanent. We still talk about that. Prohibition which was followed by more Constitutional methods in peacetime was an Executive Fiat in war. Wilson never thought it would work.
All of these things flowed from a single decision which went against the guiding principles of George Washington.
What does this mean? Well, there was no threat to the peace and security of the United States in the European War which became known as World War One. The results would indicate that is the only casus belli that makes sense. That's what Washington thought. Actually, he thought it was a mistake to have an alliance of one country over another because it might lead us into a war without us having an interest or a war against our interests. I think it sounds like Iraq. That was certainly a single decision. I do like the concept of certain singular decisions. Certain moments in time.
I guess I can say these are the kinds of thoughts that inform me when I think about more specific things.
What have we learned? Looked at that way, Wilson sure doesn't seem as smart as he's been given credit for. It might be a better idea to let the force of our ideas progress than make war with a half-baked aim.
Anyway, it got me thinking about Nazis in literature and popular entertainment. One recurring theme you see is: What if the Nazis had won? There's movies and books and episodes of popular TV series with just that theme. The real answer is that in 70 years we'd corrupt anyone and things would be pretty much the same. That's what happened to the Soviet Union. We co-opted them. We did it to the Japanese, we are doing it to the Chinese and we will do it to the "Mooslems" if we can get the dumb-asses out of the way. Our culture is so seductive it just plows forward. That's the demonstrated power of good ideas. But sometimes a single decision can change so much.
It got me to thinking about how things were and how they might have been. Until the beginning of the 20th century the big dog in American foreign policy was the British Empire. We had two factions: Anglophobes and Anglophiles. For the better part of a century war was confidently predicted to be imminent between we and the Brits. There were armed incidents on the Great Lakes from time to time; general friction. In ways it was kinda like our relations with the Soviets.
Wilson was an Anglophile. It seems reasonable to say his conduct led to the decision to engage in the European War. What would have happened if we had followed Washington's dictum and just sat it out?
Well, the indications are the two sides would have fought to an uneasy standstill. It's easier to see what would not have happened.
There probably would not have been a Great Depression. That would mean there wouldn't have been the great dislocation that led to Hitlerism. Thus, no WWII. Probably no FDR. Maybe no nuclear weapons. The Russian Revolution either would not have occurred or the Russian Succession wouldn't have been so disruptive. Probably no Cold War. The end of the Colonial System would not have been so sudden and violent. The Vietnam War wasn't just part of the Cold War it was a feature of the end of the Colonial System. Modern Africa would look a lot different. Who can say what China would look like without the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. Those are large things. A couple small things here are Daylight Savings Time or War Time which became permanent. We still talk about that. Prohibition which was followed by more Constitutional methods in peacetime was an Executive Fiat in war. Wilson never thought it would work.
All of these things flowed from a single decision which went against the guiding principles of George Washington.
What does this mean? Well, there was no threat to the peace and security of the United States in the European War which became known as World War One. The results would indicate that is the only casus belli that makes sense. That's what Washington thought. Actually, he thought it was a mistake to have an alliance of one country over another because it might lead us into a war without us having an interest or a war against our interests. I think it sounds like Iraq. That was certainly a single decision. I do like the concept of certain singular decisions. Certain moments in time.
I guess I can say these are the kinds of thoughts that inform me when I think about more specific things.
What have we learned? Looked at that way, Wilson sure doesn't seem as smart as he's been given credit for. It might be a better idea to let the force of our ideas progress than make war with a half-baked aim.
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Now, That's Interesting.
Let's chew over some old defeats and some old victories. I was in Florida in 2000, for the whole hanging chad debacle. " Floriduh!" was probably my favorite headline. Boy! Was that true. The place is a Banana Republic. The legislature, when in session, is practically a Klan meeting. It's almost a surprise the gubernatorial inaugurations don't include a cross burning. Jeb Bush was governor then. His political career, like his more infamous brother's, was largely funded by Kenny-Boy Lay. He signed off, on his signature alone as a trustee on the Florida State Teacher's Retirement Fund, in riding Enron stock to the bottom while it collapsed. That represented the theft of over 115 million dollars in public funds. It was Enron executives cashing their options when no one in their right mind would buy them. How do I know that? It was in the newspapers while it was going on. No one batted an eye. The other two signatories complained. No one batted an eye. Floriduh! The current governor was involved in the largest Medicare fraud in history! What a place.
Why do I bring this up? Mainly because there was nothing wrong with the voting machines in Palm Beach County. The "butterfly" ballot was confusing but no where near as obtuse as the confusion the republicans then created.
The truth is we have been holding elections for over 200 years. Everything that can go wrong has been the object of endless litigation. In that particular case, in Florida, the settled case law said Palm Beach should have been a do over. Al Gore would have clearly won Florida and the Bush debacle would have been avoided. You can thank the majority republicans on the U S Supreme Court for that bit of chicanery. Yeah. Explain that to the innocent dead. But, I digress.
There was nothing wrong with the machines but the whole mess set off a scramble to replace and update voting machines across the country. Why? What better way to deflect from having stolen an election?
It's important to note the real power resides with those who count the votes. That was figured out in Chicago in the '20s.
The new generation of electronic machines were thoroughly investigated by all the experts for accuracy and vulnerability to tampering. It was found that certain of these machines could be manipulated in such a way as to alter their totals for one candidate or the others within a range of about 10%.
In 2004 there were certain precincts in Ohio that recorded more votes for G W Bush than there were registered voters. Those supposed "Diebold" incidents were largely ignored. At the same time there were predominantly black precincts in Philly that didn't record a single vote for G W. I think the latter is more believable than the former. Certainly more understandable all things considered.
In 2008, I don't think Jesus Himself could have helped John McCain. That was almost painful to watch. Whether you liked the guy or not, you really couldn't help feeling sorry for him. But that brings us to 2012. Karl Rove came dangerously close to revealing what he knew to be going on with these machines when he melted down over the results in Ohio. He knew the fix was in. Since he had no respect for or understanding of Barack Obama he couldn't believe the legitimate vote totals would overcome that "fix". He didn't count on that and he didn't understand the "Diebold incidents" had caused the malware to be adjusted.
Where's my tin foil hat? That all sounds a little strange without some kind of confirmation. That brings us to 2016.
Hillary Clinton, although a very bad candidate, wins the popular vote by nearly 3 million but Trump ekes out victories in notably, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania and that gives him the Electoral College. In reality, something like 50,000 votes made him President. The Electoral College was conceived as a means of thwarting the "tyranny of the majority". It was meant to check the power of the more populous urban areas over the rural areas. That idea was turned on its head in 2016 and it ended up imposing a kind of tyranny of the minority. That's a result worthy of more thought but not today.
I think my opinion of Donald Trump is fairly obvious but that's not the point here.
Hillary Clinton could not be seen as a sore loser for a number of very good reasons. However, the same computer experts who had demonstrated the vulnerabilities of the various machines early on, pointed out the results in Wisconsin particularly and the other states showed the same results they had predicted for malicious employment. So, Jill Stein is tapped to demand recounts. The recounts were never meant to overturn the outcome of the election. They were meant to audit the machines and stop the abuse. Stories have begun to surface that officials nationwide are scrambling to get funding to replace the machines. I'll remove my tin foil hat now.
Do I think Trump was involved in this? No. I doubt seriously if the republican establishment would trust him with so much as the combination to a gym locker. Do I think these local, rural, republican officials were complicit in some national scheme? No. I don't think they're guilty of more than overzealous partisanship. Do I think the people responsible on a national level should be prosecuted?
In a perfect world, there just isn't a jail deep enough but we can't afford that spectacle. We could not afford that assault on our faith in our elections. President Obama got that and threw the republicans the Russian fig leaf which they have fallen all over themselves to grasp. Everyone was surprised Trump actually had extensively colluded with the Russians. Everyone, that is but the intelligence agencies that had been watching all along.
So, blame the Russians and replace the machines. This time, pay attention to the experts about their security. Boneheads!
Why do I bring this up? Mainly because there was nothing wrong with the voting machines in Palm Beach County. The "butterfly" ballot was confusing but no where near as obtuse as the confusion the republicans then created.
The truth is we have been holding elections for over 200 years. Everything that can go wrong has been the object of endless litigation. In that particular case, in Florida, the settled case law said Palm Beach should have been a do over. Al Gore would have clearly won Florida and the Bush debacle would have been avoided. You can thank the majority republicans on the U S Supreme Court for that bit of chicanery. Yeah. Explain that to the innocent dead. But, I digress.
There was nothing wrong with the machines but the whole mess set off a scramble to replace and update voting machines across the country. Why? What better way to deflect from having stolen an election?
It's important to note the real power resides with those who count the votes. That was figured out in Chicago in the '20s.
The new generation of electronic machines were thoroughly investigated by all the experts for accuracy and vulnerability to tampering. It was found that certain of these machines could be manipulated in such a way as to alter their totals for one candidate or the others within a range of about 10%.
In 2004 there were certain precincts in Ohio that recorded more votes for G W Bush than there were registered voters. Those supposed "Diebold" incidents were largely ignored. At the same time there were predominantly black precincts in Philly that didn't record a single vote for G W. I think the latter is more believable than the former. Certainly more understandable all things considered.
In 2008, I don't think Jesus Himself could have helped John McCain. That was almost painful to watch. Whether you liked the guy or not, you really couldn't help feeling sorry for him. But that brings us to 2012. Karl Rove came dangerously close to revealing what he knew to be going on with these machines when he melted down over the results in Ohio. He knew the fix was in. Since he had no respect for or understanding of Barack Obama he couldn't believe the legitimate vote totals would overcome that "fix". He didn't count on that and he didn't understand the "Diebold incidents" had caused the malware to be adjusted.
Where's my tin foil hat? That all sounds a little strange without some kind of confirmation. That brings us to 2016.
Hillary Clinton, although a very bad candidate, wins the popular vote by nearly 3 million but Trump ekes out victories in notably, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania and that gives him the Electoral College. In reality, something like 50,000 votes made him President. The Electoral College was conceived as a means of thwarting the "tyranny of the majority". It was meant to check the power of the more populous urban areas over the rural areas. That idea was turned on its head in 2016 and it ended up imposing a kind of tyranny of the minority. That's a result worthy of more thought but not today.
I think my opinion of Donald Trump is fairly obvious but that's not the point here.
Hillary Clinton could not be seen as a sore loser for a number of very good reasons. However, the same computer experts who had demonstrated the vulnerabilities of the various machines early on, pointed out the results in Wisconsin particularly and the other states showed the same results they had predicted for malicious employment. So, Jill Stein is tapped to demand recounts. The recounts were never meant to overturn the outcome of the election. They were meant to audit the machines and stop the abuse. Stories have begun to surface that officials nationwide are scrambling to get funding to replace the machines. I'll remove my tin foil hat now.
Do I think Trump was involved in this? No. I doubt seriously if the republican establishment would trust him with so much as the combination to a gym locker. Do I think these local, rural, republican officials were complicit in some national scheme? No. I don't think they're guilty of more than overzealous partisanship. Do I think the people responsible on a national level should be prosecuted?
In a perfect world, there just isn't a jail deep enough but we can't afford that spectacle. We could not afford that assault on our faith in our elections. President Obama got that and threw the republicans the Russian fig leaf which they have fallen all over themselves to grasp. Everyone was surprised Trump actually had extensively colluded with the Russians. Everyone, that is but the intelligence agencies that had been watching all along.
So, blame the Russians and replace the machines. This time, pay attention to the experts about their security. Boneheads!
Sunday, March 12, 2017
Was Gruber Right?
Jonathan Gruber actually said Washington politicians thought the average voter was too stupid to understand or discuss health care reform. So far, you really have to agree with him. I sure haven't seen any easily accessible or mildly intelligent comments about health care reform since before Bill Clinton was president from either side. That doesn't mean the ACA wasn't a great idea. It just means no one has bothered to explain it properly.
Let's see how well I can do in under five hundred words. Maybe more. I got a couple cigars.
First and foremost. This is America. No matter what some conservative voters have cheered, no one is going to be allowed to die in the streets. Gawd! Some of these people couldn't survive in the society they would create.
C'mon! We gave conservatives 6 years where they could do pretty much what they pleased. They invaded the wrong country, killed upwards a million innocent people, racked up an impressive string of what can only be called war crimes. Set off chaos in the Middle East that will last at least a generation. Parts of Texas started to spontaneously explode. They wrecked the economy. There's a question. How the hell do you kick off a deep recession while waging two wars? But I digress.
Universal healthcare has been a plank of the Democratic Party platform since, 1948. That's a long time. Even then it was recognized, first world governments should make first world provision for their citizens. It is our money. Attempts to act like there was no problem are wrong.
Bill Clinton was a small-state governor for 9 years. He knew his biggest budgetary problem and thus the problem of other states was the cost of Medicaid. By extension he knew it was a major federal problem as well. He did not bother to explain that. I think he thought it was too complex. There was something else at work there too. Sometimes people get so far into a problem and become so familiar with all it's aspects they can no longer discuss it clearly with people of lesser knowledge.
I also think what he and Mrs Clinton came up with was impossibly byzantine and for that reason alone, doomed to failure. At that time (the early 90's) we spent 18-20% of GDP on health care. In return we got second world results. One big fear raised was the prospect of health care being administered by a bloated, unresponsive bureaucracy run by the government. That fear ignored that healthcare was, in fact, run by a bloated, unresponsive bureaucracy at an obscene level of profit with little government oversight.
That the attempt failed may have been a good thing. That reform was essentially abandoned for nearly 15 years was a bad thing. The problems only became worse.
The primary problem from a government stand point was the increasing cost of Medicaid . In the intervening years all costs combined had gone from 18-20% of the economy to 22-27% of the economy. Our health metrics in comparison to the rest of the world had gotten no better and in some cases even worse. France still spent 9% of it's GDP on health care to all it's citizens and we had increasing millions with no health care at all.
Can you imagine what would happen if we slammed the brakes on 25% of our economy? The system we had and have may be flawed, the profits may be unconscionable but they are reality. Moving to a single payer system may be moral and in a perfect world it may be what we should have but in reality it would not be reform. It would be economic suicide. Obama got that. He should have told us.
What the ACA does is pretty simple. It streamlines and extends Medicaid so it is less costly to administer. It eliminates some of the more egregious practices of the for-profit health care industry, ie: insurance companies and hospitals. It addresses our dismal metrics in relation to the rest of the world by bringing millions into the delivery system. It's a simple fact. People with a personal care provider live longer, healthier lives. It is a grim fact that a 78 year old guy who dies from a stroke is less of a financial burden on the system, public or private, than a 46 year old who dies from colon cancer. With a personal care provider the 46 year old has a better chance of having his problem discovered and resolve quickly and early. It's cheaper.
As for that bloated government bureaucracy: Aside from the surprise of having lived to retirement age with a cigar stuck in my kisser and a scotch-rocks on the dinner table, one big surprise was the ease with which I registered for Social Security and Medicare. Four months before retirement I contacted Social Security expecting a protracted exchange of information. One contact set the whole thing up. The same was true of Medicare and Medicare initiated that contact. It is a responsive, efficient bureaucracy. They're very good at what they do because they have been doing it for decades.
If you actually examine it, the government does a vast number of things very well. It's the Congress that seems bungle-footed. When you consider Congress is composed almost entirely of lawyers, that's no surprise.
The ACA seems to be growing into that level of efficiency.
A lot has been made of the cancellation of "hundreds" of plans that were commonly offered by insurance companies as a result of ACA regulation. In fact, what happened was all plans were subjected to scrutiny for fitness to receive subsidy thru the exchanges. A number of these plans were found to be little better than fraud. The simple fact of the ACA eliminated that grand scale fraud. Nobody bothered to take credit for that service.
I think one of the big errors was the failure to refute erroneous criticism and take credit for positive things achieved. Obviously, everyone agrees covering pre-existing conditions and extending coverage to eligible children to the age of 26 makes sense but no one stood up and took credit for the elimination of waste, fraud and abuse coming from the bloated, non-responsive bureaucracy for-profit health care had become. Nor did anyone take credit for the boom in employment and compensation in the extended care industry. Those are middle class jobs created in response to the extension of coverages by the ACA.
One of the things that struck me in the debate of Clinton's attempt at reform was never mentioned. In one year the AMA alone spent 300 million dollars on efforts to defeat reform. They didn't borrow that money or mount public fundraising efforts. They just reached in their pockets and spent it. I always thought the idea there was that much excess wealth available to them starkly illustrated the need for reform. This was money that came from Little Johnnie's leukemia, your Aunt Minnie's gall bladder and that 46 year old's colon cancer. That's shameful.
Here's another thing I noticed in the '93-'94 debate. I came across a magazine ad from the early '50s touting Buicks as "the Doctor's car." In those days a Buick cost about 25% more than the everyman's Chevy. By the early nineties the "Doctor's car" was a Mercedes which costs 6 times the price of the everyman's Chevy. A visit to the Doctor cost about 6 times what it did as well. How you address that disparity in compensation is a problem beyond government but it is a real problem.
The ACA has widely been called socialism by people who couldn't define socialism if you pelted them with rocks and gave them only a civics book to defend themselves. The individual mandate is no more socialist than the individual mandate for car insurance or no-smoking ordinances It actually shares the same justifications. As near as I can determine there is one feature that is socialist in conception and practice. Executive compensation is limited to 15% of total profits. You can bet our republican friends will target that provision and maybe they should. At what level of providing for the common good does government become a legitimate arbiter of compensation? I dunno.
I believe the entire concept of for-profit health care is a soul staining obscenity eventually doomed to failure. I think that's why our system ranks so low in the world in effectiveness but I don't believe my morality should be a concern of the government.
Here's something that Obama seems to have understood but I have never seen expressed. We have learned that we have to extend aid to our fellow citizens in order to benefit all of us. That's a selfish equation but the reality is people are selfish. Right?/ Wrong? It just is. It's called human nature. Surely our fellow citizens have a right to our aid but those obligated to actually pay for that aid have a right to have that aid limited to only what benefits the common weal. There is a difference between government services benefiting the common weal and charity. The ACA seems to have balanced that equation.
So, was the ACA a good idea? Yes. Is it's conception sound? Yes. Does it benefit all of us including the one percent? Yes. Is the current debate healthy? Yes. Will we achieve nirvana? No. Can we do better? Certainly.
Maybe I'm right or maybe I just wasted two panatellas proving Gruber was right. We'll see.
Let's see how well I can do in under five hundred words. Maybe more. I got a couple cigars.
First and foremost. This is America. No matter what some conservative voters have cheered, no one is going to be allowed to die in the streets. Gawd! Some of these people couldn't survive in the society they would create.
C'mon! We gave conservatives 6 years where they could do pretty much what they pleased. They invaded the wrong country, killed upwards a million innocent people, racked up an impressive string of what can only be called war crimes. Set off chaos in the Middle East that will last at least a generation. Parts of Texas started to spontaneously explode. They wrecked the economy. There's a question. How the hell do you kick off a deep recession while waging two wars? But I digress.
Universal healthcare has been a plank of the Democratic Party platform since, 1948. That's a long time. Even then it was recognized, first world governments should make first world provision for their citizens. It is our money. Attempts to act like there was no problem are wrong.
Bill Clinton was a small-state governor for 9 years. He knew his biggest budgetary problem and thus the problem of other states was the cost of Medicaid. By extension he knew it was a major federal problem as well. He did not bother to explain that. I think he thought it was too complex. There was something else at work there too. Sometimes people get so far into a problem and become so familiar with all it's aspects they can no longer discuss it clearly with people of lesser knowledge.
I also think what he and Mrs Clinton came up with was impossibly byzantine and for that reason alone, doomed to failure. At that time (the early 90's) we spent 18-20% of GDP on health care. In return we got second world results. One big fear raised was the prospect of health care being administered by a bloated, unresponsive bureaucracy run by the government. That fear ignored that healthcare was, in fact, run by a bloated, unresponsive bureaucracy at an obscene level of profit with little government oversight.
That the attempt failed may have been a good thing. That reform was essentially abandoned for nearly 15 years was a bad thing. The problems only became worse.
The primary problem from a government stand point was the increasing cost of Medicaid . In the intervening years all costs combined had gone from 18-20% of the economy to 22-27% of the economy. Our health metrics in comparison to the rest of the world had gotten no better and in some cases even worse. France still spent 9% of it's GDP on health care to all it's citizens and we had increasing millions with no health care at all.
Can you imagine what would happen if we slammed the brakes on 25% of our economy? The system we had and have may be flawed, the profits may be unconscionable but they are reality. Moving to a single payer system may be moral and in a perfect world it may be what we should have but in reality it would not be reform. It would be economic suicide. Obama got that. He should have told us.
What the ACA does is pretty simple. It streamlines and extends Medicaid so it is less costly to administer. It eliminates some of the more egregious practices of the for-profit health care industry, ie: insurance companies and hospitals. It addresses our dismal metrics in relation to the rest of the world by bringing millions into the delivery system. It's a simple fact. People with a personal care provider live longer, healthier lives. It is a grim fact that a 78 year old guy who dies from a stroke is less of a financial burden on the system, public or private, than a 46 year old who dies from colon cancer. With a personal care provider the 46 year old has a better chance of having his problem discovered and resolve quickly and early. It's cheaper.
As for that bloated government bureaucracy: Aside from the surprise of having lived to retirement age with a cigar stuck in my kisser and a scotch-rocks on the dinner table, one big surprise was the ease with which I registered for Social Security and Medicare. Four months before retirement I contacted Social Security expecting a protracted exchange of information. One contact set the whole thing up. The same was true of Medicare and Medicare initiated that contact. It is a responsive, efficient bureaucracy. They're very good at what they do because they have been doing it for decades.
If you actually examine it, the government does a vast number of things very well. It's the Congress that seems bungle-footed. When you consider Congress is composed almost entirely of lawyers, that's no surprise.
The ACA seems to be growing into that level of efficiency.
A lot has been made of the cancellation of "hundreds" of plans that were commonly offered by insurance companies as a result of ACA regulation. In fact, what happened was all plans were subjected to scrutiny for fitness to receive subsidy thru the exchanges. A number of these plans were found to be little better than fraud. The simple fact of the ACA eliminated that grand scale fraud. Nobody bothered to take credit for that service.
I think one of the big errors was the failure to refute erroneous criticism and take credit for positive things achieved. Obviously, everyone agrees covering pre-existing conditions and extending coverage to eligible children to the age of 26 makes sense but no one stood up and took credit for the elimination of waste, fraud and abuse coming from the bloated, non-responsive bureaucracy for-profit health care had become. Nor did anyone take credit for the boom in employment and compensation in the extended care industry. Those are middle class jobs created in response to the extension of coverages by the ACA.
One of the things that struck me in the debate of Clinton's attempt at reform was never mentioned. In one year the AMA alone spent 300 million dollars on efforts to defeat reform. They didn't borrow that money or mount public fundraising efforts. They just reached in their pockets and spent it. I always thought the idea there was that much excess wealth available to them starkly illustrated the need for reform. This was money that came from Little Johnnie's leukemia, your Aunt Minnie's gall bladder and that 46 year old's colon cancer. That's shameful.
Here's another thing I noticed in the '93-'94 debate. I came across a magazine ad from the early '50s touting Buicks as "the Doctor's car." In those days a Buick cost about 25% more than the everyman's Chevy. By the early nineties the "Doctor's car" was a Mercedes which costs 6 times the price of the everyman's Chevy. A visit to the Doctor cost about 6 times what it did as well. How you address that disparity in compensation is a problem beyond government but it is a real problem.
The ACA has widely been called socialism by people who couldn't define socialism if you pelted them with rocks and gave them only a civics book to defend themselves. The individual mandate is no more socialist than the individual mandate for car insurance or no-smoking ordinances It actually shares the same justifications. As near as I can determine there is one feature that is socialist in conception and practice. Executive compensation is limited to 15% of total profits. You can bet our republican friends will target that provision and maybe they should. At what level of providing for the common good does government become a legitimate arbiter of compensation? I dunno.
I believe the entire concept of for-profit health care is a soul staining obscenity eventually doomed to failure. I think that's why our system ranks so low in the world in effectiveness but I don't believe my morality should be a concern of the government.
Here's something that Obama seems to have understood but I have never seen expressed. We have learned that we have to extend aid to our fellow citizens in order to benefit all of us. That's a selfish equation but the reality is people are selfish. Right?/ Wrong? It just is. It's called human nature. Surely our fellow citizens have a right to our aid but those obligated to actually pay for that aid have a right to have that aid limited to only what benefits the common weal. There is a difference between government services benefiting the common weal and charity. The ACA seems to have balanced that equation.
So, was the ACA a good idea? Yes. Is it's conception sound? Yes. Does it benefit all of us including the one percent? Yes. Is the current debate healthy? Yes. Will we achieve nirvana? No. Can we do better? Certainly.
Maybe I'm right or maybe I just wasted two panatellas proving Gruber was right. We'll see.
Thursday, March 9, 2017
Someone Was Listening Closely.
My politics are a little extreme for day to day use, as it were. For example: I like the idea that the Chinese regularly execute businessmen and government officials that engage in fraud. It seems to me a little of that would go a long way here. In an age when the Secretary of State was the CEO of Exxon, the governor of Florida also participated in the largest medicare fraud in history and the president wrote a 25 million dollar check for getting caught running a phony university scam, I can see where that might be useful. I ain't saying, I'm just sayin.
That's why I try not to comment too much on day to day political affairs. By commenting on what's happening today you have a tendency to try to predict what will or should happen tomorrow.
That never really works.
So, naturally, today, I'm going to step a little across that line because what's happening is so plain it's almost funny.
First: Let me relate an axiom that is especially true right now. If you let a liar talk long enough they will tell you exactly what they are afraid you will find out. Most famously, Nixon did that. If he'd just kept his mouth shut to begin with, most of Watergate would have evaporated but he knew there was a lot to worry about people finding out so he felt compelled to get out in front of the issue with a few blatant lies. It was the lies unraveling that got Nixon. The other thing about Nixon is; it was the lies of his associates who knew he was lying that became so important and led back to him. This sure seems to be the mistake Trump has made and is making.
It certainly is the mistake Sessions made when asked point blank about Russian contacts. Had he known in his heart the contacts were innocent results of his position in the Senate he most certainly would have said so. He knew differently and lied point blank. That's problematic on a number of levels. It is hard to see how he could continue as Attorney General but that's an issue for the broader national debate and for Sessions' personal scruples. On that level the Attorney General's heart of hearts is his own and the national debate will settle itself as always.
On the level of the political health of the Trump White House it was also problematic. The late night firing of Flynn over essentially the same issue of inappropriate interaction with the Russians during the campaign and the transition period added to the drumbeat of outrage in some quarters over the obvious Russian interference in the election in support of Trump. There is nothing wrong with that interference per se. It's understandable and predictable. Why wouldn't a foreign power have an interest in the outcome of our election and even try to influence it? We do it all the time. Just look at Israel or Venezuala.
What is unusual and widely believed to be unacceptable is the embrace and cooperation with that interference by one campaign or the other. It's also unacceptable to have the appearance of a quid pro quo by the supported party. These people understand that. That's why Flynn had to go in such an abrupt fashion. There was interference and there was a quid pro quo. The Flynn resignation followed by denunciation of the leaks themselves and not the factual information was an admission of self-perceived guilt. That fact of self- perceived guilt is important. Sessions' recusal short of his resignation was an attempt to staunch the growing erosion of political support. His resignation following so closely on the Flynn resignation would have worsened that growing erosion of support. It would have been a further admission of what they would rather we didn't find out. They knew they shouldn't be there.
The political decision was made that a diversion of that growing chorus for Sessions' head was needed or maybe the Bannon/Breitbart justification involving President Obama just stood out to Trump and he seized it without thinking it through. Either way Trump was led to making preposterous allegations about President Obama. He apparently based those allegations on a screed by Mark Levin. That's pretty funny if you wade through what Levin actually said.
The thrust of Levin's case is the various intelligence agencies became interested in and concerned about Russian contacts and reciprocal contacts with and by the Trump campaign early on in the campaign. This caused those agencies to monitor more closely the products of constant surveillance of foreign nationals of note. This surveillance is constant and totally understandable. That the Trump people got caught in the surveillance net is as understandable as someone having an illegal conversation with Al Capone being overheard by Eliot Ness. Oddly enough, Levin doesn't reach that conclusion while all the time making it obvious. He does have a keen eye for the ridiculous.
The idea that President Obama had any heightened interest in what was a constant, apolitical stream of information is kinda funny. Three people were astounded by the election of Donald Trump: Trump himself, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Why would anyone who was convinced of the outcome of the election take any additional steps? They wouldn't. That's on top of the fact, since Nixon, the President can't do such a thing.
So, the preposterous lie was told and in the process further admitted the unhealthy nature of the Trump- Russian ties. Like Nixon, Trump in his certainty of his guilt, couldn't hear his own admissions in his denials. It's amazing how that type of thing can make a person deaf to their own voice.
To recapitulate; this is what we have learned from the Trump camp. There was heightened scrutiny of the Russians. That heightened scrutiny yielded evidence of unhealthy ties between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Those things are certain and on the public record, placed there by Trump. The resignation of Flynn admitted a quid pro quo. Sessions perjured himself in front of Congress. The behavior of members of the Trump camp seem to indicate there is much more to be found out.
So ,where do we go from here? I dunno. I know what I think will happen and I damn sure have convictions about what should happen but I'm not dumb enough to write those things down.
March 23, 2017 Update.
It is worthy of note that everything I said two weeks ago in the above post has been confirmed by no less than the House Republican's themselves.
That's why I try not to comment too much on day to day political affairs. By commenting on what's happening today you have a tendency to try to predict what will or should happen tomorrow.
That never really works.
So, naturally, today, I'm going to step a little across that line because what's happening is so plain it's almost funny.
First: Let me relate an axiom that is especially true right now. If you let a liar talk long enough they will tell you exactly what they are afraid you will find out. Most famously, Nixon did that. If he'd just kept his mouth shut to begin with, most of Watergate would have evaporated but he knew there was a lot to worry about people finding out so he felt compelled to get out in front of the issue with a few blatant lies. It was the lies unraveling that got Nixon. The other thing about Nixon is; it was the lies of his associates who knew he was lying that became so important and led back to him. This sure seems to be the mistake Trump has made and is making.
It certainly is the mistake Sessions made when asked point blank about Russian contacts. Had he known in his heart the contacts were innocent results of his position in the Senate he most certainly would have said so. He knew differently and lied point blank. That's problematic on a number of levels. It is hard to see how he could continue as Attorney General but that's an issue for the broader national debate and for Sessions' personal scruples. On that level the Attorney General's heart of hearts is his own and the national debate will settle itself as always.
On the level of the political health of the Trump White House it was also problematic. The late night firing of Flynn over essentially the same issue of inappropriate interaction with the Russians during the campaign and the transition period added to the drumbeat of outrage in some quarters over the obvious Russian interference in the election in support of Trump. There is nothing wrong with that interference per se. It's understandable and predictable. Why wouldn't a foreign power have an interest in the outcome of our election and even try to influence it? We do it all the time. Just look at Israel or Venezuala.
What is unusual and widely believed to be unacceptable is the embrace and cooperation with that interference by one campaign or the other. It's also unacceptable to have the appearance of a quid pro quo by the supported party. These people understand that. That's why Flynn had to go in such an abrupt fashion. There was interference and there was a quid pro quo. The Flynn resignation followed by denunciation of the leaks themselves and not the factual information was an admission of self-perceived guilt. That fact of self- perceived guilt is important. Sessions' recusal short of his resignation was an attempt to staunch the growing erosion of political support. His resignation following so closely on the Flynn resignation would have worsened that growing erosion of support. It would have been a further admission of what they would rather we didn't find out. They knew they shouldn't be there.
The political decision was made that a diversion of that growing chorus for Sessions' head was needed or maybe the Bannon/Breitbart justification involving President Obama just stood out to Trump and he seized it without thinking it through. Either way Trump was led to making preposterous allegations about President Obama. He apparently based those allegations on a screed by Mark Levin. That's pretty funny if you wade through what Levin actually said.
The thrust of Levin's case is the various intelligence agencies became interested in and concerned about Russian contacts and reciprocal contacts with and by the Trump campaign early on in the campaign. This caused those agencies to monitor more closely the products of constant surveillance of foreign nationals of note. This surveillance is constant and totally understandable. That the Trump people got caught in the surveillance net is as understandable as someone having an illegal conversation with Al Capone being overheard by Eliot Ness. Oddly enough, Levin doesn't reach that conclusion while all the time making it obvious. He does have a keen eye for the ridiculous.
The idea that President Obama had any heightened interest in what was a constant, apolitical stream of information is kinda funny. Three people were astounded by the election of Donald Trump: Trump himself, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Why would anyone who was convinced of the outcome of the election take any additional steps? They wouldn't. That's on top of the fact, since Nixon, the President can't do such a thing.
So, the preposterous lie was told and in the process further admitted the unhealthy nature of the Trump- Russian ties. Like Nixon, Trump in his certainty of his guilt, couldn't hear his own admissions in his denials. It's amazing how that type of thing can make a person deaf to their own voice.
To recapitulate; this is what we have learned from the Trump camp. There was heightened scrutiny of the Russians. That heightened scrutiny yielded evidence of unhealthy ties between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Those things are certain and on the public record, placed there by Trump. The resignation of Flynn admitted a quid pro quo. Sessions perjured himself in front of Congress. The behavior of members of the Trump camp seem to indicate there is much more to be found out.
So ,where do we go from here? I dunno. I know what I think will happen and I damn sure have convictions about what should happen but I'm not dumb enough to write those things down.
March 23, 2017 Update.
It is worthy of note that everything I said two weeks ago in the above post has been confirmed by no less than the House Republican's themselves.
Friday, March 3, 2017
What Every Woman Wants.
How the hell would I know? I can talk to a man for 10 minutes. I'll tell you pretty much what he likes, what he doesn't like. I can tell you what will make him happy, what will likely piss him off. I can tell you if he's a cat person or a dog person. Is he a Prius driver or a pick 'em up guy. I can tell you how he's likely to vote. Apparently, I can spend over 20 years with a woman and never have a clue. Not the slightest.
Here's just two small examples: My wife, one day, looked at me and said, " Sometimes, I just hate you."
To which I kind of jokingly replied, "Jesus, we've been married for 10 years if you don't hate me you just haven't been paying attention. This is a marriage, not a prom date." To this day, all I have to do is say, "prom date," and she gets madder 'an hell. I figured she knew familiarity breeds contempt from time to time even among friends. I guess not. That guessing thing seems to be as close as I get.
Ten or so years later at the celebration of some anniversary or other I, as a joke, said the longevity of our relationship portrayed a remarkable lack of imagination on her part. It was meant as a remark on her charm, poise and beauty and my oafish lack of any grace. I have pretty forcefully been given to understand she took it as me saying she was slow witted. When I figured out how she took that innocent remark I didn't say any of the things I was thinkin. I may be insensitive but I'm not effen stupid.
It got me, of course, to thinking about Andrew Dice Clay. Men are terribly misunderstood. Nothing Clay said years ago would be funny if he had been serious. Someone should have explained reductio absurdum to Nora Dunn and of course Sinead O'Connor passed from the ridiculous to the sublime long ago.
Clay, one time said, a man only argues when he knows he's wrong. If he knows he's right he just says, "Shut up." That is true but I sure can't see, in retrospect, what good it does to know it's true.
I'd like to say we should treat the fairer sex as though they are speaking some imperfectly understood foreign language. Unfortunately, most American men react to someone speaking a foreign language by speaking louder and more slowly, mixing in a few words of the foreign tongue in incorrect, tortured context sometimes with tragic but usually just hilarious result. It's sort of like a republican politician endorseing feminism. Everyone is much better off talking about what they understand. If the word, "whatever" wasn't taken as an insult it would be the best response. I've tried several times to say it with sincere feeling. Yeah, that don't work.
In the end, I think Ambrose Bierce said it best. True Love is a mental disorder usually cured by marriage but I also like Thurber, who inspired the very funny " The War Between Men and Women." It is a war and we as men, bring to the battle better resources, strength, wealth, maybe even intellect and therefore are destined eternally to lose.
See, I told ya I didn't know.
Here's just two small examples: My wife, one day, looked at me and said, " Sometimes, I just hate you."
To which I kind of jokingly replied, "Jesus, we've been married for 10 years if you don't hate me you just haven't been paying attention. This is a marriage, not a prom date." To this day, all I have to do is say, "prom date," and she gets madder 'an hell. I figured she knew familiarity breeds contempt from time to time even among friends. I guess not. That guessing thing seems to be as close as I get.
Ten or so years later at the celebration of some anniversary or other I, as a joke, said the longevity of our relationship portrayed a remarkable lack of imagination on her part. It was meant as a remark on her charm, poise and beauty and my oafish lack of any grace. I have pretty forcefully been given to understand she took it as me saying she was slow witted. When I figured out how she took that innocent remark I didn't say any of the things I was thinkin. I may be insensitive but I'm not effen stupid.
It got me, of course, to thinking about Andrew Dice Clay. Men are terribly misunderstood. Nothing Clay said years ago would be funny if he had been serious. Someone should have explained reductio absurdum to Nora Dunn and of course Sinead O'Connor passed from the ridiculous to the sublime long ago.
Clay, one time said, a man only argues when he knows he's wrong. If he knows he's right he just says, "Shut up." That is true but I sure can't see, in retrospect, what good it does to know it's true.
I'd like to say we should treat the fairer sex as though they are speaking some imperfectly understood foreign language. Unfortunately, most American men react to someone speaking a foreign language by speaking louder and more slowly, mixing in a few words of the foreign tongue in incorrect, tortured context sometimes with tragic but usually just hilarious result. It's sort of like a republican politician endorseing feminism. Everyone is much better off talking about what they understand. If the word, "whatever" wasn't taken as an insult it would be the best response. I've tried several times to say it with sincere feeling. Yeah, that don't work.
In the end, I think Ambrose Bierce said it best. True Love is a mental disorder usually cured by marriage but I also like Thurber, who inspired the very funny " The War Between Men and Women." It is a war and we as men, bring to the battle better resources, strength, wealth, maybe even intellect and therefore are destined eternally to lose.
See, I told ya I didn't know.
Whatever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)