Even though it pains me to say it, I'm beginning to think Donald Trump may have been right. He wants to make America Great Again. I thought America was already great, and it is. But something is missing in our greatness, and perhaps Mr. Trump saw that something. I don't know if the greatness lacking that he saw is the same as what I see as missing in our greatness.
What made America the tremendous success it was, is the amalgam of truly gifted entrepreneurs and job creators. Its their ideas that make business and industry flourish in America. However its like a wheel with only one spoke, it won't go far. It needs investors to provide the cash and impetus and the means to get business up and running. Investing is the second spoke in the wheel of American greatness. Still business and industry can't fulfill the needs of the American public's demands.
The third spoke in the wheel is labor. Without the workers to make the wheels turn, business and industry comes to a halt. The workers strengthen the wheel by also becoming the purchasers of the products and services in vast numbers which is the force that makes the wheels turn.
The problem comes in when the spokes of Business and Industry sit down to divvy out the profits from their success. Business and industry leaders speak for the companies, investors have their speakers and labor once had its speakers at these sit-downs. But the Unions which once represented labor to see that it was fairly treated have fallen into disuse for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was corrupt leadership and campaigns against unions in general.
The result is that the harmonious interactions of the past have given way to a situation that has left workers out of the mix in far too many companies. The wages of management and investors have risen astronomically while the wages of labor have fallen substantially when inflation is taken into account. This is not what the founding fathers had in mind. They saw a nation where all would flourish. When America's business and industry fail to include labor in its sharing of its profits, then America loses its greatness.
Sunday, December 25, 2016
Friday, December 23, 2016
A Powder Keg.
Aleppo! Syria? Where have we gone wrong and where have we done right? I have to say, I'm disappointed in Obama's non-approach to the war in Syria, but on the other hand I do understand the idea that after a decade and nearly another half of war in the Middle-East, American's are sick to death of constant war. We want the carnage in Syria and elsewhere to stop. We want Putin to stop, but the minute an American is killed or even assigned in the Middle-East we catch holy hell for it.
John McCain just said "We have a stake in Syria, yet we do nothing." Now that tells exactly what we've done, or not done, and its exactly what the people want, yet don't want. What Americans want is to have a peaceful victory in the Middle-East. There has never been a peaceful solution to the problems in the Middle-East since the partition of that corner of the world after the First World War and in fact going back to before the crusades, nothing peaceful has resulted in a continuing peace.
Russia has led the way to the destruction of Aleppo and may seem to be in a position of advantage. But the history of Syria is unwritten. The Russians were triumphant in Afghanistan until they became not-triumphant. The moral of the story is that outsiders are triumphant in that part of the world for only a short time.
Now both Putin and Trump seem to be ramping up interest in returning to a nuclear race. Is it just bluff and bluster? Let's hope so because the one thing we don't need is more and better bombs. We don't need more bad actors in the race. We've already got at least three members of the nuclear family in the Middle-East, we don't need more, especially in that region.
The problem is that we're neither respected nor feared there and never really were respected nor feared there. They've always wanted our money but they've always hated us for our way of life and our success. They don't want outsiders trying to change the way they are, their way of life. Maybe we need to change the way we think and act towards the Middle-East.
John McCain just said "We have a stake in Syria, yet we do nothing." Now that tells exactly what we've done, or not done, and its exactly what the people want, yet don't want. What Americans want is to have a peaceful victory in the Middle-East. There has never been a peaceful solution to the problems in the Middle-East since the partition of that corner of the world after the First World War and in fact going back to before the crusades, nothing peaceful has resulted in a continuing peace.
Russia has led the way to the destruction of Aleppo and may seem to be in a position of advantage. But the history of Syria is unwritten. The Russians were triumphant in Afghanistan until they became not-triumphant. The moral of the story is that outsiders are triumphant in that part of the world for only a short time.
Now both Putin and Trump seem to be ramping up interest in returning to a nuclear race. Is it just bluff and bluster? Let's hope so because the one thing we don't need is more and better bombs. We don't need more bad actors in the race. We've already got at least three members of the nuclear family in the Middle-East, we don't need more, especially in that region.
The problem is that we're neither respected nor feared there and never really were respected nor feared there. They've always wanted our money but they've always hated us for our way of life and our success. They don't want outsiders trying to change the way they are, their way of life. Maybe we need to change the way we think and act towards the Middle-East.
Monday, December 19, 2016
Majorities Don't Mean That Much.
Our nation elects its president every four years, not by a majority of citizens who took the time and effort to vote, but by an unusual means that promotes the number of states and the populations of those states. Except that states with very small numbers of citizens still get at least three votes, even if that state had only one registered voter.
What makes it interesting for voters of very highly populated states is that each individual voter has less say in who gets elected than people in low population states. Now, I'm not necessarily finding fault with the Electoral College system, as its called, but I do find it odd that a country that prides itself on fairness and majority rule would ignore the majority factor when electing its President. Even the One Person, One Vote rule is ignored.
So, in the most recent election, there was a clear winner of the majority of voters and a clear winner of the Electoral College vote, and it wasn't the same person. That's okay, but what I don't understand is why the same process is not used in the House of Representatives election? Hey, if its good enough for the Presidential election it should be good enough for Congress.
Of course the Senate is a completely different setup. Each state gets two seats regardless of the size of the state or its population. So tiny Rhode Island gets the same as Alaska and Idaho gets the same as California. I have to say, the American electoral processes seem to be unable to come to a consensus. The whole process seems to have been written by several opposing factions. which, in fact, is exactly the case. That's what happened. So, just because you're in the majority doesn't mean you get to have your say. Sometimes the minority wins. And it would take a super majority to change it.
What makes it interesting for voters of very highly populated states is that each individual voter has less say in who gets elected than people in low population states. Now, I'm not necessarily finding fault with the Electoral College system, as its called, but I do find it odd that a country that prides itself on fairness and majority rule would ignore the majority factor when electing its President. Even the One Person, One Vote rule is ignored.
So, in the most recent election, there was a clear winner of the majority of voters and a clear winner of the Electoral College vote, and it wasn't the same person. That's okay, but what I don't understand is why the same process is not used in the House of Representatives election? Hey, if its good enough for the Presidential election it should be good enough for Congress.
Of course the Senate is a completely different setup. Each state gets two seats regardless of the size of the state or its population. So tiny Rhode Island gets the same as Alaska and Idaho gets the same as California. I have to say, the American electoral processes seem to be unable to come to a consensus. The whole process seems to have been written by several opposing factions. which, in fact, is exactly the case. That's what happened. So, just because you're in the majority doesn't mean you get to have your say. Sometimes the minority wins. And it would take a super majority to change it.
Thursday, December 15, 2016
Put It To Rest.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote, so they both have something to hang their hats on, but Trump is the one who gets to sit behind the desk in the oval office. And he's the one who gets to pick his cabinet along with thousands of lower level bureaucrats. That won't change. The Electoral College won't change that.
But there are a lot of questions about Trump that could potentially change it. However none of those potential changes will put Clinton in the White House. Pence maybe, but not Clinton. Its time to pursue other causes. The Democrats made a bunch of mistakes during the late campaign. They overlooked far too many unhappy voters with unhappy grievances.
On the other hand Trump won the election by noticing those voters and their grievances and promised them he could solve their problems. He could bring back those lost jobs. Well, he can't. Nobody can or will. Those high paying jobs don't exist anymore. They've been eliminated by technology. And maybe that's a good thing even though it hurts to lose the jobs.
But what happens when those voters who swarmed to Trump find out that he can't help them the way he promised? Trump may not take the brunt of their anger, but he'll get some of it. But who will be the goat? corporations? Hey, they'll do what they have to do to succeed. Obama? Some will try. Congress? Well whether of not they get accused for the loss of jobs or not, they've been the ones who have handled things wrong. Trickle Down has never worked, yet they still try. They piddle around with ACA, with no replacement, Voter fraud, almost nonexistent, and a host of nonsense while our own Rome burns. Wouldn't ya think they'd want to help their own neighbors instead?
But there are a lot of questions about Trump that could potentially change it. However none of those potential changes will put Clinton in the White House. Pence maybe, but not Clinton. Its time to pursue other causes. The Democrats made a bunch of mistakes during the late campaign. They overlooked far too many unhappy voters with unhappy grievances.
On the other hand Trump won the election by noticing those voters and their grievances and promised them he could solve their problems. He could bring back those lost jobs. Well, he can't. Nobody can or will. Those high paying jobs don't exist anymore. They've been eliminated by technology. And maybe that's a good thing even though it hurts to lose the jobs.
But what happens when those voters who swarmed to Trump find out that he can't help them the way he promised? Trump may not take the brunt of their anger, but he'll get some of it. But who will be the goat? corporations? Hey, they'll do what they have to do to succeed. Obama? Some will try. Congress? Well whether of not they get accused for the loss of jobs or not, they've been the ones who have handled things wrong. Trickle Down has never worked, yet they still try. They piddle around with ACA, with no replacement, Voter fraud, almost nonexistent, and a host of nonsense while our own Rome burns. Wouldn't ya think they'd want to help their own neighbors instead?
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
It's Not Salad Oil.
I'm sure you've all heard of Standing Rock and the Sioux Indians fighting to stop a pipeline through their lands. Well, a small item in the news today, namely the Huffington Post, states that an existing pipeline in North Dakota, and only 150 miles from Standing Rock has had a spill of 176,000 gallons or 4,200 barrels of crude oil.
Gosh, imagine if it had happened at the height of the protests against the proposed pipeline through the Sioux lands at Standing Rock. Still, it hasn't been that long ago since President Obama and Core of Engineers put a stop to the pipeline. The spill has potentially caused environmental damage to a creek when the oil spilled into it.
Of course the owners of the proposed pipeline can't wait for President-elect Trump to take over because they assume he'll okay the route originally proposed. Who cares about native Americans anyway. I recall that a bunch of Veterans joined the protest. I wonder what would happen if thousands of veterans joined in. That's the problem in this country. You can't get fair treatment unless thousands stand up against the people those thousands elected to serve them in the first place.
You'd think that when these politicians got elected they'd understand it was for them to lookout for the best interests of those who elected them. But no, the politicians would rather wait on the money they already made and hope to make in the future.
Meanwhile, back at Standing Rock, the Sioux tribe has surely noticed the "crude" oil spill down the road and worry more than ever about President-elect Trump. Let's hope Trump will do the right thing. Make the pipeline folks change directions.
Gosh, imagine if it had happened at the height of the protests against the proposed pipeline through the Sioux lands at Standing Rock. Still, it hasn't been that long ago since President Obama and Core of Engineers put a stop to the pipeline. The spill has potentially caused environmental damage to a creek when the oil spilled into it.
Of course the owners of the proposed pipeline can't wait for President-elect Trump to take over because they assume he'll okay the route originally proposed. Who cares about native Americans anyway. I recall that a bunch of Veterans joined the protest. I wonder what would happen if thousands of veterans joined in. That's the problem in this country. You can't get fair treatment unless thousands stand up against the people those thousands elected to serve them in the first place.
You'd think that when these politicians got elected they'd understand it was for them to lookout for the best interests of those who elected them. But no, the politicians would rather wait on the money they already made and hope to make in the future.
Meanwhile, back at Standing Rock, the Sioux tribe has surely noticed the "crude" oil spill down the road and worry more than ever about President-elect Trump. Let's hope Trump will do the right thing. Make the pipeline folks change directions.
Friday, December 9, 2016
Springtime Sports.
According to David Lightman of the McClatchy Washington Bureau "The Debt Limit Monster is Coming Back." Yes that problem of a debt ceiling which needs to be increased from time to time will be nearly all in the hands of Republicans next Spring or even a little earlier, along with our current budget and next year's as well. So, to you folks who will be representing all of us out here in America next Spring, have at it. Just remember, you're representing us, not your personal ideological beliefs. That means you represent all those who voted for you, but also those who didn't vote for you or didn't vote at all, because we're all citizens and as such are entitled to be represented, fairly and honestly.
So you're all gonna get loads of numbers dumped on you. Pres. Trump will have numbers, Senate and House leadership will all have numbers for you, the minority leadership in both houses will have numbers, and to nobody's surprise, none of the numbers will match up. But all will claim their own sets of numbers will best represent the needs of the people, when in fact none will represent the people very well at all.
On the Debt Limit, and without increasing it, as most Tea Partiers prefer, there would have to be crippling cuts to many programs including even the military and safetynets for the poor. Or a fight to the (almost) death for some if it is increased.
On the budgets, anyone who thinks it'll be a slam dunk for the Republicans, well you'd better think again. That's because you begin to get into favorite programs of specific legislators. Senator X won't hear of cutting his favorite and Congresswoman Y absolutely needs another program or else. And of course Democrats will be against many cuts as a matter of ideology and for some, just because Republicans were against some of Obama's programs because he was a Democrat.
Spring will be a fun time of year. So much so that it will surely spill over into Summer.
So you're all gonna get loads of numbers dumped on you. Pres. Trump will have numbers, Senate and House leadership will all have numbers for you, the minority leadership in both houses will have numbers, and to nobody's surprise, none of the numbers will match up. But all will claim their own sets of numbers will best represent the needs of the people, when in fact none will represent the people very well at all.
On the Debt Limit, and without increasing it, as most Tea Partiers prefer, there would have to be crippling cuts to many programs including even the military and safetynets for the poor. Or a fight to the (almost) death for some if it is increased.
On the budgets, anyone who thinks it'll be a slam dunk for the Republicans, well you'd better think again. That's because you begin to get into favorite programs of specific legislators. Senator X won't hear of cutting his favorite and Congresswoman Y absolutely needs another program or else. And of course Democrats will be against many cuts as a matter of ideology and for some, just because Republicans were against some of Obama's programs because he was a Democrat.
Spring will be a fun time of year. So much so that it will surely spill over into Summer.
Thursday, December 8, 2016
Man v Land
The case for and against the Electoral College boils down to Real estate or People. Now the pro Electoral College (EC) people will scream and holler that its the states that are most important, and in order to make sure that all states have a say in how the country is run. After all, those more sparsely populated states provide more of the food and raw materials we consume, so the argument goes.
On the other hand, the People contingent say the law calls for One Man, One Vote. The fact that some few states have the most people, yet have a smaller say in governing (per capita ) is unfair. What it means is that for many people their vote doesn't count. Forget how many counties there are. Suppose there was a state with 300,000 people, do you really think they should have the same representation as a state with 30,000,000 people? Because that's what the Electoral College tries to accomplish. And in doing so, it turns the reins of government over to rural states.
Our country is made up of people. The Supreme Court gave personhood to corporations, and in order to convince small states to join in the fight for independence the Founding Fathers devised this formula. In effect it gave personhood to the real estate, the land. That was fine then, but now we need a better way. Now we need to recognize the importance of the people. Somehow we need to devise a system that gives all people the same representation whether they live in a small (population) state or a New Jersey, the most densely populated state.
Idaho and Alaska are examples of very low density. But because of the Electoral College, these low density states get more electoral votes per citizen, than NY, Cal, NJ, and others. The fact that there are many more of these low density states gives them more lopsided votes. We need a compromise between the Electoral College and the One Man, One Vote. Our representatives in Washington have a responsibility to provide fair representation to every citizen. Because we all deserve those rights. That's why we need a Constitutional Convention.
On the other hand, the People contingent say the law calls for One Man, One Vote. The fact that some few states have the most people, yet have a smaller say in governing (per capita ) is unfair. What it means is that for many people their vote doesn't count. Forget how many counties there are. Suppose there was a state with 300,000 people, do you really think they should have the same representation as a state with 30,000,000 people? Because that's what the Electoral College tries to accomplish. And in doing so, it turns the reins of government over to rural states.
Our country is made up of people. The Supreme Court gave personhood to corporations, and in order to convince small states to join in the fight for independence the Founding Fathers devised this formula. In effect it gave personhood to the real estate, the land. That was fine then, but now we need a better way. Now we need to recognize the importance of the people. Somehow we need to devise a system that gives all people the same representation whether they live in a small (population) state or a New Jersey, the most densely populated state.
Idaho and Alaska are examples of very low density. But because of the Electoral College, these low density states get more electoral votes per citizen, than NY, Cal, NJ, and others. The fact that there are many more of these low density states gives them more lopsided votes. We need a compromise between the Electoral College and the One Man, One Vote. Our representatives in Washington have a responsibility to provide fair representation to every citizen. Because we all deserve those rights. That's why we need a Constitutional Convention.
Wednesday, December 7, 2016
Arbitrate My Foot.
Do you understand the meaning of the term "arbitration?" It means that the two or more sides of a disagreement sit down and with the help of neutral parties hammer out a solution acceptable to everyone. Generally all sides get less than they'd hoped for, but everybody gets some of what they wanted. At least that's the idea of arbitration. But then along came the Supreme Court a few years ago and said that certain corporations could force complainants to use arbitration rather than lawsuits that are grouped together.
With this method corporations can handle a thousand complaints, generally with a mediator of their choice who winds up being their employee, for all intents and purposes. So instead of losing a thousand lawsuits at, say a thousand a piece, they can agree under arbitration to settle for ,maybe, a hundred a piece. Now sometimes the complainant can sue, but the legal few and court costs, they'd wind up owing a hundred. That's why they wanted to join their suits together.
Meantime, the corporations get away with paying a whole lot less than they should. Of course its all perfectly legal because the Supreme Court decided that the poor corporations weren't happy with the old way. Its a lot like tax loopholes except instead of Congress giving away your money, the SCOTUS gave permission for the Corporations to take it away.
Now we're due for a new President to come along soon. But don't expect him to change the arbitration thing. He won't have the authority. Same with tax loopholes. I'll bet you thought he'd be able to give you everything you hoped for and that he promised you, didn't you? Well, HAHA. The jokes on all of us.
With this method corporations can handle a thousand complaints, generally with a mediator of their choice who winds up being their employee, for all intents and purposes. So instead of losing a thousand lawsuits at, say a thousand a piece, they can agree under arbitration to settle for ,maybe, a hundred a piece. Now sometimes the complainant can sue, but the legal few and court costs, they'd wind up owing a hundred. That's why they wanted to join their suits together.
Meantime, the corporations get away with paying a whole lot less than they should. Of course its all perfectly legal because the Supreme Court decided that the poor corporations weren't happy with the old way. Its a lot like tax loopholes except instead of Congress giving away your money, the SCOTUS gave permission for the Corporations to take it away.
Now we're due for a new President to come along soon. But don't expect him to change the arbitration thing. He won't have the authority. Same with tax loopholes. I'll bet you thought he'd be able to give you everything you hoped for and that he promised you, didn't you? Well, HAHA. The jokes on all of us.
Tuesday, December 6, 2016
Snowden v Petraeus
Ya know? As things begin to unravel, I'm beginning to think Edward Snowden is getting a raw deal. Since he pointed out that General David Petraeus "disclosed more sensitive information than I did," I've been thinking about it.
Snowden found out about all this Peeping Tom kind of listening in that we've been doing, he thought it was wrong and so he leaked the information to the media. Petraeus, on the other hand, was entrusted with far more highly classified information, gave it to his biographer in order to impress her into having sex with him. So Petraeus is successful in his sexual endeavors and only gets a semi-hard slap on the wrist, but Snowden, who did it because he thought it was the right thing to do,well, let's say his uncle Sam wants to hang him out to dry, permanently.
But that's not the end of the story. Now the good General is being considered for the position of Secretary of State. Presumably to be updated on more highly classified information to pass on to an even cuter biographer, while the Ex National Security contractor is looking at some far more serious retribution from his Government and he's not even line for a job as a Washington D.C. dog catcher. Where's the fairness there?
If Petraeus wanted to give his mistress something really interesting, maybe he should have given her the news about the $125 billion bureaucratic waste the Pentagon was hiding. Now that's something she could certainly make use of. What girl wouldn't love to have a $125 billion nest egg to snuggle in. I'm just saying. As for Snowden, its too bad he didn't have a girlfriend.
Snowden found out about all this Peeping Tom kind of listening in that we've been doing, he thought it was wrong and so he leaked the information to the media. Petraeus, on the other hand, was entrusted with far more highly classified information, gave it to his biographer in order to impress her into having sex with him. So Petraeus is successful in his sexual endeavors and only gets a semi-hard slap on the wrist, but Snowden, who did it because he thought it was the right thing to do,well, let's say his uncle Sam wants to hang him out to dry, permanently.
But that's not the end of the story. Now the good General is being considered for the position of Secretary of State. Presumably to be updated on more highly classified information to pass on to an even cuter biographer, while the Ex National Security contractor is looking at some far more serious retribution from his Government and he's not even line for a job as a Washington D.C. dog catcher. Where's the fairness there?
If Petraeus wanted to give his mistress something really interesting, maybe he should have given her the news about the $125 billion bureaucratic waste the Pentagon was hiding. Now that's something she could certainly make use of. What girl wouldn't love to have a $125 billion nest egg to snuggle in. I'm just saying. As for Snowden, its too bad he didn't have a girlfriend.
Monday, December 5, 2016
I'm Willing To Listen.
I'll be honest and say we need to give Mr. Trump a chance to prove himself to be the leader we need. But there are a few issues that deeply concern me. I'm retired so naturally I'm concerned about Social security, Medicare and for those in need, Medicaid. Republicans in Congress have been trying to eliminate, defund or change one or more of these programs as long as I can remember. Social Security seems to be either out of money, running out of money or fully funded for 40 years or more, and all these reports have experts backing them up. What would be wrong with removing the ceiling on payments into the fund or raising the ceiling to $500,000 or some such figure?
Then there's the environment. We've got so much proof that air pollution is causing global warming and at the same time causing many health issues, why can't we continue the work we've begun and more? We don't need more pipelines, because we don't need more pollutants, we need less. The coal industry is done, let it go and more pipelines only means more oil. Why not more solar or wind generation. More and better battery powered cars.
We need more jobs, good jobs, but we've got to realize that in this day and age, expecting high paying jobs in the numbers of the past just isn't gonna happen. So let's stop making promises we can't keep. Lets train as many of those who have lost their jobs as we can for new jobs. And finally let's not get into any more wars except as a last resort, not first resort. Be smart, not dumb. Other than that, Donald, have at it. If you want to look and sound foolish, its your Presidency to do with pretty much as you wish. But then don't expect folks to put up with it for two terms. On the other hand if you work to make life as good as possible for everyone and treat all your constituents fairly and humanely, you just might be as successful at this job as you'd like to be remembered.
Then there's the environment. We've got so much proof that air pollution is causing global warming and at the same time causing many health issues, why can't we continue the work we've begun and more? We don't need more pipelines, because we don't need more pollutants, we need less. The coal industry is done, let it go and more pipelines only means more oil. Why not more solar or wind generation. More and better battery powered cars.
We need more jobs, good jobs, but we've got to realize that in this day and age, expecting high paying jobs in the numbers of the past just isn't gonna happen. So let's stop making promises we can't keep. Lets train as many of those who have lost their jobs as we can for new jobs. And finally let's not get into any more wars except as a last resort, not first resort. Be smart, not dumb. Other than that, Donald, have at it. If you want to look and sound foolish, its your Presidency to do with pretty much as you wish. But then don't expect folks to put up with it for two terms. On the other hand if you work to make life as good as possible for everyone and treat all your constituents fairly and humanely, you just might be as successful at this job as you'd like to be remembered.
Sunday, December 4, 2016
The Tea Partiers Are Not Home.
You remember how the Tea party movement started, don't you? "Taxes were too high and they had no say in Washington, right?" Well, it turns out the answer is Wrong! That's right actually the Tea Partiers were giving and receiving the exact opposite. And they still are, according to an article in the N.Y. Times today. How can this be, you ask?
It's simple, the way we're governed is by a President elected by the electoral college. Now aside from whether or not you like the E.C., you've got to agree that it gives more political weight to smaller more rural states. Its simple math. A state like Wyoming with a small population gets more power, per capita, than New Jersey, the most densely populated state in the country. The reason is that every state gets two extra votes, one for each Senator. Wyoming with a small population has two Senators, just as New Jersey does.
And as for taxes, Well, "for every dollar paid in taxes by New Jersey taxpayers, it gets back about 61 cents in goods and services. But for every dollar Wyoming taxpayers pay in taxes, it gets back $1.11." If you want to have more say and pay less taxes, you'll have to move to someplace like Wyoming. As the article says, the real Tea Party is in the Blue states, not the red ones. Those red staters are just a bunch of whiners. They're the ones who've got it made.
And all this time I felt a little embarrassed for cheating the poor red staters. Turns out those red state folks have been bamboozling me. It just ain't right. Just because they've got all those "wide open spaces" that need to have interstate highways with nobody living nearby to pay for them, why do I have to pay for them? And what about power and telephones and police to protect them
Wyoming folk? How come I'm paying for them? The electoral college, that's how come.
It's simple, the way we're governed is by a President elected by the electoral college. Now aside from whether or not you like the E.C., you've got to agree that it gives more political weight to smaller more rural states. Its simple math. A state like Wyoming with a small population gets more power, per capita, than New Jersey, the most densely populated state in the country. The reason is that every state gets two extra votes, one for each Senator. Wyoming with a small population has two Senators, just as New Jersey does.
And as for taxes, Well, "for every dollar paid in taxes by New Jersey taxpayers, it gets back about 61 cents in goods and services. But for every dollar Wyoming taxpayers pay in taxes, it gets back $1.11." If you want to have more say and pay less taxes, you'll have to move to someplace like Wyoming. As the article says, the real Tea Party is in the Blue states, not the red ones. Those red staters are just a bunch of whiners. They're the ones who've got it made.
And all this time I felt a little embarrassed for cheating the poor red staters. Turns out those red state folks have been bamboozling me. It just ain't right. Just because they've got all those "wide open spaces" that need to have interstate highways with nobody living nearby to pay for them, why do I have to pay for them? And what about power and telephones and police to protect them
Wyoming folk? How come I'm paying for them? The electoral college, that's how come.
Saturday, December 3, 2016
The New Military Retirement Plan.
A lot of people are concerned about having too many Generals in Trump's cabinet including myself. That is until I read a piece by Rosa Brooks in Foreign Policy publication. She points out the differences between our founding fathers' times and ours. They were distrustful of a military in a small emerging nation. We don't have those same problems and except for a few conspiracy crackpots and fear mongerers, we should really not be so concerned. We've got a lot more serious problems than that.
The resurgent White Nationalist movement ( I thought about not using caps for their name) which has been "emboldened by Trumps victory," the losses of voter rights across Red America, Climate Change, and many more are far more problematic than how many Generals we've got in Trumps 'American board of directors.' We need to be more concerned about how they feel about some of these really troubling problems.
We just can't ignore or allow any elected President to encourage any of these things to fester into something more dangerous than they already are. They'll feed off each other until they become irreversible. On the other hand, the likelihood of a half dozen Generals manipulating enough of our Military into agreement to force our nation into some military coup is highly unlikely. There are far too many civilian firearms to get away with anything like that.
So if you must worry about something, worry that I didn't get my book published yet, or that my car doesn't get the kind of mileage I had hoped for. Or maybe some personal problem that couldn't be as important as mine. Or you could consider an old adage, 'What, me worry?'
The resurgent White Nationalist movement ( I thought about not using caps for their name) which has been "emboldened by Trumps victory," the losses of voter rights across Red America, Climate Change, and many more are far more problematic than how many Generals we've got in Trumps 'American board of directors.' We need to be more concerned about how they feel about some of these really troubling problems.
We just can't ignore or allow any elected President to encourage any of these things to fester into something more dangerous than they already are. They'll feed off each other until they become irreversible. On the other hand, the likelihood of a half dozen Generals manipulating enough of our Military into agreement to force our nation into some military coup is highly unlikely. There are far too many civilian firearms to get away with anything like that.
So if you must worry about something, worry that I didn't get my book published yet, or that my car doesn't get the kind of mileage I had hoped for. Or maybe some personal problem that couldn't be as important as mine. Or you could consider an old adage, 'What, me worry?'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)