If You Want To Run My Life, Walk In My Shoes.

       Why do you suppose Republicans fight tooth and nail to get government out of our lives? Small government or no government is best for Americans. Haven't you heard those kinds of arguments from conservative groups time and time again? Eliminate waste, stop supporting welfare queens, no more Cadillac driving welfare cheats and food stamp losers. Come-on, you know you've heard them and worse.
       But on the other hand Republicans and conservatives want to sit in your bedroom and tell you what and how you can live your life. They don't want birth control and they don't want abortions. They want to teach you to have and exercise the same morals as they claim you should follow. The word is on hold as to whether or not they follow those same rules.
       Now abortions are truly a bad idea, except in certain cases, but the point is they want to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. A man can get sex enhancement medications covered by health insurance, but a woman can't get birth control medications that are covered if Republicans get their way.
       So a baby is born, perhaps out of wedlock. What happens to that infant? Well, hey, Republicans have done their job, the child is born, their job is done, the kid is on his own. The mom has to try to support that child, work all day, pay for childcare and live a life. And Republicans want to eliminate welfare because it might teach mother and child to depend on handouts. The Right To Life is a misnomer. They need to change their name and their promotional material to read Right to Birth. After that, screw them.

Fact Or Alternative Fact?

       Okay, I talked about the EPA under President Trump the other day. Well now word has it that all science, studies and data of the EPA must first be reviewed by political appointees before releasing to the public. This can only mean that such science will be looked at to determine whether or not any alternative facts can be substituted for actual facts.
       I don't mean to be picky, but facts are, in fact, facts. And no amount of alternating can change that fact. You can claim one audience is larger than another, but the facts remain the facts. Even if you can convince large numbers of people that you are correct, the fact remains that you are not, in fact, correct, if you think a smaller crowd is larger than a larger crowd.
       I will admit, however, that sometimes political facts are actually alternative facts. That doesn't mean that political facts are true and honest, it only means they may be expedient. By that I mean that if a politician is claiming that his crowd is larger than his opponent's crowd, when in fact, his is smaller, he may still claim it and no foul is committed. It should be considered a foul, but it isn't.
       That's why politicians lie so often. They do it because they can. It has become expected of politicians. Of course some politicians make an art form of it. Some even call it alternative facts when confronted with the true facts. Then those such politicians demand their confronters yield to their interpretation of the facts. It's called Trumpism. Trumpism is a personality flaw to which some insecure politicians are drawn to.
       But to go so far as to try to erase actual scientific facts by having political appointees review and edit them to fit your own set of inaccurate presumptions without any basis in fact is inexcusable. In fact it borders on the dangerous. History proves that to ignore history dooms us to repeat its worst misadventures.

A Posterboard.

       Let's see what an import tax on Mexican goods to pay for the Trump Wall would mean. First, it would seriously upset our neighbor to the south. Second it would violate the terms of the NAFTA agreement, and third it would raise the costs of all products made in Mexico that we buy.
       What such an import tax would not do is hurt Mexico. Nor would Mexico pay that tax. We the taxpayers, we the consumers would pay that tax. So no, Trump would not be making Mexico pay for the Trump Wall, he'd be making us pay for the damn Trump Wall. Hey, if he wants that foolish wall, let him pay for it. That way he could paint his name all over it.
       And what about that wall? Does anyone believe that no matter how high it might be, there aren't ladders that are higher, and they can be built for a lot less money. Of course we could always use drones and radar and patrol agents to make sure nobody tries to cross over that damn wall. But couldn't we do all those things without building the Trump Wall? In fact I think we're already doing them. We just need to increase and improve those safeguards.
       Let's be honest, there is no way we can possibly stop every and all incursions. There will always be some few people who can steal across our borders. How about our ports of entry, our beaches, and yes, even our northern border. There simply is no way for America to become an impenetrable island unto itself. Lets get over ourselves. We can't secure our borders as Congress suggests without first resolving the immigration process. Modernizing our immigration laws would eliminate most of the illegal border crossings. So who needs a wall anyway. It'll just be a surface for graffiti.

The Roller-coaster Ride Has Begun.

      According to Reuters news, the Environmental Protection Agency was ordered to remove the climate page from its website. That's the page that discusses climate change. I can only assume the reason for its removal is that Mr. Trump has single handedly solved climate change. He must have pulled that one off while everyone was obsessing about the turnout for his inaugural speech or his count of illegal voters who all voted against him.
       The man is ambidextrous, of that we can be sure. He's an artist at slight of hand politics. He can make an inflammatory statement on the one hand while sort-of apologizing with the other. And with that third hand of his he can sign a presidential order affirming the original statement.
       In all fairness, he seems to be doing some things right. He's meeting with the captains of American industry and assuring them that he will make doing business in America much easier and less costly. That's a good thing. Actually putting those promises into practice legally will be quite another thing. Too bad so many illegals voted against him.
       But his transition team, on the other hand, has stopped all federal employees from communicating with congress or the media. But then backtracked on it in some agencies. And don't forget that he would have won the popular count by millions if not for all those fraudulent votes.
       I just wonder what will replace the climate page on the EPA website? Surely it will offer some insights into President Trump's brilliant successes in solving global warming and climate change both at the same time and eliminating smog all over the world as well. Because if he hasn't solved those problems then a lot of research and the work of years might be lost forever.
       Making forceful decisions is good for some things and at some times, but some serious thought needs to proceed those decisions for most issues. It seems that little thought has gone into such a move as turning his back on the sound science of climate change. 

Kellyanne Explains.

       Don't ya just love it? Kellyanne Conway, aid to President Trump, who in an interview with Chuck Todd explained that when the Whitehouse press secretary misstated the size of the inaugural crowd by a huge margin, she explained that the press secretary was presenting "Alternative facts." Alternative Facts? They were outright lies. Misinformation, okay, but alternative facts, no.
       What in the world is an alternative fact? If you see a bird fly over, that's a fact. An alternative fact would be to call it a dump truck. Or a guy carrying a bouquet of flowers might be alternatively called a machinegun. How about milking cow which is alternatively called an M1A1 tank. I like the idea of standing next to a guy who is actually the reincarnation of Marilyn Monroe. Now that's an alternative I could live with.
       Then Kellyanne proceeded to change the subject without answering the question which was "Why did the president ask his press secretary to come out and give a falsehood in the very first press conference of the new administration?" She never did answer it, except for the alternative fact baloney. Not even a pretense of being embarrassed, she was pleased with herself and the press release that millions were on hand to see Mr. Trump get sworn in. 
       It appears that we're in for a long four years of lies, untruths, false news releases, deceit and putdowns and now alternative facts, I guess. The problem with all that is that we're never going to know what foul deeds are being done or not done by this administration. Those who voted for Mr. trump will be the most disappointed because they believed in him. He's gonna let them down, but not gracefully so. 

They're At It Again!

       Hey, lets hear it for the N.R.A. They've figured out how to get way more people killed now. Gun silencers. That's right. Now the NRA is pushing for changes in gun laws to allow gun silencers. They claim its a safety issue. Ya know what? They're right, it is a safety issue. But not like they're talking about.
       What they're suggesting is that you can sneak up on a bad guy shooting people and start shooting at them and the bad guy won't know it until the bad guy is dead. You believe that? Guess what. If you could sneak up on the bad guy and shoot him with a gun with a silencer on it, don't you suppose the bad guys will have thought of that first?
       So while you're sitting in the movie theatre watching a great movie, everyone behind you is already dead from silenced gunshots. And you're next. But you won't know it until you fall to the floor dead. Your wife next to you with her silenced gun strapped to her thigh will think you had a heart attack until she gets one in the back of the head herself.
       Just how stupid do you think the NRA really is, anyway? So far bad guys can't get their hands on silencers. That's a very good thing. Make them publicly available and all bad guys will have them. This is nothing but a shameless excuse to sell more guns and gun equipment by the NRA, at the cost of thousands of future lives lost to gun violence. What morons came up with this idea? What idiots actually think its a good idea?
       If bad guys wind up with guns equipped with silencers, nobody will be safe unless you actually see people getting shot. At that point, the gunman can see you and probably has you in his sights. Speak out against the NRA on this one, they're dead wrong.

Number 45

       Well, today we have a new president. And while he doesn't yet have a cabinet, it's likely that he soon will and it will represent the .01% of America that he comes from. But it will be more than that. It will also have strong representation from the military. There are a very few exceptions including Gov. Rick Perry. He's not one of the .01% nor does he represent the military, he has, however, shown a strong desire to look out for the fossil fuel industry which will make the Koch brothers happy.
       Beyond his cabinet, there is his family who, it seems, will act as his defacto cabinet. They will also run his far flung businesses with a fun filled warning that if they don't make him even richer, he'll fire them. President Donald Trump was inaugurated yesterday as the 45th president of the United States of America.
       His family was dressed meticulously and his wife was especially well dressed. His campaign manager, Kelly Ann Conway was dressed like a little girl in a pretty military uniform. The highlight of the day was Mr. President's inaugural speech. It was an amateurish delivery of an amateurishly created address that left no confusion as to the isolationist approach to ruling Mr. Trump has intended for our country.
       President Donald Trump is the legitimately elected president of America. There is no question about that fact and it would be a good thing for our country if everyone just admitted it. Failing that, it would be helpful if our President ignored any and all complaints about his validity. His responsibility is to lead our country not engage in childish back and forth about how he lost the election or any other dig against him. Mr. President, grow a thicker skin.

Poor Memories But Rich Plans.

       Ya know when Republicans first started to hate Obamacare? When Obama first got elected. You think I'm kidding. Mitch McConnell stated the Republicans in the Senate would oppose any measure Obama put forward and they would make him a one term president. And the minute they first heard Obama and the Democrats were working on a healthcare program, the Republicans hated it more and said it would never work.
       Even before they saw any part of it, they hated it. Before it came up for a vote, they hated it. And true to their promise, not a single Republican voted for it, because they said it would not work. They hadn't seen it yet, but somehow they knew it wouldn't work. And in all the intervening years the Republicans tried as many as sixty times to repeal or defund it, because they hated it.
       Now, ya have to wonder why the Republicans hated Obamacare so much. Because so many Americans kinda love it. Somewhere around twenty three million Americans have it and seem to love it. Maybe they don't realize that they should hate the only healthcare they could ever afford.
       Well, now that they have a majority in the House, Senate and the Presidency, now they have the clout to repeal and replace. Ahh, except they don't have a replace plan. They never did. So if they repeal and then..... nothing, a lot of folks, a lot of voters are gonna be slightly mad, or maybe a whole lot mad. You don't suppose there never was a Republican plan to replace, on purpose, do you?
       The Republicans have always talked about replacing Medicaid with block grants and privatizing Medicare, heck they've even talked about privatizing Social Security, to go along with steep tax cuts for the super wealthy. The funny part is that none of those ideas are popular with the vast majority of Americans, only the super rich. Which might explain why they don't like Obamacare either. They don't like any of these programs because Americans, except for the super rich, do like the programs.
       It's not that I don't trust the Republicans to do what's best for Americans, its just that the plans they've always come up with help the super wealthy and tell the rest of us that it'll trickle down to us. Maybe trickle down our backsides. They tell us that a rising tide floats all boats, except that most of us can't afford a boat.

What's Porridge?

       Fake news is False news and good news is hard to find. What was a horrible injustice against America is now just fine, so grow up and rubber stamp anything we do. Its time to listen to the Minority President Elect. He is, after all, the legally elected President Elect. He's just not the Popularly Elected President Elect, by nearly three million votes. So, he's got a mandate to lead.
       Well, not exactly. What the Minority President Elect has is the legal right to lead. He actually lacks a mandate, but because of a, long ago, compromise he does have every right and the legal authority to lead our country. So grow up, eat your porridge and lump it. And that means that if he selects fellow billionaires for his cabinet with no experience in the nuances of public service, that's his business. He can lead the way he wants. If it hurts, it hurts.
       And what's all this fuss about conflicts of interest? So what if they get to decide what America should do? So what if those decisions could tend to increase their profits? There's no proof that they will. There's no proof that they won't either. Innocent until proven guilty. And by not completing all those pesky ethics forms, nobody will ever know if they profit by their decisions for America.
       And whatever you do, don't make any statements that could be construed to be anti-The Minority President Elect, because if you do you're gonna be tweeted to death. And after he's inaugurated you might just be investigated because he'll be the Minority President, no 'Elect' included.

Civil Service?

        You remember the hullabaloo over the Congressional attempt to gut the ethics office that got stopped in its tracks. Well, during all that furor, another rule slipped by unnoticed. It seems now that House members or Senators can reduce federal employees'  annual pay to $1. Apparently there was an obscure, 1876, procedural rule that now allows them to single out Federal employees who are protected by civil service because it was voted in according to an article in the Washington Post.
        So if a Congressman doesn't like the way you ignored his wishes he can get even. He may not be able to fire you, but he can reduce your income to $1 per year. You'd better be sure nobody knows how you voted last year and no signs in the yard. So if you're a nuclear physicist and you spoke out about a Senator who doesn't believe in science, be prepared to try to live on a buck a year. How does one make a house payment on a twelfth of a dollar?
       On that kind of income eating out would take on a whole new meaning. The rule was originally intended  as a hedge against political patronage, but now it will have a completely different use, that of payback. Of course Republicans in the House assured that such use would be unlikely. Ya know, I have a bridge to New York city I'd like to sell you at a very good price.
       I guess that from now on, if a ridiculous bill comes up and there's a big to-do about it, look for some other sneaky and bad bill to slip in. Yep, if you've got a particularly smelly piece of fish you want to pass off, wrap it in pretty paper with a bottle of cheap perfume. What this means is that civil service is really meaningless. They might not be able to fire you, but if you're only gonna get $! per year, you'll be looking for a new job.

Planned Parenthood.

       If 100 children were lined up on the playground and 3 of them decided to go back inside, even though that was allowed, would you punish all 100 because of those 3? That's what the Republicans in Congress are trying to do to Planned Parenthood. 3% of the services that Planned Parenthood provides to American women and across the world includes abortion. But only legal abortions are performed and no Federal funds are used for that purpose, NONE.
       But because PP does those very few abortions, all of which are completely legal, because they do provide that service and in many cases because of the medical necessity, because of that, the Republican members of Congress, in both houses, want to strip away all funding of Planned Parenthood. Why? PP is doing nothing illegal. In fact they're probably more concerned about doing right than all of the members of both parties in Congress.
       If the country made abortions completely illegal, Planned Parenthood would stop doing them, but its not illegal to perform an apportion under certain circumstances. Why do the Republicans continue to pick on PP? Don't they realize the good PP does? From STI and HIV tests to PAP tests and breast exams they serve millions of women, many at no cost.
       Maybe that's the problem. Maybe that's why Congressional Republicans can't stand PP. Maybe they don't like PP going around helping women who are poor. I mean why else would they get so hyper about a service provided to others. If they're poor, let them suffer. That'll teach them. Now that's just plain silly, but why should a bunch of old white men decide what or how women, and especially poor women, can care for their bodies. If Planned Parenthood disappears, so does the healthcare for millions of American women. That can't possibly be the reason for Republican conduct, can it?

Nominees.

       Two news conferences took place this morning that dealt with Supreme Court nominees. The first was with Sen. Chuck Schumer, leader of the minority party in the Senate. He discussed the nominee process and suggested that if a nominee was "too far out of the Mainstream" they would block such a nominee. But if a nominee was in the mainstream  they would give that nominee a fair hearing.
       The second news conference was with Sen. Mitch McConnell, majority leader in the Senate. He was appalled that the Democrats would try to block a nominee of Pres. Elect Trump to the Supreme Court. You might say that he, McConnell, considered Sen. Schumer of being an Oil Can Harry, a dastardly act by a true villain. Having seen both excerpt of the two conferences, I have to say that Sen. McConnell was able to keep a straight face throughout his conference, as did Sen. Schumer.
       The difference between the two Senators was that Schumer gave no indication of a blanket statement that they would oppose any nominee, only those outside the "mainstream."  On the other hand a blanket refusal to even hold a hearing on Pres. Obama's nominee Merrick Garland who is as close to a centrist as possible by McConnell and the Republicans, and held that position for about nine months. Why did the Republicans hold up on even meeting with Garland? Because they could. So now McConnell acts like he's startled by these statements from Schumer. As though he never heard of such conduct. And all this while keeping a straight face. But then I suppose that's why he's able to keep getting reelected.
       My guess is that Trump will forward a hard conservative nominee thinking a first nominee would get through, and that the Democrats will, in fact, block such a nominee, at which point McConnell will feign disbelief at such a dastardly act. They should all appear on Broadway.

New Ethics?

       Yesterday I pointed out how the Republican caucus, without the approval of Paul Ryan the speaker of the House, decided to strip the "Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) of its powers to hold ethics violators to account. I had misstated the official name and so am clearing that up. A number of House Republicans stated that the new rules would not actually change anything. The OCE would still do the same job.
       In fact what the change would have done was to "prevent the OCE from investigating potentially criminal allegations" according to an editorial in the New York times, it also allowed anyone on the House Ethics Committee to shut down any investigation they wanted, and put a gag order on all members of the OCE from mentioning anything to the press. These are all ways in which they could drain the swamp and improve the OCE.
       Except I thought draining the swamp meant to cut out  the abuse of ethics that the House Ethics Committee traditionally allowed and allow the independent Office of Congressional Ethics to do its job of enforcing ethics by any of the means granted them. Its amazing how a little public shaming can change how a politician acts in private.
       Well, after some public shaming of the Republican caucus on the subject of the powers of the OCE the night before, they suddenly reversed their vote and allowed the OCE to continue unfettered, for now. Like I said, a little public shaming goes a long way and a lot of shaming works even faster. But to think the Republicans actually wanted to eliminate any real obstruction from them committing ethics violations is a moral dilemma. And I don't want you to think that some Democrats wouldn't have voted to strip the OCE also. Unethical conduct is a bi-partisan trait. There's nothing new about that.

Ethics.

       In a move to better serve Congress and provide Congress with better control over any and all complaints against any member of the House of Representatives, the Republican Caucus voted, in secret, to remove the independence from the Independent Ethics Office, according to a New York times report. What it means is that the IEO which had its own investigators who were charged with following up on any complaints or media accusations of wrong doing. The full committee would then turn their findings over to the House Ethics Committee for action.
       Since the Republicans are in the majority, there is no reason to except any change when the full House votes on it. What it means is that now the Independent Ethics Office will have no authority to pick on any member of the house unless the House gives them the OK.
       So why did this happen? Some members of the House complained that the investigators were too aggressive in their investigations. My guess is that the investigators asked questions that some members of the House found to be uncomfortable. You know, like if you were doing something unethical, you certainly wouldn't want some nosey investigator poking around asking questions about that activity, now would you.
       Now you would suppose that the House Ethics Committee will handle any ethics questions that come up from now on, except that the HEC doesn't actually care  a whole heck of a lot. See, you have to remember that the House Ethics Committee is answerable to the members of the house. In other words if a complaint comes in about a Representative, likely that Representative will find fault with that complaint and the HEC will likely pitch the complaint into the circular file, waste basket.
       What this all means is that you can kiss ethics in our House of Representatives goodbye. They've never been high on ethics anyway, so they won't miss it. But for us, ethics by our representation in Congress is somewhat important.