Why Democrats Lost — and What They Must Do Next

Robert Reich and I have at least one thing in common.  He hates bullies and so do I.  In his most recent book, “Coming Up Short”, he talks about how he had to deal with bullies because he was so short.  My dad was 6’4” tall and could often be a bully.  I had enough abuse from him growing up that I also came to hate bullies.  I had many fights when I was younger where I defended either myself or equally often other people physically against bullies.  Robert Reich points out that one major reason for Trump’s popularity is that he is a Bullie’s Bully.   Millions of Americans who have been bullied by an unjust system of economics, education, justice, health care and government see Trump as their protector or even savior.  Reich notes:

“A large portion of America has felt bullied and harassed for decades. They’ve worked their asses off but haven’t gotten anywhere. Employers have fired them without cause or notice, made them into contract workers without any security or rights, spied on them during working hours, and otherwise treated them like children.

They’ve been bullied by landlords who keep hiking their rent. By banks that keep adding large fees to whatever they owe. By health insurers and hospitals that charge them an arm and a leg. By corporate grocery monopolies that push up food prices.

Many of them voted for Trump because he promised he’d be their bully. He blamed others — immigrants, people of color, transgender people, foreign traders — for what they endured. He thereby found scapegoats for their deep feelings of powerlessness, vulnerability, and shame. It’s one of the oldest of demagogic tricks.

Democrats could have put the blame where it belonged — on monopolistic corporations and billionaires that abused their wealth and power by taking over our politics.

Democrats could have demanded higher taxes on big corporations and the wealthy to pay for childcare and eldercare. Tougher antitrust laws to break up monopolies. Labor law reforms that made it easier for workers to form unions and gain bargaining power. Universal health care. Strict regulation of big banks so they couldn’t shaft average people. And an end to big money in our politics.

But they have not — not loudly, not with one voice, not with the clarity the people need to hear.” — Robert Reich 8/24/25

The 2024 election is already being dissected in books and think-tank reports, but the clearest story is this: Democrats misread the electorate as well as deserted the electorate.  Caught up in arguments over gender identify, abortion rights and WOKE manifestos, the Democrats preached to a crowd with more important concerns on their minds.  Jefferson said that Democracy was a rule of the majority with a concern for the minority.  Democrats have reversed his message.  They now practice a rule for the minority with little or no concern for the majority. 

They believed that campaigning on democracy and abortion rights would be enough to hold the White House.  Those are vital issues, but voters were telling pollsters something else — they were worried most about the price of groceries, rent, and gas.  In swing districts, immigration and border control loomed even larger.  By downplaying those concerns, Democrats left the playing field wide open for Republicans.

Validated voter studies show that turnout favored 2020 Trump voters.  Younger and non-white men — groups Democrats once counted on — swung toward Republicans in significant numbers.  Many of these voters wanted practical answers on wages, security, and fairness.  They didn’t get them.

So, what must Democrats do if they hope to regain the House, Senate, or Presidency?  Three steps stand out.  

First, make the economy the front page of their campaigns, with plain talk about jobs, housing, and cost of living.  Find people who can speak the language of the average American and not in a voice only understood by Ph.D. graduates.  I am often bewildered by the terminology that some of the Democrats throw out.  Yesterday, I learned that the new vocabulary for “homeless” people is now “unhoused” people.  Do the Democrats really think this is going to make a difference to the people living in cardboard boxes throughout America? 

When I look at the new head of the Democratic National Committee (Ken Martin), I see a man who exemplifies everything that is wrong with the Democrats.  If his bio on Wikipedia is to be believed, Ken never did a day’s physical labor in his life (At least not in any paid position.) What makes this an even more grievous fact, is that he was given this position after Harris’s loss to Trump.  I doubt a guy with his background has any clue about the problems of the working class in America.  By the way, I am sure Ken is a nice guy, a good husband and a good father.  But that is not going to get Democrats elected.

Second, develop a credible immigration strategy that pairs border security with fair reforms.  Like it or not, immigration has been a major issue for Americans because as Reich noted, both parties have demonized immigrants as vulgar, uncouth, criminals who only want to take jobs away from legal Americans.  This is not an unusual state of affairs.  Even Benjamin Franklin had his biases when it came to immigrants.  Many of these changed over time as Ben observed the habits and ethics of other immigrant groups to the colonies. 

I have said we need a “fair immigration policy” and not an “anti-immigration policy.”  A number of years ago (at least seven) I wrote a series of blogs on the subject of immigration as I could witness it down here in Arizona.  You might say that we are on the front lines of immigration and have a long history of immigration.  The land I now live on was once part of Mexico until the Gadsden Purchase in 1853.  Some of my neighbors have history going back to Mexico over two hundred years.  See my blogs:

Third, speak in everyday language.  Too often Democrats rely on insider jargon that alienates working families.  Like it or not, most Democrats have become associated with the idea of PC or political correctness.  I am no enemy of using terminology that minorities and others find more respectful and less insulting.  However, some of the PC efforts have become ludicrous and only help to make the Democrats laughing stocks and open to scorn from the very people they need to help support them.  Here are a few examples:

  1. The use of “people experiencing food insecurity”

In May 2025, a debate over language use within the Democratic party was highlighted by the Washington Post.  One specific example given was referring to individuals as “people experiencing food insecurity” instead of the more direct phrase “people going hungry” or maybe even people “starving to death”!

  1. The replacement of gendered terms like “spokesman”

The movement towards gender-neutral language has led to the replacement of many words to avoid implying a specific gender, regardless of the individual’s identity.  For instance, the term “spokesperson” is often used instead of “spokesman” or “spokeswoman.”  I have a problem remembering which words to use.  Should I say fireman or fireperson?  Should I say postman or postperson?  Should I say fisherman or fisherperson?  Of course I do not want to offend anybody, so the only answer is to say nothing?  Or should I check with each fisherperson first to see what they prefer?  How do you say fisherperson in Spanish?

  1. “Person of color” (POC) instead of “minority”

Some find the term “POC” to be an overly broad and imprecise label that lumps together many distinct racial and ethnic groups, despite its progressive origins.  I am concerned about this label since I have always thought that being a White person I had some color.  I realize that many people see White people as more pink hued than white, but pink is still a color even if I do not like the idea of being a Pink person. 

In Conclusion:

Democrats do not need to abandon values of equality and freedom.  They need to marry those values to tangible solutions that the average people can feel in their daily lives.  They need to drop some of the bullshit that makes everyone think of them as WIMPS.  They need to fight and not keep talking about “hands” across the aisle.  When someone punches me in the face, I do not hand them a rose.  If Democrats want a path back to governing majorities they are going to have to:

  • Walk like the majority
  • Talk like the majority
  • Act like the majority

As long as Democrats insist on being isolated people who live in expensive mansions and go to exclusive Ivy League colleges,  they will not have a chance to get back into power.  Don’t tell me about their good intentions.  As the saying goes “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” — Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153)

 

Who Spreads More Bullshit?  Fox Propaganda Network or CNN Clickbait Press?

Excuse me for the euphemisms I used in the title for our leading right wing and left wing paid media.  In reality, they are both brothers or sisters in that their “raison d’etre” is to make money.  It is not (as our founding fathers would have hoped) to “educate and inform” the citizenry.

I am taking a short break with this blog from my skewering of some notable conspiracy theories to address the above question since the purveyors of the misinformation, lies and bullshit are even more culpable than the morally corrupt who start these scandalous lies.  In fact, the media are even more guilty since they profit mightily from keeping these conspiracies going.  The following information comes from my favorite muse ChatGPT.

The question of whether Fox News or CNN spreads more misinformation, lies, or disinformation is highly contentious and often depends on political perspective. However, we can ground an answer in media studies, fact-checking data, lawsuits, and journalistic standards rather than ideology.

________________________________________

🔍 Definitions Matter

  • Misinformation: False or misleading information, shared unintentionally.
  • Disinformation: Deliberately false information, spread with intent to deceive.
  • Lies: Knowingly false statements.

________________________________________

🧾 Fact-Checking and Analysis

  1. Independent Fact-Checkers (e.g., PolitiFact, Media Bias/Fact Check, Ad Fontes Media)

Source    Reliability Rating     Bias Rating

CNN          Mixed to High         Lean Left

Fox News  Mixed to Low         Right to Far Right

  • CNN has been cited for mistakes, especially with anonymous sourcing, but generally corrects errors and upholds mainstream journalistic standards.
  • Fox News has a split personality:
    • Its news division (e.g., Bret Baier) tends to be more factual.
    • Its opinion shows (e.g., Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity) have been repeatedly flagged for spreading falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and disinformation.

________________________________________

⚖️ Legal Evidence: Dominion Lawsuit Against Fox News

  • In 2023, Fox News settled for $787.5 million with Dominion Voting Systems for knowingly spreading false election fraud claims after the 2020 election.
  • Internal emails showed Fox personalities and executives knew the claims were false but aired them to retain viewers.
  • This is a clear-cut example of deliberate disinformation for profit and political gain.

CNN has not faced a comparable legal loss for deliberate disinformation.

________________________________________

🔥 High-Profile Incidents

Topic                                       CNN                                                         Fox News

Iraq War (2002–03)     Supported invasion initially                  Strongly promoted WMD narrative

COVID-19                       Mixed messaging                                  Spread vaccine/mask disinformation

2020 Election Fraud   Rejected false claims                             Amplified fraud theories

January 6th                  Framed as insurrection                            Justified actions

________________________________________

📊 Public Trust & Academic Studies

  • Studies (e.g., from MIT, Harvard, Pew) show that Fox News viewers tend to be less accurately informed on major events compared to viewers of CNN, PBS, or BBC.
  • CNN has been accused of bias and sensationalism, but rarely of systematic disinformation.

________________________________________

Conclusion

Fox News, especially its opinion programming, has a more substantial and well-documented record of spreading disinformation and lies, particularly when politically or commercially advantageous.

CNN is not without bias or error, and sometimes engages in editorial framing that reflects a liberal viewpoint, but it has stronger mechanisms for fact-checking, corrections, and accountability.

Conclusions:

My conclusions are to avoid the mainstream paid for profit media as much as possible.  Broaden your media choices to include podcasts, webcasts, articles published by independents or people that you admire.  Be careful of anything or anyone selling you something or who has a profit motive in hand.

  • Do not rely on any one source for your information.
  • Do not accept anything as gospel truth
  • Verify and corroborate any information you receive
  • Be tentative: Move information up a hierarchy as more data and sources support the information. 
  • Be open to other opinions. Do not accept anyone’s word as 100 truth
  • My father used to say “Believe nothing of what you hear and ½ of what you see. I still think that is good advice. 

Debunking Bullshit Lies and Conspiracies – Barack H. Obama

For the next several days, I am going to wade into some lies and/or conspiracies that were spread to discredit, dishonor and destroy some outstanding people.  If you are tired of hearing about stuff like this, than turn me off for the next week or two.  My intention is to publish one of these stories every few days.  I was motivated to do these stories by some discussions with Trump supporters.  I was amazed at the number of conspiracy theories they believed in that I knew were false.

I am not sure why more information never gets made public to debunk such lies.  It seems the mainstream media does nothing to help dispel the vicious slander and conspiracy theories that are spread about men and women.  People who have the courage to attack a corrupt system or withhold their support for a corrupt system.

Was Obama a US Citizen legally able to run for president?  What was behind the “birther” controversy?

Barack Obama was a U.S. citizen and legally eligible to run for president. He was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii, which had become a U.S. state in 1959—two years before his birth. Therefore, he was a natural-born U.S. citizen, which meets the constitutional requirement to serve as President.

What Was the “Birther” Controversy?

The “birther” movement was a conspiracy theory that falsely claimed Obama was not born in the United States and thus was ineligible to be president. Here’s a breakdown of the controversy:

  1. Origins

It began during Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Some of the earliest claims came from fringe political activists and chain emails.

The theory suggested he was born in Kenya, his father’s homeland, and not Hawaii.

  1. Claims and Misinformation

Critics demanded Obama release his long-form birth certificate (he had already released a short-form certificate in 2008).

Despite this, the theory persisted, fueled by blogs, talk radio, and later Donald Trump, who became the most prominent figure promoting the claim from around 2011 onward.  Sadly, the mainstream media ate this bullshit up and helped spread it.  Trump rode the wave of crap to become a media celebrity with a vast number of supporters who were racist and xenophobid and wanted to believe this crap.  Almost all major studies showed that in the first trump election, racism played a major role in trump’s victory.  Some have said “MAGA” was a metaphor for make America White again.

  1. Proof and Rebuttal

In April 2011, Obama released his long-form birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health, confirming his Honolulu birth.

Multiple fact-checking organizations (e.g., FactCheck.org, Snopes, PolitiFact) and Hawaii officials confirmed its authenticity.

  1. Underlying Motivations

While it may have appeared to be a legal challenge, many observers and scholars argue the movement was racially and politically motivated:

It played on xenophobic and racist fears, implying that a Black man with a non-Anglo name was somehow “foreign.”

It undermined Obama’s legitimacy and authority, even after he was elected and serving.

Conclusions

The “birther” controversy was thoroughly debunked, but it had lasting effects. It sowed mistrust, polarized political discourse, and elevated conspiracy-based rhetoric in American politics. Barack Obama was and always has been a natural-born U.S. citizen and legally eligible to be President of the United States.

The Hypocrisy of Paywalls and Political Campaign Contributions

If you are reading this blog, you will note two aspects of my blog that might be salient.  They will only be evident if you look closely.  First, there is no Paywall.  I charge nothing for my ideas.  Indeed, I encourage you to repost or use my ideas in any way that you think will help others.  Second, there are no advertisements.  I take no money from anyone.  I am beholden to no companies or corporations for endorsements or financial remuneration.  If anyone does not like what I say, that is their problem.  I am free and unencumbered to say it and you are free and unencumbered to read it.  No sixty second sound bites from anyone before you can plow ahead.  The only thing standing between you and my blog are the bits and bytes of your computer and the speed of your Internet provider.

I point the above out because it seems that what is obvious to me is not obvious to others.  Most of us know that the USA and its government is seriously broken.  It is dysfunctional, immoral and often now illegal and unconstitutional.  What is the biggest reason for this?  Simple.  Money and greed and the power that money begets.  Ergo, if money is as they say, “The Root of All Evil,” than how can asking for more money fix the problem.  Imagine if there were a fire burning in your house and you tried to put it out by throwing money on it?  Well, that is what too many people are trying to do. 

Many bloggers are now asking for money before you can read their blogs.  How do they think this will make the world a better place to live?  “Just give me money and I will share my wonderful ideas with you.”  In other words, I am no different than the other greedy people who would sell their souls for a few dollars.  I will sell my soul for a few bucks that I might make on Substack or some other place that allows Paywalls and advertisements.

If you think advertisements are benign and harmless, you are delusional.  Madison Avenue and the corporate advertising machine are the number one brainwashers in America.  They are the primary reason that people keep spending and spending.  Madison Avenue exists to convince you that you are inadequate and that if you only buy product X, it will make you feel better and bestow happiness on your life.  Than, you only have to keep buying more to stay happy.  Think of the junk that you see every day trying to be sold to suckers to make their lives better.  Not a prophet in history preached that you can have a better life by having more things.  If you support advertising, you support this evil concept.  The foundation of this concept is Greed that pervades Corporate America. 

Next we have politicians whose every message ends with “SEND MONEY” or “DONATE TO MY CAMPAIGN.”  I cannot think of a campaign or revolution in history from Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon or Lenin to Toussaint Louverture or Simon Bolivar or Gandhi or Martin Luther King, where they sent out advertising brochures or flyers asking for money.  They might have solicited soldiers or workers but people not money were their primary objectives.  You of course can argue that some of these individuals had the power and resources of the state to fund their campaigns.  I concede that this is true.  However, it is equally true that without people, their campaigns and revolutions would have failed. 

I see too many politicians who seem to believe that if they can only get enough money, they will then be able to buy enough advertising to convince you to vote for them.  Nothing could be more stupid.  Harris spent nearly a ¼ billion dollars more than trump during the last election and obviously lost.  All of her money did her no good.  Nor did her celebrity endorsements.  The day after the elections, the DNC asked for more money to defeat trump’s policies.  [By the way, the CEO of ActBlue, the major fundraiser for the Democrats has a gross salary of approximately $500,000 dollars a year and many of the senior executives of this organization make well over $100,000 dollars a year.  This should dispel any notion you have that fundraisers for the Democrats are benevolent donors of their time and energy.] 

The other point about advertising’s power to convince anyone to vote concerns the voters themselves.  How many trump supporters do you think changed their mind because they listened to or watched a Harris ad?  How many Harris supporters do you think changed their mind because they watched a trump ad?  And what of the thirty-three percent of the people who did not vote?  A percentage that has remained roughly the same since the first voting in this country for George Washington.  Nearly every election a third of Americans DO NOT vote.  How many of these non-voters do you think changed their mind to vote for either Harris or trump because of some cute and slick campaign ad?  Madison Avenue is laughing their asses off every time an election comes around because they are the real winners.  As the famous pianist Liberace once said, “I am laughing my way all the way to the bank.” 

Einstein once made the following two profound statements, “We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking we used when we created them” and “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”  We are insane if we think that we are going to change a system based on greed and money by simply donating more money to fund this system.  What could be more preposterous than this idea?

Let me tell you a little story that I experienced in the 2024 election.  A friend of ours from church decided to run for state representative.  I believe that she supported many if not most of the same policies that I do.  However, I told her as well as others that I knew that I was no longer donating money to any campaigns.  We discussed some ideas at church one day and she was very pro-education, and she thought that we needed to do some things differently.  I gave her my personal card and said that I would be happy to discuss some of my ideas on education.  Ideas that come from teaching for over fifty years now.  A short time later,  she sent me a notice that she was hosting a campaign fund raiser.  I was somewhat surprised since I thought I made it clear that I would not donate money to anyone for a campaign effort.  I was also perplexed since I believed in her ideas, and I admired her personally.  Nevertheless, I decided to stick with my convictions about money.  Instead, I sent her an email saying that “I would not make campaign donations, but I would help her with phone calls, signs or going door to door.” 

Weeks went by.  She never called to set up a time to talk to me about my theories of changing education nor did she ever call to ask me to help physically in any way with her campaign.  Come the election, she lost to her opposition by a 56 to 44 margin.  Would my help have made any difference, or would my money have made any difference?  I have no way of knowing.

During the last election, being a guest on Podcasts has emerged as a new political tool and strategy.  Judging by the election results, it might be a better strategy than the money wasted on advertising.  Some data concerning the visibility that trump gained versus Harris gained on podcasts are as follows:

Trump’s Appearances/Mentions: Trump has been mentioned in or appeared on a significantly larger number of podcasts, with nearly 70,000 instances, according to Brookings, citing Ivy, a podcast discovery service.

Harris’s Appearances/Mentions: Kamala Harris has been mentioned in or appeared on a little over 12,000 podcasts.

This data suggests that while Trump had more individual podcast appearances, he also received substantially more mentions or coverage across a wider range of podcasts compared to Harris.

A friend of mine recently called me up to tell me that I should watch Pete Buttigieg on a Podcast called Flagrant with a guy named Andrew Schulz.  Four other young males of various ethnicities all casually dressed flanked Shultz and Buttigieg as they engaged in a casual banter about life and politics.  

This podcast and others of the same ilk have nothing in common with the traditional sit-down interviews that politicians used to have on shows such as Face the Nation and 60 minutes.  Podcasts like Flagrant are like sitting in your buddies living room or Arizona Room and slurping a beer while casually discussing the latest news.  Not a woman was present in the room with Buttigieg and Schulz.  A more or less macho image pervaded the discussions.  It seem macho has become the new norm in politics today.  Women can stay in the kitchen while the men hide out in their man caves and solve the problems of the world. 

My friend had asked me what I thought of Buttigieg?  I wondered if Pete attending all the macho podcasts was a strategy to set him up for the next election cycle.  I have a strong belief  that is what his advisors are endorsing.  Perhaps this is being pragmatic and simply making maxim use of the new media.  Or perhaps it is targeting the same demographic that trump targeted so successfully.  I queried ChatGPT to get the results on trump’s election demographics.  They were as follows:

| White voters (overall) | ~80–82% | Largest core group |

| White evangelical Protestants | ~82% (South); 43% of R base | Bedrock core |

| Latino voters | 46–48% | Historically high support |

| Latino men | ~54–55% | Key swing within Latino support |

| Asian Americans | ~40% | +10-point gain since 2020 |

| Black voters | ~15% (esp. young men) | Doubled since 2020 |

| Young men | ~55–56% | Social media & influencer effect |

A reasonable estimate for men aged 25–45 is around 50–52% of Trump voters.  This is a majority of his voting demographic.  Watch some of the podcasts like Joe Rogan and Flagrant and you tell me what demographic you think they are appealing to.  Rogan averages 11 million views on Spotify and Flagrant (numbers are not public) is estimated to be in the millions with specific episodes passing ten million viewers.  With these numbers and the type of audience watching, millions of dollars on traditional advertising is a waste of time and money. 

Conclusions:

  • If you want change in this country, do not send another dime to a politician.
  • If you must fund any politician, look at how many PACs they subscribe to or how many lobbyists they get funding from. Stay away from any with PACs hiding under aliases like Patriots for Freedom or Americans for Liberty.
  • Donate your time and talent to anyone running for public office before you donate any money.
  • Encourage your choice for office to get out there and talk to people. Consider people for office who can really relate to the people who are going to elect them.  Any lawyer that went to a private high school and then graduated Summa Cum Laude from Harvard and never served a day in the military or put in an honest days work is not likely to know the problems of the common people. 
  • Think before you send any money to anyone. What are they going to use your money for? 
  • If you have a printing press in your house or a tree that grows money, than by all means, send all the money you want. While you are at it, could you send me a few thousand dollars? 

P.S. 

Before I could even get this blog up, I get an email from the new “Hero” of the Democratic Party telling me the following and three times asking for donations in the same email.

“We will need to run the largest and most effective campaign in history for the next five months to win the general election. The same billionaires whose money could not stop us before, are throwing everything they have to crush us. And the reality is that they are going to go after any candidate in any part of the country who dares to champion working people.”

“What we will achieve together sends a message across America — and throughout the world.

The people can topple political dynasties. The people can build coalitions. The people can win.

So join our movement and lets bring forward a new generation of leadership.

In solidarity,”

Zohran Mamdani

Donate »

Donate »

ChatGPT Political Analysis of the Next Three Weeks Following the US Bombing of Iran

Here is a realistic 3-week scenario following a U.S. (or Israeli/U.S.-backed) bombing of Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites. This projection assumes a limited strike—targeting key facilities like Natanz, Fordow, or Isfahan—rather than a full-scale war. It also assumes no immediate regime change in Tehran.


🔥 Week 1: Shock, Assessment, and Initial Response

Day 1–3: Aftermath of the Strike

  • Iran confirms the bombing, accuses the U.S. (and possibly Israel), and vows retaliation.
  • Images of destroyed facilities emerge. The regime uses this to unify internal dissent and condemn “Western aggression.”
  • Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the IRGC declare that Iran will “respond at a time and place of its choosing.”
  • Oil prices spike sharply (10–20%) due to fears of escalation and threats to the Strait of Hormuz.

Day 4–7: Iran Responds Indirectly

  • Proxy attacks begin:
    • Rockets fired at U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria.
    • Possible drone attacks on Gulf infrastructure (e.g., Aramco facilities in Saudi Arabia).
  • Cyberattacks ramp up—U.S. financial institutions, oil pipelines, or water utilities may be hit.
  • Hezbollah increases alert status in southern Lebanon; Israel prepares for possible northern front flare-up.

🔥🔥 Week 2: Retaliation and Global Response

Day 8–14: Asymmetric Escalation

  • Strait of Hormuz Incident:
    • Iran attempts to seize or disable an oil tanker or mines a portion of the sea lane. U.S. Navy increases patrols.
    • Insurance rates for shipping skyrocket; some companies suspend traffic through the Gulf.
  • Missile or drone attacks on Israel may occur via proxies in Lebanon or Syria.
  • Iran announces its withdrawal from the NPT and ends cooperation with the IAEA.
  • U.S. embassies in the region face protests or limited violence. Evacuations begin in unstable areas (e.g., Iraq, Lebanon).

Global Diplomatic Reaction

  • U.N. Security Council convenes emergency meetings, but permanent members (Russia, China) back Iran’s right to respond.
  • European allies urge restraint but face domestic protests over perceived U.S. recklessness.
  • China and Russia increase energy imports from Iran, attempting to buffer sanctions.

🔥🔥🔥 Week 3: Brinkmanship or Stabilization

Day 15–21: Critical Crossroads

Two scenarios could unfold:


Scenario A: De-escalation (40% chance)

  • Backchannel diplomacy via Qatar, Oman, or Switzerland opens dialogue.
  • Iran agrees to “limited retaliation” in exchange for no further U.S. strikes.
  • The U.S. and EU explore a new diplomatic framework—one that includes regional actors like Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
  • A global coalition calls for a new nuclear deal—but it may be even harder to achieve than the JCPOA.

Scenario B: Continued Escalation (60% chance)

  • A U.S. base suffers major casualties from a proxy missile barrage.
  • Israel launches strikes on Hezbollah or targets IRGC units in Syria.
  • Iran threatens all-out war if attacked again. Military activity intensifies around Hormuz.
  • Gulf states (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain) enter high alert, and the U.S. begins moving naval strike groups into the region.
  • A wider regional war becomes a real possibility—though all sides remain cautious of going “over the edge.”

🧭 Strategic Implications

  • Iran may emerge stronger in domestic politics, despite the strike, by unifying nationalist sentiment.
  • The global economy suffers, with energy markets roiled and major supply chain uncertainty.
  • Diplomacy is damaged for years; no near-term nuclear agreement will be politically possible in Iran.
  • The risk of miscalculation is extremely high—especially if any party overestimates their deterrence or underestimates their adversary’s resolve.

It will be very interesting to follow this AI analysis and see how closely it approximates events in the next three weeks. Let us all pray that it does not result in a third world war.

Defying tyranny: Maria Ressa on journalism under authoritarian rule

I heard this interview with Maria Ressa on Arizona Public Radio the other morning.  Her experiences in the Philippines with another would be dictator point the way the USA under Trump and his fascist thugs and sycophantic Republican cohorts has us headed.  This is one of the most interesting and insightful interviews I have heard in the past ten years.

Journalist Maria Ressa, the co-founder of the Filipino investigative news site Rappler, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and the author of “How to Stand Up to a Dictator,” speaks with The World’s Carolyn Beeler. They discuss how the slide toward authoritarianism Ressa experienced firsthand in the Philippines is eerily similar to what she’s seeing today in the US. — “The World,”  May 1, 2025, By Joy Hackel

When journalist Maria Ressa, the co-founder of the Filipino investigative news site Rappler, looks around America, she sees something all too familiar.

Ressa, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and the author of “How to Stand Up to a Dictator,” spent much of her career working as a journalist in the Philippines — and she was arrested several times during the reign of the authoritarian leader Rodrigo Duterte for the outlet’s reporting, often calling out corruption under his regime.

“I’ve learned through the six years of Rodrigo Duterte that you have to hold the line,” Ressa said. “You have to fight for your rights, because every day you do not, you lose more.”

Ressa said that Duterte tried shutting down Rappler in 2018 and 2019. And then, something shifted for the author.

“I had 10 arrest warrants in a little over a year,” she said. “Those cases have continued until today.”

Ressa has won eight of the 10 cases against her, with two more trials to go. And she’s not the only one awaiting trial.

Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Ressa of the Philippines gestures as she speaks during the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony at Oslo City Hall, Norway on Dec. 10, 2021. A Philippine tax court on Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2023 cleared Ressa and her online news company of tax evasion charges she said were part of a slew of legal cases used by former President Rodrigo Duterte to muzzle critical reporting.

“So, Rodrigo Duterte is gone,” she said. “This president was the first social media president elected with Facebook’s help. But he was just arrested in March on an ICC arrest warrant for crimes against humanity, and he is in prison in The Hague. My president — who tried to jail me — is in jail, waiting trial.”

Ressa joined The World’s Host Carolyn Beeler to discuss what aspects of her experience she found most relevant to understanding how a free press can come under attack.

Carolyn Beeler: How does it feel to know that he is in jail and you are still free? And do you reflect on the role that you may or may not have played in that?

Maria Ressa: We kept doing our jobs, which is our investigative reports, chronicling, putting faces to the countless people who have died in a brutal drug war. This is now being used as evidence. Our reporter, who worked on the drug war, wrote a book that became a New York Times bestseller. It’s called “Some People Need Killing.” That’s a phrase that one of the vigilantes told her. The president, like this US president, makes the attack very personal, but I think what I learned is — and I’m an old-style journalist in this sense — I treated the office with respect. And I just had to have faith that doing the right thing is the right thing; that you hold on to the line, that you do not compromise. There are many, many instances, and business will lead the way. We were not the first news organization attacked. We were the third. The first was the top newspaper, the second [was] a top television station. The top newspaper, within two weeks, said it would sell to a friend of President Duterte. It ultimately did not. But the top broadcasters, a news group I managed for six years, tried to negotiate with President Duterte, and they lost their license to operate. And even though Duterte is out of power, they cannot broadcast anymore.

So, there’s still damage done to the free press, even though he is sitting in jail?

It’s not even that there’s still damage. It’s that the damage that is done will not go away without tremendous effort. So, the largest broadcaster doesn’t have a license, a franchise to operate today. And those licenses, those franchises were given to the friends of Duterte. It is creating an oligarchy. Really, it’s leading to kleptocracy. I think the two things — and this is actually very similar here — you need to look at the level of corruption. You need to look at who benefits from this. You know, you look today at what’s happening in America, not many news groups covered the pausing of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which is essentially the US government saying in order to be competitive, go be corrupt.”

You’ve been drawing these comparisons about what happened in the Philippines and what is happening now, it sounds like, in the US. But I’m wondering, to what extent is it really fair to compare those two very different countries?

Two very different countries, but we have a constitution that is patterned after the United States. Three co-equal branches of government, a bill of rights that’s almost exactly like the United States. And what happened in the Philippines — tell me if this sounds familiar — is a very strong executive that pushed it and co-opted the Legislature, so he gained tremendous power, and the judiciary that ultimately, in the end, crumbled. Well, I can’t say things like that publicly, let’s just say that’s someone else’s analysis. But look, if the checks and balances don’t work, and what you realize is that checks and balances of institutions depend on the men and women who will carry those out. And when a president — and I can again say from the Philippines, President Duterte appointed 6,000-plus people to top positions — when they are both ignorant and arrogant and use their power to kill the checks and balances, use their power [to get] more power, then you have nothing stopping this. And we watched our history change in front of our eyes. It’s déjà vu.

Duterte was a very popular leader. What was it like battling such a popular leader when you were so often up against him?

Look, in Cambridge Analytica, the country that had the most-compromised accounts was America. The country with the second-most number of compromised accounts was the Philippines. The Cambridge Analytica whistleblower said that they tested tactics of mass manipulation in our country, and when it worked, they used it in [the US]. So, popularity is manipulated. When you have a design of a platform, when it’s designed for maximum profit to keep you scrolling, what they found out is — and they have this data — when lies spread six times faster — that’s an MIT study from 2018, this is on social media — when lies spread six times faster at least, and then in our data, we saw that if you lace it with fear, anger and hate … it spreads virally. That’s part of the reason our values are upside down. We are rewarding the worst behavior of people. So, popularity, I guess, what I’m saying here is I think a lot of this is manipulated.

But was Duterte able to do what he was able to do because of his popularity? How did that play into his ability to control and take so much power?

He wouldn’t be able to do all that if we didn’t have a behavior modification system at his disposal [social media]. Data is gold. Data is how we’re manipulated. And data privacy with the new technology — and I’m not just talking about social media AI, but also generative AI — with this new technology, is a myth. This is how control happens. And this is part of the reason, look … The technology companies have figured out how to hack our biology, to hack the way we feel, which changes the way we think, which then changes the way we act in the real world and ultimately, changes the way we vote. So, back to your question … he’s really popular. Really, really popular? Why? How? Were our fears manipulated to make it that way? Were we given false promises? Was democracy crushed in that popularity?

Based on your experience, what do you see as the most-effective ways to tackle the attack on data privacy, this onslaught of misinformation that may or may not be manipulating our feelings about our government or our leaders?

I’ll step back to say what we did. We survived six years of Duterte. Our lawyers told me, you know, “You’re crazy,” in some of the things that we did. But, I think you just, you hold the line, right? Because by coming at you through taxes, through business ends … the businesses themselves and news organizations are under attack anyway. So, I think the first is that when you hold the line, you get out of the virtual world. In 2012, when Rappler was first formed, my elevator pitch getting there was [that] we build communities of action and the food we feed our communities is journalism. So, we moved into the physical world. And what we found was that our communities are there. Fear is real. And in the Philippines, there were an average of eight dead bodies dumped every night in Metro Manila. One team going out every night, and we would just have this. It’s meant to instill fear. And we saw that when people are afraid, that fear spreads, but so does courage. And so, every time I got arrested, and another arrest warrant, every time, we’d get a spike of crowdfunding, and I was just telling my sales team who was celebrating, I was like, “This is not a sustainable business model, right?” But what I learned is this: form these communities, number one. Number two: it’s got to be laws. This is not a speech issue or a freedom of the press issue. This is a safety issue. It’s like you’ve put poison in the water system, and you have to make sure people on these platforms have agency. And frankly, the biggest question in the world today is whether rule of law still exists, right? Whether it’s in the physical world, where you have attacks against sovereign nations, invasions. Uh, yeah, Putin? Hello. And then you have the virtual world, where you have impunity happening as well.

You’ve said that you’re feeling déjà vu here in the US. You’re teaching at Columbia right now. How would you characterize the civil society response to the changes the Trump administration has made in its first 100 days?

Like deer in headlights. Not enough, although I would say the court system is kicking back now, and then what did we see last Friday? A judge was arrested in Milwaukee. Again, these are intimidation tactics. In “How to Stand Up to a Dictator,” the question I asked is a really simple one, because the tech has allowed individual targeting. So, the question there is, “Individually, what are you willing to sacrifice for the truth?” Without facts, you can’t have truth. Without truth, you cannot have trust. The only government that exists without trust is a dictatorship, right? But if you don’t have these three, we have no shared reality. So, everything hinges on us living in the same shared reality, and I think this chilling effect is here. And in the past, I used to say, in the Philippines, it was Siberia.

Hello, Americans.  Where are you?

End of Interview

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

I could add my two cents to this interview, but I could not do justice to the comments that Nobel Laureate Ressa makes.  Perhaps, the most striking thoughts I gleaned from this interview are as follows:

  • “The only government that exists without trust is a dictatorship.”
  • “You have to fight for your rights, because every day you do not, you lose more.”
  • “What you realize is that checks and balances of institutions depend on the men and women who will carry those out.”

Here is a bonus for my blog readers today.  I heard this sickening suck up speech to trump on the anniversary of his first 100 days in office.  This will either have you laughing your butt off or running to the toilet to barf.   Imagine the difference between Bondi and Ressa?  

Celebrating Easter with a trump Protest Rally

Woke up this Saturday (April 19th) morning and got dressed to head to Casa Grande for a trump protest rally.  It seemed like something worthwhile doing on Holy Saturday.  The rally was to be held at the corner of Florence and Colorado streets.  It was slated to start at 9:30 AM and continue until 11:AM or whenever.  I arrived early at 8:15 AM and was the first one there.  Fortunately, there was a Dunkin Donuts near the same corner.  I went in and ordered an extra-large pistachio iced coffee and my favorite Old-Fashioned Donut.  Coffee and donut came to $7 dollars and about 800 calories.  This would have made Dr. Petra my PA very unhappy.  She said that I needed to cut down on my sugar carbs since my LDL levels were very elevated.

Ate my donut while watching the street outside.  I could finally see that people were coming to the corner.  Many had signs and some had chairs.  People were taking up positions on both sides of the street.  I grabbed my coffee and went out to join the other protesters.  I regret that I did not have a sign, but I had worn my USAF hat and a protest shirt that you can see from the picture below.  I soon met several people that I knew from Karen’s church.  This finding pleasantly surprised me.  I jokingly said that we had a church contingency there from First Presbyterian.

Over the course of the next two hours, the protestors grew almost in pace with the street traffic.  Florence is the main drag in Casa Grande and there are four lanes of traffic going down the street.  Many people waved at us.  Many honked.  We wanted to believe that their honking was a form of approval.  Some threw the finger.  Others gunned their cars and roared by us.  These later two efforts were clearly not signs of approval.  I walked up and down the street talking to other protestors and taking pictures of the signs that many people were carrying.  I have included pictures of these signs below.  They tell the story better than words ever could.

We are going to continue massive protests in this country.  It was heartwarming to see so many other people out there willing to give up a part of their day to signal their distaste for the immoral and unethical individual that now claims to be POTUS.  Some people have asked if we are going to make a difference.  My response is that I do not know.  I think the odds are against us.  However, when you buy a lottery ticket, the odds are also against you.  You do not know whether or not you are going to win.  Only one thing is certain; if you do not buy a ticket you have absolutely NO chance to win.  I am buying a ticket every chance I get to unseat or at least prevent trump from getting away with destroying the country that I was born in and that I fought for.  America is not exceptional to me.  Neither is it the greatest country in the world.  America has always offered me a chance and a promise to try to be better.  I have not always taken her up on this.  As Martin Luther King so famously said,

“In a sense we have come to our Nation’s Capital to cash a check.  When the architects of our great republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.

This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned.  Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given its colored people a bad check, a check that has come back marked “insufficient funds.”

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt.  We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation.  So we have come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and security of justice.”

Those of us who are marching or walking or writing are not coming to make “America Great Again.”  We are coming to help restore the promise of a check to immigrants, minorities, women, disabled, LGBTQ+, Veterans, poor people, lonely people, hungry people, middle class people and even rich people.  We are coming to restore the ideas of the Founders of this country.  To restore their dreams and hopes that they laid out 250 years ago.  To restore an America that all of us believed it could and should be.  To make an America that is always getting better and better.  The dreams of a democracy which prides itself upon uplifting people and not destroying people.  We have had too many battles in this world where no one wins.  We need to foster a belief in WIN-WIN where both sides come out ahead and there are no losers.  We need an America that walks hand in hand with other people across the globe to make “The World Great” and not just America great.

Why Americans Hate the Government!

I sit here in my car driving the speed limit of 75 mph on the interstate and being passed by multitudes of cars doing at least 85 mph or maybe 90 mph.  It feels like I am standing still.  I watch as cars pass on the right, left and in-between in their hurry to get somewhere really important.  Speed limits and stop signs seem to be only ideologies obeyed at the discretion or whim of the drivers on the roads today.

Americans have always said that they want less government.  Today, it seems that they want NO government.  People clamor for their rights at every mention of some law or other injunction that they do not feel applies to them.  Hardly any American cannot find some law that they find unfair and unjust.

Edmund Burke said that the “Government that governs best is the government that governs least.”  Abraham Lincoln said that “If all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need of government.”  Many Anarchists would agree with these sentiments.  In the past, Americans have treated Anarchists as terrorists and revolutionaries.  Anarchists are despised by most Americans.  Yet, few Americans understand that many Anarchists share their same belief in “eliminating the government.” The January 6th attacks on the Congress of the USA could have been a picture-perfect representation of an Anarchist attack.  Unfortunately, for such simple depictions of Anarchists many are not violent revolutionaries.  One definition of an Anarchist given by the FBI is as follows:

“Anarchism is a belief that society should have no government, laws, police, or any other authority.  Having that belief is perfectly legal, and the majority of anarchists in the U.S. advocate change through non-violent, non-criminal means.” — FBI. Gov

The implications of this definition are profound.  Consider that “The majority of anarchists are non-violent” whereas the majority of those storming the US Capital on January 6th were engaged in violent criminal attacks.  How many of the people attacking the Capital would agree that they were engaged in the same type of criminal activities that they ascribe to Anarchists?  Nevertheless, both groups share a dislike for government.

A closer reading of Lincoln and Burke though does not show an advocacy for NO government, only less government.  What are the primary purposes of a government than and how can it reconcile achieving these purposes while at the same time not becoming a burden on the everyday lives of its citizens?   Here are the five most important functions of a government:

The five most important functions of a government typically include: (From ChatGPT)

  1. Maintaining Order and Security:

Enforcing laws, protecting citizens from crime, and ensuring national defense against external threats.

  1. Providing Public Services:

Offering essential services like education, healthcare, infrastructure (roads, bridges), and utilities that individuals or private businesses might not adequately provide.

  1. Protecting Individual Rights and Freedoms:

Upholding constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and equal protection under the law.

  1. Economic Management:

Regulating trade, managing taxes and public spending, and addressing unemployment and inflation to foster a stable economy.

  1. Formulating and Enforcing Laws:

Creating legislation that reflects societal values and ensures justice, while maintaining systems to fairly enforce these laws.  (End of ChatGPT) 

Few people would disagree with any of these functions.  But if God lies in the details (or the Devil some might say), than our disputes are more around “what exactly will be done and how will it be done.”

Any one of these five functions can illustrate the problem that people have with the government.  For instance, what Public Services will be provided?  We accepted education many years ago as a public service, but now some want to privatize education.  Other people want childcare as a public service while there are people who disagree with the idea.

But the question of what services and what laws to provide are not the only problem people have with the government.  A bigger problem lies in the “how” of government.  By how, I refer to the efficiency of government.  The government has long been lambasted for its lack of efficiency.  Several years ago, Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin created his “Golden Fleece Award.”  Periodically a government agency would receive this award for an egregious offense of efficiency.  Some of these became famous even if they might have been a gross exaggeration.  One that comes readily to my mind was the “Golden Toilet” bowls case.  Allegedly, a government office ordered gold-plated toilet bowls.  Whether this is an urban myth or not, there are indeed countless stories of government bureaucracy creating inefficiency.

When I worked as a principal strategic planner for the Metropolitan Council in Minnesota, I saw so many examples of government waste and stupidity that I often came home complaining to my spouse that, “If only the citizens of this state could see the waste and inefficiency that I am trying to deal with, they would grab guns, knives and even pitch forks and march on city hall.”

That was over twenty-five years ago, and people have finally marched (if not on city hall) on the Capital of the USA.  Unfortunately, as is the case with much anger, it is often misplaced and misguided.  It is not only the Federal Government that is inefficient, but also most state governments, county governments and city governments that are inefficient as well.  When I was teaching the concepts of quality and process improvement to companies, I would use a conceptual framework based on two key economic concepts to explain how a company could improve its operations.

There are two key economic concepts that every organization must be concerned with.  The first key concept is Effectiveness.  Effectiveness can be defined as “Doing the right things.”  The second key concept is Efficiency.  Efficiency can be defined as “Doing things right.”  In order for any organization to maximize productivity it must be both efficient and effective.  It does not matter if you do the right things, but you don’t do them right.  Vice versa, if you do the wrong things but you do them right, that is nonproductive as well.  We can summarize these maxims simply by the following idea:  Your clients and customers expect that you will give them “What they want or need at a price that they can afford.”  Price reflects the efficiency of an operation, while giving customers what they want or need reflects the effectiveness of the operation.

In my experience, both as a business teacher and a management consultant, business organizations focus more on efficiency than effectiveness.  There are countless examples of products and services that are neither needed nor wanted by people, but advertising can always be effective in convincing consumers otherwise.  I am thinking of cigarettes and carbon-based products as two such examples.

On the other hand, the government typically focuses more on effectiveness (that is giving people needed services) and much less on efficiency.  The government tries to reduce the waste and garbage that comes from industry as a direct offshoot of their so-called efficiency. The most noted example is the environmental degradation caused by many business products.  Today we face a world where climate change is destroying our lives and our environment.  If the trends noted today keep growing, we will eventually inhabit a planet where human life can no longer exist.  Much of this climate change could have been prevented.  However, companies and politicians in the pocket of big oil have spent billions of dollars in efforts to deny that climate change is taking place due to carbon-based fuels.

The secret of sustainability (a dirty word to some people) on a global scale is to have businesses and governments that are both effective and efficient.  Unfortunately for most governments, they get the worst of the publicity.  There is much less criticism of the ineffectiveness of big business to provide products that are compatible with a clean environment than there are criticisms of the government for inefficiently trying to regulate this business waste.  It is easy to see why that is the case.  As my friend Dick always said, “Follow the money.”

The government spends very little money trying to convince you that the climate is changing, or that too much production of carbon fuels is destroying our environment.  Big business has dozens of lobbyists padding the campaign budgets of politicians to convince them to ignore the effects of global warming and to deny that it exists.

Big business also spends billions of dollars trying to convince you that they can provide government services more efficiently than the government.  The last few years have seen ongoing attempts to privatize education, prisons, waste treatment plants and many other public services where big business think they can make a profit.  In addition, big business has been at the forefront of efforts to deregulate organizations such as banks, public utilities and airlines in order for them to manage these organizations without restrictions.  Having no restrictions, gives them free rein to make as much profit as they like. Yes, you may get these services cheaper and thus more efficiently than the government would provide them, but you will pay a hidden cost.  There are no free lunches in the world.  The Great Recession of 2007 followed the issuing of loans and mortgages that had too little collateral and too high interest rates leading to a catastrophic failure of banks and homeowners.

IF you want further corroboration regarding my above analysis of the 2007 recession, you can read the following from ChatGPT:

“The 2006 recession was actually part of a broader economic crisis that led into the Great Recession (which officially spanned from late 2007 to 2009), but the roots of the downturn started around 2006.

The major cause was the housing market crash. Here’s a quick breakdown of what happened:

Subprime Mortgage Lending: Banks and lenders gave out risky loans (subprime mortgages) to people with poor credit histories. These loans often had adjustable interest rates that started low but later spiked, making it hard for borrowers to keep up with payments.

Housing Bubble Burst: Housing prices had been soaring due to speculation and easy credit, but by 2006, home prices peaked and started to fall. As prices dropped, homeowners who couldn’t sell their homes or refinance their loans began defaulting.

Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS): Banks bundled these risky mortgages into financial products called MBS and sold them to investors. When homeowners started defaulting, the value of these securities collapsed, causing massive losses for banks and financial institutions.

Foreclosures and Bank Failures: Foreclosures skyrocketed, and big financial players like Lehman Brothers collapsed or needed bailouts, which deepened the economic panic.

The domino effect triggered a credit crunch — banks stopped lending, businesses cut jobs, and consumer spending shrank, all of which pushed the economy into a full-blown recession by late 2007.”

Consumers and the American public paid a big price for the greed and stupidity of the banking industry.  A greed which was supported by Government deregulation which in turn was pushed by greedy politicians ignoring the need for regulation.  Behind all the politicians are legions of lobbyists for the banking industry.

Major insights I want to leave you with:

  1. People want a free lunch when it does not exist.
  2.  Politicians (first and MOST) represent those from whom they get the most gold. He who has the gold makes the rules.
  3.  Businesses and citizens will never regulate themselves without some help from a government to set norms that everyone must abide by.  Witness, the amount of gun violence, air pollution, water pollution, road rage and senseless speeding that exists today.  There are too many people and too many organizations which will not police themselves.
  4.  Efficiency and Effectiveness are the fundamental building blocks for any sustainable economic system that is going to deliver ongoing value to society.
  5.  We need a government that is fair, nonpartisan, educated and responsible to the citizens and not the lobbyists. We do not have that now. 

 Some Solutions I Would Like to Suggest:

  1.  Make lobbying illegal.  Lobbying is bribery.  Ban all lobbyists from congress.
  2.  Overturn Citizens United Ruling:  Corporations are not people and should not be allowed a vote.  Just as we separated Church and State, we must have a constitutional amendment to separate Corporations and State.
  3.  Term limits for all politicians. I recommend one six-year term for all elected positions.  Furthermore, once an elected politician leaves an office, they cannot hold another government position in any office for ten years. 
  4. Have Vouchers for Campaign Contributions: Every year, each eligible voting citizen of the USA would get a monetary voucher for 500 dollars to fund as many campaigns as they want to contribute to.  The voucher money could only be used to fund political campaigns.   The maximum that any citizen could contribute to political campaigns in a year would be 1000 dollars.   No PAC money, no corporate funds, no other funds except funds from individual registered voters would be allowed.
  5. Supreme Court Justices: Supreme Court Justices should serve a maximum of 15 years.  New justices should be selected by the following practice:  A bipartisan committee of judges nominates a total of 6 candidates.  The final candidate is selected at random from the pool of six.

These changes would be only a first step in bringing true democracy back to America.  There are many changes needed to make the Government bureaucracies throughout America more efficient and effective.  The ideas I have given above are only a start.  We need to bring efficiency and effectiveness to our Education, Health Care, Justice, Military, Social Services, Immigration and Diplomatic systems.  In several other blogs, I have suggested ideas on how to go about dealing with some of these systems.  However, nothing is more important than getting the corruption out of Government fostered by our present system of electing candidates to office.

What is a lobbyist?

Lobbyists are professionals hired by a special interest group to represent their interests to Congress.

The term “lobbyist” harkens back to the days when people hung around in lobbies waiting to get a word in with legislators heading to vote.

All kinds of groups hire lobbyists — from corporations and private companies to nonprofits and unions — to try to persuade the government to pass legislation that’s favorable to them.

Why Are Americans so Misinformed About Economics?  — Part 1

Most people in the USA are woefully inept when it comes to understanding the basics of economic theory.  The resulting problem is that the public believes everything they hear from politicians and the media.  If the public is uninformed about economics, the media and politicians are even worse.  The difference is that politicians use their lack of knowledge to further their own political ambitions.  The media use the same lack of knowledge to drive advertising and to make money for their outlets.

By far, the greatest malignancy comes from the fact that the public lack of economic understanding leads to support for war efforts throughout the world.  American foreign economic policy is often based on greed and fear.  We use our military might to support regimes, despots and wars that will keep our economic system dominant.  We assume that the global marketplace is one of win-lose or zero-sum economics.  We do not believe that a win-win is possible with all nations.  Instead, we play zero-sum games with any countries that we think might threaten our economic dominance.

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel argued President-elect Trump does not believe in “any win-win situation,” and it makes international collaboration difficult. — The Hill, 11/26/24

Economics can be divided into two branches.  One is called macroeconomics.  Macroeconomics is concerned with large-scale or general economic factors, such as interest rates and national productivity.  Placing tariffs or trade restrictions on other countries could be considered a macroeconomic decision.  The other branch is called microeconomics.  Microeconomics considers the behavior of decision takers within the economy, such as individuals, households and firms.  How much a given industry or company pays its workers versus how much it pays its senior executives could be considered a microeconomic policy.

I want to first talk about microeconomics and one of its major fallacies or myths.  In Part 2, I will discuss the problems of a macroeconomics policy myth based on a greedy Military Industrial Complex.  This microeconomics fallacy is the so-called Trickle-Down Theory.  This is the myth fostered by those with money or power that if you trust them to make as much money as possible, some of it will “trickle” down to you.  You might as well wait for the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.

A more accurate and predictable economic theory is that the “rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.”  Philanthropic efforts in the USA have done little or nothing to alleviate poverty.  Rich people would rather donate to the Metropolitan Opera than they would to a neighborhood poverty reduction program.  The prestige is greater by donating to the opera and the tax deductions are just as good.

“While philanthropy has contributed to alleviating poverty by providing direct assistance like food, shelter, and healthcare, its impact is often considered to be limited when compared to broader systemic changes like government policies, as philanthropy primarily acts as a supplementary tool in tackling the root causes of poverty; therefore, it can provide relief but may not achieve large-scale poverty eradication on its own.”  — Google AI

We can easily prove that Trickle Down theory does not work.  A little logic if you will.  Let us suppose that money trickled down in a company from wealthy entrepreneurs like Elon Musk to the worker bees.  If this were true, than over time, the wages between workers and senior executives should (while still being large) not be huge.  However, consider the following:

“According to recent data, the average CEO earns significantly more than a typical worker, with the pay ratio often exceeding 300 to 1, meaning a CEO makes roughly 300 times more than the average employee; for example, in 2023, the average CEO pay was estimated to be around 290 times that of a typical worker, compared to a ratio of 21 to 1 in 1965.”  — Google Generative AI

Some economists have claimed to find evidence to support assertions that the Trickle-Down theory actually does work.  But my friend, ask yourself these questions:

  • Would you trust that all economists are unbiased and willing to tell the truth about their employers?
  • If Trickle Down economics worked, than how come the gap in pay between the higher and lower workers has continued to grow over the past 50 years rather than shrink?
  • Finally, economists be damned. Do you really think rich people give one rat’s ass about your pay and whether or not there is “income inequality?”  How many millionaires do you know who donated their estates to poor people?

I do not believe in communism, but neither am I so callused as to believe that “poor people don’t deserve the money because they will just waste it.”  What I have observed in my 78 years on this earth is that some people get a head start in life and end up much higher on the ladder than those who start off without a ladder.  It has never been and never will be an equal playing field.  Talent and brains are not equally distributed.  Neither is health and longevity.  Money will never be equally distributed.  But these premises aside do not mean that a society should be structured simply to help the rich get richer at the expense of the poor people who provide the labor for them.

Today, we have a Roman Circus of means to help keep poor people poor and make the rich even richer.  One of the most notorious of these means is the availability of legalized gambling.  Gambling is one of the most egregious means of insuring that people who are poor will stay poor.  The odds on winning at some popular gambling activities are as follows:

  • Top prize on a poker machine (playing maximum lines): up to 1 in 7,000,000
  • The trifecta in a 13-horse race: 1 in 1,716
  • 1st division in Gold Lotto (one game): 1 in 8,145,060
  • 1st division in Powerball (one game): 1 in 134,490,400
  • The top prize on a $5 Crossword Instant Scratch-Its game: 1 in 1,700,000.

And now we have added sports betting to the number of ways that people can lose their hard owned cash.  The people making money want to keep you betting more and more.  The payoffs are random, which encourages people to think that they will win.  In psychology, it is called the “Gambler’s Fallacy.”  This is an incorrect belief that a random event is more or less likely to occur based on previous outcomes.  For instance, if heads comes up three times in a row on a coin toss, most people will bet that tails will come up on a fourth throw.  The odds are still fifty-fifty on any throw if it is a fair coin.  Consider the following facts:

“About 13.5% of gamblers go home from a casino having made any money.  This statistic comes from a study of 4,222 gamblers, and only 7 of them won more than $150.  Conversely, 217 of them lost over $5000 at casino games.  Also, note that those who play more often have lower chances of winning.” 

My wife and I occasionally go to a casino.  We may invest twenty dollars between us and then have a buffet dinner.  It is fun but we never bet more than twenty dollars total.  We know that we will walk out losers 98 percent of the time.  However, I have seen high school kids in some of my classes huddled together placing sports bets.  Would society not be better off showing them how to start a business and providing incentives for doing so rather than slick advertising designed to make them think that they can get rich betting on sports teams?

“The world’s 50 highest-paid athletes hauled in an estimated $3.88 billion over the last 12 months before taxes and agents’ fees, up 13% from last year’s record mark of $3.44 billion.  Roughly 76%, or $2.94 billion, came from on-field earnings (salaries, bonuses and prize money) partly because of the Middle Eastern money continuing to flow into sports.”  — Forbes ,MAY 16, 2024

Marx once said that religion was the opiate of the masses.  By this he meant that people were drugged into thinking that religion would bring them to a paradise where all their dreams could come true.  It would take death and being a true believer to get them to this paradise, but it was a sure thing.  Today, gambling and sports have become the opiate of the masses.  People dream of winning the lottery and getting rich.  Others dream of making it big in sports and becoming the next Michael Jordan.  People think their kids have a high probability of going on to a lucrative career in sports if they can only get a paid tuition to a major NCAA college.

The facts my friends do not support that your kids will be anywhere near getting into a major league sports team.

  • 59% of high school football and basketball players believe they will get a college scholarship    
  • 98 out of 100 high school athletes never play collegiate sports of any kind at any level.
  • Less than one out of every 100 high school athletes receive a scholarship of any kind to a Division I school.
  • Only 1 in 16,000 high school athletes attains a professional career in sports.

But why bust anyone’s bubble?  Aren’t we all entitled to our dreams?  What would life be without goals and hopes that exceed our grasp?  Who wants to tell their children that they cannot go for it?

I have been a parent like many of you.  I wanted the best for my daughter.  But I was under no illusions about the reality of the workplace world.  Too many poor people are unrealistic when it comes to understanding the economics of the workplace.  This leads to poor decision making and the ability of huckster politicians and greedy organizations to take advantage  of them.  The rich in America see the poor as a resource of suckers born every day.  “Caveat Emptor” means let the buyer beware.  Many of my MBA students subscribed to this belief when I was teaching at Metro State University.  I could argue against it all day, but the majority of what MBA students learn in college is that money is good, greed is good and that we deserve all we can beg, borrow or steal.

“No less a business expert than Dr. W. E. Deming was critical of traditional MBA programs, arguing that they often focused too heavily on short-term profit goals and not enough on long-term quality improvement, neglecting essential statistical tools and systemic understanding needed for true organizational change; he believed they often taught practices that were detrimental to continuous improvement within companies.” — Google AI

Rana Foroohar writing in Evonomics states that “MBAs are everywhere, yet the industries where you find fewer of them tend to be the most successful.  America’s shining technology and innovation hub—Silicon Valley—is relatively light on MBAs and heavy on engineers.  MBAs had almost nothing to do with the two major developments in the American business landscape over the last forty years: the Japanese-style quality revolution in manufacturing and the digital revolution.” —   Want to Kill Your Economy?  Have MBA Programs Churn out Takers Not Makers

Keep your dreams for tomorrow but base them on reality.  Do not trust what people asking you for your money or your vote try to sell you.  The only way to keep your money in your pocket is to keep informed and to pay little attention to the lies, disinformation and misinformation spread by politicians and the media.

In Part 2, I want to address the truth regarding our contempt towards Russia and China and the real reasons underlying our mistrust and hostility towards them.  These reasons are based on simple economic realities that our leaders do not want you to understand.  They want you to subscribe to doctrines of fear and hatred that will support the many unjust policies that we propose for our economic “enemies.”

War has been called a continuation of politics by other means.  Economic dominance is one side of the coin.  Political dominance is the other side.  War becomes the means to insure that we are both politically and economically dominant on the world stage.  These truths will explain why we continually assail both Russia and China as threats to America.  Some of these truths will also explain why we are supporting Israel’s genocide in the Mideast.

What Next after Trump’s Victory?

First, we all want to know why and how Trump won.  Herein is a brief summary of some of the major reasons given by numerous analysts for Trump’s victory.  
 
“Sexism, racism, young males, rural angst, religion, Gaza, immigration, incel men, despair, Democrats off message, Biden, education level, conservative white women, inflation, right wing billionaires, Christian nationalists, desire for an anti-establishment figure, desire for change.” 
 
I have probably missed a few.  
 
The main reason I see is that Trump reflected 21st Century American values. Greed and narcissism among a large percentage of our populace who don’t want anything or anyone to get in the way of their shopping. They looked at Trump and saw themselves and their own values. 
 
The following quote was from a Salon newsletter.  
 
“This 2024 election is a referendum on the character of the Trump-voting public, and let’s not make it nice. They place minimal value on respect for truth and democratic institutions. They are more interested in punishing other people than in advancing the common good. They have a remarkable tolerance for crass and bullying behavior, care little for empathy and ethics, and are incapable of weighing basic facts.”
 
After reviewing many of the analyses of why Trump won, most of us are wondering what “next steps” could, should and will be.  My response to the election of Trump will be along the lines of the following:
 
Many of the comments I have read concerning the election reflect the dilemma between being and doing. I am going to try a middle ground. I want to avoid any savior complex as well as a “hopeless” complex. Not sure how I will manage it yet. In TQM we used the Pareto principle to attack problems.  We called it the 80/20 rule.  Twenty percent of your problems give you 80 percent of your headaches.  Thus, we always used some criteria to prioritize problems before starting to fix anything. 
 
My priorities stem from my reflections on comments as well as some of the demographics on voting during the election.  For instance, 110 million eligible people did not vote, 53 percent of White women voted for Trump, men (includes Black, White and Latino) preferred Trump 55 to 42 percent and 10 million fewer people voted Democrat than in 2020.  (Numbers behind the vote) After contemplating the meaning of these statistics and more, my top priorities would be:
 
1. Pure self interest/greed
2. Sexism
3. Anti-Establishment feeling
 
Not sure how to deal with any of these. Greed and sexism have been around since Moses. Best path may be grass roots action to educate people on economics. One thing for sure. Mainstream media is useless. It is strictly bent on making money. 
 
Peace, Wisdom and a Long and Healthy Life,

John,

Previous Older Entries