3515 – Tuesday, September 17, 2019 — Can a Woman Be President of the USA?

515mRahlm4L._SX371_BO1,204,203,200_

In 1996, I predicted that the United States of America would have its first woman president no later than the year 2004.  There were a number of notable women in congress at the time and the USA was long overdue for its first woman president.  It is now 2019, and we still have not had a woman president in the USA.  We are beginning the 2020 elections and we have a number of strong intelligent women on the campaign trail for the Democratic Party Presidential candidate.   

Perhaps not surprisingly, the political pundits are saying that this election year a woman cannot beat Donald Trump for the office.  The suggestion is that a woman might be selected for the Vice Presidency but not for the Presidency.  A man can beat Trump, but you know how woman are, they just can’t take the heat. 

“I now announce myself as a candidate for the Presidency. I anticipate criticism; but however unfavorable I trust that my sincerity will not be called into question.” — Victoria Woodhull, 1872

In 1872, Victoria Woodhull became the first female presidential candidate while the former slave Frederick Douglass was her running mate.  The record shows that no one even bothered to count their votes.  It is a safe bet that women did not vote for anyone since they did not get the right to vote until June 4, 1919.  It is also a safe bet that in 1872, the KKK was doing all it could to keep African American men from voting.  Despite their efforts, the percentage of voters who were Black in 1872 was at a high-water mark that was not surpassed for many years.  In fact, after 1872, the number of Black voters declined as the Federal Government abandoned African Americans in the South and let the notorious Jim Crow laws be enacted. 

“America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future.” — Frederick Douglass

ixkittvjvticgygo9pwvld3bcsfqavmifxaz9q12z6zssikpmhagjtxqykhy2dcg

In 2008, Hillary Clinton was the first woman to be nominated by a major political party as their presidential candidate.  During the election year, those opposed to her called her a bitch, dyke, castrator, liar, crook, hypocrite, racist, traitor, Nazi and narcissist.

“I’ve seen both candidates attacked based upon physical characteristics, both attacked based upon personality traits, both attacked based on past decisions.  The one element that separates the two is that Clinton is also attacked for being a woman, and Trump is not attacked for being a man.” — Jennifer Mercieca, a historian of American political rhetoric.

My first-born child was a girl.  She was born in 1968 and we named her Christina.  People always asked me if I was disappointed that I did not have a son.  The thought of disappointment never crossed my mind.  I was proud to have a daughter and both my wife Julia, and I were determined to give her every opportunity that we would have given a son.  When she was a young child, she received as many “boy” toys like trucks and erector sets as she did dolls and playhouses.  She was inundated with books and just as many were about science as about other subjects that might have been considered traditionally female subjects.

When she was old enough for sports, I spent time ice skating, bicycling, swimming, skiing and canoeing with her.  We once took second place in a father daughter canoe race.  When she was in high school and wanted to be a cheerleader, we also encouraged her to play some sports and not just stand on the sidelines and cheer for some boys.  I did not want to let society stereotype her, and I wanted her to believe that she could be anything she set her mind to.  Doctor or nurse.  Pilot or flight attendant.  President or President’s wife. 

female-presidents

The United States of America prides itself on being the land of liberty and justice.  The home of the brave and the land of the free.  The home of democracy.  While we brag about American Exceptionalism, 101 countries have had a woman elected either as president or prime minister.  Excluding female monarchs, over 150 women since 1918 have been elected or appointed head of state.  Meanwhile in the United States of America, we have not even had an elected woman vice president. 

And of course, this year is not the right time for a woman.  We need to select a guy because only another guy can beat Trump.  It is not a woman’s role to be president, at least not in the Land of the Free.  The Democrats with several woman candidates seem to think that the best we can do is select a woman as a running mate for the male presidential candidate.  It is said to be imperative that we select a man if we really want to beat Trump.

“Of all the indignities Donald Trump has imposed on Democrats since he decided to run for president, the fact that he has convinced many of them they dare not nominate a woman to oppose him is among the worst.” —  Ed Kilgore, Intelligencer, Sept 20, 2018

women-president-candidates-696x464.png

I have watched some of all three Democratic debates to date.  It is clearly my opinion that Warren is the most intelligent, coherent and poised of all the candidates.  My wife also shares that opinion with me as does a large percentage of the American electorate.  I have qualms with every one of the Democratic candidates.  Not one of them is without some problems in terms of policy or procedures.  But I will not vote for anyone just because they can beat Trump.  Neither will I vote for a candidate on the basis of race, religion, age or gender.  

Dear Daughter,

I am sorry I lied to you when you were growing up.  In America, the dream that you can be anything you want to be is for men only.  This country is terribly divided but is less divided on the issue of whether or not a woman is qualified to be president.  Most people seem sure that she is not.  I should never have set you up for failure by telling you that a woman could be President of the United States of America.  Our country is not ready for a woman president.  Maybe in another 100 years or so, we will have the intelligence and open mindedness to see that women are the equal of men in politics and many other areas of life.  Until then, please do not lie to your daughters and set them up for heartache and disappointment.  It would not be easy for them to be called a bitch, liar, hypocrite, feminazi, dyke, crook and other insults like the ones that Hillary had to endure.

Love, your father.

“When a man gives his opinion, he’s a man.  When a woman gives her opinion, she’s a bitch.” — Bette Davis

We teach girls to shrink themselves, to make themselves smaller. We say to girls, you can have ambition, but not too much. You should aim to be successful, but not too successful. Otherwise, you would threaten the man. Because I am female, I am expected to aspire to marriage. I am expected to make my life choices always keeping in mind that marriage is the most important. Now marriage can be a source of joy and love and mutual support but why do we teach girls to aspire to marriage and we don’t teach boys the same? We raise girls to see each other as competitors not for jobs or accomplishments, which I think can be a good thing, but for the attention of men. We teach girls that they cannot be sexual beings in the way that boys are.”  — Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, We Should All Be Feminists

 

 

 

 

 

 

3520 – Wednesday, September 11, 2019 — Can We Ever Understand the Trump Phenomenon?

61vpBaozkcL._SL500_

Pontificating and writing books and articles about what I will call the Trump phenomenon has become (forgive my use of this cliché), a Cottage Industry.  I have three books on my shelf right now in which an author has gone on a quest (to a remote area of America) to find the reason why so much of rural and middle America embraced Trump.  The ostensible goal of these quests is to understand why anyone would vote for a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic bigoted egomaniac.  Fully twenty-eight percent of American voters selected Trump as well as more than 75 percent of the Republican Party.  Most of those on the left, regard it as the proverbial enigma wrapped in a riddle.

Many of these quests endeavor to be “objective” exercises to find out why Americans voted for and in many cases “love” Trump.  Not surprisingly, these authors tend to be on the left of the political spectrum.  I suppose to be objective and qualify as research, each author must show sympathy for the “deplorables” that elected Trump by trying to listen, empathize and gently understand the forces that were at work in their embracing Trump.  In one case, the author assumes that if you can party with the other side, you will better understand their perspective. 

merlin-to-scoop-125548322-183828-articleLarge

A few of these books have sold quite well, even if they do very little to shed any real light on the Trump phenomenon.  They all seem to be researched (research to these authors means meeting with rural folks over tea or coffee and talking to them without insulting their intelligence) by a well-meaning liberal.  Usually, the author is an academic who thinks that talking to anyone who would vote for Trump can solve the puzzle and perhaps make America great again.  Reading these books, you will be no doubt be embellished with many narratives that involve a poignant description of a “typical” rural American to show how the other side really lives and how sad some of their lives are.

I find the solution to the enigma much less puzzling and much less difficult to solve.  I did not need to go on a quest to find the solution.  The solution simply involves “looking at rural America.”  Rural America is dying, dying, dying.  Churches are dying.  Restaurants are dying.  Retail stores are dying.  Industries are dying.  Banks are dying.  Resorts are dying.  Jobs are dying.  Small farms are dying.  Rural America is dying, and no one seems to notice.  Even the people living there do not really notice.  It is a case of the fish being the last ones to see the water.  But on many levels, the angst exacts a toll on the citizens of these areas.   Alcoholism, drug addictions and guns are all means of coping in rural communities.  

People who live in many of many of these rural depressed areas have been told to “get retrained.”  “Find employment in the new emerging industries.”  “Join the information age.”  “Learn computer programming.”  “Go back to school.”  “Go where the jobs are.”

51NR0QTPqqL._SX326_BO1,204,203,200_

In 1979, I was hired as a DVOP (Disabled Veterans Outreach Person) by the State of Minnesota.  I worked as a job counselor with the DES (Department of Economic Security.)  At about this time in Minnesota, the iron range was shutting down, many foundries in St. Paul were closing and the stock yards were closing.  For years, these industries had provided relatively decent pay and benefits for people more amenable to working with their backs than with their intellects.  As an employment counselor with a Masters in Employment Counseling from the University of Wisconsin Stout, my job was to help them regain financially viable employment.  Here is what this meant.

I had to take a man (most often a man) with twenty or so years working in one industry, a bad back, little or no education beyond high school, responsible for supporting a wife and two or more children and find him or her a job paying twenty or so dollars per hour with benefits.  There were no funds provided by DES for this man to go to school and even if there were, what kind of school could he go to?  Over the years, both Wisconsin and Minnesota had shut down many vocational training schools to emphasize college over vocational education.  Unions seldom provided apprenticeships and even if they did, most would go to younger workers with less physical problems. 

Globalization was hailed as a great concept and as a business person, I would argue it was good for many Americans and much of the world.  But for the man or woman who worked in American industries that were either outsourced, replaced by foreign labor or moved overseas, it was not so good. 

d3c88ff43cd1be11c3f6a164e9b065d8af4709fe

I continued working as an employment counselor for the DILHR (Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations) in Wisconsin.  I had taken a Wisconsin State test and found work closer to my home in River Falls, Wisconsin.  I became a Manpower Counselor II in charge of an office in Hudson and Ellsworth Wisconsin.  I ran the WIN Program (Work Incentive), IHRAP Program (Indochinese Refugee Assistance Program), LEAP Program (Labor Education Advancement Program) and several programs for veterans and minorities. 

We had minimal funds for people that could qualify for education and we had maintenance funds for eligible job seekers to help support them while they looked for gainful employment.  With respect to education, there was no way anyone could go to school and support a family while they were in school on the available funds.  For job seekers, the maintenance funds could help while they looked for employment but, in many cases, they had little chance of finding employment without further education.  Regulations prohibited many of these “eligible” job seekers from going to school while they received AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), Welfare benefits or unemployment benefits.

Bottom line, both the Democrats and Republicans threw many of the people who lost their jobs because of Globalization under the bus or over the cliff.  “Go get retrained they were told.” 

694940094001_5470675642001_5470650547001-vsThe research that purports to explain the Trump phenomenon almost never goes beyond the “Right Wing” narratives for Trumps election.  These narratives all point to abortion, guns, taxes, small government, immigration and jobs as the key factors in Trumps victory.  Trump blames the Democrats for everything wrong in rural America and the Republicans have provided a compelling set of schemes that have convinced many in rural America that a partial solution to their problems lies in more capitalism. 

pg-quarterly1

Greed is good is a mantra among Republicans and they have managed to sell desperate people needing desperate measures with faith in the “Trickle Down Theory.”  For those who might question this theory, the fallback narrative is to blame immigrants, Latinos, Blacks and Muslims with usurping the American Dream.  Trump and the Republicans have sold the rest of the solution as “Make America White Again.” 

rick-tyler-billboard

Is it any wonder that people are sick of government and politicians?  The vision and mission of most government agencies hardly ever comes close to matching the reality of the policies, laws and regulations that spew forth from these lawyer led entities.   You would be forgiven for not realizing that the citizens of the United States of America are the customers of government rather than the other way around.  Trump is a phenomenon of distrust, disgust and despair.  Trump promised solutions to these problems while the rest of the government slept and slept and slept.

“I’ve always resented the smug statements of politicians, media commentators, corporate executives who talked of how, in America, if you worked hard you would become rich. The meaning of that was if you were poor it was because you hadn’t worked hard enough. I knew this was a lie, about my father and millions of others, men and women who worked harder than anyone, harder than financiers and politicians, harder than anybody if you accept that when you work at an unpleasant job that makes it very hard work indeed.”  ― Howard Zinn, You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train: A Personal History of Our Times

 

 

 

 

 

3568– Thursday, July 25, 2019 – What the Democrats Must Do to Win!

There is a simple truth that seems to be ignored about politics and elections.  The reason we vote for someone is because of what we think they will do for our country, our family, our friends and our own lives.  We do not vote for someone simply because they are Black, White, Indian, Asian or Latino.  We do not vote for someone just because they are old, young, middle aged or because they are poor, middle class or rich.  We do not vote for someone because they are Catholic, Evangelical, Muslim, Jewish or Protestant.  Some of these factors may play an ancillary role in our voting preferences but the two major reasons we vote for someone are these:  First, as I have said already:  “Is the message that we hear from the candidate in terms of what they will plan to do if elected and how we see those plans either hurting our harming our lives.”  The second reason we vote for someone concerns whether or not we trust them to deliver on their plans and promises.  Regardless of what they promise, we are not going to vote for someone who cannot deliver the goods.

If the Democrats want to win the upcoming election, they must accomplish three major tasks:

  1. They must consolidate their candidate options
  2. They must consolidate what they claim they will do if elected
  3. They must create an appeal that transcends major partisan and factional differences in this country.

I will briefly address each of these tasks.

Consolidate the candidate options and selection process:

The Democrats currently have a three-ring circus with 24 candidates.  This situation will eventually lead to a knockdown, drag-em through the mud free for all.  Notwithstanding the fact that all of these candidates will spend millions of dollars that could be better spent later on in the election by focusing on one candidate and getting out the vote.

The Democrats need to create a system like the Vatican uses to select a new Pope.  Major party leaders caucus with potential candidates.  The top two selections then move on to regionally selected caucuses designed to reflect a broad base of opinion across American politics.  The two candidates are paired down to one at the National Convention where the final candidate is selected by the usual methods of speeches and caucusing.

Consolidate the plans and goals for the party and candidate:

Every candidate has to have a plan and a promise to deliver this plan.  Right now, we have 24 candidates all promising the world to the American Public:  Free health care, free tuition, forgiveness of student loans, reparations for African Americans, redistribution of the wealth.  These freebies are just what got the Democrats saddled with the moniker of “Tax and Spend” in the first place.  Furthermore, these promises insult the intelligence of the American voter.  We all know that deficits are running to astronomical highs and that if you give someone money, it must come from someone else.

The candidate promises and plans must reflect the party platform.  Likewise, the Democratic party must accept and support the candidates plan.  The plan must be simple, bold and memorable and must cut across partisan and narrowly focused interests.  I suggest that four issues would create a base that would excite and motivate a large majority of the American public to vote Democratic.

  1. Minimum wage

Increase minimum wage. This is the wedge to continue subsequent strategies to reduce the widening gap between the rich and the poor.  Talk in terms about money that the average person who does not have a degree in economics can understand.

  1. Improve the Affordable Care Act

The ACA was a start to creating a better health care program for a large percentage of people who could not afford it.  Most Americans realize that the system has its faults but just like with Social Security, they do not want to abandon it, they simply want to see the faults addressed. Do not talk about creating a new system. Talk about improving the existing system.

  1. Term limits

I am a progressive, but I have talked to people from Arizona to New York who include evangelicals, 2nd amendment supporters, conservatives, Tea Party members and anti-immigration people.  We have vast differences on major issues, but one issue where I have found common ground with all of these disparate people is on the issue of “term-limits.”  On this issue, I find near universal agreement that we need limits on how long people can serve.  There are many benefits from term limits including:  Minimizing the influence of money and lobbyists, reducing the role of money in campaigning and getting new ideas into the political stream.  The Democrats should take up the challenge and have the guts to pursue an issue that will have profound effects on the political process in this country.  One or two terms and no reelection down the road.

  1. Accessible voting

The past few decades have seen increased efforts to narrow the scope of participation on our political process.  Americans want a fair and equitable system of electing its representatives.  Many people now realize that politicians have gamed the system.  This has included efforts by both Democrats and Republicans to tilt the rules and table in their favor.  This has to be addressed and should be a primary goal of the Democrats to create a level playing field.

Create an appeal that transcends major partisan and factional differences in this country.

Calling people deplorables is not going to unite this country and will only create more division in a country already divided beyond anything comparable in its history except perhaps the Civil War.  If we want to unite Americans, we must talk to people that we do not like.  We must look past differences and find similarities.  We must speak out against injustices regardless of which side of the political spectrum they are on.  We must be fair and open minded and willing to reach compromises for the greatest good.

It was said that “Politics is the art of compromise.”  There is no room in government for rigid vows and oaths on political issues.  Democrats must condemn these practices and take the high road.  I have heard it said that we must find the person who can defeat Trump.  Speaking for myself, I don’t give a dam who can defeat Trump if they do not have the morals and ethics that I expect in myself and my friends.  Trump can win another four years before I will vote for someone simply because they “may defeat” Trump.

This is my plan for the Democrats.  Call me idealistic but I think that unless the Democrats can be idealistic, they will go down in defeat.

To fight for the right
Without question or pause
To be willing to march into Hell
For a heavenly cause

And I know if I’ll only be true
To this glorious quest
That my heart will lie peaceful and calm
When I’m laid to my rest

The Impossible Dream — Music by Mitch Leigh and lyrics by Joe Darion

 

Rally Round the Flag Boys and Girls. Time to Attack IRAN!

I am re-posting this information which is from Wikipedia.  I have not written one word of this blog, but I think it is important enough to post.  The President of the USA may now be using this tactic with IRAN.  It has been used before and Americans will fall prey to it again unless people are aware of the tactic and stand up to it.

Estoy re-publicando esta información que es de Wikipedia. No he escrito una palabra de este blog, pero creo que es lo suficientemente importante como para publicar. El presidente de los EE. UU. Ahora puede estar usando esta táctica con IRAN. Se ha usado antes y los estadounidenses volverán a ser presa de él a menos que la gente esté consciente de la táctica y la haga frente.

我正在重新發布來自維基百科的這些信息。 我沒有寫過這個博客的一個詞,但我認為發布這個詞非常重要。 美國總統現在可能正在與伊朗使用這種策略。 它已經被使用過了,除非人們意識到這種策略並且能夠堅持下去,否則美國人將再次成為它的犧牲品。

Ich poste diese Informationen, die aus Wikipedia stammen, erneut. Ich habe kein Wort dieses Blogs geschrieben, aber ich denke, es ist wichtig genug, um etwas zu posten. Der Präsident der USA könnte diese Taktik jetzt mit dem IRAN anwenden. Es wurde schon früher benutzt und die Amerikaner werden wieder Opfer davon werden, es sei denn, die Leute sind sich der Taktik bewusst und halten sich dagegen.

Rally ’round the flag effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

President Bush approval rating from 2001 to 2006. Spikes in approval coincide with the September 11 attacks, the invasion of Iraq, and the capture of Saddam Hussein.

The rally ’round the flag effect (or syndrome) is a concept used in political science and international relations to explain increased short-run popular support of the President of the United States during periods of international crisis or war.[1]Because rally ’round The Flag effect can reduce criticism of governmental policies, it can be seen as a factor of diversionary foreign policy.[1]

Mueller’s definition[edit]

Political scientist John Mueller suggested the effect in 1970, in a landmark paper called “Presidential Popularity from Truman to Johnson”. He defined it as coming from an event with three qualities:[2]

  1. “Is international”
  2. “Involves the United States and particularly the President directly”
  3. “Specific, dramatic, and sharply focused”

Causes and durations[edit]

Since Mueller’s original theories, two schools of thought have emerged to explain the causes of the effect. The first, “The Patriotism School of Thought” holds that in times of crisis, the American public sees the President as the embodiment of national unity. The second, “The Opinion Leadership School” believes that the rally emerges from a lack of criticism from members of the opposition party, most often in the United States Congress. If opposition party members appear to support the president, the media has no conflict to report, thus it appears to the public that all is well with the performance of the president.[4]

The two theories have both been criticized, but it is generally accepted that the Patriotism School of thought is better to explain causes of rallies, while the Opinion Leadership School of thought is better to explain duration of rallies.[3] It is also believed that the lower the presidential approval rating before the crisis, the larger the increase will be in terms of percentage points because it leaves the president more room for improvement. For example, Franklin Roosevelt only had a 12% increase in approval from 72% to 84% following the Attack on Pearl Harbor, whereas George W. Bush had a 39% increase from 51% to 90% following the September 11 attacks.[5]

Another theory about the cause of the effect is believed to be embedded in the US Constitution. Unlike in other countries, the constitution makes the President both head of government and head of state. Because of this, the president receives a temporary boost in popularity because his Head of State role gives him symbolic importance to the American people. However, as time goes on his duties as Head of Government require partisan decisions that polarize opposition parties and diminish popularity. This theory falls in line more with the Opinion Leadership School.

Due to the highly statistical nature of presidential polls, University of Alabama political scientist John O’Neal has approached the study of rally ’round the flag using mathematics. O’Neal has postulated that the Opinion Leadership School is the more accurate of the two using mathematical equations. These equations are based on quantified factors such as the number of headlines from the New York Times about the crisis, the presence of bipartisan support or hostility, and prior popularity of the president.[6]

Political Scientist from The University of California Los Angeles, Matthew A. Baum found that the source of a rally ’round the flag effect is from independents and members of the opposition party shifting their support behind the President after the rallying effect. Baum also found that when the country is more divided or in a worse economic state then the rally effect is larger. This is because more people who are against the president before the rallying event switch to support him afterwards. When the country is divided before the rallying event there is a higher potential increase in support for the President after the rallying event.[7]

In a study by Political Scientist Terrence L. Chapman and Dan Reiter, rallies in Presidential approval ratings were found to be bigger when there was U.N. Security Council supported Militarized interstate disputes (MIDs). Having U.N. Security Council support was found to increase the rally effect in presidential approval by 8 to 9 points compared to when there wasn’t U.N. Security Council support.[5]

According to a 2019 study of ten countries in the period 1990-2014, there is evidence of a rally-around-the-flag effect early on in an intervention with casualties (in at least the first year) but voters begin to punish the governing parties after 4.5 years.[8]

Historical examples[edit]

The effect has been examined within the context of nearly every major foreign policy crisis since World War II. Some notable examples:

  • Cuban Missile Crisis: According to Gallup polls, President John F. Kennedy‘s approval rating in early October 1962 was at 61%. By November, after the crisis had passed, Kennedy’s approval rose to 74%. The spike in approval peaked in December 1962 at 76%. Kennedy’s approval rating slowly decreased again until it reached the pre-crisis level of 61% in June 1963.[3][9]
  • Iran hostage crisis: According to Gallup polls, President Jimmy Carter quickly gained 26 percentage points, jumping from 32 to 58% approval following the initial seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in November 1979. However, Carter’s handling of the crisis caused popular support to decrease, and by November 1980 Carter had returned to his pre-crisis approval rating.[10]
  • Operation Desert Storm (Persian Gulf War): According to Gallup polls, President George H. W. Bush was rated at 59% approval in January 1991, but following the success of Operation Desert Storm, Bush enjoyed a peak 89% approval rating in February 1991. From there, Bush’s approval rating slowly decreased, reaching the pre-crisis level of 61% in October 1991.[3][11]
  • Following the September 11 attacks in 2001, President George W. Bush received an unprecedented increase in his approval rating. On September 10, Bush had a Gallup Poll rating of 51%. By September 15, his approval rate had increased by 34 percentage points to 85%. Just a week later, Bush was at 90%, the highest presidential approval rating ever. Over a year after the attacks occurred, Bush still received higher approval than he did before 9/11 (68% in November 2002). Both the size and duration of Bush’s popularity after 9/11 are believed to be the largest of any post-crisis boost. Many people believe that this popularity gave Bush a mandate and eventually the political leverage to begin the War in Iraq.[3][12]
  • Death of Osama bin Laden: According to Gallup polls, President Barack Obama received a 6% jump in his Presidential approving ratings, jumping from 46% in the three days before the mission (April 29 – May 1) to a 52% in the 3 days after the mission (May 2–4).[13] The rally effect didn’t last long, as Obama’s approval ratings were back down to 46% by June 30.

Controversy and Fears of Misuse[edit]

There are fears that the president will misuse the rally ’round the flag effect. These fears come from the “diversionary theory of war” in which the President creates an international crisis in order to distract from domestic affairs and to increase their approval ratings through a rally ’round the flag effect. The fear associated with this theory is that a President can create international crisis to avoid dealing with serious domestic issues or to increase their approval rating when it begins to drop.[14]

“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.  Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.  That is easy.  All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”  — Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials 

 

3627– Monday, May 27, 2019 – Jesus Christ versus Donald Trump

Why do I get these crazy writing ideas when I am running?  I get some of what I consider my best ideas while I am out jogging.  Sometimes, my brain solves problems when I am running, sometimes it comes up with thoughts on things to do and other times I get ideas to write about. I was out running yesterday when the following thought flashed into my mind:  What if Jesus entered the presidential race on the Democratic side?  What would people say about this?  I assume that it would get attention from a wide range of commentators.  Just for fun, I decided to “put words into their mouths.”  The result is the following “Fake News.”  If you want to add your comments on what or how you would think about such an event, please do.  I always welcome comments.  So here we go!

News Flash!  Breaking news on CNN and Fox News.  Jesus of Nazareth, AKA, Son of God, Man from Galilee, Jesus Christ and King of the Jews has recently thrown his hat or crown into the ring to run for president against Donald Trump in 2020.  A quick Pew Poll shows him trailing Joe Biden and Sanders in popularity but leading the other 22 Democratic candidates.

jesuspresident

“We are bringing you some recent comments concerning this new event.  First, from the Republican side:”

Donald Trump: “Fake, Fake, Fake. I don’t believe it is the real Jesus.  But even if it was, I will kick his butt back to Crown Heights or wherever else he is from.”

Mitch McConnell: “This is another desperate gamble on the part of the Democratic Party.  I don’t care if he is the real Jesus or not.  There is no way that we are giving any of our hard-earned tax money to the poor people in this country.”

Lindsey Graham: “Well, you all know that I am a man of honor and integrity.  However, I do not think it is right that Jesus should try to stick his nose into something that should not matter to him.  We in the Republican Party have been doing a good job of running this country and I think Jesus would be better off working with the Pope to improve things in the Vatican.  Let us politicians run this country.”

Sarah Huckabee Sanders: “I know Jesus has quite a reputation, but I think he is a sell-out for joining the Democrats.  I am a Christian, but I will still vote for Donald.  He is the man.”

Devin Nunes: “I think there is some kind of a conspiracy afoot here.  I don’t know this Jesus guy very well, but I suspect that if he is a Democrat, he is also a closet commie and closet homosexual.  You can’t trust any Democrat.  I plan to head a committee to see if this Jesus has a bonafide birth certificate and is really an American.”

Bill Hannity: “Fox News says he is a fake and a charlatan.  Who ever heard of anyone in their right mind wanting to take money from the rich to help the poor, the lame and the sick?  Maybe he is Jesus, but this is the 21st Century and he is long past his prime.  He might have been able to sell that message in 20 BC, but this is 2020 and that dog doesn’t point any more.  If I were Jesus, I would go back to selling alms or something to help the poor and stay out of politics.”

“Now for some comments from the Democratic side.” 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: “I have great respect for Jesus, but I don’t think he has a chance. First of all, he is a White guy.  Second, he is old.  I mean he is really old.  You put it all together and he is an “Old White Guy.”  Not enough Democrats will identify with him.  He is a nice guy, but you know what they say about nice guys.”

Nancy Pelosi: “I am not going to play any favorites here.  As long as he doesn’t push for impeachment and as long as he remembers that I run the Democratic party, I won’t have a problem with him.”

Ilhan Omar: “I want to know where he stands on Israel.  Is he for a two state or a one state solution?  These Jewish politicians are all the same.  Everything for Israel and nothing for Palestine.  If he wants my support, he is going to have to show his support for the Palestinians.”

Chuck Schumer: “I agree with Nancy.” 

Joe Biden: “I think Jesus could have a lot going for him, but he lacks my experience.  He might make a good Vice President, but he will need to pay his dues. I have been in the Democratic party for over thirty years and I have the track record that this country needs.  I will get behind Jesus if he is the party’s choice as I have got behind every other Democrat that my party chose.

Bernie Sanders: “I have said it once and I will say it again.  Election days come and go.  But the struggle of the people to create a government which represents all of us and not just the one percent – a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice – that struggle continues.  I have been on the forefront of this struggle for many years.  I have nothing against Jesus, but you did not see him on the Civil Rights marches when I marched along with Dr. Martin Luther King and you did not see him on the Vietnam War protest marches when I marched facing police batons and tear gas.  We need someone who will stand up to this corrupt government and I have demonstrated that I am willing to do that.”

“That’s all for now.  We will bring you updates on the Democratic nomination process as events happen.  Rumors are that Buddha and Moses are considering entering the race.”

“You’ll have a good, secure life when being alive means more to you than security, love more than money, your freedom more than public or partisan opinion, when the mood of Beethoven’s or Bach’s music becomes the mood of your whole life … when your thinking is in harmony, and no longer in conflict, with your feelings … when you let yourself be guided by the thoughts of great sages and no longer by the crimes of great warriors … when you pay the men and women who teach your children better than the politicians; when truths inspire you and empty formulas repel you; when you communicate with your fellow workers in foreign countries directly, and no longer through diplomats…”  ― Wilhelm Reich, Listen, Little Man!

 

 

 

 

Is Civility Overrated?

be fucking civil

All the talk these days by political pundits, news reporters, columnists, journalists and of course politicians seems directed towards decrying the lack of civility in politics.  It is common knowledge that there is a war between the Democrats and Republicans going on.  Each side sees the other as bent on destroying democracy, mom, god and apple pie.  They have become bitter enemies, and no one is taking prisoners.

To study this problem more, I decided to invoke Santayana’s famous dictum on “those who forget the past.”  I fired up my trusty time machine and selected four eras and events from the past where it seems civility had also been called for.  As you perhaps know, when journeying to the past, you become invisible and there is no way that you can influence any past events.  This is in accord with Novikov’s Self-Consistency Principle.  I report on these events in the following four narratives as I witnessed and remembered the discussions.

Moses and Rameses – 1440 BCE

Moses:  Let my people go

Rameses:   Not on your life

Moses:  Then I will bring numerous plagues to smite you Egyptians

Rameses:  Go ahead.  See if I give a dam

A few weeks later:

Rameses:  Look Moses, can’t we be civil about this

Moses:  Sure, let my people go

Rameses:  Not happening

Moses:  Then I will bring a new plague that will strike all first-born Egyptians dead

Rameses:  I thought we agreed to be civil.  Can’t we discuss this more?

Moses:  Let my people go

Rameses:  The hell with you Israelites

One week later:

Rameses:  Moses, I thought we agreed to be civil.  Look how many of my people you killed

Moses:  Let my people go

Rameses:  To hell with you, get out and don’t come back.  I hope I never see you again

Moses:  Now that is what I call being civil.  Goodbye!

in pursuit of civility

War of Independence – 1776 CE

King George:  You dam colonists.  Who do you think you are?

Benjamin Franklin:  We are your loyal servants my lord, who merely want to be treated with the same rights as Englishmen in your country

King George:  You are low-lifes with no civility.  I can’t believe you dumped all that tea in the harbor?  Furthermore, you don’t even have tea-time each day like we do.

Benjamin Franklin:  My lord, the customs in our country are very different

King George:  Different my ass, you people are nothing but barbarians

Benjamin Franklin:  All we want is to eliminate taxation without representation

King George:  Do I look like I care what you want?  I’m the king

Benjamin Franklin:  I am afraid we are prepared to go to war over this issue my lord

King George:  We want to have a civil discussion and you dare to threaten me?

Benjamin Franklin:  What does civility mean to you my lord?

King George:  Your people stop whining about our taxes and get their asses back to work

Benjamin Franklin:  I will bring your message to my people your lord, but I don’t think they will agree

King George:  Then we will crush them like we crush all the enemies of the empire.  They will be begging for tea and not coffee.  You are dismissed.

12-years-slave

 

Somewhere in Mississippi – 1860 CE

Plantation Overseer:  How many times Moses have I told you that you can’t run away?  You are going to get another whipping boy

Moses:  Yes, master

Plantation Overseer:  How many lashes do you think you should get Moses?

Moses:  I don’t rightly know master

Plantation Overseer:  Look Moses, I want to be civil about this, so I am asking your opinion.  I was thinking that since it was fifty last time, we should add ten making it sixty.  That would be ten for each time you ran away – agree?

Moses:  Go to hell!

Plantation Overseer:  Mind your mouth boy.  I thought we were having a civil and friendly conversation and now you go ahead and insult me with your vile mouth.  I am going to add ten lashes to your whipping.  That will teach you to be more civil!

Moses:  Go to hell!

four-components-of-etiquette-33-638

Hollywood Producers Office – March 15, 2018 CE

Producer:  Look Emily, I would like for you to get on the couch and take your clothes off

Emily (Aspiring actress): I don’t understand what taking my clothes off has to do with an audition

Producer:  Well, you have heard of “quid pro quo” right?  Well, I just want you to do me a little favor and then I will do you a bigger favor

Emily:  And what if I refuse?

Producer:  Can’t we be civil about this?  We are both adults

Emily:  I do not plan to screw my way to a role in your production

Producer:  I am tired of trying to be civil, now get your ass on that couch

Emily:  Unlock the door!  Please let go of me!

Producer:  Just relax, you will enjoy it more

Emily:  Get off me, I will scream!

Producer:  Can’t you be more civil Emily?  I am just doing this for your own good

Emily:  Fuck you, get off me!

Producer:  Not until I finish what we started

Emily:  Crying

Producer:  See it wasn’t so bad was it? Maybe after this we can be more civil to each other

Emily:  Screw you!

trump on civility

Well, that is all the time I had for my time journeys. I report the above narratives to the best of my memory.  I was wondering what messages or meaning I could ascribe to these events in terms of the problem of civility that I mentioned earlier.  I know Trump, McConnell, Graham and many others on both sides of the aisle have all called for more civility in politics.

Somehow though, I question when and where civility is appropriate and where a good “Screw you” is more appropriate.  I have no doubt that civility is of value in some circumstances but like any value, perhaps it can be overdone.

death of civility

Webster’s defines the term Civility as: 

1:  Archaic training in the humanities

2a: Civilized conduct, especially COURTESYPOLITENESS

b: A polite act or expression

If we dismiss the first definition, we are left with courtesy and politeness as being the sine qua non of civility.  But I ask, who and when should we be courteous to?  Should we be courteous to:

  • Someone who is robbing us
  • Someone who is trying to kill us
  • Someone who is obviously lying to us
  • Someone who is preaching hate and fear
  • Someone who is taking money from the poor to give to the rich
  • Someone who will deny others the chance for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

sarahhuckabeesanders1

There is a time for civility.  I have no doubt.  But there is a time for anger and indignation.

It takes more courage to stand up to bullies and wrong doers than to merely stand passively by and acquiesce to calls for civility.  To conclude, I observe this about civility:

  • It is often a call by the more powerful to the weaker to be subdued and humbled
  • It can be used to hide evil of the first order and should be suspect
  • It is of merit only when it is reciprocated

Beware the Trojan horse!  Beware those who want civility without justice, truth and freedom!

Time for Questions:

Are you always civil?  When are you not civil?  Why?  Do you agree that civility is not always a virtue?  Why or why not?

Life is just beginning.

“In politics, disagreements between opponents is the sign of a healthy and flourishing democracy. When politicians show too much deference to each other, fundamental ethical questions are likely to get buried and power can go unchecked. Meyer points out that insults are a non-violent way of curbing the excesses of the powerful, and he argues that politics must therefore ‘allow for a boorishness typically at odds with polite society’. Similarly, Kennedy argues: ‘The civility movement is deeply at odds with what an invigorated liberalism requires: intellectual clarity; an insistence upon grappling with the substance of controversies; and a willingness to fight loudly, openly, militantly, even rudely for policies and values….” Meyer, ‘Liberal Civility and the Civility of Etiquette’, 79; Kennedy, ‘The Case against “Civility”’, 85.

The above exercpt is from:  “Six Questions About Civility” by Nicole Billante and Peter Saunders, 2002

 

 

 

Thinking about Immigration – Part 1: We Need a Fair Immigration Policy – Not an Anti-Immigration Policy!

Immigration-logoThe topic of immigration today is one of the most important subjects for all Americans.  Studies in productivity show that increases in productivity are due to two major factors:  Education and Immigration.  Once upon a time we had a system for both of these objectives which helped make our country great.  Today, both of these systems are broke and need reform.  If we are to compete in a global economy, we must have a 21st Century immigration policy that meets the needs of employers and those immigrants that want to or need to come to the USA.  I had already decided to write about this subject when I found myself between the proverbial rock and a hard place.   Immigration has become a key weapon in the mouths of people like Trump and many other politicians.  A climate of fear which has pervaded this country since 911 has been spread to link the problems of terrorism with the problems of immigration. The Anti-Immigration people want you to think that immigration and terrorism are synonymous.  They want you to believe that only by keeping all immigrants out of the USA can we keep our country safe.  The key question I want to answer in my three part blog is as follows:  Do too many immigrants erode our standard of living and contribute to rising crime and increased taxes or do too few immigrants create a lack of needed employees for new jobs and a a lack of vitality for the economy?  

immigrants taking the pledgeI have heard so many arguments one way or the other about the subject that I decided to educate myself about the issues and try to find some “truth” for myself.  My self-education began with a trip to the library where I requested about a dozen books on immigration.  They all came in from different libraries about a week later.  I had finished about nine of them when the urge to summarize my ideas and weigh in with my opinions just gripped me.  This subject is fairly complex as it must cover social, political, economic and legal issues.  I would like to do some justice to the subject, so my blog on this issue soon became three blogs.  Too much for one too read in one setting so I will publish this in 3 Parts.  Please feel free to weigh in on the comments section with your opinions, thoughts and feelings. 

Many people have said that this issue should be decided on the basis of facts and not prejudices and antipathies however that would be like asking for the snow to fall when it was warm outside or for hell to be a nice place to visit.  It is not going to happen.  So realistically, I would like to look at this issue from both a logical factual perspective and also from an illogical or emotional perspective.  Often our gut feelings may be trying to tell us some important truths.  It does not hurt to listen to our feelings as long as we moderate our feelings with our brains.  

Immigration-reform-rally-APMost of the books I selected looked at immigration from a wide range of perspectives.  There were pros and cons of immigration policy, some that were totally against immigration and others that were for a liberal immigration policy.  Several books dealt with the history of US immigration and others dealt with more of the legislative issues around immigration.  Books such as: Immigration Policy: Point/Counterpoint by Allport and Ferguson, Illegal Immigration by Miller, Mexican Immigration by Stuart Anderson and Immigration: Opposing Viewpoints, edited by Leone were among a few of the titles I selected to provide me with a wide range of viewpoints.  I started out with the intention to reject any bias I had one way or the other on the issue.  One of my caveats though was to try to separate fact from emotion.   I think perhaps one danger to seeing any “truths” is when facts try to hide as emotions or emotions try to hide as facts.  Much so called data that I read would not stand up to any statistical validity in terms of evidence or proof.  Much of the emotions out there also try to hide behind facts and present themselves as logical arguments when they are based on bias and prejudice.  My object in my reading and research was to sort through the rhetoric, and vitriol to see what we as American citizens really need to do about immigration.  What is in our best interests both short-term and long-term?  What obligations (if any) do we owe to other peoples of the world?  Do we need to worry about the quote inside the Statue of Liberty?

The New Collossus:  

stature of libertyNot like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

 —Emma Lazarus, 1883

 Perhaps we need to erase this quote inside the statue and substitute it with the following:

 The Scum of the Earth:

Stay home; you wretched curs,

We are sick and tired of being the dumping grounds for the world.

We have enough poor and tired masses.

We have enough yearning to be rich and well off.

old picture of immigrationStay home; we have enough problems of our own,

We already have too many here who can’t speak English.

Even many Americans can’t speak good English.

Where will we find enough ESL teachers?

Stay home; find work or jobs in your own land,

Give us a break, taxes are high enough here already.

We have our own culture, you would not fit in.

We don’t need more criminals and illiterates.

 Stay home; don’t come unless you are needed,

We will post for those aliens that fit our job requirements.

We only want those who are educated and creative.

The rest of you need not apply. 

Stay home!

The two sides as represented in both poems would seem to be galaxies apart.  Is there really any middle ground?  Are there any solutions to the issue of immigration?  Some of the key questions which I have found and which need to be answered are:

 ·        Do we already have too many immigrants here?

·         What do we do about illegal immigrants?  How do we keep them out?

·         How many immigrants should we allow in?

·         Who should we allow in?

·         What do we do with the ones (both legal and illegal) already here?

·         Will too much immigration ruin our culture and values?

·         Will the wrong type of immigrants be bad for our country?

·         How long will it take for them to be assimilated?

·         How much immigration can our education institutions handle?

·         How can we afford health care and social services for those in need?

·         How do we keep out criminals and terrorists while letting respectable immigrants in?

·         Should we give amnesty to those already here?

·         What are the best ways to control our borders?

·         What is a fair immigration policy?

·         What role do drugs have in encouraging illegal immigration?

Are there solutions to these questions?  On the positive side, I believe that there are.  I believe history can show us a path through the web of confusion that seems to surround these questions.  The great philosopher Santayana noted:  “Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.”  The past has many lessons on the issue of immigration that we need to pay attention to.  On the negative side, we will not be able to solve these questions as long as we are basing our decisions on emotions masquerading as facts.  We need to sort out prejudice, discrimination, intolerance and xenophobia from the questions and decisions surrounding the issue of immigration.

immigration-reformOver the next three blogs, I would like to share with you some of the answers I have found to the above questions.  However, do not rely on my perspective alone.  Do not trust the Buddha on the road.  Go to your local library and find some of the same books I have found.  Read the opinions and viewpoints for and against immigration.  Democracy only works with an informed citizenry. As long as only our politicians have the “facts”,  the rest of us will remain gullible and stupid on this issue. As such, we have no way to guard the guardians.  We all must be vigilant when it comes to decisions affecting our lives and the very foundation of our nation.  None of us would be here if it were not for immigration.  I presume this even applies to Native Americans to some degree.

Let’s all take our responsibility to keep this nation strong and democratic. Take some time today to inform yourself about some of the issues I noted above.  Go online and read some of the history or policies of immigration in this country in the past.

Time for Questions:

How much do you care about this issue?  Do you care enough to spend perhaps an hour each week for the next four weeks becoming more informed about this issue?  If not, are you willing to trust your political representative to make the decision for you?  Are you willing to let these questions be decided by others?  Are you an immigrant?  How did your family or ancestors get to this country?

Life is just beginning. 

Previous Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: