Many on the Left in this country decry the partisanship shown, particularly by their opponents. But they don't see it in themselves. Yesterday's newspaper included an editorial with these: "tea-party conspirists" and "charter school zealots." What is so conspiratorial about the Tea Partiers? They are pretty open on what they believe and want. And, for that matter, what is it that the Tea Partiers believe and want that is so bad? They want government to get out of their lives. I don't think they want to completely do so, but do in a lot of personal matters. I'm no charter school supporter, but to give a blanket claim that those who do support them are "zealots" seems to be over the top. I fully understand many people's dissatisfaction with the public schools. They want better things for their children. What's wrong with that? Not all of the charter school folks are there for the money-making possibilities; for that matter, note all those who have taken advantage of the public schools to make money! Using such epithets in an editorial, which I understand is by definition is opinionated, cedes any semblance of credibility.
And speaking of government in our lives: The latest uproar has to do with legislation that intends to make it so transgenders are no longer "uncomfortable" or "embarrassed" or even "feeling unsafe" when using public restrooms. But what about others, the 99% (or what ever the number) who identify themselves as traditional (or whatever the new term is; surely it will soon become a loaded word that will imply bigotry)? What about them? What if seeing a man in a women's bathroom makes any of them "uncomfortable" or "embarrassed?" What if they "feel unsafe?" Is it just "Too bad for you?" I understand the concept of tyranny by the majority, but I don't at all think this issue fits into that category. I don't care what restroom an adult man or woman uses, if nobody else is in there. If my granddaughter or wife are using a public restroom, I'm not going to allow a man to walk in there, law or no law. If mine aren't in there, I couldn't care who uses it.
I've had occasion several times this spring to be reminded of one of the things that made A. Lincoln so great. He, throughout his life, grew as a person. He, in the words of W.E.B. Dubois, "became Abraham Lincoln." (Those words still stir me, no matter how many times I read or cite them!) This was esp true when Lincoln was President. Yet, how many times this spring have I found people locked into/onto ideas, views, actions that, despite evidence to the contrary, are never changed? Often, such advantages to changing are very obvious, yet...... I am reminded of what some of the construction workers on my job of nearly 50 years ago used to say, of the bosses (and not in a complimentary manner), "This is the way we've always done it and, right or wrong, we're going to keep doing it." Or something like that......
Several administrators of higher education, maybe they were the presidents or deans, had an op-ed about "Recommitting to higher education." I think that's well and good. I firmly believe in education and "higher education." I think its very important to a democratic society, not necessarily to prepare people for jobs. So, what can the schools themselves do to "recommit?" Maybe they can lower costs, instead of continuing on the upward rise of tuition year after year. Perhaps they can cut down on the number of administrators, require the full-time instructors to actually teach full-time. I don't see any of the common sense approaches happening. Too many people have too much invested in themselves to be really concerned with "recommitting to higher education." Of these university administrators, what are their salaries? Surely well over half a million bucks, easily. (That some football and basketball coaches make more is also deplorable, but a different matter.) If these college administrators are so concerned, why don't they, at least symbolically, take less money? Don't wait fo that to happen. It's easier to make speeches and write columns in newspapers. This op-ed was, I think, another example of lip-service.
The Michigan state treasury announced that projected revenues have fallen below predictions. It appear that the sales tax and corporate tax are generating far less income than forecast. And those numbers, less revenue than projected, are predicted for the next three years. (Of course, we just saw what happens with gov't predictions, didn't we?) So, if as we keep hearing, Michigan has rebounded from the economic recession, with all these jobs, why aren't people spending more? Why aren't companies producing more to handle the increased demand? I think as I have suspected. There is a recovery, but only for some folks. Many of us are still stuck. Oh, some may have jobs now, but they are making less, far less, or are working fewer hours. I know this has hit our household, for more than 10 years. Remember Mark Twain--"Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." And who can manipulate statistics more dishonestly than government?
There was another "feel-good" letter-to-the-editor, too. The writer was calling on the US gov't to cut back on nuclear weapons. I'm not sure what world this guy lives in--probably some college campus! Maybe he doesn't realize that rogue nations and extremist groups are developing nukes. With that happening, are we supposed to cut back? Maybe we should just give Iran, North Korea, and the radicals a monopoly on nuclear weapons. Or, maybe we should just give the people of those places jobs (as an Obama administration spokesman said a few years ago) and they would be happy and leave the rest of the world alone. I wonder if such folks enjoy those so-called "reality television" shows? Maybe that's what "reality" is to them.
Mitch Albom had a great column on the airlines gouging us. He made some wonderful points and asked some very poignant questions. But, I'll save comments on that for later in the week.
Monday, May 16, 2016
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Mon Thoughts......
But it's Tue, isn't it? Heh Heh......
In his Iron Curtain Speech, Winston Churchill said, "Our difficulties and dangers will not be removed by closing our eyes to them." I was reminded of this twice in the past couple of days. "Closing our eyes" to our problems always has seemed to be like the little kid who puts his hands over his eyes and then exclaims, "You can't see me!"
Do a Google search for "attacks on Jews," say only "in France." You will come up with hundreds of articles detailing assaults, arsons, rapes, and murders of Jews. One tells of an adolescent Jewish boy returning from worship who was set upon, beaten, with his hair set on fire and a swastika carved into his forehead. Yet, a French government minister claimed, "We have no anti-Semitism in France."
ISIS has been perpetrating a genocide against Christians in the Middle East. Thousands have been murdered. And, for centuries, these Christians had lived peacefully along side their Muslim neighbors. Not now...... The killings have also been matched with rapes and beatings. Some Christians have been taken from their homes and bused hundreds of miles into the desert, where they are released without food and water. Women have been coerced into sex slavery. Others have been forced to recant their religious beliefs and convert to Islam. And what do we hear of this? Not much, not from the governments of the nations in which this great tragedy is occurring. Where has been an official condemnation, an often-repeated one, from the US government? To his credit, the Pope has criticized the murder of Christians in the Middle East, but has he been loud enough?
One of the reasons, we are told, that we teach The Holocaust is so that it will never happen again. Yet it is happening again. What is worse than the refusals to confront or even deny these genocides and other violent discrimination, is that some blame the Jews and Christians themselves! I'd really be curious to see an expose of top politicians and business leaders who have ties to the perpetrators of these tragedies. But I'm betting we never will.
On a lighter topic, I was a bit disappointed in the release of the Detroit Free Press greatest songs from Michigan/Detroit. Numbers 100 to 50 were given on Sun, with, I think, another 10 to be revealed on each of the next Sundays. I figured I'd be disappointed, even considering differences in tastes, age, etc. But some of the greatest Temptations, Miracles, Four Tops, Aretha, and Bob Seger hits were ranked lower than some, well, let's just say I disagree. Even the one Kid Rock song I will listen to rated no higher than 71. (Now, I wouldn't have ranked it that high, but surely many others would.) I showed the list to a couple of folks and they, like me, never heard of some of those ranked higher than others. Again, a chacun son gout, but still...... Regardless, I am curious to see the next weeks' rankings and what are the Top Ten. It's not serious, but a fun thing to do and watch.
In his Iron Curtain Speech, Winston Churchill said, "Our difficulties and dangers will not be removed by closing our eyes to them." I was reminded of this twice in the past couple of days. "Closing our eyes" to our problems always has seemed to be like the little kid who puts his hands over his eyes and then exclaims, "You can't see me!"
Do a Google search for "attacks on Jews," say only "in France." You will come up with hundreds of articles detailing assaults, arsons, rapes, and murders of Jews. One tells of an adolescent Jewish boy returning from worship who was set upon, beaten, with his hair set on fire and a swastika carved into his forehead. Yet, a French government minister claimed, "We have no anti-Semitism in France."
ISIS has been perpetrating a genocide against Christians in the Middle East. Thousands have been murdered. And, for centuries, these Christians had lived peacefully along side their Muslim neighbors. Not now...... The killings have also been matched with rapes and beatings. Some Christians have been taken from their homes and bused hundreds of miles into the desert, where they are released without food and water. Women have been coerced into sex slavery. Others have been forced to recant their religious beliefs and convert to Islam. And what do we hear of this? Not much, not from the governments of the nations in which this great tragedy is occurring. Where has been an official condemnation, an often-repeated one, from the US government? To his credit, the Pope has criticized the murder of Christians in the Middle East, but has he been loud enough?
One of the reasons, we are told, that we teach The Holocaust is so that it will never happen again. Yet it is happening again. What is worse than the refusals to confront or even deny these genocides and other violent discrimination, is that some blame the Jews and Christians themselves! I'd really be curious to see an expose of top politicians and business leaders who have ties to the perpetrators of these tragedies. But I'm betting we never will.
On a lighter topic, I was a bit disappointed in the release of the Detroit Free Press greatest songs from Michigan/Detroit. Numbers 100 to 50 were given on Sun, with, I think, another 10 to be revealed on each of the next Sundays. I figured I'd be disappointed, even considering differences in tastes, age, etc. But some of the greatest Temptations, Miracles, Four Tops, Aretha, and Bob Seger hits were ranked lower than some, well, let's just say I disagree. Even the one Kid Rock song I will listen to rated no higher than 71. (Now, I wouldn't have ranked it that high, but surely many others would.) I showed the list to a couple of folks and they, like me, never heard of some of those ranked higher than others. Again, a chacun son gout, but still...... Regardless, I am curious to see the next weeks' rankings and what are the Top Ten. It's not serious, but a fun thing to do and watch.
Sunday, May 8, 2016
Analogy?
I wrote down some ideas today and planned to write about them early this week. But, to keep myself from falling asleep at 7:00 PM, I decided to play on the computer. It was a tough and long week, compounded by a nice long run this AM, a pretty good bike ride, and then Michael's summer-league team practice. I'm bushed and don't want Michael to make fun of me for going to bed so early, "like an old man."
I wonder if this is an apt analogy. A good number of Western states are experiencing drought conditions, severe drought conditions. California is one of them, as Karen and I saw first-hand last summer. But there are others. How would our two US Senators, Stabenow and Peters, respond to a request to take our Great Lakes water and send it to those people in the Western states, to ease their difficulties? I'll bet we all know the answer to that one. Of course they wouldn't. So, then, why are they so willing and quick to take certain people's money (you know, the "greedy" rich) and give it to other people, who they themselves deem in need? Surely the Westerners are hurting and need water, of which we have a lot. Aren't we being "greedy" in not sending it to them?
No doubt, the 2016 Presidential election will go down in history, as the election with the absolutely worst candidate offered to voters. I know there have been some dogs in the past, but c'mon--Clinton and Trump?????? But there's more. Both candidates will now find themselves in an odd position--telling the truth! As each begins to attack the other, they will actually be speaking truthfully. BTW, I saw a couple more articles describing Clinton and Trump as "pathological liars."
Here's a good op-ed from Nolan Finley in the Detroit News this AM. I have, in recent months, found myself opposing more of his stances than usual. But not this one; he's right on the money.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/nolan-finley/2016/05/07/will-worst-choice-ever-president/84096098/
Imagine, 300 million people in the US and these are our choices? Trump? Clinton (who Finley identifies as a "habitual prevaricator")? As he notes, both of them have majority negative images among US voters. Here's an idea: let's have an election that offers a third choice, not a minor party candidate, but "None of the Above." I think I know who would win. Why should this country be saddled with one of two evils. Who was it who has said, "When given a choice of two evils, choose neither?" (Later this week, I'll bring William Lloyd Garrison into the picture.)
In the end, it's our own fault, "The fault. dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves." We have allowed the system to become more and more rigged and corrupt. We have, willfully I think, allowed ourselves to be duped again and again by lying politicians. We have deluded ourselves into thinking, time after time, that our only choices came from the Democrats or Republicans--and look where they have taken us! Look at how the wagons have been circled, among the Establishment politicians and the LameStream media, even the supposed conservatives like Limbaugh and Hannity. It's support the party or be labeled negatively, marginalized, or even ostracized. The Dems have made no secret of their spending, spending, spending--other people's money. But note how the Establishment Reps went along with this, agreeing to W's spending spree, continually approving increased budgets, raising and raising again the debt ceiling. And what happened to those candidate who were elected on the basis of stopping that insane, unsustainable, and irresponsible spending? Yep, they were tarred and punished by the Establishment, kept from any positions of influence among the Establishment Congress. Now, the Establishment--politicians and LameStream media--is starting the same thing with those Republicans who have already said they won't support Trump (for good reason!) or are withholding, at least for the present, support.
There is a solution, one I've employed, but virtually nobody else has. Don't vote for any Establishment candidate, from either of the parties. I know about "wasting my vote." And I reject that view. I've written about it before and hold to that. By not "holding my nose" and voting for "the lesser of two evils," I am making a political and personal statement. By voting for either Trump or Clinton I would be wasting my vote. I hold my vote too precious to waste it on either of these two. I am not sure if I will vote for a third party candidate or write-in someone. As long as we "hold our noses," nothing will ever change. Did you ever read Animal Farm? Do you remember the ending, looking in the farm house window, at the poker game? Here we are, sports fans......here we are.
I wonder if this is an apt analogy. A good number of Western states are experiencing drought conditions, severe drought conditions. California is one of them, as Karen and I saw first-hand last summer. But there are others. How would our two US Senators, Stabenow and Peters, respond to a request to take our Great Lakes water and send it to those people in the Western states, to ease their difficulties? I'll bet we all know the answer to that one. Of course they wouldn't. So, then, why are they so willing and quick to take certain people's money (you know, the "greedy" rich) and give it to other people, who they themselves deem in need? Surely the Westerners are hurting and need water, of which we have a lot. Aren't we being "greedy" in not sending it to them?
No doubt, the 2016 Presidential election will go down in history, as the election with the absolutely worst candidate offered to voters. I know there have been some dogs in the past, but c'mon--Clinton and Trump?????? But there's more. Both candidates will now find themselves in an odd position--telling the truth! As each begins to attack the other, they will actually be speaking truthfully. BTW, I saw a couple more articles describing Clinton and Trump as "pathological liars."
Here's a good op-ed from Nolan Finley in the Detroit News this AM. I have, in recent months, found myself opposing more of his stances than usual. But not this one; he's right on the money.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/nolan-finley/2016/05/07/will-worst-choice-ever-president/84096098/
Imagine, 300 million people in the US and these are our choices? Trump? Clinton (who Finley identifies as a "habitual prevaricator")? As he notes, both of them have majority negative images among US voters. Here's an idea: let's have an election that offers a third choice, not a minor party candidate, but "None of the Above." I think I know who would win. Why should this country be saddled with one of two evils. Who was it who has said, "When given a choice of two evils, choose neither?" (Later this week, I'll bring William Lloyd Garrison into the picture.)
In the end, it's our own fault, "The fault. dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves." We have allowed the system to become more and more rigged and corrupt. We have, willfully I think, allowed ourselves to be duped again and again by lying politicians. We have deluded ourselves into thinking, time after time, that our only choices came from the Democrats or Republicans--and look where they have taken us! Look at how the wagons have been circled, among the Establishment politicians and the LameStream media, even the supposed conservatives like Limbaugh and Hannity. It's support the party or be labeled negatively, marginalized, or even ostracized. The Dems have made no secret of their spending, spending, spending--other people's money. But note how the Establishment Reps went along with this, agreeing to W's spending spree, continually approving increased budgets, raising and raising again the debt ceiling. And what happened to those candidate who were elected on the basis of stopping that insane, unsustainable, and irresponsible spending? Yep, they were tarred and punished by the Establishment, kept from any positions of influence among the Establishment Congress. Now, the Establishment--politicians and LameStream media--is starting the same thing with those Republicans who have already said they won't support Trump (for good reason!) or are withholding, at least for the present, support.
There is a solution, one I've employed, but virtually nobody else has. Don't vote for any Establishment candidate, from either of the parties. I know about "wasting my vote." And I reject that view. I've written about it before and hold to that. By not "holding my nose" and voting for "the lesser of two evils," I am making a political and personal statement. By voting for either Trump or Clinton I would be wasting my vote. I hold my vote too precious to waste it on either of these two. I am not sure if I will vote for a third party candidate or write-in someone. As long as we "hold our noses," nothing will ever change. Did you ever read Animal Farm? Do you remember the ending, looking in the farm house window, at the poker game? Here we are, sports fans......here we are.
Friday, May 6, 2016
The Establishment
I'm sure I've written about this more than once over the course of the past few months. But, boy, it's sure watching the Republican Establishment scramble. Yes, the issue is Don Trump and his lock on the Republican nomination. The Establishment never figured that would happen, did it? And now look at them!
Talk about hypocrites!!!!!! (OK, they are joining the all-hypocrite team with the Democrats on this one.) They impeached Bill Clinton 20 years ago for being a liar and a philanderer, perhaps even an abuser of women. Oh, they got on their high horses, didn't they? What are those Establishment-types now doing with their own lying, philandering candidate? Ha Ha Ha...... One pundit said that the Republicans owe Clinton an apology. That would really be funny if it wasn't so close to the truth!
And, let's not let the Democrats off the hook on this Clinton deal. All those women's groups who supported Clinton surely looked the other way when it came to his philandering use of women, use them and toss them away. Hey, isn't that what women's lib was all about--using women and then just tossing them away? Heh Heh......
I sure hope this campaign brings out the truth about Hillary Clinton. I would think the Republicans have to trot out how Clinton worked to destroy the reputation of those women who accused her husband of abuse, yet now says that if a woman states she was raped, regardless of the evidence, she should be believed. Let me repeat, any woman who still supports Hillary Clinton needs a check-up from the neck up.
So, where does that leave us? I know two things. If I'm still around kicking and breathing in November, I won't be voting for Clinton. I'd never vote for her. And I won't be voting for Trump. I forgot who it was who once said, "With a choice between two evils, choose neither." That's how I'm voting in November.
I've done some reading about William Lloyd Garrison over the past week or so. We discuss him quite a bit in class, a heroic figure of the abolitionist movement. I think his stance on morality, against evil, is relevant today. Within the next few days, I'll see if I can piece something together about him and how we can learn a little bit about morality from him.
Talk about hypocrites!!!!!! (OK, they are joining the all-hypocrite team with the Democrats on this one.) They impeached Bill Clinton 20 years ago for being a liar and a philanderer, perhaps even an abuser of women. Oh, they got on their high horses, didn't they? What are those Establishment-types now doing with their own lying, philandering candidate? Ha Ha Ha...... One pundit said that the Republicans owe Clinton an apology. That would really be funny if it wasn't so close to the truth!
And, let's not let the Democrats off the hook on this Clinton deal. All those women's groups who supported Clinton surely looked the other way when it came to his philandering use of women, use them and toss them away. Hey, isn't that what women's lib was all about--using women and then just tossing them away? Heh Heh......
I sure hope this campaign brings out the truth about Hillary Clinton. I would think the Republicans have to trot out how Clinton worked to destroy the reputation of those women who accused her husband of abuse, yet now says that if a woman states she was raped, regardless of the evidence, she should be believed. Let me repeat, any woman who still supports Hillary Clinton needs a check-up from the neck up.
So, where does that leave us? I know two things. If I'm still around kicking and breathing in November, I won't be voting for Clinton. I'd never vote for her. And I won't be voting for Trump. I forgot who it was who once said, "With a choice between two evils, choose neither." That's how I'm voting in November.
I've done some reading about William Lloyd Garrison over the past week or so. We discuss him quite a bit in class, a heroic figure of the abolitionist movement. I think his stance on morality, against evil, is relevant today. Within the next few days, I'll see if I can piece something together about him and how we can learn a little bit about morality from him.
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
Cruz
I cannot at all get my head around "Trump v Clinton" in November. Here in American, with a population of well over 300 million, these are the best we have? Of course they aren't and we rarely pick the best we have to run for President. C'mon: W. Bush? Obama? But I think Trump v Clinton has reached a new low. In this troubled time, we are flirted with severe peril with either of these two.
I read a blog this AM, urging us "to get over" the problems that Trump poses. "Get over" them? We are talking about the office of the Presidency. (OK, you win. Obama is President and W. was before him. But......) I can't just "get over" Trump or Clinton!
I think either one would be a disaster. It's not even that neither of them deserve to be President. The US is, I think, nearing a perilous time. Past policies and decisions are now "coming home to roost." (I couldn't help myself there!) We are at the precipice, thanks to a corrupt political system in DC and, well, all over.
I think that what today I find most distressing is that Cruz has dropped out. OK, people can have their political disagreements with him. That's fine. This is America. But as one blogger noted today, Cruz tried to fix the corruption in DC, tried to make things better, but became "the most hated man there [the US Senate] in decades." Wow! What an indictment of the corrupt Establishment!
I repeat myself I know. I understand some of the allure of Trump. It's not really him, but the anger and frustration with that corrupt political system. The Establishment is the target and Trump just happened to be the missile. But he's not. He is the Establishment!!!!!! How does anyone think he got to where he is? He used the Establishment and its rules. (Of course, if the rules didn't go his way, he went away bawling about "the corrupt system." Remember, the system is "corrupt" only if Trump can't benefit himself with it.) That Trump, the pathological liar that others say he is, can get away with labeling Cruz, "Lyin' Ted" tells us a lot--about his followers. What does that say about us? With Trump being so dishonest, how and why would anyone think he's going to fix the system??????
When confronted with a tough question on an issue, Trump lies or obfuscates, blusters, or just blurts out some inanities like, "We're going to build a wall?" adding "And Mexico will pay for it!"
Have we become Minnesota? Voters there elected Jesse "the Body" Ventura and Al Franken! Of course, look at the clowns who have been elected in other states, including Michigan!
At the same time, while I understand why Trump gets votes, I can't at all understand how and why Clinton gets any. I've tried to figure it out and can't really--except for one very unflattering reason. I'll let you guess what that is.
Then, to top it off, I read an article today about ObamaCare, back at work messing up things. The FDA issued its ObamaCare mandate for restaurants in labeling calories on menu items. Get this one: the definition of "menu" is 171 words!!!!!! It takes 163 words to define "restaurant-type food" and 96 for "combination meal." More and more it's apparent ObamaCare is failing--as many/most predicted it would--but the clowns keep adding to the circus, don't they?
I read a blog this AM, urging us "to get over" the problems that Trump poses. "Get over" them? We are talking about the office of the Presidency. (OK, you win. Obama is President and W. was before him. But......) I can't just "get over" Trump or Clinton!
I think either one would be a disaster. It's not even that neither of them deserve to be President. The US is, I think, nearing a perilous time. Past policies and decisions are now "coming home to roost." (I couldn't help myself there!) We are at the precipice, thanks to a corrupt political system in DC and, well, all over.
I think that what today I find most distressing is that Cruz has dropped out. OK, people can have their political disagreements with him. That's fine. This is America. But as one blogger noted today, Cruz tried to fix the corruption in DC, tried to make things better, but became "the most hated man there [the US Senate] in decades." Wow! What an indictment of the corrupt Establishment!
I repeat myself I know. I understand some of the allure of Trump. It's not really him, but the anger and frustration with that corrupt political system. The Establishment is the target and Trump just happened to be the missile. But he's not. He is the Establishment!!!!!! How does anyone think he got to where he is? He used the Establishment and its rules. (Of course, if the rules didn't go his way, he went away bawling about "the corrupt system." Remember, the system is "corrupt" only if Trump can't benefit himself with it.) That Trump, the pathological liar that others say he is, can get away with labeling Cruz, "Lyin' Ted" tells us a lot--about his followers. What does that say about us? With Trump being so dishonest, how and why would anyone think he's going to fix the system??????
When confronted with a tough question on an issue, Trump lies or obfuscates, blusters, or just blurts out some inanities like, "We're going to build a wall?" adding "And Mexico will pay for it!"
This blogger is often off the wall and his allusion to the KKK and other white supremacists is yet another example of that, but the rest of the article makes a lot of sense.
I'm not giving the Republican Party (the Establishment) a free pass here. Frankenstein has created its own monster, The Modern Prometheus.
When and where is there going to be a party to represent me and my values?
Have we become Minnesota? Voters there elected Jesse "the Body" Ventura and Al Franken! Of course, look at the clowns who have been elected in other states, including Michigan!
At the same time, while I understand why Trump gets votes, I can't at all understand how and why Clinton gets any. I've tried to figure it out and can't really--except for one very unflattering reason. I'll let you guess what that is.
Then, to top it off, I read an article today about ObamaCare, back at work messing up things. The FDA issued its ObamaCare mandate for restaurants in labeling calories on menu items. Get this one: the definition of "menu" is 171 words!!!!!! It takes 163 words to define "restaurant-type food" and 96 for "combination meal." More and more it's apparent ObamaCare is failing--as many/most predicted it would--but the clowns keep adding to the circus, don't they?
Monday, May 2, 2016
Are You Listening?
I was thinking of this the other day, last week. The Establishment folks are once again asking for voters' support. "Trust us," they say one more time. Why in the world would we trust them? They haven't listened to us in, what?, more than two decades, likely longer. "Trust us. We'll listen this time." Yeah, right......
An interesting piece opposing Trump called into question the wisdom of allowing him access to the nuclear arsenal/codes. Isn't that frightening? It recalls the late US Senator from Michigan Phil Hart. Sen. Hart (Note I use his title!) was known as "the conscience of the Senate" because of his unquestioned integrity. (As an aside, that some later referred to Carl Levin with the same sobriquet always unnerved me. A "conscience" would have spoken out against Bill Clinton in his impeachment trial, not voted to keep him in office. "Conscience" involves morals and stretches far beyond partisanship.) In the '60s, a Mississippi Senator was in line to become the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, third in the line of succession to the Presidency. This Senator was a personal friend of Sen. Hart's; they and their wives socialized. Yet, the Michigan Senator took to the floor of the US Senate to oppose his friend's candidacy, citing the segregationist philosophy and policies of the Mississippian. This was the right thing to do. This was Sen. Philip A. Hart.
What does this, that history stuff, have to do with anything? Two things, I think. One, it's time for the Establishment to do the right thing. To go along to get along isn't working, except to perpetuate the power of the Establishment. Does the Establishment really think things are better than they were in the past? (Of course some things are, but c'mon......) And it's time for it to start looking in the mirror for reasons. Two, no doubt the Trumpsters are going to blame the rest of us for a Trump defeat or, if by some miracle he does win, for opposing him in the first place. As I've said in the past, with Trump or with any Establishment candidate (and, in reality, as much as the Establishment wants to deny it, Trump is the Establishment), it's not my fault for voting against him/her. No, it's not my fault if that leads to a Clinton win (as repulsive as that is). Is that what my entire voting life (or at least much of it) has come down to--holding my nose and voting for the least terrible of the terrible? No more!!!!!! (Actually, I have stopped "holding my nose" for more than 20 years. And, I have been accused of helping to elect, Obama, among others. No! Give me an opposing candidate worth voting for, not one who is "less rotten" than the other. It's not my fault. It's the Establishment's fault!)
Enough for one dismal (rainy) Monday AM.
An interesting piece opposing Trump called into question the wisdom of allowing him access to the nuclear arsenal/codes. Isn't that frightening? It recalls the late US Senator from Michigan Phil Hart. Sen. Hart (Note I use his title!) was known as "the conscience of the Senate" because of his unquestioned integrity. (As an aside, that some later referred to Carl Levin with the same sobriquet always unnerved me. A "conscience" would have spoken out against Bill Clinton in his impeachment trial, not voted to keep him in office. "Conscience" involves morals and stretches far beyond partisanship.) In the '60s, a Mississippi Senator was in line to become the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, third in the line of succession to the Presidency. This Senator was a personal friend of Sen. Hart's; they and their wives socialized. Yet, the Michigan Senator took to the floor of the US Senate to oppose his friend's candidacy, citing the segregationist philosophy and policies of the Mississippian. This was the right thing to do. This was Sen. Philip A. Hart.
What does this, that history stuff, have to do with anything? Two things, I think. One, it's time for the Establishment to do the right thing. To go along to get along isn't working, except to perpetuate the power of the Establishment. Does the Establishment really think things are better than they were in the past? (Of course some things are, but c'mon......) And it's time for it to start looking in the mirror for reasons. Two, no doubt the Trumpsters are going to blame the rest of us for a Trump defeat or, if by some miracle he does win, for opposing him in the first place. As I've said in the past, with Trump or with any Establishment candidate (and, in reality, as much as the Establishment wants to deny it, Trump is the Establishment), it's not my fault for voting against him/her. No, it's not my fault if that leads to a Clinton win (as repulsive as that is). Is that what my entire voting life (or at least much of it) has come down to--holding my nose and voting for the least terrible of the terrible? No more!!!!!! (Actually, I have stopped "holding my nose" for more than 20 years. And, I have been accused of helping to elect, Obama, among others. No! Give me an opposing candidate worth voting for, not one who is "less rotten" than the other. It's not my fault. It's the Establishment's fault!)
Enough for one dismal (rainy) Monday AM.
Sunday, May 1, 2016
Somebody's Watching You?
Like the old Motown hit by Rockwell (who I believe is Berry Gordy's son) "Somebody's Watchin' You," sometimes I think somebody's watching me or at least this blog.
Weeks or even days after I've written something, it shows up in the newspaper or magazine. That's OK; I want to attribution. It's just something to make me wonder.
For instance, in an editorial in this AM's Detroit News, there was reference to Warren Buffet's lament about his poor executive secretary who is in a higher income tax bracket than he is. Months, if not years ago, I noted that surely Buffet takes advantage of tax loopholes by hiring tax lawyers and/or accountants to find those loopholes for him. Why doesn't he merely take the standard deduction that the rest of us, those unable to take advantage of the myriad loopholes, take? Why use the lawyers and accountants? Then his secretary wouldn't be in a higher tax bracket. And that same sentiment was expressed in the editorial this AM. I usually get a few dozen readers of my blog, but only send out about 5 or 6 links to my recent posts.
I don't have a problem with Buffet taking advantage of what the law will give him. After all, he didn't write the law. The problem I have is that he's taking advantage of the same system he is gaming. What exactly is he lamenting? Is he really upset at loopholes? Is it that his secretary has to pay more taxes, "more taxes" than who? Maybe we should know what salary he pays her. I'm guessing (heh heh) that she makes a whole lot more than I ever did. Can't his attorneys and accountants find her some loopholes? Or is it that he's lamenting that he doesn't have to pay as much, that is, at the same rate? Nah, that can't be it. Maybe it's the ridiculously complex federal income tax system, one composed of more than 10 million words.
Now, true, as defenders of the federal income tax morass cite, the actual IRS tax code isn't that long, only about 2.5 million words. But federal tax regulations (I guess "regulations" mean we have to abide by them??????) add three times that amount. And this doesn't include federal tax case law, either, often vital to understanding the code and regulations. Of course most of us don't use all those pages, but that's not the point.
The editorial had a larger and more important point. Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite. But we already knew that, didn't we? She and groups touting her candidacy have raised more than $250 billion (that's billion, as in b b b billion). About a third of that has come from the super PACS, you know, the ones who the Supremes ruled in favor in the Citizens United case. Oh, Clinton has railed and railed against that decision, hasn't she? But she keeps taking the money. From the editorial, just the money Clinton has received from the PACs is about the same as Trump, Cruz, and Kasich--combined. So, I ask, which candidate is "greedy?" Who exactly is it taking money from the Fat Cats? That Soros guy has given $7 million to Clinton and her supporting PACs. Some of those Hollywood-types have kicked in $1 million or more, each. From merely 7 of these Fat Cats, Clinton has raised almost $30 million. Why do we keep hearing about the Koch brothers and how they are trying to buy elections, but not about these other guys? Well we don't hear about them nearly as often and never in as disparaging terms.
I guess I am not opposed to the Citizens United ruling. If people want to spend their money to influence elections, legally not through bribes, that seems OK. I still think the way to end the influence of money is to force candidates to reveal who gave how much and the print that on the front pages for all to see. Voters then, to stop this, should just vote for the lesser amount, regardless of party. I'm guessing that would take one election cycle to get rid of much of the money.
But, as in so much else, I might well be wrong. Out to run in the rain......
Weeks or even days after I've written something, it shows up in the newspaper or magazine. That's OK; I want to attribution. It's just something to make me wonder.
For instance, in an editorial in this AM's Detroit News, there was reference to Warren Buffet's lament about his poor executive secretary who is in a higher income tax bracket than he is. Months, if not years ago, I noted that surely Buffet takes advantage of tax loopholes by hiring tax lawyers and/or accountants to find those loopholes for him. Why doesn't he merely take the standard deduction that the rest of us, those unable to take advantage of the myriad loopholes, take? Why use the lawyers and accountants? Then his secretary wouldn't be in a higher tax bracket. And that same sentiment was expressed in the editorial this AM. I usually get a few dozen readers of my blog, but only send out about 5 or 6 links to my recent posts.
I don't have a problem with Buffet taking advantage of what the law will give him. After all, he didn't write the law. The problem I have is that he's taking advantage of the same system he is gaming. What exactly is he lamenting? Is he really upset at loopholes? Is it that his secretary has to pay more taxes, "more taxes" than who? Maybe we should know what salary he pays her. I'm guessing (heh heh) that she makes a whole lot more than I ever did. Can't his attorneys and accountants find her some loopholes? Or is it that he's lamenting that he doesn't have to pay as much, that is, at the same rate? Nah, that can't be it. Maybe it's the ridiculously complex federal income tax system, one composed of more than 10 million words.
Now, true, as defenders of the federal income tax morass cite, the actual IRS tax code isn't that long, only about 2.5 million words. But federal tax regulations (I guess "regulations" mean we have to abide by them??????) add three times that amount. And this doesn't include federal tax case law, either, often vital to understanding the code and regulations. Of course most of us don't use all those pages, but that's not the point.
The editorial had a larger and more important point. Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite. But we already knew that, didn't we? She and groups touting her candidacy have raised more than $250 billion (that's billion, as in b b b billion). About a third of that has come from the super PACS, you know, the ones who the Supremes ruled in favor in the Citizens United case. Oh, Clinton has railed and railed against that decision, hasn't she? But she keeps taking the money. From the editorial, just the money Clinton has received from the PACs is about the same as Trump, Cruz, and Kasich--combined. So, I ask, which candidate is "greedy?" Who exactly is it taking money from the Fat Cats? That Soros guy has given $7 million to Clinton and her supporting PACs. Some of those Hollywood-types have kicked in $1 million or more, each. From merely 7 of these Fat Cats, Clinton has raised almost $30 million. Why do we keep hearing about the Koch brothers and how they are trying to buy elections, but not about these other guys? Well we don't hear about them nearly as often and never in as disparaging terms.
I guess I am not opposed to the Citizens United ruling. If people want to spend their money to influence elections, legally not through bribes, that seems OK. I still think the way to end the influence of money is to force candidates to reveal who gave how much and the print that on the front pages for all to see. Voters then, to stop this, should just vote for the lesser amount, regardless of party. I'm guessing that would take one election cycle to get rid of much of the money.
But, as in so much else, I might well be wrong. Out to run in the rain......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
