Donald Trump is COVID-19 Personified

Bob Woodward's new book, Rage, is an documentation of parts of the Trump presidency from a respected journalist.  It is based on facts and research using interviews with President Trump, the public record and trusted sources.  Much of what I'm reading confirms what I had already heard, but Woodward brings them together in a time line.

Woodward clearly shows Trump is a liar.  That is, a person who does not tell the truth.  President Trump is clearly a liar, but I'm convinced most of his lies are not really intentional because he does not actually understand the concepts of truth or facts.  Occasionally he seems to logically determine what response is best for him.  But in many cases, he seems to just say whatever his gut tells him is most expeditious at the moment. That is why he can say something and them shortly thereafter he can say the complete opposite.

I must admit I've long believed President Trump is an idiot, but Woodward recounted incidents that make me pause to consider maybe Trump has more substance than I gave him credit for.  That was until I read chapter 33.

In chapter 33 Woodward describes the advice he received years ago about writing biographies.  An English professor suggested finding true "reflectors" of the subject.  People who are or were close to the subject.  People whose close experiences with the subject allow them to make accurate assessments of the person.

Woodward choose President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as such a person.

In February, 2020 Kushner suggested four texts that should be consulted to help understand Donald Trump.  Texts in this case meant writings, not text messages.

The first is a 2018 opinion piece by Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal.  In this piece she describes the President as a "crazy act", "a living insult", and "epic instability, mismanagement and confusion".

I think Noonan was basically saying Trump is not rational and has no desire to use rational thought to perform his presidential duties.

The second text Kushner recommended consulting was Alice in Wonderland.  Specifically the Cheshire Cat whose strategy, according to Woodward, "was one of endurance and persistence, not direction”.

I understand this to mean Trump does not think ahead. He doesn't believe that goals and steps to achieve those goals are needed. He just needs to survive the moment, psychologically satisfy his narcissism and boost his low self-esteem.

Then Kushner suggested the book The Gatekeepers: How White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency, by Chris Whipple.  I think Kushner recommended this book to high light that while other presidents chose people with talents, knowledge and experience to help them determine how to handle difficult issues, Trump feels he needs little help since he is more qualified than anyone to best decide what to do.

I believe, President Trump wants people who just do whatever he says and sometimes realize what he wants done without him having to put himself in jeopardy by saying something incriminating. He also wants people who will tell him what a great job he is doing and people to blame when things go badly.

The final text was Scott Adam's book, Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter.  Scott Adams is the creator or Dilbert. Adam's argues that Trump's lies "are not regrettable errors or ethical lapses”. In Adams' words, Trump “can invent any reality”.

We see this all the time. Trump lies and some people will accept whatever he says. Trump supporters have been conditioned to believe that anyone who tries to correct Trump is the liar. They are just creating fake news.

As I said earlier, I'm not convinced Trump's lies are that strategic. He knows his followers will believe whatever he says. He suffers no penalties for repeating and expanding a lie. In Trump's world, the old saw, “go big or go home” is a guiding principle for his lies.

Woodard summarizes Kushner's insight into Trump by saying, “When combined, Kushner's four text's painted President Trump as crazy, aimless, stubborn and manipulative.”. It sounds like neither Kushner or Woodward think Trump is a stable genius.

I would phrase Woodward's analysis a little differently. President Trump is not rational, has no goals other than surviving, only needs people who will serve him and has no compunction abusing people to meet his needs.

That sounds a lot like COVID-19.

To make this comparison even stronger, President Trump would like to be King Trump and COVID-19 is a corona virus.

The Election Should Decide Who Picks The Next Justice

 I do not agree with Senator McConnell's rule that an opening on the Supreme Court in a presidential election year should be filled by whoever wins the election that year.  Oh yeah, that was the rule last election.  Since that no longer works for him, he has a new rule this election.  Does anyone doubt that he would go back to his earlier rule if that worked better for him?  Or make up a new rule?

As I have suggested before, I would like laws that require some kind of bi-partisan vote on Supreme Court justices.How about requiring a super majority of 60 votes with at least 10 votes from outside the majority party?

But that is for the future.  

If  Trump wins the election, he can nominate the next justice. But...Since I believe Republicans stole a Supreme Court justice from President Obama, if they insist on forcing a Senate vote either before the election or after the election if Biden wins, then it is time to play hardball like the Republicans.

If Biden wins and Republicans insist on confirming a new justice this year, I suggest that Democrats declare that they will impeach this justice as soon as they can.  I don't believe they need any justification other than that seat on the court was stolen.

I know that opens the possibility that Republicans will do the same when they have a chance, but they show no principles now.  They will always do whatever suits their current needs.  Precedent be damned.  Norms be damned.  Principles be damned.  So what do we have to lose?  You have to stand up to bullies.

The hope is that Republicans will understand we can treat governing like a death match or we can try to govern with the understanding that for the good of the country we must try to work together.

President Trump's Troubling Projection

 There are several things we know about President Trump.  

 He seldom tells the truth.  The more impassioned he is about an issue, the more likely it involves a lie.

He has mental health issues.  He is a narcissist and is very insecure. One of his coping mechanism is to project what he believes are his issues and weaknesses onto others.

It is therefore very troubling that President Trump has, without any proof, accused Joe Biden of taking drugs to sharpen his public speaking.

We need to watch how often President Trump makes this baseless claim.

How Do You Know That A MAGA Hat Is Authentic?

 

How do you know a MAGA hat is authentic?

 

Look for the tin foil lining.

 

 

Rehabilitating Michael Flynn

Republicans are once again trying to warp reality to excuse President Trump's delusions.

President Trump and Republicans are outraged over the unjust treatment of former National Security Advisor, former general Michael Flynn by Obama's FBI. They have Attorney General Barr's dismissing of the prosecution of Flynn as proof that Flynn was mistreated and set-up by the FBI.

This story is more long and more involved then can be discussed here, but I'm dismayed by several things.

What should the FBI have done when they found the Russian's had tried to interfere with our elections? Factor in the public appeals by Trump for Russia to provide him help, the unusual and considerable number of contacts between the campaign and Russia and the overwhelming electronic proof that the Russians were helping Trump. I would be outraged if they hadn't opened an investigation, including the actions of Flynn. If the investigation spiraled out of control, and I don't think it did, it is was certainly in part because there clearly was a lot to investigate and involved people at the highest levels of our government.

But what now bothers me about the rehabilitation of Flynn is the attempt to completely forget the basic facts.

Flynn had contact with the Russian ambassador and then lied about it to the FBI and Vice-President Pence. President Trump cited these lies when he fired Flynn. And then to make it worse, Flynn lied to federal prosecutors and a federal judge.

When Flynn denied his contact with the ambassador, one group knew for sure he was not telling the truth, the Russians. This is a classic example of how to turn a person into a spy. The Russians could then go to Flynn and say something like, “We know you lied about having secret contacts with us. We won't tell anyone about this, but we could use a favor.”. And then they ask for some small favor. They do this a few more times with the requests being more significant each time. It becomes harder and harder for Flynn to say no. At some point they have enough evidence that, if released, would cause Flynn to be locked up forever. Then what would they expect the National Security Advisor to do for them?

If Flynn is so innocent, why did he repeatedly lie?

Who knows, the Russians may have more damaging information about Flynn that we don't know about . If they do, would they hesitate to use it to coerce him? And yet President Trump and Vice-President Pence say they would be open to hiring Flynn again. Really?

The FBI was right to be concerned about these guys. I certainly am.

The Real COVID-19 Plan

It is clear that we will be dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic for months. The task now seems to be how to balance the need to protect people from the serious health risks of the disease against the serious economic and social effects of social distancing. I think the solution has already been determined, but no one is going to openly admit what it is.

Since no vaccine is likely to be available for many months, we need a long term plan for dealing with the pandemic. A reasonable plan has been known for several weeks. Focus on protecting people's health to minimize deaths and serious injuries and thereby prevent the health care system and workers from being overwhelmed. The cost of this is on-going economic pain. At the same time, relax social distancing restrictions and restart some businesses, but that will mean more people will be infected and more people will die.

We would each probably define the proper balance between health and the economy differently.

People who prioritize health have the harder job. They need to keep social distancing in effect until the number of new cases is low enough that rapid testing (which we do not yet have), contact tracing and isolation can control the infection rate. This would prevent the health care system from being overwhelmed until an effective vaccine is eventually created.

On the other side, people who prioritize the economy over health have the easier task. No one likes social distancing and its economic ramifications. That makes it is easy for politicians to call for relaxed restrictions even while the infection rate is not controlled. Even without relaxed restrictions, people and businesses can just ignore social distancing laws and rules. In either case, some  businesses will reopen and maybe have a chance to survive, but more people will become infected. While more people will be sick and die, more people will hopefully now have immunity.

If infections and deaths spike, restrictions can be increased again, but that won't change much. Pandemic overload will eventually desensitize people. Once that spike is controlled people will clamor for eased restrictions again and be even less appalled by the health care side-effects.

While no one will say it, every person who is infected and survives is helping build herd immunity. Many people, especially politicians, are gambling that herd immunity will control the pandemic quicker than a new vaccine. That's the real plan.

Time to Move Dept of Justice out of the Executive Branch

Recent events have made it clear that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice should not be part of the executive branch.  They must be non-partisan.  People smarter than I am should come up with a plan, but I suggest they be moved to the judiciary.

The Attorney General could be chosen by a super majority of Supreme Court Justices (6 or more) from a list of candidates.  One candidate each from the president, the House and the Senate.  Congress would need a super majority vote (>60%) to choose its candidate.  If the House or Senate cannot agree on a candidate, the ABA could then suggest a candidate.

The Attorney General would be appointed for an 8 year term that starts in the year after the presidential inauguration. As the end of the term nears, the nomination process would begin again.  The current attorney general could be re-nominated.

The Justices could, with a super majority vote, remove the current Attorney General.  The process would then start to choose a new Attorney General to serve the remainder of the term.

The Chief Justice, working with the Attorney General, would submit a budget each year.  The budget should have protections to prevent appropriations being used to politically influence Department of Justice decisions.

We would also need a plan to fill and remove Justice Department positions that are now political appointees.  It is probably too much to expect the Supreme Court to oversee an operation of this size.  But I'm sure we can figure this out.

The idea is to remove politics from the administration of justice.  While this is probably idealistic, we should try.

While we are at it, lets make it law that a super majority of the Senate is required to confirm a Supreme Court justice.

Trump's Questionable Meeting With Putin

President Trump will meet with Vladimir Putin in a few days.  The first session is reported to be a private meeting with only Trump, Putin and Putin's translator present.

Why isn't President Trump going to also have his own translator present?  The room is too small for another person?  He is afraid that having a second translator will confuse the conversation?  He trusts Putin's translator and he can't find an American translator he trusts?

Why is there no note taker present?

Why doesn't President Trump want one of his advisors to be present?  This person doesn't have to talk, just listen.  Is Mike Pompeo taking a day off?  Are other close advisors, the people Trump choose, not trustworthy?  Is he afraid they can't keep a secret?  If so, what will be discussed? Remember, these are people currently handling some of the most secret national security issues facing this country.

Does Trump's ego require that he show he doesn't need any one to help him run this country?  Even a translator or close advisor?

Does Trump want to discuss issues that even his closest advisors don't know about? And he doesn't want them to know.

Are Trump and Putin discussing private personal matters that are just too embarrassing to make public?

Are Trump and Putin going to talk about aliens?  I don't mean asylum seekers from Central America,  I mean the kind from outer space.  Maybe we are on the verge of first contact and Trump and Putin have to determine who will take credit.

Whatever the reasons, for a President whose campaign is currently under investigation for collusion with the Russians this looks suspicious.

Maybe that's the point.  After the meeting is over, he can tell us (or not) what was discussed no one can dispute him.  Except for Putin.

There is a conundrum.  Trump and Putin disagree.  Who do you believe?
 

Nobel Prize or Booby Prize?

President Trump is ready to nominate himself and accept the Nobel Peace Prize for bringing North Korea to the table and denuclearizing the Korean peninsula.

He claims he did that by putting maximum pressure on North Korea.  Of course, that included the threat of annihilating the entire peninsula.

So faced with a bellicose and unpredictable dictator who has no problem starving the citizens of his own country, Trump, an equally bellicose and unpredictable president repeatedly threatens war.

Don't tell me President Trump had this all planned out.  Trump, as he often does, just lashed out with threats when he had no plans at all.

Thank goodness Kim Jong-un turned out to be the more rational head of state. 

But then again, this fight over who has the bigger button is not over. What prize will President Trump get if his threats end in another war with North Korean?

Republicans Owe Democrats a Supreme Court Justice

If the Democrats win back the Senate this November, they should refuse to allow a Republican nominee to be added to the Supreme Court.

President Trump can nominate a new justice and Democrats should hold hearings, but Democrats should not vote to confirm the nominee.

The Republicans stole a Supreme Court Justice from President Obama and Democrats.  Until that theft has been repaid, Democrats should refuse to approve any Republican Supreme Court nominee.

I realize that this could lead to a political war that prevents any new justice from being added to the court until the presidency and Senate are both held by the same political party.

That would be terrible, but Republicans started this war.

President Trump could solve this problem by letting Democrats pick the next Supreme Court Justice, should there be one.

In fairness, if there are two openings in Trump's last two years, he can fill the second after he lets Democrats fill the first.

Once the stolen seat is returned to Democrats, we can all hope that both parties agree to nominate only centrists to the court.  Republican presidents can nominate and have confirmed qualified, center-right justices and Democratic presidents can nominate and have confirmed qualified, center-left justices.

We have to get back to working together to keep our democracy strong and stop needless, counter-productive political wars.

Impeachment Plan for Political Cowards

I heard a commentator say many Republicans are privately tired of the incompetence and antics of President Trump, but are unsure how to remove him from office.  They are afraid of challenging him directly for fear of his or his supporters wrath.

Republicans will probably just wait for Democrats to take the House in November.  The best guess is there will be enough Democrats who will vote for impeachment since it only takes a majority of House members. Republicans can sit back and howl with outrage.

The Senate requires a two thirds vote to remove the President.  There probably won't be enough Democrats in November to do this alone,  Democrats can do the hard work and prosecute the case.  Republicans can do whatever they think is politically acceptable.

When the final Senate vote comes, Democrats will have to hope they can find enough Republicans with the political courage to vote to complete the process and remove President Trump.

Republicans who vote to impeach can defend their vote by claiming they will have a more reasonable partner in a President Pence for the last two years of the term.

An added rational is that if Vice-President Pence becomes president with less than two years left in President Trump's term, he is eligible to run for two more full presidential terms on his own.  That means he could be president for almost 10 years.

If NRA Supports You, I Do Not

We should all be proud of the students who are marching to stop gun violence today.  They are very impressive.

As voters, we should all take a pledge to not vote for any candidate, Republican or Democrat or third party, that takes support from the NRA.  If that means we have to write-in the name of a candidate not beholding to the NRA and who is willing to support legislation to prevent gun violence, that is what we will do.

Did Dreamers Break the Law?

Today I watched Fareed Zakaria's program GPS on CNN.  In asking a question he repeated an analogy used by some people to describe their position on Dreamers (people who have signed up for DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).  These are people who were brought to the U.S. as children and who some believe are law breakers and should be deported.

As I recall it was something like, letting Dreamers stay in the U.S. is like letting the kids of a bank robber keep the stolen money.

Said that way it seems like reasonable logic for sending adults brought here as children back to the country of their birth.  Except that the analogy is not a fair description of the situation.

I think a better analogy is that rounding up and deporting the adult dreamers would be like asking adult children to repay money stolen by their parents and used by their parents to support the children as they grew up.

Certainly, unspent money or assets purchased with stolen money should be returned, but funds spent to support children (feed, cloth, educate, shelter, etc.) are not the responsibility of the children. 

If the new rule is that adults are responsible for repaying debts for money obtained illegally by their parents and spent to support them when they were growing up, a lot of U.S. citizens should start sweating.

Discuss Gun Saftey Issues Now

In the aftermath of the mass killing of students in Parkland, Florida, the usual cast of characters again claimed that the immediate aftermath of a mass shooting is not the time to discuss policy changes in response to the shooting.  They claim we don't know all the details of the incident at Parkland so we could be suggesting policy changes that won't address the issue or maybe we could make the problem worse.  This is obviously not true, but people like the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, continue to repeat that lie.

Let's give Paul Ryan and others the benefit of the doubt.  Let's us assume they really believe what they are saying and are not just paying off debts to the NRA and some of their base voters.

To these people I would ask, what policy changes would you suggest based on the facts we now know from the shootings at the concert at Las Vegas or at the Pulse night club in Orlando or at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia or at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut or at a small church in Sutherland Springs, Texas or at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado or at ...

We Need To Address Gun Violence Now

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Contrary to strict constructionists, there is more than one way to interpret the Second Amendment.  It is and has been obvious that the interpretation of the Second Amendment by the NRA and its Conservative supporters is not good for this country. 

It is logically inconsistent to ignore the language in the Second Amendment that clarifies it is granting a right to people who are part of a militia and yet legalize the ownership of firearms designed only for war and killing large numbers of people.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment does not give citizens unlimited access to arms.  If the Second Amendment is not tied to militia defending the country, there is no need for private ownership of arms only meant for war.

I am tired of hearing politicians express sympathy for the victims of gun violence and then do nothing to try to prevent future tragedies.

I am tired of hearing politicians tell us that now is not the time to talk about changing gun laws.  That is bull shit.  Politicians count on time dulling our outrage and they won't have to take a stand and work on solutions.

We heard that same crap after innocent first graders and educators were murdered at Sandy Hook.  It has been almost five years since the massacre at Sandy Hook.  Is now the right time to talk about common sense gun law changes as a result of the innocent lives lost at Sandy Hook?

Would We Be Better Off Without Obamacare?

Republicans like to argue about how bad Obamacare is.  Obamacare is not perfect.  Some people may have been harmed.  But something like 30 million got access to health care they didn't have it before.

No Republicans voted for Obamacare even though many Republican ideas were incorporated into the bill to address their concerns.  Now Republicans claim that Obamacare is so bad it must be repealed.

I would like to ask Republicans if they believe the overall health of Americans would be better today if Obamacare had never been passed.

I suspect they would find some reason to argue we would all be better if the millions who got health care because of Obamacare received no help. We can be assured of that since they now believe the country would be better off if these people lost their health care.

Health Care is a Right

Whatever happens to Obamacare it will be a success.

Obamacare has planted the seed that health care is a right.  That is a seed that will grow and that all politicians will have to support.

Pardon Is Not A Get Out of Jail Free Card

There is reporting tonight that President Trump is asking for legal advice about his powers to pardon his staff, relatives and himself.  Presumably he is looking for a get out of jail free card if investigators get too close to proving illegal activities.

While that may sound like an easy way to avoid penalties of illegal activities, it may be just the opposite.

I don't know if a President can give a blanket pardon for all prior federal crimes even those that are not identified or not associated with their public service.  That might be possible.  I also don't know if a President can give a pardon for future crimes, but that seems unlikely.

If future crimes cannot be pardoned, there would then be a lot of people who once pardoned could not be prosecuted for their prior federal crimes, BUT those people could still be questioned under oath about those crimes.  They would have to tell the truth or be subject to obstruction of justice charges or lying under oath charges.  We would then be able to ask and expect to get complete and honest  answers about the crimes for which they were pardoned.  Those confessions would silence the Trump forever supporters and possibly expose additional crimes for which these or other people could be prosecuted.

A presidential pardon only applies to federal crimes, so crimes in other jurisdictions may be uncovered and prosecuted.

I'm not sure that the Trump billionaires have enough money to pay for all the legal support they will need after the pardons.

Did Russia Influence Brexit?

It was recently reported that Nigel Farage, a British politician, is being investigated as a possible link between the Trump campaign and Russian interference in our election.

Nigel Farage led a British political party that campaigned for Brexit, which committed Great Britain to leave the European Union.  He has a relationship with Donald Trump and appeared on the campaign trail with him.

Earlier this year Nigel Farage was seen leaving the Ecuadorian Embassy in Great Britain where Julian Assange has been staying to evade extradition to Sweden on charges of rape.  As Farage was leaving the Ecuadorian Embassy he was asked why he was there.  He responded that he couldn't remember.

Julian Assange leads WikiLeaks which during our presidential campaign released the emails hacked from John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee by Russia.

If there are possible links between Russian influence on our presidential election, WikiLeaks and Nigel Farage, is it too conspiratorial to wonder if there may be a links between Russian influence in the Brexit vote and Nigel Farage?

If Russia's goal is to destabilize the west, Brexit and our presidential election would have been prime targets.

The Truth Will Set Trump Free

President Trump has said he is "100%" ready to testify under oath.  If he does, the chances he will be impeached is also 100%,

If there is one thing we know about President Trump, it is that he has no intellectual capacity to distinguish between true and false.

For Trump, true and false is always modulated by the moment.  For him, true is whatever seems to meet the needs of the moment.   Whatever is true one moment can be false the next.  He doesn't care what he previously asserted was true.  He probably doesn't even remember because the previous answer was not anchored to any other "facts" in his mind.  A new moment brings a new chance to determine the truth unencumbered by any previous answer..

So when Trump is under oath and there is legal liability for not telling the truth, President Trump will not be able to provide consistent answers.  A skillful interrogator will have him lying repeatedly.

Impeachment will follow shortly and Donald Trump will be free to go back to the former life he prefers.

President Trump Needs A Health Checkup

I have not seen any reporting that President Trump has received an independent health check up since he was elected. Given the vast number of Trump supporters who seem to have trouble distinguishing reality from obfuscations and fantasy, we need to insist that President Trump immediately have a thorough health evaluation by a team of respected health care professionals.

What little I've heard does not suggest that the President watches his diet or exercises. We do have the word of his personal physician that he is extremely healthy, but that is not good enough. Dr. Oz said Donald Trump was healthy enough to be president, but I would like an independent evaluation.

If the President were to have a sudden, serious health event that incapacitated or killed him, how long would it take for conspiracy theories to convince a large numbers of people that the President's enemies had poisoned him? I suspect that would happen anyway, but it might help to have prior, accurate and public medical facts for counter arguments.

The exam needs to be thorough. The President's personal physician could participate, but not lead the team. Any findings of serious illness or potential issues need to be made public and as many details as possible should be released so independent researchers can do their own analysis.

I would also recommend frequent periodic re-evaluations if the President is not leading a healthy life style or serious health issues are found. I don't think we know if the stress that comes with the office will prematurely age President Trump as it seems to have aged some prior presidents.

Given the ease with which the President's supporters ignore facts, I'm very concerned about what might happen if there is a health crisis and no prior documentation to counter conspiracy theories.

Advice to North Korea: Cool It!

When President Trump feels pressured, he commonly tries to change the focus by saying or doing something outrageous.

It is widely thought that President Trump's libelous accusation that former President Obama wire tapped Trump Tower was such an attempt.

Now that the Director of the FBI and the Director of the NSA have testified these accusations are false, what new outrage will President Trump spew to distract us?

North Korea, now is not the time to be confrontational.   We have a leader who may be more unpredictable than yours.

Earth to Trump: Health Care is Hard!

While addressing the Governors this week, President Trump said about health care,

"It's an unbelievably complex subject. Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated. [DTU]".

Nobody?  One person who obviously didn't know and probably still doesn't know is President Trump.


I've got a few "who knew" questions myself.

Who knew that Donald Trump was so unprepared to be President of the United States?

Who knew that Donald Trump knew so little about health care after campaigning for months to replace Obamacare?

Who knew that Donald Trump would be so unaware of how ridiculous he would look making that statement?

I mean really.  Who knew?

Donald Trump's Fact Free Universe

Over and over President Trump makes outlandish claims that are easily proven false. This happens so often it is safer to assume that anything he says is false until it is proven true.

Why does he continue to make outlandish statements?

My guess is that Donald Trump has lived most of his life in a universe where people never question what he says.  When you live that long in a world where every word you speak is treated like gold, you no longer question whatever comes out of your mouth. 

But alternative facts are only facts in Donald Trump's Universe (DTU).

Much like adding "[SIC]" in a quote to identify an original misspelling, we should add "[DTU]" after quoting a Trump alternative fact.

Trump Lied

Candidate Donald Trump told us on several occasions during the campaign that he would release his tax returns as soon as the IRS audit was complete.

Kellyanne Conway told us today that President Trump will not release his tax returns, ever.

The explanation we are given is that people knew about his tax return issues before the election and he was elected anyway.  Ergo, no one cares.

WRONG! and WRONG!
 
This is another example of Trump's disdain for the truth, disrespect for people who voted for him and a clear signal that his returns contain some really damaging information.

And he probably thinks we will never know what is in those returns.

WRONG! AGAIN!

Would You Buy A Used Car From Him?

President-elect Trump rails against fake news.  Whenever there is a story in the news that he doesn't like, he accuses the media of being unfair or biased or lying.

Of course, this is so ironic since the major disseminator of fake news is Mr. Trump in his tweets, statements and speeches.  His lack of veracity is so pervasive that fact checking is essentially futile.

Many voters voted for Mr. Trump because he would bring a business perspective to the running of the government.  But businesses are typically transactional operations.  They are less interested in making factual statements than in solving the issues of the moment.

We've all seen examples of business people who will say practically anything to make the sale or calm a disgruntled customer.  Whether or not what they say is really true is not their top priority. Anecdotally, think of the reputation of used car salesman.  Another everyday example are the responses of many customer service call people.

So when you listen to the soon to be President Trump or read a tweet or statement from him, think of the used car salesman.  What is he trying to sell?  Is the statement self-serving or factual?  How can you determine if what he is saying is true?

Ego Tours Will Continue

I guess the Trump victory/thank you tour is over.  But of course, it will never be over.  It may have a different name, but Donald Trump will never be very far from an adoring crowd.

I have long suspected that Donald Trump got into the presidential race to burnish his brand.  He didn't really want to be president, but he stayed in the race for two reason.

First, he never thought he would win.  When he started winning in the primaries, he needed to find a way to lose that wouldn't look like he had somehow failed.  Some of his outrageous remarks seemed to be a ploy to get people to turn against him and force him out of the race.  Then he could blame political correctness, liars and the media. That didn't work.  In the end he just couldn't find a way to get out without taking a tremendous blow to his ego.

Second, he loves the attention.  He is driven and energized by cheering crowds.  It is now coming out that he would say things and take positions on issues just because his crowds loved the ideas and cheered loudly.
 
Why else would he glow on the victory tour when crowds would yell "Lock her up!"?  For heaven's sake.  He won.  But humility is not an emotion he has ever needed.  Humility would imply he is not perfect.

The combination, of not finding a face saving way to get out of the race and cheering crowds that fed his ego kept him in the race.


Donald Trump likes to portray himself as this confident, successful person, but in truth he has very low self-esteem.  His constant exaggerations that he is the best at everything is not to convince other people, it is to convince himself.  He needs the cheering crowds to constantly prove to himself he is really not a failure.

Now he has won the presidency, but even that is not enough. His lack of self-esteem is why he must always lash out whenever anyone criticizes him. It is also why he can't accept that Russia helped him win.

The ego tours will never end.

Republicans Take Credit For Obamacare, Sort Of

Marsha Blackburn, Republican Congresswoman from Tennessee, was interviewed on TV a couple of weeks ago.  She was talking about plans to repeal and replace Obamacare.  She made two statements that astounded me.

First, when questioned about the disruption that repealing Obamacare might cause, she said that there were some good features that would be retained.

Really?

After Republicans have insisted that Obamacare was rammed down the country's throat without Republican input or votes, declared to be a complete failure, blamed for all the ills in the health care system and they tried to repeal it dozens of times because it was beyond repair, I was amazed to hear Representative Blackburn say Obamacare has some good features that the Republicans would like to retain.

When questioned further about these Obamacare features that she would retain, she explained with a wry smile, that they were actually originally Republican ideas that were included in Obamacare.

REALLY!

After six years of hyperbole about how bad and worthless Obamacare is, now you want to take credit for its "good" features?

Actually, she is correct.  There were a lot of features in Obamacare that, at one point, could rightly be called Republican ideas.  They only became vile when Democrats included them in the legislation.  The individual mandate, which Republicans still despise, was also an idea conservatives had once supported.

So now that it is their turn to govern, they want to make sure that they, the Republicans, get credit for all the good features they will keep from Obamacare.

There are dirty, low-down, ornery liars and hypocrites and then there are Republicans.

The Russians Made Me Do It!

And the rationalizations begin.

Trump Voters Own Him

I expect that the hard core Trump supporters will never turn on Trump.  I'm sure Mr. Trump was correct, he could shoot someone and they wouldn't care.  I hope I'm wrong, but I fear shooting someone will seem trivial compared to what he  actually does.

I hold every voter who did not vote for Hillary responsible for electing Donald Trump.  They OWN him. They are responsible for very stupid, immoral, unethical or illegal thing he does.  And they can certainly take credit for anything he does well.

And he OWNS the people who voted for him.  They are compelled to explain, defend and support his actions and inactions.  He supported anything people would cheer for.  He claimed he would fix anything and everything to win votes and would do it better and faster than anyone else would or could.

The President-elect is already starting to take back or modify promises.  And supporters are hanging with him; many saying they never believed he would actually do all the crazy things he said we would do.

Sorry folks, we are all responsible the the things we say and do.  People who are now saying they didn't believe everything Trump said are just proving they are low information voters.

If at some point a voter does decide their vote for Trump was a mistake (however unlikely), I think they should take a vow not to vote in a presidential election for a couple of cycles.

Voting for Trump showed a lack of knowledge.  Knowledge about what qualities are needed to lead this country and what qualities Donald Trump would bring to the office.  Trump voters who now realize they made a mistake need to take a while and reflect on how and why they missed all the signs he would be completely unsuitable to be President of the United States.

Trump Twitter Aide

On the news today I again heard the theory that security officials would take away President Trump's phone after the inauguration.  They will take it away just as they took away President Obama's iPhone because it is not a secure communications device.

The thought is Trump will stop his incessant twittering at that point.  Of course that is ludicrous.  The officer who carries the football will car pool with the guy who carries Trump's phone.

Trump will never be more than an arms length from the person with his phone and he'll just dictate his most recent transient thought.

Make Us Proud, Not Cringe

The President-elect has told us he is "like, very smart" and has "a very good brain".

So far I've seen no indications this is true.

Mr. President-elect, actions speak louder than words.

For example, you are not yet President of the United States so shut up at least until you take the oath of office.  And after that, pause and try to use that brain before twittering the next idle thought you have.

People who are actually very smart and really do have good brains know that the mark of intelligence is not how fast you can reply to an issue or how "in your face" your response is or how much cheering you get from a crowd. 

When you become President you represent and speak for our country, not just yourself.  Please make us proud when you speak, not cringe.

Russia Already Has Trump's Number

In a prior blog I noted that President Obama could easily counter birtherism by simply showing his birth certificate.  But it will be much harder for the President-elect to prove Russians did not meddle in our election to help him get elected.

But, the opposite is not true.  It is very easy to prove that the Russians were hacking and leaking secrets to help Mr. Trump win the election.

Very easy.

At least it would be very easy for Russia.  If they did it, they know all the details.  I'm sure they could release enough details to convince 80% of Americans that they were working very hard to elect Donald Trump.  And therefore his presidency is not legitimate.

And the harder Mr. Trump tries to convince us that the Russians did nothing to affect our election, the more ammunition he gives the Russians to blackmail him.

Even if the Russians didn't meddle in the election, even if they have no secret, damaging information about him, Trump is giving them all kinds of ammunition to use against him.

Mr. Trump, even if you don't believe the Russians tried to affect the election.  Do you think they might lie and say they did?   Your presidency would be totally illegitimate. Could your ego handle that? What might you be willing to do to keep them quiet?

Political Karma for Trump

Donald Trump's political ascent has been credited to his absurd and continued questioning of the legitimacy  of President Obama's presidency.

President-elect Trump, in his rush to question the competency of the  U.S. intelligence agencies, has laid the groundwork for questions about the legitimacy of his presidency that will last for the entire time he is in office.

He is very proud that he forced President Obama to produce his birth certificate.  But even when the President showed his birth certificate, that didn't stop Donald Trump from making completely fallacious statements.

There is no simple document that Donald Trump can produce to begin to prove his presidency isn't the result of Russian meddling.

Even worse for the incoming president, his ego will not let him leave unchallenged any suggestion that the didn't win on his own.

That is karma.

We Need A Trump Truth Emoji

Since it is hard to know when Donald Trump is telling the truth, how about a new emoji?

What about a new emoji just for Donald that means "I double down promise this is what I think I believe until it is inconvenient or I get some facts".


I know that is not much of a promise, but it is more than we get now.

What should it look like?

How about a miniature Presidential Seal?  Maybe that would give him pause before he makes outlandish statements.

Forget that.  What was I thinking?

When Is A Campaign Promise Real?

So Corey Lewandowski, Donald Trump's former campaign manager believes that voters didn't take everything Donald Trump said on the campaign trail literally.

Given Trump's history and his statements after the election, it seems neither did Donald Trump.

Even today KellyAnne Conway still cited a long list of campaign promises she says resonated with voters and claimed those promises are why Donald Trump won.

How does she know which statements he said during the campaign were things we should believe and what were just hyperbole or statements made to win a vote?

If we can't hold him to what he said and promised during the campaign, then we must assume he lied to win the election or he made statements about issues he didn't fully understand. 

Even now people close to the President-elect won't stand behind many of his most recent statements.  Vice-President Pence down plays current Trump statements and asks us to withhold judgment until the inauguration.

Really!


So we and the rest of the world should not believe anything Donald Trump has said or will say until the after inauguration?

Given Donald Trump's political history, I don't think we will ever be sure when he is telling us the truth. 

Zimmerman v Martin – Self-Defense?

I overheard someone stating that the George Zimmerman would never have been charged with a crime if the threat of civil unrest hadn't forced prosecutors to file charges.  This person thought that Zimmerman's claim of self-defense was so obvious that a judicial  review was unnecessary.  That seems simplistic.

Some details have been reported since Trayvon Martin was killed that don't seem to be in dispute.  We also have some reporting on statements Zimmerman has made.  While Ie would hope more details will emerge from the trial, let's analyze what we think we know up to this point and how that might lead someone to believe that Zimmerman should not even have been charged with a crime,

On the night in question, Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain who is carrying a legal concealed pistol, spots a suspicious person walking in his neighborhood.  He reports this to police who advise him to not confront the suspicious person.  Zimmerman ignores this advice, confronts Martin and a fight ensues.  - - - According to Zimmerman, at some point Martin is banging Zimmerman's head on the concrete sidewalk and going for Zimmerman's gun.  Zimmerman, fearing for his life, pulls his gun and kills Martin in self-defense.

Clearly self-defense.

Given the above, above scenario, what if Martin had killed Zimmerman, what would his defense be?

Clearly self-defense. 

Replace the last two sentences in the description above (starting at “- - -”) with, “Martin, having been confronted and fighting with a stranger, discovers the man is carrying a gun and decides he must disarm or disable his opponent or risk losing his life.  Martin kills Zimmerman in self-defense.”

I hope we learn more details as the trial progresses, but it should be obvious from the above discussion that if either man could claim self-defense, it is Martin.  Zimmerman was the instigator.  If he had not confronted Martin, there would have been no fight and no death.

This case raises a lot of interesting issues.  I would like to hear Zimmerman's description of the interaction and exchange between the two men that night.  For example, did Zimmerman tell or make Martin aware he had a gun?  If so, what are the legal issues about when and how he conveyed this information.  What are the legal requirements for notifying an opponent that you are armed?  When Zimmerman approached Martin, did he assume Martin was armed or unarmed? Florida's “Stand Your Ground” law may be invoked, but again, that defense would seem to go to Martin.

Thinking through the issues, if a person legally carrying a concealed weapon, gets into a violent, physical fight in a public place with someone who is unarmed, doesn't any “self-defense” claim automatically go to the unarmed person?  The burden is then on the person with the weapon to prove that their claim of self-defense out weighs the same self-defense claim made by his unarmed opponent.

If Zimmerman could draw his weapon and put it to Martin's chest, he could have paused and said “STOP! Or I'll shoot.” 

Zimmerman may have been afraid for his life, but that doesn't mean his life was in jeopardy.   Losing a fist fight is not justification for shooting someone.  The burden to prove self-defense is on Zimmerman.  Having someone on top of you and beating you is not enough.  Was Martin really going for Zimmerman's gun?  We'll never know, but if you were Martin in that situation, what would you do?

Suppose that Martin had gotten the gun, put it to Zimmerman's chest and pulled the trigger, could he claim self-defense?

Contraceptives and Religious Freedom

The Obama administration is taking heat for a decision that requires all health care insurance plans to pay for contraceptive prescriptions. There is an exception for churches, but not for church supported institutions like hospitals and charitable organizations.

The objection is that this requirement infringes on religious organizations, especially Catholics, who believe any kind of contraception is a sin. The Church objects because they would be "paying" for contraceptives.

I think the rational for the requiring insurance plans to cover contraceptives is a women's health care issue. Most women will use contraceptives at some point and it is more likely that they will get contraceptives when needed if they are covered just like vaccinations. Religious institutions, like Catholic hospitals, are not exempted, because many of their employees are not Catholic.

The law would require that insurance plans cover contraceptives, but it does not require any woman to take contraceptives. If no employee used their insurance to pay for contraceptives, problem solved. Why can't the church just use its moral persuasion to convince women to not use contraceptives? Is the Catholic church's moral authority so weak that is must rely on its own version of the law to enforce its religious doctrine?

I appreciate strongly held ethical beliefs, but we live in a secular country governed by a constitution, laws, rules and elections. We all have to reconcile our personal beliefs with those of other people and the law. Why do we have a law that says no federal funds can go to support abortion, but we use federal funds to execute convicted felons? You may see a difference, but if the underlying moral concept is not taking a human life, what is the difference? The difference is that we, as a country, have decided to make that distinction. We all practice moral relativism, including the Catholic church. I'm not sure why they chose to fight this battle at this time in this way.

The Catholic hierarchy believes they should be exempt from the requirement that their insurance plans cover contraceptives because this is a religious and ethical issue. Excuse me, but that makes no difference. We don't allow Mormons to flaunt polygamy laws. We don't allow Muslims to escape punishment for honor killings. I'm sure we could find many examples of religious practices that are no longer accepted in the modern world. Times change. Values change. When I was a kid Catholics couldn't eat meat on Fridays. Now they can (at least most Fridays).

One argument I heard this morning is that Catholic hospitals provide much of the care for people in this country. I appreciate that Catholics provide this service, but what percentage of any Catholic hospital's cost are provided by the Catholic church? My guess is that these are self-supporting institutions. They may have started as charitable activities, but now they are businesses. Is it really Catholic religious money that goes to pay for employee health insurance?

I suppose I could change my position if Catholic hospitals only employed Catholics. And I would be even more swayed if they only provided services to Catholics. But then again, contraception being a sin, no one would be using contraceptives if these were purely Catholic only institutions so health insurance coverage of contraceptives would be a non-issue.

I heard one comment that said the church would be satisfied if they didn't have to pay for any contraceptives. Contraceptives could be provided if they were fully paid by the employee.
Most medical plans have the employer and employee sharing some portion of medical care costs. Why couldn't the church just state that any payments for contraceptives, by definition, come from the employees portion of the insurance payments and co-payments? Problem solved.

Or try this. If having the employee pay for their contraceptives is acceptable, presumably because the Catholic church is not directly involved, why can't you just push responsibility to the insurance company. The hospital pays an insurance provider to reimburse health care expenses. It the health insurance company pays for contraceptives, the sin is on their heads. Again, problem solved.

If this blog has seemed silly at times, that is intentional, but, seriously, I do not understand this issue. Catholic leaders are outraged over being forced to provide a service they believe is immoral, but most people, including Catholics, believe contraceptives are moral and provide health benefits for women. It might even be considered more moral to prevent a pregnancy when parents are not prepared to adequately care for a child.

If this is such as serious moral dilemma, why do the majority of Catholic women use contraceptives? If the moral authority of Catholic leaders can't convince Catholic women to not use contraceptives, why should we and therefore, the government, accept their moral authority? On what moral basis can they claim to be exempt from providing a health care service that citizens consider to be moral and beneficial and is required of other organizations?

The political line is this is an attack on religion and the First Amendment by the Obama administration. Once again, bull crap. This is a health care issue, not a debate about religious freedom. It might be politically expedient to grant Catholics an exception to the insurance requirement, but it would be morally wrong.

.

Politicizing Choice

After the re-ignition of political/cultural wars this week and inane comments by conservatives on talk shows this morning, I have to vent.

This week the Susan G. Komen Foundation walked into a self-inflicted firestorm by withdrawing its limited financial support to Planned Parenthood to provide breast cancer screening and referrals for mammograms. They then threw gasoline on the fire with an obviously unbelievable rational.

After being hit with scathing attacks on social media, Komen partially retreated. Several Conservatives whined this morning that this was somehow an attack on a private organization's right to spend their money the way they want.

That is not the way I see it. No one is arguing that Komen can't choose to fund Planned Parenthood or not (a cynic might say they have choices). The objection was to Komen's choice to attack Planned Parenthood over providing abortions (which is about 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget) at the expense of decreasing women's access to other health care such as mammograms.

No one forced Komen to make monetary grants to Planned Parenthood, although they have for many years. No one would have made a big issue if Komen had quietly stopped making grants to Planned Parenthood and used that money to provide mammograms some other way. The problem was that Komen tied their decision to a political decision to attack Planned Parenthood and indirectly abortion. And then denied that is what they did.

Komen's initial defense was that they had made a decision to not make grants to organizations that were under investigation and Planned Parenthood was under investigation. Bull crap. The investigation that sparked the defunding is one started in the House by a Republican Representative. Komen can't hide the fact that they made a political/cultural decision by hiding behind a politically based investigation. Add to that several reports of organizations under actual legal investigation that are still being funded by Komen. The defunding was clearly a political decision aimed directly at and only at Planned Parenthood and Komen's claims otherwise were unbelievable.

But to the spark that ignited my outrage, conservative claims that by some logic the attack on Komen is some extension of liberal, Democrat, Obama, whatever, attacks on personal freedom. They claimed that the attacks on Komen were attacks on Komen's right to make their own decisions. They even tried to tie Komen's problems to the Catholic insurance debate (to be discussed later).

Komen was free to make grants to Planned Parenthood or not. They did. Presumably they monitored those grants to make sure the the money was used properly and effectively. Now Komen is free to withdraw all those grants. Most people are not questioning that. But many people were outraged that an organization that asks for donations to provide better health care options to women chose to make a political statement that decreased options. Komen's choice was not based on what was best for women's health. None of the money from Komen went to provide abortions. All people were saying was that if Komen decided to not help Planned Parenthood provide mammograms, we can decide to send our donations somewhere else.

So how do conservatives tie my choice to not donate to Komen for any reason I choose, to an attack on personal freedom? I don't get it.  Sometimes I think that personal freedom is something that only applies to conservatives.

If Komen really thought their position was morally defensible, they didn't have to retreat. That is, if they really reversed their decision. What I heard was that Komen said they would allow Planned Parenthood to again apply for grants. We will have to wait and see if they actually make any grants to Planned Parenthood. Again, that is their choice, but now we know that Komen has another agenda besides breast cancer and people will be watching.

I have a suggestion for Komen. Don't fund Planned Parenthood. Start your own clinics and provide women, many with few health care options, access to the same kind of health care provided by Planned Parenthood. They can even choose to not provide abortions, if that is medically possible.


.

When Does Life Begin?

Given the vote today in Mississippi, here is a blog from 2007. Click on the title below.

Does Life Begin At Implantation?


If Mississippi makes a fertilized egg legally a human, every miscarriage will have to be investigated as a murder.

"Excuse me, mam. I am Officer Jones. I understand from your doctor that you recently had a miscarriage so I am required to ask to some questions. Prior to your miscarriage did you engage in any activities that might put your unborn child at risk? This could include use of alcoholic beverages or tobacco, but it also could include any activity that could be considered unhealthy to a child. Please tell me all drugs, legal and illegal, that you have used from the time of the miscarriage back to a month before you became pregnant....."

Is this really what the people of Mississippi want?

Why Exempt Seniors Over 55?

In their new budget plan, Republics plan to basically end Medicare, but not for people 55 or older. They say their rationale is that people 55 and older have made plans based on the current system and it wouldn't be fair to take Medicare away from them now.

I suspect their are a lot of people under age 55 who have also been counting on Medicare. Parents putting kids through college may be counting on catching a break on health care costs once they turn 65. Call me cynical, but I think this exemption for older people is probably an attempt to buy them off. If seniors aren't affected, maybe they won't be quite as mad about the proposal.

If privatizing Medicare will lower medical costs and reduce the deficit, why not start it today? We can protect seniors already enrolled in Medicare by giving them vouchers to pay for the full cost of private health insurance. Seniors wouldn't be hurt economically and the country would benefit.

Implementing vouchers for seniors health care now would also give us a chance to see if the idea really works. Come to think of it, has anyone asked insurance companies to develop the kind of insurance policies that the Republics say will be available for seniors under their plan? I'd like to see what they cost and what is covered.

Dog Smart

I saw a bumper sticker today that said

My bulldog is smarter than your honor student.

I'm not so sure about that, but I'd bet that bulldog is smarter than its owner.

Republic Plan To Ration Health Care

Republics screamed about rationing and death panels in the Democratic plans for health care reform. Of course there has been health care rationing forever. As I've written before, unless there are unforeseen changes to health care in the future, there will always be rationing of health care. The question in whether we can find rational, humane ways to ration.

Republics plan to save Medicare by giving people tax credits and having them buy insurance on the open market. From the reports we've heard, the plan is to control and reduce health care costs by giving people less in tax credits than insurance is expected to cost. Therefore people will have an incentive to buy only the coverage they need and use only the services they need. This is self rationing. In addition, the amount of tax credit the government will give will not be tied to the rising cost of health insurance. So as rates go up, individuals will have to pay ever more out of pocket costs or decrease their coverage.

From reports I've heard, Republics believe this difference between what people will have to pay and what the government will pay will incentivize private health insurers to control costs. It's nice to know Republics still have a sense of humor.

The Republic plan is guaranteed to work just as they plan. The costs to the government will go down and Medicare will be destroyed. Will the health of Americans be better?

Pass The Damn Bill

The stakes for the next budget battle are even greater than the one just completed. If Congress fails to authorize an increase in the debt limit the result could be devastating. History and current Republic statements indicate that many Republics will not vote for an increase without guarantees of drastic spending cuts.

There will be an agreement before the United States defaults. Banks and big business know that default is not an option. Even threats could damage the credit standing of the United States in the world. Business will jerk the leashes of Republics and make sure a bill is passed.

I would like to make a suggestion. Republics should agree to increase the debt limit enough to cover the debts projected for the next three years under the Ryan budget without any policy riders. That's right, for all their huffing, the Ryan plan has significant annual budget deficits for years to come.

Can Republics really destroy the credit of the United States when their own budget plans will require that the debt ceiling be raised significantly?

In three years, the Republics will have time to elect a Republic Senate and a Republic President. Then they can do whatever they want. In the meantime, raise the debt ceiling without bullying and threats so we can tackle other issues. Like the FY12 budget.

Responsible Chickens

The recent budget debates that threatened to shut down the government have been compared to a game of chicken. An example of this game was depicted in the movie "Rebel Without A Cause". Two young men race to run their cars off a cliff. The object is to see who jumps out of their car first and therefore is a "chicken".

The budget battle wasn't really a game of chicken. The two guys were risking their own lives in those cars. Politicians were risking the American people and economy.

The two guys in the car were willing participants. They may have been pressured into the game, but they could have said they wouldn't play. Republicans and Democrats had to play the game and reach an agreement or the government would have shut down.

The choice was over the stakes and what the other side would agree on. Republicans chose to set the stakes high and then force negotiations to the eleventh hour to see how far they could push Democrats. This wasn't a game of chicken, it was blackmail perpetrated by Republicans.

This wasn't so much a fight over the budget as a test by bullies to see how much Democrats were willing to compromise rather than hurt the country. Democrats jumped first and further. I guess they are the "chickens".

Do Your Job or Quit.

There is a legal battle going on in Illinois over whether health professionals can be forced to provide services that go against their religious or moral beliefs. I think it started with doctors and nurses objecting to being forced to provide abortions.

I can understand that unless you work in the emergency room and then you help anyone that comes through the door. The most recent battle is over two pharmacists who object to dispensing emergency contraceptives. In particular, I think they object to dispensing the morning after pill.

Give me a break. If they succeed, what is next? Doctors and nurses who refuse to treat drug addicts when they overdose because doing so just "enables" them.

Pharmacists who won't fill prescriptions for any contraceptives.

The checkout person who won't ring up condoms because their religion thinks contraceptives are a sin. Or sell lottery tickets. Or beer. Do you think the sales person should lose their job?

I respect people who are willing to honor their convictions when it might otherwise not be in their self-interests. But it is not honorable to abandon people who you have pledged to serve.

A pharmacist that refuses to dispense a legal medication should find another line of work.

President Obama's Poll Numbers Rise

Tonight on the news I saw a poll asking who you would blame if the government is shut down?

The numbers seemed to be confuse some of the pundits.

Who would voters blame?

Republicans: 37%
Democrats: 20%
President Obama: 20%

So it looks like Democrats would bear the brunt of voter anger, 40% to 37%.

But more than 20% of voters think President Obama is a muslim, not a citizen, a socialist, hates America, etc. Democrats should be happy that the President's numbers are so good. Only 20% would blame him for the shut down!

What Is Important To You?

Republicans hate government. Keep that in mind as you listen to their solutions to problems. The Republican approach to financing government is to cut taxes then figure out what services to cut to live within that new number. How about a different approach?

What if we tried to agree on what is important to us and then figured out the most cost effective way to make it happen?

For example, what if we said that it is a national goal that all senior citizens are able to live out their final years with dignity, access to health care, housing and nutrition? We could then talk about what levels of assistance meet these goals, who qualifies and how we pay or provide this assistance.

Money is the easiest way to transfer value from one person to another, but there are other ways. We might help offset some costs by requiring two years of community service from all young adults. One of the options would be for some these young people to help take care of the elderly. Or build and repair houses. Or cook and deliver food. Or staff a community home. This would decrease taxes and offset the lost revenue with labor.

Anyone might be able to opt of paying taxes to support elderly and instead meet their obligation by working some number of days each year. I'm sure there are other, much better ideas. The point is instead of generating n dollars of revenue and then deciding how we divide that pool of money, why not decide what is important to us and then figure out how to make it happen?

As a country, how about discussing what is important to us?

Look For Alternatives

Mark Halperin was on Hardball with Chris Matthews tonight. He wanted to give Representative Ryan credit for a plan to cut Medicare because if we don't cut it, costs will balloon and bankrupt the country.

Wait a minute. He has bought the Republican line. Medicare may need to be changed, but why isn't the possibility of adding revenue to the system an option? Couldn't there be parts of Medicare that are so valuable we might consider ways to increase funding to save them rather than cut service?

The Republicans only have two ways to solve a problem. Cut services or cut taxes. We probably will have to cut something, but there may be alternatives if we look for them.

Shared Pain

Representative Ryan has released his budget plan.

It cuts -
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Taxes for business
Taxes for the rich

Give him credit. He makes sure everyone takes their share of cuts.

What would you pay for?

In the current debate over the deficit and budgets, Republics want to take any tax increase off the table. Their current framing is, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. That is, cut spending; do not raise taxes.

It is clear that Republics and Democrats have a different philosophy about the purpose of government and how to pay it. In general, Republics believe that less government is always better (at least that is what they say, if not always what they do). Government is the problem, not the solution. Republics want to decide how much they are willing to spend on government (which is always less than what we spend today) and then determine how to distribute that money. Preference is always given to the generators of wealth.

In general, Democrats believe that government is about creating a civil society. Democrats would rather first decide what is important to do and then decide how to pay for it (sometimes). Preference is given to the less fortunate. The Democratic position is obviously harder to sell.

While Democrats have certainly authorized new spending without determining how the additional expenditures would be paid for, they managed to live under the PAYGO rules of the 1990's. Had these rules been extended, the budget busting 2003 tax cut, the Medicare prescription program and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan might have had to have been paid for instead of just adding to the debt.

The two Bush era tax cuts added significantly to our debt. Let me state again, tax cuts when you are already running a deficit without the same dollar cuts in spending add to the long term debt! Republics constantly berate Democrats about spending more than we have revenue to pay far and passing that debt on to future generations. Fair enough. But cutting taxes without cutting spending has the same affect and is just as destructive. The math is simple. Revenue minus expenses equals surplus or debt. When you are already running a deficit, increasing spending without increasing revenue will increase the debt. Likewise, decreasing revenue without decreasing spending will increase the debt.

Contrary to popular belief, the Republics have actually been winning the deficit/debt debate. "Starve the Beast" has been Republic dogma since Ronald Reagan. This is the policy of always cutting taxes without concomitant cuts in spending in the belief that the eventual fiscal crisis will force drastic decreases in the size of government.

Republics have succeeded. The public believes we have a fiscal crisis generated by too much spending not a problem generated by a weak economy, tax cuts and spending. The discussion is how do we cut taxes, expenditures and the size of the government. Why aren't we also discussing what functions of government are worth paying taxes to support and how do we generate the revenue to pay for them?

Save My Marriage, Vote For Obama

Recently, to explain his infidelity and the failure of two previous marriages, Newt Gingrich basically said that his patriotism and love for this country caused him to work too hard for his country and not hard enough at maintaining his marriages.

What a novel explanation. What he is basically saying is, I'm so patriotic I was willing to sacrifice my marriages for the good of the country.

If Newt should win the Republican presidential nomination for 2012, do you think the current Mrs. Gingrich will vote for Newt or vote for President Obama and possibly save her marriage?

Chameleon Gingrich

Newt Gingrich has been making conflicting statements about Libya. He was emphatically for a no-fly zone before President Obama decided to support the UN resolution. Once President Obama expressed support for a non-fly zone, Newt was suddenly emphatically against it.

The argument's he uses to defend his flip-flop are tortuous. It is obvious his opinions are purely driven by a simple logic - I don't agree with Obama. A tactic he fully developed years ago when it was - I don't agree with Clinton. He should change his name from Newt to Chameleon. His opinions quickly change to match the current Republican political landscape.

Japan: 50Hz and 60Hz

I heard that Japan has lost 20% of its electrical generating capacity. This would be devastating in any country, but it is even worse in Japan. In the U.S., the electricity in our homes is standardized at 60Hz AC. That is, the polarity of the electricity alternates 60 times every second.

In Japan they use two different systems. In the south/west they use 60Hz. In the north/east (where the failed reactors are located) they use 50Hz. While 60Hz can be converted to 50Hz, Japan has a limited capacity to do this. So surplus energy in the south/west cannot easily be diverted to the north/east.

I've heard predictions that it will be months, possibly years, before full power is restored to Japan. It is sad that such bad public policy will make Japan's disaster even more painful.

There are some lessons to be learned from Japan's disaster that may be very important for the U.S.. There may be some things we should be doing right now to prevent large scale, long term power failures in the United States.

More later.

You didn't know that Japan has such an irrational power system? You aren't listening to National Public Radio! NPR is a national treasure. Don't let politicians damage it.

Why Libya?

I must admit that I wasn't watching the run-up to what seems to be a U.S. led military action against Libya. I think this was partly because the no-fly zone was being pushed by Great Britain and France. The U.S. seemed to be much less interested. China and Russia seemed ready to block any action in the UN. I thought enforcement of a no-fly zone, if it happened, would be led and possibly staffed primarily by other countries. I was surprised when the UN authorized the no fly zone and the U.S. took the lead.

I don't believe it is in the best interests of the U.S. to be participating in such a significant way in Libya. I'm surprised President Obama has allowed us to be drawn in and took the initial lead. I'm disappointed that he hasn't done a better job of explaining why he took these actions and I don't see indications that a successful outcome is likely.

I've always scoffed when opponents of military actions insist about a prediction of how it will end before we start. That's impossible. It is also a political stunt for opponents to insist on some clear statement of exactly why we shouldn't intervene in Bahrain or Syria since we have attacked Libya. Every situation is different.

It would be nice to hear the principles that guided President Obama's decision. I think they've given some: humanitarian support, the Libyan government was threatening mass reprisals against citizens, a chance to get rid of dictator who has caused problems around the world, there was support for action from other governments in the region, there was significant internal dissent and armed resistance, there was military assistance offered by other countries from within the region and outside, international bodies supported intervention and it was militarily feasible with acceptable risks.

I would like to hear, and probably won't, that the analysis for success is high, that there are groups and institutions in Libya ready to form a civil society, that whatever government comes after military success has a reasonable chance to be much better than the current government, that there is a chance for some form of democracy, that human rights and living conditions in the country will eventually improve and that the country will not be destabilizing in the region.

And, why is it in our national interests to remove Khadafi?

I think the President could have done a better job keeping us informed, but the fact is, he has made a decision and he will be responsible for the consequences.

Don't Listen

This morning Fox News Sunday had an interview with Margie Phelps, a member of and attorney for the Westboro Baptist Church. This is the small group that stages those obnoxious demonstrations near the funerals of American service men and women killed in action.

She recently won a Supreme Court case that affirmed the First Amendment rights of the Westboro Baptist Church to express opinions that most people find to be disgusting.

I agree with the Supreme Court, but Ms. Phelps has given us the antidote to her groups hateful speech. She said that the Supreme Court put a megaphone to the mouth of her tiny church. She is wrong. They didn't do that. They only said that governments could not silence them. Her group has a megaphone only if the news media gives them coverage and we listen.

The answer is to not give these people the attention they crave. They are irrational and delusional. Reason is not going to change them and attention only reinforces their delusions. If no one listens, if no one stages counter protests, if we all change the channel when they are given news coverage, then news organizations will stop covering them . This won't mute their hate or cure their ignorance or diminish their delusional view that they speak for God. They just go back to being a nameless group of kooks no one pays any attention to.

The beauty of our system is that our Constitution prevents governments from deciding which speech should be heard and which should be suppressed. It leaves it to people to listen or not listen and make our own decisions.

I've heard what the members of the Westboro Baptist Church believe and totally reject those ideas. From now on I choose not to listen.

Political Compromise

Click on image to enlarge.

Elephant Butts As Political Strategy

We need cooperation and compromise, butt this is what we get.

Click on image to enlarge.

Dilemma

Click on cartoon to enlarge.

Created at ToonDoo.com

Global Warming Deniers

Global Warming Deniers by LogicalOne

National Security vs Politics

Senator Jon Kyle (R, AZ) and Republican Senators have put politics above our national interest by refusing to vote on the New START Treaty with Russia.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, was on ABC's This Week this morning where he was questioned by host Christiane Amanpour. He unequivocally supported the START Treaty. When asked repeated questions about whether this treaty was good for the country and should be passed, he made clear that it was in the best interests of National Security that the START Treaty be passed ASAP. Even in a lame duck session. He emphatically said "ASAP".

When asked if the Republican opposition was based on politics or policy, Admiral Mullen obviously refused to comment. But it was clear from all his other comments that he saw no national security reasons for delaying ratification of the treaty.

Sometimes is hard to tell when Republican obstructionism is principled or political. In this case it is obvious.

WTHWYT - Rep. Allen West

Representative Allen West (FL), recently elected Tea Party Republican, was on Meet The Press this morning. He was commenting about the uproar over the new TSA airport screening procedures which give passengers a choice between a revealing electronic scan or a thorough pat down search. He was complaining about the poor job of marketing for the new TSA rules when he said that the Obama administration should have had a better marketing plan and should have "put out some feelers" to airline passengers.

Really! What The Hell Were You Thinking?

If your marketing plan was to get your face on every late night comedy show, you succeeded.

Repeal tax cuts for rich

Republicans want to extend all the Bush tax cuts, including the tax cuts for people making over $250,000. This would be $250,000 of taxable income, after deductions, etc.

Their argument is that many of the people affected are small business owners and the extra tax burden would cause them not to grow their businesses.

Let's think about this.

First of all the, these high income people would still get the tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income. Assuming that the current tax rates on income under $250,000 are extended, the higher rate after January 1 would only be on any income over $250,000.

So if I understand the rates correctly, the rate for income over $250,000 will change on January 1, 2011 from 35% to 39.6%.

Let's say you are a small business owner, have $250,000 of taxable income and starting 01/01/2011 you have the opportunity to grow your business and raise your income from $250,000 to $350,000. At the end of the 2011, your tax bill will be $4,600 greater if the Bush tax cuts for the rich are not extended. The federal tax on that $100,000 would be $35,000 if the tax cuts are extended and $39,600 if they are not.

So Republicans think this business person would not grow their business by $100,000 and increase their after tax income by roughly $60,000 because they would have to pay an extra $4,600 a year in federal taxes. That doesn't make sense.

I know that $39,600 in taxes on $100,000 sounds like a lot, but these rates would be the rates that were in effect in 2000. Not exactly a bad year for business.

When the current lower tax rates were passed:
1) They were not paid for. These tax cuts were paid for by increasing the debt. The Chinese and others loaned us the money to cover the increased debt these tax cuts caused. Everybody got a tax cut that would have to be paid for by tax payers in the future when that debt (plus interest) was paid off.

2) The tax cuts were not made permanent when they were initially passed as part of a political ploy. The tax cuts were designed to expire in 2011 because they were so damaging to the debt. Republics used a gimmick based on how the actual cost of the cuts were calculated and reported at that time. Politicians made the total effect of these tax cuts look lower than they would actually be by making them expire in 2011 rather than making them permanent. Secretly they figured politicians in 2010 would be politically forced to extend them.

We can debate whether or not a tax rate of 39.6% on adjusted income over $250,000 is reasonable or excessive, but to argue that this change would hurt job creation is Elephant Shit.

This will be a fight. We need to balance the budget and not extending the tax cuts for income over $250,000 can help us get there. Democrats need to clearly explain why it makes sense that we do not extend the tax cuts for the rich.

Constitutional Scholar

Constitutional Scholar.

Click on comic strip to enlarge.

Are Republics Principled Or Just Political?

Senator McConnell has announced that one of the highest priorities of Republics is to repeal health care. I thought the number one priority was jobs. I guess I just haven't been listening over the last few months.

I've heard several Republics say that they favor complete repeal of the new health care law and then they would pass a series of common sense measures to replace it.

Bull. If they are really interested in making health care better, let's demand that they explain what they are going to replace the new health care law with before they try to repeal the current law.

Everyone agreed that we needed to reform health care. Well, almost everyone. Democrats finally got an imperfect bill passed. We all agree that the current health care law was not the best we can do. We knew this sausage would need some fixing. If Republicans have better ideas, I want to hear them. I really believe they have some ideas that would help. I just want to hear these ideas debated before they try to repeal the whole bill.

What we have is not perfect, but it is better than nothing. It is a starting point that we can modify and build on.

But just in case the Republicans have some ideas they have never told us about, let's hear what they propose to replace the current health bill with. Then we can decide if we agree before we throw out the current bill. Is that unreasonable?

This is a test for Republics. They will soon have control of the House. Republics in the House can propose and vote on any legislation they want.

If Republicans in the House and Senate show us their proposed legislation to reform health care before or when they propose legislation to repeal the Democrats health care plan, I will admit they are acting on their principles.

If Republicans propose legislation to repeal the Democrats health care plan without showing us legislation for how they will reform health care, their actions can rightly be labelled as purely political. This would prove they are more interested in scoring political points than helping people.