An Opinion on Our Current Government

The Progressive Left is outraged over the man filling the office of President and his propensity to tweet out unfiltered and outrageous opinions.  The Conservative Right is outraged over the leadership of the House of Representatives and their agenda, apparently driven by a need to confront the President at every turn and advocate for the rights of minorities and illegal aliens over the rights of the majority (aka as the middle class).  The Progressive Left is also not too thrilled with the Senate, which keeps plodding along appointing federal judges at a rate that should trip the balance of ideology in the appellate court system before the next election.

All this outrage, but who actually sits down to figure out why these positions of power are filled by people who can’t seem to do the job in the way we would like them to?  The answer to that is no one does.  Everyone has an opinion, now usually based on political talking points, polling data, or sound bites provided by the propaganda networks, but no one really seems to understand that the government in place is in place because of choices the political parties presented to the voters and the voters (usually about 55% of those eligible to vote) picked the winners in accordance with the rules of the election.

For the last 2 ¾ years the Progressive Left has whined about how their queen bee won the popular vote and should be coronated President, but again that’s just sour grapes.  They rigged the primaries for her, they supported the campaign she wanted to run, their experts overwhelmingly mocked the opposition candidate and predicted with some 99% certainty she was already the people’s choice.  Unfortunately, all those experts refused to understand the popular vote is not the mechanism for electing the President.  On the bright side, none of the people complaining seem to understand how to actually amend the Constitution so we are probably safe for a while.

In the 2018 elections, they were able to convince enough local voters the President was flawed and needed to be removed, and they ran campaigns promising to impeach him.  Those local campaigns and promises won them a majority in the House.  Unfortunately, the evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors” still seems to be lacking to a degree that would ensure any bills of impeachment would die a painful death in the Republican-controlled Senate.  Much like what the Republicans attempted with Bill Clinton in the 1990s.  That doesn’t stop the Representatives from getting the face time they desire to fan the flames of emotion over the outrages of the President.  It will be interesting to see if they are held accountable for their failure to keep their campaign promise to rid the nation of President Trump.  What we do see in their strategy is a shift from “Russia, Russia, Russia” to “Racist, Racist, Racist.”  Call me a skeptic but I don’t think that will play with the older people who actually turn out to vote. 

This will be especially true when you compare the Republican’s old white man to the field of old white men and women currently leading in the Democratic polls.  The problem for the DNC this go-around is trying to find someone who doesn’t have so much baggage in their radical promises to the activists that they can persuade the centrist middle class, whose voices aren’t heard in the primaries, they are not totally insane.  While we know President, Trump is a narcissist the percentages for reelection, despite what the propagandists and their polls would say, is in his favor.  The question for 2020 is do we stay with the insanity we know, or select some new insanity that offers even more decay of our economic system? 

In the last 100 years, there have only been a handful of Presidents who’ve not been successful in their reelection campaigns.  The unfortunate grouping includes George H. W. Bush (the economy tanked), Jimmy Carter (economic inflation, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and Iranian hostage situation), Gerald Ford (Nixon’s last VP), and Herbert Hoover (economy tanked in a big way).  As stock market analysts are fond of saying “past performance is no guarantee of future returns” so President Trump’s reelection is not a slam dunk but so far, I see little from the Democratic candidates to convince me they have anything better than a slim chance -- although there are two variables I can’t account for. 

First, if the Trump administration actually does upset the economy with his trade war with China then all bets are off.  This is the hope of those great intellectual thinkers and humanitarian commentators like Bill Maher.  You know him, he’s the guy who is celebrating the death of David Koch most likely from prostate cancer, something he’s battled for 20 years while hoping against hope for a collapse of the economy and the financial ruin of those whose jobs would be lost.

The second option for them is to nominate an African-American that would inspire the black community as Barrack Obama did in 2008 and 2012.  That would that tip the balance and bring out the black community in the numbers which made all the difference in those two elections. I don’t think either of the two most likely candidates now running would have that same appeal for the whole of the nation as Barrack brought in 2008.  I believe that is the thinking behind the quiet movement leading to the “let’s nominate Michelle Obama” speculation.

What all this back and forth has gained us is a government that is moving ever further away from the Republic our founders envisioned where the majority of control would be at the local level and the Federal Government would set the broader agenda for the nation.  Unfortunately for us, we keep electing the same tired voices to the Congress and now, because of identity politics, they are no longer able to compromise on solutions but are focused on destroying those who they disagree with.

Whether you care to admit it or not we have the government we deserve because we used our only tool to buy into whatever promises we liked the most.  For the coastal and urban crowd that was more government (i.e. more stuff using other people’s money), for the rural areas a promise about less government (i.e. less regulation and lower taxes).  Both of these promises are more accurately understood as campaign lies, but those were the choices presented in the 2016 and 2018 elections by the two major parties.  The fringe party may have drawn off a few votes, but really didn’t make much difference in the endgame. 

The lies of 2016 will be the same lies presented in the 2020 campaign and the question really boils down to how apathetic will the democratic base be?  If they turn out like they did for President Obama then the Democrats will win, but at this point, I don’t see anyone who will inspire the full spectrum of Democratic voters like Obama did in 2008.

The Problem with Regulations

Boeing 737 Max, photo: WSJ

Question:  Is the Boeing 737-Max a product of too little or too much regulation?

Or

Question:  Is the Boeing 737-Max a product of corporate greed and governmental failure?

By now almost everyone knows the story of how Boeing redesigned the workhorse of the Boeing fleet, the B-737 and to compensate for significant changes in the handling characteristics (and maintain a single type rating) they installed software and did not fully test the failure modes or issue adequate instruction to the pilots who would operate the aircraft.

This resulted in two fatal crashes, and has caused most, if not all, airlines to withdraw the aircraft from service, reduced orders for new aircraft, and a backlog of flyers as the airlines scrambled to restructure their schedules for the loss of several dozens of aircraft now grounded until the FAA approves whatever Boeing does to fix the software.

But why did this occur?

Airplane manufacturers are among the most regulated of businesses where every step in the manufacturing process is supposed to be documented, and each design change tested and approved by the regulatory agency, in Boeing’s case as a US manufacturer that would be the FAA.  Clearly, the regulation process broke down.  Why?

In the beginning, I asked two questions.  Is there too much or too little regulation?  I think this is like asking if the air is too hot or too cold.  Everyone will have their own opinion and little real concrete data to support it.  But it is a safe bet people in positions of authority will believe we need to have more regulations, for that is always the case in a failure, add more layers so it can’t happen again.

The second question is, in my opinion, easier to answer.  I don’t know how you can avoid saying yes.  To save costs Boeing took shortcuts, and the people who were supposed to protect the flying public failed to stop them.

Things We Should Ban – Because They Kill People

I’ve been thinking about this whole gun ban thingy and I’ve got to agree we should ban anything and everything we have that kills people or incites people to kill other people.  I think this is the only sane approach to saving human life.  So here is my list of things we must ban, loosely assembled into categories for easy choosing:

Transportation: airplanes, automobiles (including gas, diesel, electric, hybrid, self-driving and individual control), forklifts, buses, trucks, trains (including high and low speed, monorails, incline, subways and vacuum tube), tanks, motorcycles, spacecraft, boats, ships, balloons (including both helium and hot air), dirigibles (or rigid balloons), scooters, bicycles, and stilts.  I’m not certain about teleportation, but I seem to remember at least a couple of scrambled molecules so for right now, to be safe it too should be banned.

Recreation:  Mountain climbing, swimming, sun tanning, hiking, racing (both as a by-product of the restrictions on transportation, and foot racing), tennis, baseball, football, cards, drinking alcohol, eating tide pods, smoking (including both legal and currently illegal substances), hunting, archery, shooting, and chess (unless you are under a certain age).  Soccer is probably okay because no one really gets hurt, they all fake their injuries to draw a yellow or red card against their opponent.  Viewing soccer, on the other hand, must be outlawed.

Professions:  Soldiers (sailors and airman included here and covered under transportation), doctors, nurses, pharmacists, construction (including both skilled and unskilled labor), postal workers, manufacturing, farming, forestry, police, fire, EMT, manufacturing, panhandling, protesting, transportation (see: transportation), government (including politicians, bureaucrats, and workers), data processing, college professors, K-12 teachers (and administrative support), beauticians, manicurists, internet surveillance watchers, coders, publishing, and veterinarians (just to be on the safe side).

Tools:  All power tools, hammers, saws, rope, guns (muskets, rifles – both single shot and semi-automatic, pistols), bows and arrows, knives, hatchets and axes, swords, toasters, gas ovens, televisions, corkscrews, microwaves, lawn mowers (may fall under the power tool category, or in the South under the transportation section), screwdrivers, and files.

Finally, we need to outlaw Individual Choice since this is perhaps the biggest killer of them all.

And Then There is This

Did Epstein have a trophy wall?


Ann Althouse: If You Want to Talk about Jeffery Epstein

A Few Thoughts on the Current News Cycle.

Random Thoughts Post Epstein

1.     The same government that promises to protect its citizens can’t seem to protect someone in a jail.

2.    I wonder how many elites who hung with Epstein are breathing a sigh of relief, and perhaps wrongly so?

3.    It amazes me that ABCNNBCBS is so blatantly obvious in their protection of Democratic politicians with links to Epstein, while wildly speculating about Republicans.  If they could just balance their coverage by treating each identically they could perhaps shed some of the FAKE NEWS moniker.  Unfortunately, they can’t seem to help themselves.

4.    If the talking heads (whoops sorry, subject experts) and talking heads (whoops again, pseudo-journalists) on TV can’t make up conspiracies they would have very little else to fill the air waves with.

5.    The only thing that could have made this whole Epstein suicide better than all the supposed failures of the Manhattan Correctional Center staff and administration would be if his feet had been weighted down in cement blocks.  But that would probably be just a bit too obvious.

6.    Sadly, Jeff wasn’t allowed to have a pencil and paper so he could have crafted a well written suicide note explaining his deep remorse for:

a.     Being a pedophile

b.    Getting caught again

c.     Knowing the Clintons

d.    All of the above

Famous Last Advice

August 9th, just before lights out:

NYC Jail Guard to Jeffery Epstein:  Jeff, the Clintons have sent you this lovely belt to keep your spirits up.  They want you to know they are pulling for you and hope you know that.  They also hope this terrible ordeal will be over soon.  It will be lights out in just a minute so have a good rest.  Hopefully, we'll see you hanging around in the morning.

Jeffrey Epstein:  Hmmm, thanks.

Is Disney Promoting Violence in Our Society?

Disney Theme Parks has opened and is opening soon, in Florida, a Star Wars-themed area in the Hollywood Studios park.  A relative of ours will work there, and so he and his mother got to preview the features of the park as part of the cast-members only days prior to full park opening.

As a part of his and her experience, they got to build a $350.00 lightsaber.  Since the lightsaber is a death-dealing weapon when welded by Jedi, isn't Disney promoting the violence of the Jedi as a force in the empire?

How can this be allowed by the progressive forces seeking an all-powerful empire?

It Will Always Be About the Narrative

It amazes me how thoroughly the left’s indoctrination of its partisan supporters is.  It is almost as if they have universally decided to surrender their free will to the collective.  I use this as an example.  After the President spoke about the shootings in El Paso, TX and Dayton, OH the New York Times published this headline.  “TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM.”   Seems pretty fair, but not to the left. 

The Twitterverse, led by prominent Democratic politicians, went bat-shit crazy over how the New York Times is now a Trump supporter.  Consequently the “Gray Lady” changed its headline in subsequent editions in an effort to appease its real support on the left.  Its next effort was “ASSAILING HATE BUT NOT GUNS” and from what I’ve seen the left still isn’t too happy with that.

The Times can’t get back to Trump-bashing fast enough to appease its followers.

It is funny how quickly the story of the Dayton shooting is slipping down from the front page.  Once it came out that the shooter was a Democrat who supported gun control and liked Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren it quickly moved to a side story.  Even though even CNN was forced to report those facts they managed to do so just as they were going to commercial and without comment regarding earlier speculation.

Of course, fund-raising is always important for Presidential candidates.  That’s probably why so many campaign e-mails came out talking about how important it was to send money to candidates in response to the shootings.  As one political strategist once noted, “never let a good crisis go to waste.”

It Really Does Take Two.

-->

There is an old truth.  It takes two to have a fight.  As we look at the outrage over the shootings in El Paso and Dayton it amazes me how so many are so willing to lay 100% of this at the feet of the President, while accepting 0% of the responsibility themselves.  This includes all our celebrity moralists, our liberal talking heads in the news media, and of course every Democratic Party politician able to grab a mike from someone.  This is not unusual for them.  It is the pattern they chose to establish after Hillary lost the election.

Three years ago, as I evaluated the probable candidates for the general election it became quite clear neither party was going to field a decent human being.  On the one side we had a narcissist billionaire and on the other a self-serving opportunist who had a trail of convenient dead bodies, and a deep state government behind her.  For the first time in my life, I saw zero viable candidates on the ballot, and voted my conscience, casting a write-in vote for “none of the above.”

Since that election, the left has done their utmost to vilify President Trump, and of course, he has responded to every slight.  We are a year away from entering the real Presidential race, but I have to say I still don’t see a George Washington rising up to save the union.  That said, my choice this coming election will be far easier.  I have three years of experience with what the economy has looked like as the President undoes the socialist policies of his predecessor and I am good with that. 

I’ve come to appreciate the hypocrisy of the left and that too weighs into my choice.  I’m tired of being called a racist, by people who have no idea who I am.  I’m tired of watching liberals undermine the President.  Finally, I am tired of a Congress that refused to fix the immigration problems and make life better for all, when they would much rather use it as some sort of club to beat the opposition party.

I think 2020 is shaping up to be an easy choice for the middle-class people like me, and will undoubtedly bring tears to those who believe themselves better than the rest of us.

Why Reason has Become Unreasonable

Nobody gets their face in front of a camera these days if they seek a middle ground, or attempt to wait for the facts of an issue before making a statement.  By the time the facts come out a half dozen or so news cycles have come and gone, and the networks have moved on to some other tragedy.

A review of recent history shows it is far better for those who want their faces postered all over the media to push some knee jerk reaction that is seen by a couple of million people and then maybe have to offer a retraction seen by a few hundred or so, then to wait and be factual on the first try. 

Another Uninformed Opinion

Uninformed opinions seem to be the order of the day as we deal with more lethal violence in El Paso, TX and Dayton, OH.  So here is one more.

I am reminded of a line from the movie Casablanca where Claude Raines, playing Police Captain Louis Renault, tells his deputy “Round up the usual suspects.”  It doesn’t take a genius to know that will be the same thing now.  We will have those who demand we prohibit guns and those who demand we not.  Fundamentally, I tend to come down on the side of those who would not prohibit guns. 

It’s not so much that I believe we need them to stop the government from imposing some autocratic and dictatorial regime for if that happens it will be too late and more than half of us will have voted them into office.  Nor do I believe the second amendment was etched in stone and carried down from Mount Rushmore by George Washington.  Rather, I am unconvinced it is possible to prohibit firearms and even if we did, it would not change the dynamics that are, in my opinion, the true sources of this violence.

What I hear from those who demand we eliminate guns is the angry rhetoric, opinions voiced by those who live protected lives, and little discussion of the social dynamics that cause mostly young angry men to kill others.  What I don’t hear is how a prohibition of guns would be different than the last prohibition we tried. 

You remember that one, don’t you?  Started by the progressive temperance movement in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, the passage of the 18^th Amendment in 1919 issued in the age of illegal alcohol.  Its beginnings held the loftiest of ideals.  It would end poverty, child abuse, domestic violence and a whole card deck full of things caused by the evils of alcohol.  What it actually accomplished was the creation of vast networks of organized crime and civil disobedience that led consumers to disregard the laws. It was so unsuccessful it led the Democratic party to make its repeal a plank in the party's platform for the 1932 elections.  Within two years of FDR's election, the 21^st Amendment was ratified. Officially ending the short-lived social experiment.  Unfortunately, the unintended consequences or by-products of prohibition still remain with us.

What would those who wish to end this violence really be willing to do?  Since those in the social sciences seem unwilling to consider the total dynamics of a changing society, and those who vote on whatever changes we need to make, communicate in little more than 15-second sound bites it seems increasingly unlikely our federal government will ever develop an effective strategy that a majority of the population can support.  It is almost as if we are playing chess with the human lives and each side is down to having only a king and a queen.  We are in a state of perpetual check but will never achieve a checkmate.  Smart players would call it a draw and start a new game, but that's not for us.

Justice and Social Justice

That's a Bold Move Cotton, Let's See How it Works Out

Disclaimer:  I hate political debates and find very little useful insight from watching. 
That said, I review a number of reports where I can read their words and watch selected excerpts to form my opinion on their policies.  In looking at a variety of reviews it seems when a candidate was faced with a question he/she didn't want to answer they would claim it to be a Republican talking point and suggest the moderators move on to a "real question."
In looking at the issues they avoided it seems to me most of the Republican talking points were pretty mainstream concerns for the middle class.  If the strategy for the DNC is to avoid discussing them, it will be interesting to see how the mainstream middle class responds come time for the election.