Aug 31^st

Cal Thomas begins his column today with the usual lies. Why do these wing nuts believe that no one ever checks on their version of the facts? Perhaps it is the Trump effect; if Trump can get away with bald-faced lies (like telling us that our GDP is never negative) then why shouldn’t this fine columnist? Cal begins with a rant about a British politician, a socialist, who wants to “increase the taxes on the rich who are already paying more than half their earnings in income taxes.” It takes very little time to find out that this is a lie. If a couple earns 100 thousand pounds a year (that’s 153 thousand dollars) their income tax in Britain is 29.4 percent. That’s not really rich so let’s go up to 500 thousand pounds a year (that’s 765 thousand dollars a year) now the couple will pay 42 percent of that income in income tax. Even if you earn a million pounds a year (153 million dollars) your income tax comes to 44 percent of your earnings which is well less than half. I believe this is the Trump effect infecting the right wing. I’m sure they think, “If trump can get away with this why can’t I do the same thing?” The reason, dear Cal, is that you aren’t Donald Trump.

Then Cal says, “In the United States another self-described socialist Bernie Sanders, is appealing largely to a younger generation that apparently knows little about the history of leftist ideology and its failures.” Nonsense on two counts: A recent article points out that Sander’s has an appeal to his own generation: Patrick Healy in “Politics” writes under this headline, “Bernie Sanders appeals to a certain generation: his own.” Then we have the leftist failures Cal talks about, but no mention of leftist successes nor any mention of right wing failures. He might look at the level of happiness in Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway. These are socialist countries but Thomas’ political blinders keep him from seeing the advantages they provide for their citizens. These same blinders keep him from seeing the brutality of the right-wing military junta in Argentina. Then there was Somoza in Cuba and those fine conservatives in Chile. Weren’t they a splendid group of right wingers?

Then he complains that Republican candidates are “more interested I attacking each other than in naming and shaming the consequential domestic and foreign policy failures of liberalism exemplified in the presidency of Barack Obama.” Cal Thomas is apparently unacquainted with the principle of least effort; applied here it means that these Republican candidates find it much easier to attack each other than to mount any meaningful attack on the “domestic and foreign policy failures of liberalism.” It is also the case that for most people, even marginally acquainted with politics, the problem is to first win the primary; to do that Cal, you must beat your primary opponents. If you aren’t successful there then you needn’t worry about anything except paying your campaign debts.

Aug 30^th

“Every sulfurous belch from the molten interior of the volcanic Trump phenomena injures the chances of a Republican presidency.” Thus speaks George Will, prominent Republican intellectual. On this point, as on few others, George Will gets enthusiastic bipartisan approval. Liberals, I among them, hope Trump continues to trumpet, for it will surely offset the right’s cudgeling of Hillary Clinton about her emails.

Will goes on to flesh out his point that Trump is not really a conservative; but everybody knows that, and none of his conservative supporters care; other, traditional, conservatives do care, and care very much. Equivalently, Hilary Clinton’s supporters don’t believe that she is very trustworthy and few of them care very much about that either. Bill Clinton wasn’t seen as a choirboy and he won elections anyway; but Hilary Clinton is not Bill Clinton, not by a long shot.

Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders draw crowds to their appearances and this is remarkable because the messages from each of them changes very little from one appearance to the next. It is also noteworthy that these two draw largely homogenous crowds. They are of various ages but they are all largely white. Trump will usually have a black face or two in the background of his speeches, but the percentage of Latinos, Asians and African Americans are not advertised by his campaign crew. Trump will cost Republicans the election by driving minorities away and this will be whether he runs as a third-party candidate or as a Republican.

Trump has also picked up support from some of the white supremacist movement folks. From a New Yorker article we have,  “Twelve days after Trump’s announcement, the Daily Stormer America’s most popular neo-Nazi news site, endorsed him for President: ‘Trump is willing to say what most Americans think: it’s time to deport these people.’”  Richard Spencer, president and director of the National Policy Institute, a think tank founded by William Regnery, a member of the conservative publishing family that is “dedicated to the heritage, identity and future of the European people in the United States and around the world” is another Trump enthusiast. Another ardent supporter is Michael Hill, of the Alabama based “League of the South,” a secessionist movement dedicated to an independent southern republic with “Anglo Celtic” control.

This support from the bigoted fringe is hardly a surprise and Trump has by no means rejected their support when it was called to his attention. After all his dear friend is Ann Coulter whose book “Adios America” bemoans the darkening of the American public. That sentiment is also right in line with the white supremacist movement. Do we hear the strains of “Deutschland Uber Alles” in the distance? If it happened there; it can happen here.

Aug 29^th

If Ronald Reagan was ‘The great Communicator” then Donald Trump will be remembered as “The Great Exaggerator.” He is, after all, a salesman and he has admitted in his book, ”The Art of the Deal,” that if you need to paint an exaggerated picture to entice the client, well, so be it. The result is that almost every word that comes out of Trump’s mouth is an exaggeration designed to diminish his opponents or enhance his own appeal.

A few days ago he was working over Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, two of his very favorite whipping boys. He was talking about the mentoring relationship Bush had with Rubio and how Rubio had responded by challenging Jeb for the nomination. Oh, but now they are friends again, he said, “I saw them hugging and kissing…” I saw that meeting because it was televised and his description was pure hokum.

He also overdoes the, “nobody else permits birthright citizenship.” He claims that, “Mexico doesn’t do it. Other places don’t do it….We’re the only place, just about, that is stupid enough to do it,” It is being phased out in many countries that once had it, but Mexico does in fact still have it; in somewhat different form but it is essentially the same thing. Then there is the awful danger he claims he faced when he went to Laredo, Texas, to confer with border guards about the porous border.  When the border guards union told them inviting Trump was a no-no because the union was officially politically neutral, Trump claimed the guards were not allowed to tell him the real story.

He told his pilot not to fly too close to the border because of the danger, (Could he have known about the remarkable Mexican air defense missile system?) and made much of the presumed risk he was taking by going to the border. (The Washington Post pointed out that he was statistically safer in Laredo than in New York City.) Trump said, “People are saying ‘It’s so dangerous Mr. Trump’ but I have to do it.” He also said that he “Would proceed with the visit despite of the grave danger.” What bravery, what spunk; you wouldn’t believe that this was the same guy who got multiple student deferments to avoid serving in Vet Nam.

You recall the press conference where Jorge Ramos was “escorted” from the room for asking questions when he was not called on? The man doing the escorting was a very large fellow with a near bald haircut. Later when Trump was asked about this interesting example of media control, Trump said repeatedly that Ramos was “screaming” questions at him and that he was “ranting and raving like a mad man.” He was doing no such thing. He raised his voice so that he could be heard because he, unlike Trump, had no microphone. Of course Trump must claim that Ramos was screaming and raving to provide more justification for ejecting him. Then Trump was asked about the near seven foot tall man who escorted Ramos from the hall. Trump pleaded ignorance but the same guy is always close to Trump and scanning the crowds. I guess he’s just a fan.

Aug 28^th

Yes I know, two days in a row on gun control can try your patience, but bear with me here. Last night, quite predictably, Bill O’Reilly began snorting about how the liberals would use the shooting of two journalists in Virginia to push for more of that unconstitutional gun control. He claimed that gun control didn’t work and cited Washington D.C. and Chicago as examples. These cities have strict gun control laws and still have very high murder rates. According to O’Reilly that demonstrates that gun control doesn’t work. Of course it doesn’t work if you have one set of restrictive gun laws for a city and much less restrictive gun laws for the state, or nearby state.

If you live in Chicago and want a gun just hop on some public transportation to Gary, Indiana, buy your gun, stick it in your coat pocket and head home. There will be no police stopping and searching people coming into Chicago; it’s easy. The same thing is true for Washington D.C., only more so; there you have just a few miles to get into Virginia where gun restrictions are among the most lax in the country. The killing of the two journalists on camera was in Virginia; the Virginia Tech massacre was in 2007 where the lax gun laws allowed the murder of 32 students and the wounding of 19 others.  Washington D.C.s strict gun laws existing next to Virginia’s lax ones are useless. O’Reilly’s examples of gun control not working persuade no one except those already persuaded not to look closely at the reasonableness of any of O’Reilly’s utterances.

National gun control does work. Australia had a substantial number of guns in the hands of civilians. Australians weren’t as much into gun hugging as Americans are but they did have an affectionate relationship with firearms.  In 1996 a mass killing occurred in Tasmania, an Island of the Australian coast, when Martin Bryant killed 35 people and wounded 70 others uses semi-automatic weapons. That caused the Australian government to ban all semi-automatic weapons. Individuals owning such weapons were compensated for the fair value of the guns they turned in. Six hundred and fifty thousand guns were removed. Many people were not happy and the Premier felt it necessary to wear a bullet proof vest when addressing some protesters. The result, however, was a drop of 57 percent in suicides and 43 percent in murders. (Non-gun suicides did not rise to compensate for the drop in gun suicides.) O’Reilly doesn’t talk much about the Australian experiment.

The killer of the two journalists in Virginia, we are told by Fox News anchors, had bought the gun he used quite legally and therefore, they claimed, nothing could be done. After all he did pass a background check; he was not under psychiatric care, so it was just one of those unfortunate things. Well, not really. If you want to kill some people and you live in Virginia (and in many other states) once you pass the background check, give or take ten minutes, you pay your money, pick up your gun and you’re off to slaughter whomever you please. (If you buy your gun from the guy down the street you don’t even need a background check.) I’ll bet a month-long waiting period to pick up the gun would help diffuse some hotheads. Unfortunately, the NRA probably wouldn’t approve of that.

 

 

Aug 27^th

What do we do about all the gun deaths in this country? The Republicans suggest we do as little as possible. Any hint of changing the rules controlling the availability of guns will get knowing smirks from the Fox News cognoscenti. They are right of course, because the NRA and their lobbyists have had a lock on this for years. For example, just this year, the Congress has renewed the prohibition for the Center for Disease Control (CDC) to investigate the causes of gun deaths in the United States. This leads to some very peculiar outcomes: I assume that deaths by stabbing, or cutting with a knife, can be investigated by the CDC. Suicides by gun are off limits but people who kill themselves by other means can be studied by the CDC. Perhaps we have stepped through the looking glass.

There are a lot of guns available in this country but although estimates are that about 300 million guns are in the hands of civilians most families do not own a gun. Getting accurate statistics is a problem because if you ask a householder who is concerned about crime if he owns a gun he might be reluctant to admit that he doesn’t. Still, the data are that only about a third of households have a gun. Twenty percent of households own 85 percent of the guns. Keep in mind that in Michigan there is no registry of rifles as there is of handguns. (Other states may differ; MA requires a permit to purchase a rifle.)

Some people believe carrying a concealed weapon makes them safer. Suppose you are walking down a street and a man comes toward you. When he is ten feet away he pulls out a hand gun and points it at your chest while asking for your wallet. Now you can either throw your wallet on the ground or retrieve your concealed carry pistol and defend yourself. The thief will be watching your hands and if you try for your weapon you’ll have to be fast enough to retrieve it, point it at the thief before the thief can move his trigger finger a quarter of an inch. Concealed carry usually just gives the carrier a false sense of confidence. When Congresswoman Gifford was shot in Arizona a man with a concealed carry permit nearly shot the wrong man because a rescuer had just taken the gun from the killer and the permit holder, seeing the gun in the rescuers hand, nearly shot the rescuer. (Arizona requires no training at all to get a concealed weapon carry permit.)

The NRA, for reasons not very clear, is opposing background checks on handgun purchasers at gun shows. If you want to buy a handgun and leave no record just go to a gun show where there are unlicensed gun sellers, or you can just buy the gun from the guy down the street. This “gun show loophole” allows anyone, convicted felon or psychopath, to get a weapon and kill someone twenty minutes later. This is like having a plywood gate in a twenty-ton bank vault door.

The NRA employs 35 lobbyists; about half of them have previously held government jobs. They are paid to persuade legislators to kowtow to the NRA’s position on issues concerning guns and ammunition. Until we eliminate government by unelected lobbyists we’ll have this problem.

Aug 26^th

Trump is still busy burning bridges… while he’s standing on some of them. He has renewed his feud with Roger Aisles of Fox News because he continues to attack Roger’s favorite female anchor Megyn Kelly. This feud might help both of them because it will draw viewers, but if Trump wants the support of the conservative poohbahs this petulant continued attack on Megyn Kelly was not a smart move.

Look at his recent positions: He seems to be telling the Republican establishment that he isn’t one of them, and they’re responding exactly as you would expect them to. Consider taxes: The Republican position on this is clear, but Trump has recently said this about rich hedge fund managers and their tax burden, “I have hedge fund guys that are making lots of money that aren’t paying anything.” Then, “The hedge fund guys are getting away with murder… they don’t build anything they just shift paper around and get lucky.”   This is a Republican candidate for President saying this; it sounds like Bernie Sanders.

Then we have him cozying up to the Latino community (“I have lots of Latinos working for me, thousands of them; they love me.”) Last night he had his body guard remove Jose Ramos, an important Latino reporter, from his press conference. OK,  Ramos did speak out of turn and was belligerent, but the image will be of a near seven foot tall bouncer shoving a much smaller Jose Ramos out of the hall. That Ramos was invited back in won’t get as much play in the Latino community.

His exaggerated comments about Latino immigrants have irritated such conservative stalwarts as Mona Charen. Mona’s column today is titled, “Taking our country back: From whom?” She begins by agreeing that the United States is “very much in decline.” She then accuses the usual suspects, all liberals of course, but not illegal immigration. Then she spends about 80 percent of her column pointing out that most of Trump’s concerns about immigrants are not at all warranted. The number of illegal immigrants dropped from 1.6 million in 2000, to 400 thousand this past year. Mexico’s birth rate has dropped from 7.3 children per woman to 2.4 children per woman today. She claims that the birthrate gets below 2 children per woman immigration will stop. She also refutes Trump’s claims about the criminality of immigrants:  Among men, 18 to 39, who constitute the vast majority of the prison population, the native born 3.5 percent incarceration rate is five times the rate for foreign born. She finishes by describing Trump’s plans for a wall and for deportation of illegals claiming that, “A candidate for student council from a third rate high school could derive a more serious solution than those,” and claims that “Trump is on the ultimate ego trip.”

Trump is not completely without right wing support; Ann Coulter finds his views very attractive. She has said that if Trump can carry out his stop immigrants plan he can personally perform abortions in the White House for all she cares. I doubt that Ann Coulter represents many mainstream conservatives. As I said in an earlier post this year, for the first time in many years she wasn’t invited to speak at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Committee.

What does it all mean? First, consider that Trump is no dummy and that he knows he is alienating an important Republican Party base…and he doesn’t care. I can think of only one reason that he doesn’t care; he plans eventually to run as an independent. Not yet of course, because he has more to gain by staying for the debates where he can continue to lacerate his Republican opponents. Eventually we’ll see if I’m right; meantime, doesn’t Trump remind you a bit of Il Duce, the early, posturing, Benito Mussolini?

 

Aug 25^th

Thomas Sowell’s column today is titled “Random thoughts on the passing scene.” The entire column consists of unrestrained nastiness. Sowell begins with an outright lie: he says of the agreement with Iran that, “We are supposed to pretend that there is something there, when there is nothing there that will stop, or even slow down, Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.” That comment is ample evidence that Sowell has not bothered to read the agreement, or if he has read it he doesn’t understand it, or if he understands it he is lying about it.

What about the high level Israeli’s who support this agreement? Here is a partial list: Shlomo Gaza, Chief of Intelligence, Major General; Carmi Gillon, Director of Israel Security Agency; Ami Ayalon, Vice Admiral, Director of Israel Security Agency; Itamar Yaar, Colonel, Deputy Israeli National Security Council; Arie Pellman, Israeli Security Agency official. Sowell must think that he understands this agreement much better than these, and other, Israeli officials who support this agreement are trained in such matters and who are charged with protecting their country.

Then Sowell comments, “Do the people demanding that the police have more “training” ever say that the hoodlums should have had more training by their parents…” Yes indeed, what about that hoodlum Henry Louis Gates, Harvard Professor, arrested on the porch of his own home after showing the arresting officer his driver’s license which had his home address clearly printed on it? Surely his mother should have told him about the risks of living in a white neighborhood. Most black youngsters are told by their parents about how to deal with police so that they aren’t killed. There are many more disgusting examples but none that would bother Sowell.

“The majority of record breaking tax money collected by the federal government today is simply transferred by politicians from people who are not likely to vote for them to people who are likely to vote for them,” Why would a poor man unable to feed his family vote for a someone who pledges to cut his food stamps, reduce his rent subsidy and eliminate his family’s Medicaid? Then we have another group of voters not mentioned by Sowell; they will vote for the Congressman who refuses to raise the social security tax base, will sign Grover Norquist’s no tax pledge and instead borrow the money to pay for our wars.

Sowell tells us. “…how unbelievably stupid it was to import millions of people from cultures that despise Western values…” “Import” means to bring in; Europe did not bring these people in, the people came in very much of their own accord because any European country was safer than their home country. Some, but certainly not all, may “despise democratic values” but far more are alienated because they are relegated to outsider status. Once again Sowell throws a simplistic analysis at a complex problem.

Thomas Sowell bemoans the fact that there are so many Republican candidates “splitting the vote as to guarantee that the nomination could go to some mushy moderate.” Let’s hope that doesn’t happen because the further to the right the Republican candidate stands, the more assured of victory the Democratic candidate will be.

 

Aug 24^th

Yesterday, Sunday August 23^rd, a letter by Richard Fidler to the editor of the Traverse City, Record Eagle (R-E), was published. Mr. Fidler has published two books dealing with the history of Traverse City; now he has expanded his interests to the appropriateness of using atomic weapons to end World War 2.  (I would have sent this to the R-E except they, just today, published a letter from me so now I must wait six weeks to send another letter.)  

Mr. Fidler makes some statements about Japanese military capabilities in the terminal stages of the war that are, at best, debatable. He writes, “In 1945 Japan essentially had no army, navy or air force. It had no ammunition for weapons. The narrative about the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of Americans was made up out of whole cloth.” In April of 1945, the year Mr. Fidler claims that Japan had essentially no army and no air force, we invaded Okinawa. In a little over three months we needed an army of 282 thousand men, which suffered 23 percent causalities, to subdue the island. In addition the Japanese “no air force” consisting of kamikaze planes sank 26 of our ships.

Then Fidler tells us that, “Truman authorized dropping the bombs to end the war quickly so the Russians wouldn’t be able to intervene.” But the Russians did intervene, declaring war on August 9^th the day we dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki.

I believe that Fidler does not appreciate the Bushido-like code which governed the conduct of most Japanese military during the war.  Surrender meant severe loss of face, essentially a ritual death, very few books have been written by former Japanese POWs. Indeed it was common for the Japanese government when given the names of prisoners so as to inform their families, to deny that they could have surrendered.

There was also a substantial difference in the treatment of military and civilian POWs by the Japanese. This may have been due to the Japanese believing that their military prisoners had disgraced themselves by surrendering. My wife’s uncle, a petroleum engineer working for Royal Dutch Shell was interred by the Japanese and was treated relatively well. He was able to receive packages from his relatives and from his company. Military POWs did not have that luxury.

I was in the USAAF in the summer of 1945 and if Japan had not surrendered I would have been on one of those ships hoping to avoid the kamikazes. I also have a friend who was a Marine fighting on Okinawa; neither of us believes that Uncle Harry made a mistake dropping those bombs… it all depends on your perspective.

Aug 23^rd

The recent rants against immigrants have a long and dishonorable history in this country. It certainly isn’t a recent development and it isn’t confined to rabble rousers. My ancestors were Pennsylvania Dutch. They emigrated from Germany in the 1780s. The “Dutch” was a corruption of Deutsch, or German. Mostly farmers, they arrived here speaking little or no English and they stayed largely to themselves. They settled in Pennsylvania, primarily in Lancaster County and counties nearby. In spite of the fact that Pennsylvania was sparsely settled and farms only existed after the farmer had spent weeks with an ax and a team felling trees and pulling stumps, my ancestors were not universally welcomed in this new land.

One of our founding fathers expressed considerable hostility toward these emigrants. Here are some quotes from Ben Franklin about these immigrants:

Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the   English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as   to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our   Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion. Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation…and as few of the English understand the German Language, and so cannot address them either from the Press or Pulpit, ’tis almost impossible to remove any prejudices they once entertain…, and even our Government will become precarious.

Note, particularly, that Franklin complains of these settlers’ stupidity and of their “complexion.” In fact, in other complaints, he focuses heavily on complexion; he assures us that only the English and some Nordic people are sufficiently light skinned to be desirable immigrants.



That was about 1780 so let’s move ahead 100+ years and look at an article in the Atlantic magazine about immigrants published about 1890:

The question to-day is not of preventing the wards of our almshouses, our insane asylums, and our jails from being stuffed to repletion by new arrivals from Europe; but of protecting the American rate of wages, the American standard of living, and the quality of American citizenship from degradation through the tumultuous access of vast throngs of ignorant and brutalized peasantry from the countries of eastern and southern Europe.

That’s a small portion of the article but it’s enough to give you the flavor of the times. Just substitute Latin America for Europe and you have exactly the pitch of today’s conservative’s views on immigration. Curiously, Franklin’s obsession with skin color is echoed and amplified today by Ann Coulter. Ms. Coulter has written at least ten best sellers all of which excoriate liberals. Her latest book, “Adios America,” takes the position that the country is becoming Latinized. She laments the arrival of “swarthy skinned males.” Swarthy skinned is the identical phrase used by Franklin 240 years ago to describe my ancestors. Coulter has lost favor with the right perhaps because she is simply too vicious. The last meeting of CPAC (Conservative Political Action Congress) did not give her an invitation to speak; it was her first rejection in many years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aug 22^nd

As everyone knows, last night was Donald Trump’s speech to the faithful, or at least to the curious, in Mobile, Alabama. There is some disagreement about the turnout. Fox News had it at well over 30 thousand people, but other networks had it closer to 20 thousand. However many it was, and it was surely many, it was many more than any other Republican has been able to attract. Trump is getting right up there with Bernie Sanders’ crowd appeal. Of course no one on Fox News mentioned that comparison and certainly no one mentioned it to Trump.

Trump once again showed that he was willing to manufacture facts as needed; specifically with regard to South Korea now much in the news. Trump claimed that we have 48.5 thousand troops there protecting that country. Unless we recently added 20 thousand the number is 28.5 thousand. Then Trump complained that we aren’t paid for this protection. Actually South Korea pays all of our expenses for keeping those troops there. That information wouldn’t fit well with Trump’s agenda which is that everyone takes advantage of poor us.

In his comments about how we defend other countries without charge he didn’t mention Israel, which receives 3 billion dollars a year of our tax money. The thanks we get are Israeli agents pushing our Congress to do what is in Israel’s best interests and TV ads trashing the Iran agreement. That would surely be something for Trump to complain about but not a word from Trump except for him to tell us that he will be a better friend of Israel than any other candidate.

Trump also tells his audience that he will be the greatest job creator ever; he will bring jobs back from China, from Mexico and from wherever else they might have gone. Unfortunately he says not one word about how he will bring this about, picky, picky. Trust the man; doesn’t he look trustworthy? How could you have amassed all that money, attracted three beautiful wives, fly around in a multimillion dollar airplane if you weren’t trustworthy?

One tiny inconsistency appears: Trump wants to deport all of 12 million or so illegal Latino immigrants and their families. (I’ve already commented on the problems with that.) Assuming it will cost about a thousand dollars for each deportee that will come to about 120 billion dollars, not counting the roundup and holding tank costs. (Maybe rounding up, building camps for, and then guarding 12 million illegals provides some of the jobs Trump promises to create.) But hasn’t Trump claimed that he would confiscate the money these immigrants are sending back to Mexico and use that money to build his wall? If he sends these immigrants out of the country where will he get the money to build that magnificent wall? I’m afraid we’ll have a very long wait to find out. Meanwhile folks, just enjoy the carnival; it will be something for your kids to tell their grandchildren about.

 

Aug 21^st

Cal Thomas provides some nonsense for me to disparage today. Good old Cal, whatever would I do without him? In his very first paragraph he says, “America appears in decline under a disengaged President.” This “disengaged President” has just negotiated an agreement between six nations, including Russia and China, to limit Iraq’s development of nuclear capability. Now he must fight against our “ally” Israel’s desperate attempts to sabotage it. He has also managed to get the Affordable Care Act passed and declared constitutional by SCOTUS. He has also managed to make same sex marriage possible in this country. He has reestablished a diplomatic relationship with Cuba in spite of screams from the right that the fifty year old boycott of Cuba had “just begun to work.” The result of his constant appearances to lobby the public for these and other programs, we have George Will claiming that he is “overexposed.” Can you be disengaged and overexposed at the same time? This is possible only for conservatives who are criticizing the President.

Moving right along to the next sentence Cal Thomas tells us that “We can’t seem to win wars, or know why we are fighting them.” Who started those wars Cal? Who claimed that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction and then destroyed the careers of Ambassador Wilson and his CIA wife, Valerie Plame, when they didn’t find the required evidence? You might read “The war they wanted; the lies they needed” in Vanity Fair.

Then he claims that “People are afraid of losing their jobs or are unable to find one. While the treasury takes in record amounts of money from working people, it outspends its income.” Cal Thomas should know that the treasury can’t take in record amounts of money from people who aren’t employed. So of course Cal isn’t stupid enough to claim employment is low but he can claim people are “afraid of losing their jobs.” The evidence he gives for this assertion is what? Then he claims that some are unable to find jobs. That’s true and it has always been true even in Ronald Reagan’s administration.

Cal Thomas finally attacks liberal politicians whom he claims are “providing ‘benefits’ in exchange for votes.” My goodness Cal, what a cynic you’ve become. I’m sure your church has a pantry where indigent people can get food. Most churches are not big on allowing people to go hungry because they can’t find work that pays enough to pay the rent and to feed their families. So, would you subscribe to the notion that your church just supports their pantry to increase the church’s membership? Perhaps the pantry is there to increase membership enough to qualify for another pastor? Perhaps your cynicism about people wanting to help others only applies to those who don’t share your political views.

 

 

Aug 20^th

I surfed the web just now looking for Mona Charen’s most recent column; she has a number of mini-columns that probably won’t hit our local paper but are interesting nonetheless. I noticed that she had some comments on Jon Stewart’s decision to call it a day; in short, she was delighted. Mona does not believe Jon Stewart added much of anything to our culture. She claims that he was just snarky. She goes on to write this, “But when you picture the typical Stewart viewer, you probably imagine a white hipster looking like the pajama boy from the Obama ads, right?” This quote demonstrates clearly that Mona can be snarky with the best of them. Mona doesn’t realize that Stewart’s snarkiness was usually hilarious; her snarkiness isn’t. He also had some instructive but devilishly embarrassing questions for political guests. This might be why Mona is so happy to see him leave.

I also trolled Fox News this afternoon and there was Gretchen Carlson with two guests discussing politics. Gretchen, like most female Fox anchors, is blonde and attractive, indeed Gretchen is a former Miss America; perhaps this credential was a help getting your own show on Fox.

The guests were explaining that there were some interesting shifts in the recent polls. First, even though he isn’t officially running, Joe Biden would beat any of the Republican candidates in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. (This Quinnipiac Poll results infuriated the next Fox Anchor, who claimed the poll wasn’t worth “spit” because no one had yet taken a shot at Biden who wasn’t really running yet.)

Then the guests pointed out to Gretchen Carlson how well Bernie Sanders was doing and the huge crowds he was drawing. (Donald Trump said he had several thousand in his auditorium but the auditorium only holds 800. Donald is lying more like a politician every day.) Sanders is now even with Clinton in Iowa. This news caused a volcanic reaction form Ms. Carlson; she couldn’t believe it!

Bernie Sanders says that he is a socialist. Gretchen Carlson simply does not believe that in this great country of ours anyone could vote for a (Gasp) socialist (Gasp). That’s what she said and I heard her say it. She was incredulous that anyone would vote for an avowed socialist! I believe that Gretchen Carlson ranks socialists a full rung below child pornographers. She went on to say that people would be voting for the kind of government they had in Denmark, or Sweden, or Norway. It is obvious that Ms. Carlson has no idea how the government of Sweden, or any other of the other Nordic countries works. They do produce the happiest people anywhere. Iceland is close to the top of the “happiest list” and in Iceland you must select your baby’s name from a list approved by the government. Even that degree of government supervision doesn’t make for unhappy Icelanders. It would surely make for a very unhappy Gretchen Carlson.

 

Aug 19^th

I can find nothing new to say today about Trump or any of the right wing talking heads. Trump’s absurd suggestion to deport some 15 million people is no less silly today than it was when he made it. We do have George Will who wants to chase Trump out of the Republican Party but his only suggestion as to method is to not invite him to debates. As I wrote, if the RNC cannot get rid of a homophobic bigot in their own ranks (David Agema of Michigan) how can they remove someone from their party? Clearly, they cannot. If they do remove Trump and declare him a “non-Republican” he will surely form his own party and hand any vertical Democrat the Presidency.

Then there is Hilary Clinton who continues to stub her toe on her private server. Unfair as the flood of accusations are, and they are, witness the number of “maybe classified” or “FBI looking into” statements that are hardly smoking guns. That doesn’t matter because there are enough people who are beginning to waver about her so that such remarks, hammered incessantly at the public by Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, will have an effect. I doubt that she will drop out but her popularity may decline to the point that other, more viable, candidates will come forward, specifically, Joe Biden.  

Fox News, just five minutes ago, declared that three (more) of Clinton’s emails were just classified “secret.” This special announcement, made in somber tones by a very serious looking official, also admits that these emails had just recently been so classified and were not classified this way when Clinton sent or received them. Clinton, we are assured, should have known that they would be classified “secret.”  The Fox News anchor, who relays this information, doesn’t bother to ask her informant just how Mrs. Clinton was supposed to know this when it has taken some days for FBI officialdom to decide it. Oh yes, and much has also been made of the fact that the server was physically kept in a closet in a condominium in Colorado. No information at all about who put it there, but that it was not stored in Fort Knox is surely Hilary Clinton’s fault. Don’t misunderstand me; I am not one of Hilary Clinton’s strongest supporters but these criticisms are beyond ridiculous.

It’s time to go and listen to Donald Trump who is even now on all the networks doing a town hall presentation in New Hampshire. At least with him the irrational is to be expected.

 

Aug 18^th

Donald Trump continues to make news, even though there was a brief hiatus when he was called to jury duty yesterday in New York City. Now we have politicians who have come forth to agree with his position on deporting illegal immigrants and all their children. The number of potential deportees is unknown but is estimated variously at between 10 and 15 million people. I mentioned yesterday that there is no reason to believe that the countries from whence these folks came will take them back, but that is a minor problem for Trump’s scheme. A major problem is that exporting the children of these folks, children born in this country, are, by the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution, United States citizens. No problem says Trump; just change the Constitution.

Who buys into the Trump plan? We begin with that stalwart conservative, the Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal. Governor Jindal you may remember was in England not long ago where he endeared himself to officialdom there by insisting that Muslims had instituted their own Sharia law in some cities where even the police were afraid to go.  When faced with a “show me” from officials, Bobby didn’t back down but he didn’t produce the any evidence either. Now Bobby, and many other far right Republican candidates, is supporting Trump’s suggestions. Even Scott Walker has bought this “pot of message” and tries to convince everyone that he was there first.

Let’s face it, offering automatic citizenship to any child born here regardless of the status of that child’s parents is a magnet for pregnant women to get to this country before they deliver. A Rasmussen (perhaps right biased) poll found 61 percent of respondents believe the Constitution should be changed. Legislation is already on its way to do that; it won’t be easy though because simply passing legislation won’t do the job if SCOTUS declares the result unconstitutional, and that’s what they will do. There are businesses in this country devoted entirely to providing a safe and pleasant environment for foreign nationals coming here on tourist Visas specifically to have a child who will then be a U.S. citizen. This isn’t what those originally supporting the 14^th Amendment had in mind; the Amendment was meant to provide citizenship to former slaves.

Changing the Constitution will not be easy even for Trump. Moreover changing it now will not change the status of the children already born here; they are U.S. citizens whether Trump, Bobby Jindal or Scott Walker likes it or not. Deporting U.S. citizens, even if they are the children of people who came here illegally, may not be possible even for “very, very rich” Donald Trump.

Aug 17^th

Donald Trump, at last, has come out with a policy statement about immigration and immigrants. We know he will build a wall and we know he will get the Mexican government to pay for it and we know that he won’t tell anyone how he will get the Mexican government to do that¹. He told Chuck Todd that everyone would be “so pleased” after four years of his Presidency. Trump is the quintessential salesman. I can hear him now, under more modest circumstances of course, after selling the retired minister a five year old Chevy, “You will be so pleased.” And Reverend Roberts will be pleased too, just on the basis of the force and sincerity of that salesman’s hypnotic personality.

Setting aside the wall and how Trump will make Mexico pay for it, we have the problem with what to do with illegal immigrants who are already here. In some cases the immigrants have been here for years, have worked here and paid taxes here and have children who were born here. Trump tells Chuck Todd that he will send them all back. That will be quite an undertaking because there about 6 million of them and that might not count dependents; no matter, Trump will send them all back.

In spite of the obvious problems with this plan Trump does have some support: Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, the junior Senator from Alabama, Selma Alabama in fact, thinks Trump’s plan is just fine. Perhaps the Senator has invested in air lines serving Mexico and Central America. (It is really hard not to be snarky with this nonsense.) Consider that Trump claims that he will not separate families; this means that he plans to deport children born in this country which clearly violates the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution. According to this amendment children born in this country are citizens. If Trump deports these families, a process now clearly illegal he will have to find and then pen up about 12 million people until he can find enough empty airplanes to transport them to the countries they came from.

Then he has another problem: Suppose the countries in question are in no mood to receive several hundred thousand people who will arrive without jobs, with many of their adolescent children no longer even speaking the language. Trump nowhere discusses what he will do if one of these countries tells a plane carrying emigrants it can’t land. That’s OK, I’m sure that Trump will just make these countries accept the people who left years ago for life in the United States.

¹Now comes an article from “Fortune” just today about Trumps plan to pay for the wall. Trump claims that Mexicans in this country remit 22 billion dollars to relatives in Mexico. He would confiscate that money. Unfortunately that includes the money sent to Mexico by all Mexicans both legals and illegals. Confiscating money sent by U.S. citizens to relatives in Mexico would hardly be legal. Then there is the likely shift from traceable wire transfers used now to untraceable digital and bitcoin transfers which cannot be traced and are cheaper. Oh Pshaw, maybe Donald will have to settle for a wall just three feet high.

Aug 16^th

Today it’s time to comment on the Clinton email epic. As you may know Hillary Clinton, while Secretary of State, maintained a server in her home for email purposes. This, she claims, was done for convenience. The move was problematical because she should have known that it would invite criticism from right wingers who would accuse her of hiding something. That’s exactly what happened. Then to add to her problems there is some evidence that “maybe” some (four) of her emails were labeled secret by the government. No one has demonstrated that Clinton knew this or that the documents were so labeled before Clinton got them. There is more, but this should be enough review. The right wing pundits are now all over this; the general public not so much.

Fox News has an anchor named Jeanine Pirro who has her own program on Saturday nights, titled “Justice with Judge Jeanine.” The woman is an attorney and was elected judge in Westchester County New York. This last Saturday Judge Jeanine decided to make a case against Hilary Clinton and her emails. After her show, those on the right concluded that Hilary was guilty as charged. My guess is that they were of that opinion before Judge Jeanine had even started her program.

There is a back story here: Judge Judy has an interesting past. Her husband (she is now divorced) is in the slammer for fleecing some folks out of a million dollars. There was no charge against Judge Judy, although there was some difficulty with her trying to record phone calls in order to get evidence of hanky-panky against hubby for divorce purposes. There is a record of her profanity-laced conversation with a police commissioner in which she is trying to get a recording device on her husband’s boat. Hubby seems to have been in the mob and Jeanine could play a mobster’s wife with no difficulty. She has the vocabulary down pat. None of this makes for an ideal Senate candidate but that is the office for which she decided to run, Senator from New York State.

Whatever negative things that might be said about her, lack of ambition is not among them. Unfortunately Jeanine Pirro picked the wrong time to run for the New York Senate seat; her opponent was Hillary Clinton. Before long a Quinnipiac poll showed Clinton getting 61 percent against Pirro’s 30 percent and Jeanine decided to drop out and take her talents elsewhere. Now she can roast Hillary Clinton to her heart’s content and no one will think she has an axe to grind; no one but those of us who know the back story.

There are also right wingers who delight in comparing Clinton’s imagined transgressions with those of General Petraeus. He presented his biographer and paramour Paula Broadwell, with, literally, books of military secrets. Donald Trump says that Hilary Clinton did what General Petraeus did and should get the same treatment. “She’s finished,” he says. Trump has accused Governor Perry of wearing glasses just so he would look smart. If Trump sees Secretary Clinton and General Petraeus as equivalent in their disclosing of military secrets he needs much better glasses than Perry wears.

 

 

 

Aug 15^th

Cal Thomas has a piece on “College Tuition.” Cal writes nothing that is not an attempt to provide some deceptive nonsense about a prominent liberal…and his effort here is not an exception. His intended victim is Hillary Clinton and her intention to spend 350 billion dollars to assist college students.

Cal asserts that we already have an 18 trillion dollar debt and we cannot afford to add to it. This is an interesting position to take on two counts: First, that 18 trillion dollar debt would be increased by less than 2 percent by adding 350 billion dollars to it. We got that debt by borrowing money to fight the Bush wars so why not spend some money, 1.9 percent, to educate our kids? Second, who said anything about borrowing the money? A tax surcharge on high income earners, or a simple wealth tax, would handle this and other government needs nicely. But what conservative ever suggested pay as you go as an economic position?

Thomas assails us with the unemployment rate for recent college graduates without mentioning that for many specialties there is no unemployment at all and many other graduates are unemployed because they are in some type of graduate school. Does he believe that medical students and law students should hold full-time jobs and attend professional school part-time? Ridiculous! What is the unemployment rate for high school graduates compared with college graduates? In 2014 high school graduates had unemployment rates of 6.0%; college graduates had unemployment rates of 3.5%; this is a little statistic Cal Thomas doesn’t include.

So a Colorado law Professor finds that “the rise in college tuition correlates with the huge increase in public subsidies for higher education.” It also correlates with the huge increase in student debt but Thomas says not a word about student debt. Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin is not helping college students by cutting 350 million dollars from the University of Wisconsin system and providing 350 million dollars to help build a professional sports stadium in which one of his supporters has an interest.

Thomas says, “No one ought to be entitled to tax money to go to expensive schools like Harvard or Yale…” They don’t need money to attend these schools. Princeton, for example, will pay for any difference between their tuition and a family’s ability to pay for the cost of their child’s attendance. Similar adjustments are made by other top Ivy League schools.

Thomas claims that, “U.S. education in the 21^st century is based on a 20^th century model.” Some of it is indeed, and so is most of the care provided by your physician, or your attorney. Your physician examines you, listens to your complaints and prescribes a medication or a specialist. The primary difference is that she no longer makes house calls.

Thomas accuses Clinton of a vote buying scheme; perhaps it is. The liberals buy votes by promising to increase goods and services, even if they must raise taxes. Conservatives buy votes by promising to withhold services, reduce the taxes needed to pay for them and reduce regulations inconveniencing the wealthy, and if wars come, they will borrow the money to pay for them.

Aug 14^th

George Will is pushing for the Republican Party’s worst nightmare, the loss of the 2016 election and doing it even before the election starts. How is it possible that a devoted Republican could do such a thing? Has George Will defected and become a liberal? After all liberals do occasionally defect and become Republicans, one even got elected President as a Republican.

George has not become a liberal (heaven forfend), that such a thing could happen. George is now insisting that Donald Trump is not a Republican; moreover, he insists, neither are most of his followers. George Will declares that Trump has undergone many “conversions of convenience…on health care, abortions, etc. His makeover demonstrates that he is a counterfeit Republican and no conservative.” Then Will claims that “Buckley’s legacy (meaning the intellectual respectability of “The National Review”) is being betrayed by invertebrates now saying that although Trump goes too far…” He means that those who do not reject Trump are without the necessary backbone to do it. In short, if I may condense George Will’s voluminous prose to its political essence, Will is insisting that Republicans must set and maintain boundaries on who can be a Republican. To paraphrase Sam Goldwyn, that means George Will wants to “include Donald Trump out.”

That is, politely put, wishful thinking. If any group could draw the boundaries for who can be a Republican it would be the RNC, the Republican National Committee. Perhaps George Will’s characterization of invertebrates should be applied to the RNC because they haven’t been able to dismiss one of their own members. David Agema from Michigan has posted homophobic, Islamophobic and similar affronts to the party’s attempts at inclusiveness. The RNC would like him to resign but he won’t and the RNC simply cannot get rid of him. If the RNC can’t exclude unwanted members of their own gang how can they police the boundaries of their party and if they can’t do it who can? George Will?

Donald Trump has shown himself very sensitive to slights. Megyn Kelly who had an issue with Trump has just announced that she is taking a two week hiatus from her popular program. Her problem with Trump may have had nothing to do with that, but who knows? George Will’s column suggesting that Trump and followers are not real Republicans will not result in any loss of papers carrying his column. What might happen, though, is “The Donald” picking up his many followers and starting the Donald Party. I can see his florid face and shock of red hair on bumper stickers attached to cars everywhere. If that happens the Democrats will elect anyone they want to  nominate.

Aug 13^th

Cal Thomas, in his column today, has put a tempting target on his back. Cal is a Fox news contributor and, consequently, a devoted Fox news supporter. If you must misinform the public in support of your Fox News friends, well that’s the way the conservative ball bounces. Providing misinformation in defense of the party (and Fox News) is no vice for Cal Thomas.

Thomas is leaping to the defense of Bret Baier the questioner who asked the candidates who would not support whichever candidate was nominated to run for the Presidency. This was obviously a “gotcha” question for Donald Trump. He had long been suspected of harboring third party thoughts if things didn’t go his way. He bit and raised his hand.

I thought that question was perfectly acceptable. Then Megyn Kelly went after him again with her question about his unflattering remarks about women. He countered with some personal remarks about Kelly that got him into real trouble, but not with his fans, who saw the panel’s whole line of questioning as very unfair.

It wasn’t unfair to ask Trump these questions but it was unfair not to throw equivalent “gotcha” questions to the other candidates. Senator Ted Cruz had recently called Senator Mitch McConnell a liar on the senate floor. Why didn’t anyone ask Cruz, if elected President, how he could expect to get along with members of the other party if he can’t be civil to his own party leader?

Then we had Governor Scott Walker who brags at great length about beating back recall attempts. Why did no one ask Governor Scott Walker, “Tell us Governor, why Wisconsin’s job growth has fallen to 40^th in the nation and why you have cut 250 million dollars from the University of Wisconsin’s budget while bolstering money for home schooling?”

Other similar questions to other candidates went unasked. It wasn’t that Trump got asked hard questions as that no one else was put on the spot. That was a very legitimate criticism of the Fox panel.

Cal Thomas then morphed into the “war on women,” a topic of great sensitivity for conservatives because they are very busy making decisions that affect women’s health and their pay checks. Thomas claims that, “The real war on women is an economy that has left a record 93 million  people out of the labor force; 56 million of these non-workers are women…” What are we to make of this interesting statistic? Thomas apparently believes that this means 56 million women are pounding the streets looking for work, not true. In fact, there are over 40 million people over 65 in this country and 23 million of them are women. We can assume that most of these are retirees. Then there are many women who don’t have to work at all and are staying home to care for their children. There are other women in college. Thomas apparently believes if any woman isn’t working this is evidence that the economy is conducting a “war on women.” Trying to debate this issue with someone who presents such nonsensical evidence in support of his views is futile.

Aug 12^th

And now we have Bernie Sanders leading Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire 44 to 37. Donald Trump is still leading all other Republican candidates. Is it possible that this portends a Presidential contest between a multi-billionaire and a quasi-socialist? I know the odds are against it but wise-acres like me can hope it happens. A person close by asked me how old Bernie was and I told her that he was now 73 and that he was rather old to become the President, She said that she didn’t think 73 was old at all. That she will be 71 in September may bias her view a bit. I didn’t argue with her.

Bernie Sanders has been drawing unprecedented crowds to his appearances; Portland, Oregon, and Los Angeles, California, each drew between 25 and 30 thousand people. His positions certainly appeal to young people and to their parents as well. Free college tuition is a winner with both groups, particularly if it’s paid for by raising taxes on the “rich.” The professional pundits, even professors of political science, all conclude that Bernie has no chance to get the nomination because he has no billionaire backers and the people turning out to hear his views will never vote for him. They might be right…but how many of these prognosticators would have predicted fifteen years ago that a black man would soon be elected to two terms as President of the United States?  Casey Stengel said, “Never make predictions, especially about the future.”

Donald Trump now tops the polls in Iowa and in New Hampshire. Poor Jeb is fading fast and Dr. Ben Carson has moved into second. Carson did not distinguish himself at the Fox debate. Given his second question, he querulously said that he thought, with the delay, that the moderators would not get around to him again. With his interesting scientific views, or rather his lack of scientific views, on the age of the earth and similar scientific questions where a Biblical literalist will inevitably stub his toe. Carson is proof positive that brain surgery requires a very skilled technician but not necessarily a scientist.

Carly Fiorina has moved up as well. She has made her chops by relentlessly attacking Hillary Clinton, a very easy target because Hillary doesn’t strike back at Carly; she is much too busy going after Jeb Bush. That will probably change now that Jeb is receding in the polls. So far no one has mentioned Carly Fiorina’s stiffing of some of her staff after her 2010 election loss to Barbara Boxer. That continues to hang over Carly to be used when needed. You may remember the “Hillary likeability” factor from the 2008 debate. It was an issue then and it’s still an issue. Still, I’ll bet she beats Donald Trump on that variable!

Trump is secure for the moment. When he focuses on the splendid things he’ll do and doesn’t talk about how he’ll do them he avoids any criticism of his methods. Eventually the curtain will part and the Wizard won’t be able to hide. Until then nobody cares.

Aug 11^th

Today we ignore Donald Trump, pro tem, while we concentrate on George Will’s column. George has recently used this venue to review his favorite right wing books and to draw life lessons from them. Given the state of his party’s problems it is a smart move to go back in time to days of yesteryear when there was an Evil Empire to joust with and evil (them) and righteous (us) were clearly defined.

Will, is lauding Robert Conquest’s work, “The Great Terror” a vivid description of the evils of the Soviet Union during Stalin’s purges of the 1930s. Then Will shifts to Alger Hiss who was convicted of perjury in 1950. As you can see George must go back in time to find something, anything, to distract his readers from the current conservative political mess.

At last Will gets to the issue he wants to tell us about: Bernie Sanders. He claims that, “He had chosen, surely as an ideological gesture, to spend his honeymoon in the Soviet Union in 1988.” Then George goes into detail about the moral obtuseness of Bernie Sanders honeymoon choice in contrast to Robert Conquest’s sterling character.

Isn’t it interesting how easily George Will, or anyone really, can characterize someone as “morally obtuse” if they can make up their own facts about them? What about Senator Sander’s “honeymoon in the Soviet Union (being) surely … an ideological gesture?” Did George Will bother to ask the Senator why he “honeymooned in the Soviet Union?” Did he bother to ask Senator Sander’s wife who presumably was there too? The answer is “no” to both questions. So why was Senator Sanders in the Soviet Union in 1988?

The Senator’s wife, Jane, tells us that the day after they were married, they and ten other people from Burlington, VT, left to visit Yaroslavl, in the Soviet Union to solidify a sister city relationship. This was the “ideological choice” made by the then Mayor of Burlington VT and his new wife for their honeymoon. (Always nice to have ten people along on your honeymoon should you run out of conversational topics.)

It seems to me that the real “moral obtuseness” here is George Will’s. Mr. Will seems to have no trouble whatever making up “facts” about people whose political views he doesn’t like. Mr. Will has embarrassed himself with this column.

Aug 10^th

Donald Trump was “disinvited” to the RedState confab in Alabama on Saturday but he showed up in spirit anyway. Eric Ericson, the conference host and noted conservative blogger claimed that he didn’t want his daughter, and his many invited friends, to be in the same room with Mr. Trump. It didn’t work because Donald Trump still monopolized the gathering. By “disinviting” Donald Trump, Ericson guaranteed that Trump, although nowhere in sight, would be one of the primary topics of conversation…and he was. Trump will be the primary topic of conversation among Republican candidates whether he is in the room or not.

This is an absolute disaster for the Republicans. They need to win the women’s vote; Trump’s misogynistic comments go unchallenged, they go unchallenged because if the other candidates responded to all of Trump’s nastiness they would never get their own messages out. The result is that Trump’s abusive comments about women are let stand, and so for many women they are beginning to represent the Republican brand.

Then there is the clear unevenness of the audience response to Trump’s misogynistic remarks: You may recall that Megyn Kelly asked Trump about his comments by illustrating some of his caustic remarks, and Trump interrupted her by saying, “That was only about Rosie O’Donnell.” And then the right wing audience snickered. It was clear that his abusive comments about Rosie O’Donnell, a left wing lesbian comic, were permissible and even considered funny by the Republicans; but his ugly remarks about the trim, blonde, conservative, Fox representative were beyond the pale. What a difference sexual orientation, fifty pounds and hair color can make to Republicans.

Then there are the polls: What has happened to Trump’s fan base in the few days since the debate and the “disinvite” in Alabama? The only poll we have is from an outfit called Survey Monkey. In spite of the name they have a decent reputation. Trump is at 23 percent and Cruz, who is closest to him, gets 13 percent; the rest quickly drop out of sight. A Republican functionary assured everyone that this poll was irrelevant but I’ll bet that if Trump and Cruz had switched places this guy would have been very enthusiastic about the poll’s results.

Trump has had some issues with Fox news and he has been quite vocal about them. Today he and Roger Aisles have had a discussion and apparently Fox will, according to one report, try to be scrupulously fair with Mr. Trump; smart move by both parties. Fox is clearly the voice of the RNC and also, equally clearly, neither Fox nor the RNC want to drive Trump into splitting himself off from the Republicans into his own party. The best the Republicans can hope for is that Trump just fades away. Not likely; Trump like all the (other?) Democrats is just having too much fun.

 

Aug 9^th

No villain emerges today so I’ll comment on some who have been around a while. First we have that gentleman and scholar, Donald Trump, whose thin skin manifested itself on the Fox debate stage Thursday night. The first question was certainly designed to put Trump in a corner. The group was asked to raise a hand if they could not support whoever was chosen as the nominee. This was asking Trump to declare that he would not run as an independent if he didn’t like the way the candidate ball bounced. He didn’t knuckle under and raised his hand; surprise surprise…and he was not happy to be the obvious butt of the first question.

Then they hit him again; Megyn Kelly asked him why he was so nasty to women interviewers. Well, provoke a rattlesnake and it’ll strike at you. Trump accused this poor woman of being out to get him, of having blood in her eye and “wherever.” This was an obvious accusation that Kelly’s upset was attributable to her menstrual period. Asked later if his comments were out of line his handlers indignantly (and hilariously) claimed that the “wherever” meant her nose, blood coming out of her nose. That only a deviant could think he (Trump) meant anything else. But if he meant nose why didn’t he say nose at the time, instead of saying wherever?

Poor Donald, (?) who because of his wealth, has never had to worry about how his comments affect anybody, is now playing in a very different ball park. His remarks got him disinvited to a Red State rally in Alabama where he would have been the keynote speaker. Oh Pshaw! His ratings out today are affected not at all.

As an aside: The lovely blonde interlocutor, Megyn Kelly, who asked the question that got Donald into trouble, is no stranger to “misspeaking.” A year or so ago, as Christmas closed in, there was some comment about kids who weren’t white identifying with a white Santa Claus. Ms. Kelly, quickly seizing the anti-politically correct torch and waving it high, claimed, “Santa Claus is white. Deal with it!” This comforting word to Santa Claus fans was followed by, “Jesus Christ was white too.”

Not entirely true. Saint Nicholas was Turkish and Jesus was a Levantine Middle-Eastern Jew so we are not describing a pair of pail skinned blue–eyed blondes here. Kelly was asked to explain her remarks because many people were upset by them. Guess what: they were a joke, that’s right—Megyn said it was all a joke. In fact, if you listen to her explanation she is very upset that her listeners didn’t understand the obvious humor in claiming that Santa Claus and Jesus Christ were white. Megyn should stay with Fox because she will never make it as a comic… on second thought?  This is not to excuse Donald Trump’s boorish comment about Megyn Kelly, but it is possible that in some twisted sense they deserve each other.

Aug 8^th

According to Cal Thomas the President’s goal is bankrupting the coal industry. He assumes this is true because the President once said, “… that if somebody wants to build a coal fired power plant they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them…”  Cal Thomas seems totally unaware of the tremendous increase in natural gas finds in this country and that natural gas competes with coal. He also has no idea of the insidious history of the coal industry’s willingness to risk the lives of miners to make a few extra bucks. The Sago mine disaster in 2001 killed twelve West Virginia miners and the cause has been batted back and forth for years. The mine’s safety record had been appalling prior to the accident… but, of course, spending money on safety might cost jobs.

I know something about coal mining and what happens when you burn coal. I lived in Pittsburgh and close to Pittsburgh for eleven years. When I went to high school I lived across the road from abandoned strip mines, hundreds of acres of abandoned strip mines. The mining companies bought the mineral rights from farmers if there was enough coal underground to make removing the overburden to get at the coal profitable. If it was, the excavated overburden, devoid of topsoil was left where it was and the coal company moved on.

Eventually the state decided that the coal companies had to deposit a considerable sum per acre for each acre they planned to strip. They could recoup that money when they leveled off the areas, covered them with topsoil and did some planting. There was an eruption exactly as there is now with cap and trade: coal company owners said that coal prices would skyrocket, miners would lose their jobs and the industry would disappear. It didn’t happen.

Pittsburgh was the center of the soft coal industry; I lived there too. That was in the late 1940s and early 1950s; it’s different now because of environmental regulations. In 1949 you could not sit down outside, either on the grass in a park, or on a bench at a bus stop. If you did your pants with be streaked with black soot when you got up. A white shirt worn in the morning had to be changed if you were going out to dinner because the top of the collar would be black. Thanks to those despicable EPA regulations, you know the regulations the Cal Thomas types are always claiming will be the downfall of the country, Pittsburgh is now considered one of America’s most livable cities.

Cal Thomas really has done little to enlighten us about the effects of burning coal. I believe he knows that because about two-thirds of the way though his piece he shifts, segueing, albeit clumsily, to criticizing the President for not commenting on Planned Parenthood. Then, apparently not satisfied that he has yet been sufficiently critical of the President, he slips in the failure to destroy ISIS. It does seem to me that Cal Thomas would do well to understand the importance of regulating the coal industry before advancing to other topics he also knows little, or nothing, about.

Aug 7^th

Carly Fiorina is said to have won the “undercard” debate last night. Her opposition consisted of six “lightweights” who, with Carly, hadn’t enough poll support to compete in the 9 o’clock main event. Of the now (don’t blink!) seventeen competitors for the Republican nomination Carly Fiorina is the only female. One of her claims to fame is that she is not a politician; she is just an ordinary temporarily out of work business woman…who happens to be worth well over 120 million dollars.

That she is not a politician is not for want of trying; naturally someone of her importance should not be expected to begin their political career competing for anything less than a United States Senate seat, so that’s what Carly did… and she lost that election big time. Barbara Boxer, who had been in Washington over 25 years, beat her 52 percent to 42 percent. She got a whippin’. So she’s right, at this point in her career, through no fault of her own, Carly is not a politician.

Unfortunately there is some blow-back from Carly’s campaign. A number of the people employed by her were not paid. The campaign was in 2010 and these folks, none of them multi-millionaires like Carly, did not get paid until 2014. Some were owed as much as 10 thousand dollars. Many of them said that they would never work for her again and only part of that was her fiscal irresponsibility. Carly wants to control the purse strings of the federal government. If she can’t responsibly handle the finances of a Senate campaign, let’s give her a really big pot of money, the federal budget! Who’s for that?

She has explained her situation at Hewlett-Packard (HP) many times; that explanation now pours out like a well-rehearsed talking point. She did an exemplary job of running HP (Even though the stock dropped 53 percent.) It was a difficult time for all tech stocks. (Even though she fired 30 thousand workers.) It was just a boardroom brawl. (Even though the stock jumped 3 percent once the word of her firing got out.) It is obvious that Carly Fiorina has learned nothing at all from her debacle at HP. Perhaps if she had just a smidgen of political savvy she might not have had the HP debacle and she might have won her election against Barbara boxer.

If you have political skills it means that you are able to compromise, to find some common ground with your opponent. I’m thinking of politicians like LBJ; he was able to accomplish enormous amounts because he knew how to trade when trading was necessary. Of the candidates on the stage last night I didn’t see any whom I thought might compromise with someone of another party to advance their agenda. If they did appear willing to compromise what chance at the nomination would they have?

Aug 6^th

Kathleen Parker has taken to task Planned Parenthood; this is now required of all right wing pundits. The “Center for Medical Progress” sent con artists to discuss buying fetal tissue from some Planned Parenthood (PP) officials. The recording of this encounter was carefully edited to make it appear that fetal tissue was offered for sale. Nothing illegal was done although the Center for Medical Progress has sucked a number of right wingers into believing that some awful sins were committed by PP.

Ronald Reagan in 1988 convened a twenty person panel to discuss the ethics of using harvested fetal tissue for research; seventeen of twenty panel members approved. Then in 1990 the issue of using federal funds for harvesting fetal tissue arose. That stalwart conservative Senator McConnell voted to approve their use for that purpose. The upshot is that there is nothing illegal about using fetal tissue for research. It is not illegal to recover a portion of the cost of harvesting this tissue either; it is illegal for the harvesting entity to harvest tissue and make a profit from its sale. Try as they might the con artists haven’t even, with extensive editing, managed to make a case that PP was pricing out fetal parts. Never mind, the lack of evidence, the prepared conservative mind was ready to believe just what the hucksters suggested to them.

Now there is great hue and cry to defund PP. This is curious because the government funds given to PP have never been available for abortions, so the right wing effort to defund PP is just another effort to reduce available health care for women and punish PP. Keep in mind that only 3 percent of PPs funds go to provide abortions and none of those are government funds. The removal of federal funds will then drastically reduce, not abortions, but contraceptive services and STD diagnosis and treatment, two of the primary PP efforts. Of course it is probable that the fundamentalist movements in Congress will be delighted to see funds removed from any group helping women to achieve birth control. You may remember the wiseacre billionaire Santorum supporter Foster Friess who oh so cleverly touted holding an aspirin between the knees as an effective birth control method for women. You can see how seriously the right wing takes women’s issues.

 Finally Parker tells us that there are over 9 thousand community health centers compared with just 669 PP outlets. Therefore, says Parker, women can get all the health care they need from community health centers. Do these community health centers provide IUDs? Do they treat the complications of STDs? It is odd to hear a Republican suggest that government run organizations are more suited to help citizens than privately run charitable entities. Center for Medical Progress has been successful, at least with Kathleen Parker.

Aug 5^th

Mona Charen is hoping, rather desperately, for a few Jewish Democrats to sink the Iran nuclear deal.  She does have some difficulty digesting the fact that American Jews are disproportionately in the Democratic camp and, of course, she isn’t. Clearly, all those other Jews are mistaken.

She says, “No, the short explanation of Jewish liberalism is straightforward. Jewish Americans tend to be disproportionately urban, secular and educated. Each of these categories is highly correlated with liberalism and membership in the Democratic Party…” No Mona, that’s not an explanation; that just describes the fact that there is a relationship between intelligence, education and liberalism and that this relationship extends to Jews. It does not explain why that relationship exists in the first place.

Mona goes on to tell us that, based on percentages attending services, Jews are more secular than Christians and much more secular than Muslims. But not all Jews fit this liberal secular mold. The Orthodox Jews are quite different, according to Mona; they are more religious and more likely to be Republican. She claims that 57 percent of Orthodox Jews are Republicans in contrast with just 22 percent of the non-Orthodox Jews. This jump in the number of Orthodox Jews, their allegiance to Israel and their concern about the Iran is supposed to give Democratic Jewish Senators pause if they vote for the Iran agreement. Not likely!

There are some difficulties here: there are only about 6 million Jews in this country of whom only about 6 percent are Orthodox; that comes to a grand total of about 360 thousand votes if all orthodox Jews voted as a block; they won’t. It is true that many Orthodox Jews take voting instruction from their religious leaders just as the take other instruction; even so those numbers will not put fear into the heart of any Senator who has not already decided how to vote on the merits of the issue.

There are two additional considerations, both unfortunate: Yeshivas, the religious schools of the Orthodox Jews often, but not always, concentrate so exclusively on religious instruction as to eliminate much science, mathematics and foreign language classes once the student has reached high school. (Note the unfortunate similarity to the instruction provided by some Madrassas where many Muslim children find little is taught beyond memorizing the Koran.)

In Israel we have a new and interesting political cancer; we have ultra-Orthodox Jewish terrorists. Recently at a gay rights parade a sixteen-year-old Jewish girl was stabbed by an ultra-Orthodox gang member. The previous day a Palestinian home was torched by this same gang and an 18 month old child was burned to death, his parents injured as was his four year old brother. There have also been arson attacks on Catholic churches. These attacks are engineered by Meir Ettinger, the grandson of Meir Kahane. Kahane was behind the extreme ultra-Orthodox movement a few years back designed to eliminate any non-Jewish settlers in Israel. This would be done by buying out any non-Jews and forcibly removing any who would not sell. Christian churches were considered idolatrous. As this movement grows in Israel, sympathy for Israel will probably diminish; Mona Charen never mentions these people so we don’t know about her attitude toward them.