2016 Feb 29^th

Last night I checked out Fox; Megyn Kelly was interviewing Dr. Ben Carson. Given the enormous amount of political news in which Carson plays no part whatsoever, I found that an odd use of Fox time so I decided to listen a bit. Perhaps Carson had decided to drop out, just give it up and go home to his trophy wall. Carson was again riffing on President Obama’s lack of participating in “the black experience.” He pointed out The President spent his years from 10 to 14 living with his white mother in Borneo and then lived with his white grandparents in an “exclusive” suburb and attending a private school in Hawaii. Megyn Kelly tried to interrupt pointing out that President Obama was, even so, a black man but Carson snapped, “Let me finish.”

Being a black teen-ager living in Borneo with a white mother and no father is certainly not the “normal black experience,” nor is attending a private school in Hawaii.  Of course how Carson could possibly comprehend what either experience is like is unexplained. Carson’s early experiences are recounted in one of his books, but his credibility has been questioned by others who “knew him when.” Carson himself should not be talking about the “typical black experience.” He certainly didn’t have it; going from the Detroit inner-city to Yale University is not typical for black teenagers. Of course neither Dr. Carson nor President Obama was a typical black teenager nor did either of them have “the typical black experience.” Unfortunately for Carson he has now become an irrelevancy…except for Megyn Kelly and Fox news.

Super Tuesday is tomorrow and the already decided electorate will present us with a fresh set of numbers…which will change nothing. The underdogs, Sanders and Cruz, might win a few States but the Trump and Clinton steamrollers roll on. Trump has run into slight glitch; he has been endorsed by David Duke the former head of what’s left of the Ku Klux Klan. Duke is an avowed racist and white supremacist and Trump was slow to “disavow” Duke’s support. Trump, when asked about this, initially claimed that his earpiece wasn’t functioning properly and so he really didn’t hear the question. This was a sufficiently lame excuse that Rubio and Cruz had a field day jumping all over poor Donald. Then Trump claimed he didn’t know who David Duke was. That was false to fact as some of his earlier comments demonstrated.

At this point this is all irrelevant because most Trump supporters really don’t care who else supports Trump. My guess is that the typical Trump supporter is nearly as Xenophobic as David Duke. The problem for Trump is not that he’ll lose any votes but that Duke’s support will encourage a big turnout among a previously lethargic Democratic electorate.

2016 Feb 28^th

If you follow this blog you know that yesterday’s entry did not appear; my apologies. Herewith is what I would have presented: Yesterday the Record-Eagle reprinted an editorial from the Detroit News. The News leans rightward and I am bound to take issue with this editorial. The title is, “Reduce the big federal footprint in education.”

What to cut first? How about Title I, that’s the federal program that tries to level the playing field for poor kids so that they can catch up with kids in better equipped schools. The great majority of federal money for education goes to that program. We also have the school lunch program. I guess the News editorial writer would like to cut back there as well. Maybe the eligible kids could just make their own peanut butter sandwiches.

The editorial goes on to criticize the federal government’s backing of student loans. The editor believes this encourages students to borrow money and colleges to keep raising tuition because students can always borrow more money to pay their tuition. Perhaps the editor believes it is better to stay out of college and stay out of debt. That would certainly produce an electorate susceptible to the first colorful flimflam man to run for public office. Surprisingly, for a conservative newspaper, the editor does not understand that colleges are businesses. If they don’t attract enough students whose tuition covers the colleges’ fixed costs the college eats its endowment and then disappears. Colleges spend a great deal of money to get applications from qualified students. Even small colleges not on the national radar will spend two to three thousand dollars for each new student. Those new dorms and new student unions, with their bowling alleys and other recreational facilities, have to be paid for and the payment comes from tuition money that has to be increased every year to pay for these goodies, Without the goodies the students will go elsewhere and the college will go under.

(A much worse situation exists with health insurance: Most people have a deductible for their doctor visits and for their drug purchases. You have a 20 dollar copay for your drug purchase; if the drug you buy costs 50 dollars or 200 dollars why would you care? Why should you; you’ll pay 20 dollars regardless of the cost to your insurance company. Next year they will raise their rates but that is then and this is now. The News editorial seems interested only in education.)

The editorial ends by claiming that “…governors know how to reduce costs…and implement these concepts.”  Governor Abbott from Texas called out his national guard because he thought a training exercise for federal troops was going to result in a takeover of Texas. This is also the state that insisted that their history books be rewritten to show that the Civil War was not about slavery…in spite of the fact that the state’s secessionist declaration plainly states that it was. In Michigan the honcho behind the Flint water disaster, Darnell Early, was removed from his position by Governor Snyder and made the honcho of the Detroit public schools. He resigned from that job as soon as it was clear he would be subpoenaed to testify about the Flint’s water disaster. He is refusing to testify about that under his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Yes sir, just leave education to the states.

2016 Feb 27^th

Tonight’s blog has evaporated. Sorry about that; electrons you know. Maybe I can reconstruct some of it, but probably not tonight.

HEK

2016 Feb 26^th

It is now about 2:30 PM EST. I mention that because a simple date is no longer adequate to define the political news; we need the hour as well.  Not long ago, to Donald Trump’s obvious delight, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie endorsed him for President. Isn’t that amazing; these former enemies now have nothing but nice to say about each other. Let’s face it Christie had been out of the limelight since Feb. 10^th when he “suspended his campaign.” Settling for fame in poor little New Jersey for all of two weeks just didn’t cut it for Christie. He’s back on the national news blowing away Rubio’s aborted victory lap from his last night’s skewering of Trump. I guess Cruz can now forget any hope of getting Trump’s V.P. nod. Christie has that sewed up.

The “debate” was the usual yelling match and Rubio had, for a change, done some homework. He went after Trump on several counts: Back in 1980 it was necessary to demolish the building now occupied by the famous Trump Towers. The company hired to do that, presumably the low bidder, employed a number of immigrant Polish workers at wages at less than half the union scale. Even working these men 12 hours a day in brutal conditions the demolition fell behind schedule. The workers, in fear of deportation, did not complain and in some cases were not even paid the below par wages they were owed. Enter Trump who decided to speed up the lagging demolition. At that point he became knowledgeable of the working conditions and subsequently he was sued. The legal action has now been bounced around from one judge to another; it has been thirty-five years since this mess started and many of the principals are now dead. Still it continues with no end in sight. Trump maintains that he has done nothing wrong and refuses arbitration. (You may remember that when he was asked if he ever asked God for forgiveness he said that he very rarely did anything wrong and when he did he always tried to correct it himself. What a guy!)

Rubio brought up the Trump University scam. Trump University, now renamed Trump Entrepreneurial Initiative, as a result of legal action, is an interesting money making idea from Donald Trump. Initially, before the New York Attorney General got involved with charges of fraud, Trump University was offering business students an opportunity to listen to famous  real estate friends of Donald tell them how to make money in real estate. The fees for this opportunity ranged from 15 hundred dollars to 35 thousand dollars. The problem was that this was not a university; it was never approved, licensed, or otherwise certified by any state agency. Trump discovered that you can’t call any old enterprise a university and start charging a ridiculous price for students to simply sit in an auditorium and listen to speakers. New York’s Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is even now suing Trump for 40 million dollars for defrauding some 5,000 students who paid up to 35 thousand dollars each to participate in these “classes.” Trump, as is typical for Trump, claims that Schneiderman is, “a political hack looking to get some publicity.” Trump recently had to take some time out to give a deposition in this case. Maybe Trump’s candidacy will be stopped by his own greed.

2016 Feb 24^th

Trump has won again and the Republicans are beginning to realize they can’t stop him. Now we’ll have a chorus of pundits claiming that he’s not really all that bad.  The right wing establishment hasn’t gotten there yet, they still have some hope, if either Cruz or Rubio would just drop out they say, then it’s a two man race and just maybe…. This is a bit like, “If I could just win the lottery, well, not win the big prize but just a 50 thousand dollar prize, I’d be OK.” I believe the chances of winning a big lottery prize are about the same as the chances of the Republican establishment beating Donald J. Trump…or maybe less!

Political parties win adherents by making promises; then they get into office and find out they can’t keep them and their supporters get mad and go elsewhere, usually to someone else who makes more attractive and equally unfillable promises. Supporters rarely ask how the candidate can actually keep the promises, which is fortunate for the candidates. Candidates are always salespeople; they, like all salespeople, are selling themselves. For the Presidency they are selling their platform and their ability to keep their promises. Trump is by far the superior salesman on the Republican side. His promises are so luminous that few ask him how he’ll keep them; for the few who do, he quiets them with vague answers and that’s OK because they really, really want to believe him. This is much like your four year old having some doubts about Santa Claus but not wanting to ask too many questions because he doesn’t really want to know the answers. Trump is truly a wonder; married three times, divorced once for adultery, he still takes votes from poor Senator Cruz who has been reduced to a series of dirty tricks. What’s an evangelical to do?

This is the problem with political parties: they have opponents who desperately try to discredit them and stop them from keeping the promises they’ve made. President Obama wanted to close Gitmo but in spite of the enormous cost of keeping the few prisoners who are still there, the Republicans insisted that those prisoners are so evil, indeed much more evil than the most evil American  that they could not be allowed into the United States. That is obviously nonsense. No less an American than George Washington warned the country about the disastrous effects of political parties on the body politic. The citizen’s loyalty has been, until now, to the Party rather than the country, or the two were simply conflated. Now we find that, like a nasty habit, once we have these parties we can’t get rid of them.

The change, and it’s a significant change, is that many people, mostly Republicans, are disgusted with their party because the party has not kept its promises to them. The budget has been approved so the government has not been shut down; the Affordable Care Act is undamaged, abortion remains legal, if difficult, and the Iran agreement is intact. The result is that many have turned to Donald Trump who promises to “Make America Great Again.”

Trump’s megalomania seems limitless; his name is on a huge airplane in huge letters. His name is on a casino in Las Vegas and on a hotel/apartment complex in New York City. If he becomes President it will be interesting to see what parts of the federal government will undergo a name change. Even though there are many buildings of various sorts that carry the Trump name, none that I know of are named “The Trump Children’s Hospital,” or “The Trump Cancer Center,” or “The Trump Veteran’s Rehabilitation Center.” Why is that do you suppose?

2016 Feb 22^nd

Today I’ll respond to a letter to the editor of the Traverse City Record Eagle. Mr. Thomas Baird comments on the dangers posed by Bernie Sander’s candidacy for the Presidency. He begins by quoting Nikita Khrushchev’s remark to an American diplomat that his children would live under communism. Khrushchev was quite wrong; it seems that the children of the Russians of that generation are now living under a very limited form of Capitalism. They can now their own homes, start businesses in some areas and buy stock in public companies.

Baird is worried that Sanders’ socialism will morph into communism; our attention is called to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the USSR. The USSR was not socialistic it was communistic and there is an enormous difference between socialism and communism. Communism requires that the state own everything, there is no private property, except perhaps for your toothbrush, your underwear and your overcoat. You rent your apartment from the state and the state sets the rent. You buy your food from a store owned by the state and the food is priced according to the state’s wishes. In the USSR you could not leave the country without government approval. Cuba comes close to having a purely communistic government but that is beginning to change as well.

The United States has some socialistic programs and it would be political trouble for any right winger to try to change these. We have public highways; these are owned by the people and are free to any user. Then there is Social Security and Medicare. These are socialistic programs. For the poor there is Medicaid and Supplement Social Security. There is a program to provide information to farmers from the agronomists at Michigan State University. There are food stamps for those who are employed by huge corporations at wages below the poverty level. There is rent assistance for the indigent. There is unemployment assistance that compensates out-of-work folks. We already have many socialistic programs. Does that mean that we are headed toward communism? Some right wing purists will tell you that’s possible but given that their parents get Social Security and can therefore live on their own instead of with them, these purists probably won’t complain too much about Social Security.

If we look at other countries the right likes to label as socialist, we find paid maternity and paternity leave, free health care and free medication, financial support for special needs children and free college education. Imagine finishing medical school or law school with no indebtedness. This is all paid for with tax money in countries that don’t support a multi-billion dollar defense industry and therefore can spend tax money on their citizens.

2016 Feb 21^st

It appears now that the national election will be between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Clinton’s win in Nevada has substantially reduced Sanders chance to get the nomination; the Clinton machine is just too powerful. Clinton’s ties to minority groups overshadow Sander’s appeal to younger voters. Sanders won’t drop out, and he will continue pushing Clinton leftward, but his chances of getting the nomination are now vanishing small, much to the Democratic establishment’s relief.  Also to the Democrat’s delight is the emergence of Donald Trump as a likely unstoppable Republican candidate. He won all of the South Carolina counties and that means that he won all of the available delegates. This does not make the Republican establishment happy because they know that if he wins the nomination he will, most likely, lose the general election. Then the Supreme Court will be tilted left; poor Republicans!

So why is there so much animosity by the right wing towards the Washington establishment? The answer is simple; they have obstructed everything and accomplished nothing, except to insure that no one else accomplished anything. They came to power with just that mandate. It was to shut down the government and that is what they desperately tried to do. The President soon began to produce legislation the Republicans found unpleasant, and two years into his first term, McConnell, the leader of the Senate, said that, “The single most important political priority is to make President Obama a one-term President.” From that moment on there was no Republican compromise and none of the nation’s business was carried forward.  Even now when Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, managed to get enough politicians to produce a compromise budget to keep the country running, the far right was enraged. Is it any wonder that the great mass of citizens finds they have no confidence in the Washington establishment. Most this particular great mass consists of Republicans.

While the President’s approval rating stays at about 50 percent, with the largest gap in approval between parties rating him in recent history, there is not much satisfaction shown toward Congress. In a poll conducted on Dec. 3^rd of last year, Congress’ approval rating was just 9 percent. Senator McConnell, the leader of the Senate has an approval rating of 22 percent and that is less than half the approval rating enjoyed by the President. It is hardly surprising that the majority of Republican citizens want no part of the Washington establishment. They either support the Tea Partyers who have actively opposed most government programs except those for national defense; or their views are more mainstream and then they are disgusted with the Tea Party people for obstructing most normal government initiatives. The result is the rise of the outsider, unaffiliated with Washington and untarnished by either side.

2016 Feb 20^th

I begin today with the admission that I watched a few minutes of “Morning Joe.” It was just long enough to see this overgrown loudmouth quite literally yell at the top of his considerable voice at Mark Halperin, seated six feet away, who was trying to make a point about Senator Rubio. Halperin waited quietly for the boss’s rant to subside to make his relatively minor point. It seems to me that if Trump can get the audience he has there is no reason that Scarborough, whose appeal is much the same as Trump’s, shouldn’t command enough listeners to justify his 5 million a year salary. There is a difference: Trump’s appeal is to promise absurdities, deporting 11 million people and their citizen children or building a 1900 mile impenetrable wall. Scarborough believes that if he yells loudly enough and continuously enough people will believe what he says. Each has a compliant audience and each is right!

The Nevada caucus has been awarded to Hillary and Bernie has conceded, so that is finished business. South Carolina has Donald Trump as the projected winner with Senator Rubio and Senator Cruz in a near tie as rather distant runners up.  South Carolina has some interesting politicians. There was a state senator down there named Jake Knotts who referred to Governor Nikki Haley, a member of his own party, as a “raghead.” Knotts is no longer a Senator and Haley is now Governor of South Carolina and very popular but Knotts comment that “We already have a raghead as President we don’t need another raghead as governor” gives you an idea of the level of discourse in South Carolina state politics. Knotts claimed later that he meant that comment just in fun.

Now with more than a third of the South Carolina vote in, nothing has changed. Rubio and Cruz are tied for second place each with about 22 percent of the total. Bush, Kasich and Carson are all in single digits and some announcements of withdrawal will be coming from some of them within the next few days. Dr. Carson however is already telling his supporters that he plans to continue the fight.

Trump seems to have the Republican nomination locked up. If enough of the poorer performers drop out and if Rubio continues to get the financial support from his big guns then he has a chance to unseat Trump. Rubio would be the toughest opponent Hillary Clinton could face.

2016 Feb 19^th

The big news today is the tiff between Donald Trump and the Pope. (That sounds like the lead in for a SNL skit.) It seems that the Pope on his way home claimed that building walls to exclude people wasn’t Christian that Christians were to be inclusive and that wall builders weren’t Christian. Whopee! The commentariate grabbed at that like a starving dog grabs a bone. Trump jumped right in there too and said that the Pope had no right to comment on his religious beliefs. Of course the Pope, as far as I know, initially didn’t mention Donald Trump. His point, assuming an accurate translation, was that Christianity, and Christians, wish to be inclusive. Pushing for a wall to keep people out, a mainstay of Trumpism, doesn’t fit that very well so of course Trump took umbrage. This tempest in a teapot could have been avoided by suggesting that Trump’s wall building was not a Christian act but that Trump, himself, might still be a fine Christian gentleman. That would have been “inclusive” for the Pope.

Will Trump suffer at all from this joust with the Pope? That is most unlikely: Popes do not score well with evangelical Protestants, particularly southern evangelicals. Some even see the Pope as the anti-Christ. This particular Pope has been accused of being an interloper because the resignation letter from his predecessor had a mistake in its Latin wording. (The paranoia of humankind is surely genetic.) At least in South Carolina, which is to vote tomorrow, the Catholic population is just about 9 percent, so even if the Catholics in South Carolina swarm to the Pope’s defense against Trump it will be a meager swarm. (This percentage has been increasing recently due to an influx of Latinos.) Pope or no Pope, Trump seems to be slipping in South Carolina; he still leads Cruz, the evangelical’s favorite, but Cruz is closing fast. Perhaps Trump’s reference to the Host as eating his “… little cracker” is catching up with him.

Then we have the possibility of a recess appointment of a Justice to the Supreme Court. As the name implies, when the Senate is in recess, that is when they have not met for three consecutive days, they are officially in recess and the President can make an appointment to the court and the Senate can do nothing about it. The problem is that the Senate can choose to convene for just a couple of minutes very two plus days and thus never actually be in recess. It only takes a couple of Senators to pull this off. If they mess it up and really do let three days go by and the President makes an appointment the Senate can simply vote to terminate that appointment when they reconvene. They will, however have to vote on that appointee. If The President just sends a nomination to the Senate they can legally sit on that nomination as long as they like.

The Republicans are pinning their hopes on holding on to the Senate and winning the Presidency.  With Trump ascendant that’s a very long shot.

2016 Feb 18^th

Today we have some comments by that noted political/economic thinker, Dr. Thomas Sowell. Dr. Sowell chooses to focus on Senator Sanders and “The lure of socialism.” Dr. Sowell is particularly unhappy about Senator Sander’s promise to make a college education free. (Note that President Obama has already proposed a free community college education; that proposal caused some apoplexy among his detractors.) Thomas Sowell speaks of “the lure of socialism and has seen it fail time and again in countries around the world. Venezuela, with all its rich oil resources, is currently on the verge of economic collapse.”

Really, Dr. Sowell? Is that because of socialism, or because oil is now selling for 30 percent of what it once did. Venezuela‘s economy is not diversified; it has no other exports, but that has nothing to do with socialism, it has to do with stupid leadership! Sowell goes on to describe “socialism’s dismal track record” but gives no further examples. One might ask him about the economies of the Scandinavian countries, usually considered socialist by the vocal right wing in this country. They aren’t really socialistic because socialism is defined as the state owning the means of production and the means of distribution. Free enterprise is alive and well in Sweden; witness Volvo, a car and truck company, whose stock can be purchased on the NYSE. Sweden also has one of the highest standards of living in the world, as well as one of the happiest populations.

Sowell then tells us that if college “becomes free even more people can attend college without bothering to become educated…” He tells us that “making all sorts of other things free means more of those things will be wasted as well.”  Sowell claims that, “Today’s college students learn a lot less than college students once did.” But this is in spite of the huge amounts of debt incurred by today’s students. Their education is obviously not without considerable cost to them. In the late 1940s my college friends, nearly all veterans, were enjoying “free” college courtesy of the GI bill. I assume Sowell who served during the Korean War received similar benefits. Because they were then free did he waste them?

College is free, as I said yesterday, in Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Germany, France, Denmark and Brazil. Are we not wealthy enough to compete with these countries in educating our people? The difference, of course, is that we maintain an enormous military complex that syphons off at least a third or our wealth each year. Other countries do not have this burden so why do we?

 We ignored the best advice President Eisenhower gave us in 1961 which was to beware of the power of the military industrial complex; we have ignored his advice and now that complex and its supporters and beneficiaries largely control us. By instilling paranoia they seek and get an ever larger share of our national wealth. Many well-paying jobs depend on government contracts to the defense industry and congress will do nothing to change that. Until that happens free college like free health care is unlikely.

As for the notion that what is free is valueless I suggest that Dr. Sowell would be well to listen to Oscar Wilde who said that a cynic is one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

2016 Feb 17^th

Today we have “Morning Joe” once again making pronouncements that fail the “truthiness’ test. Joe claimed that the President’s approval ratings plummeted after the ISIS attack in Paris because he took no action. The immediate response to this comment is to ask if the President’s “inaction” really did lead to a reduction in his approval numbers; it did not. The President’s approval numbers are hovering close to 50 percent and have been there for some time. This number is more than a bit misleading because of the enormous disparity between the approval rating given him by Democrats, about 80 percent, and Republicans, about 14 percent. This gap is the largest for any President in recent times. Indeed the President’s approval rating was well below 20 percent when he first took office! This reflects the Republican’s outrage at his win and their well-known insistence that they would pass nothing of substance, so limiting him to a one term Presidency…that didn’t work very well for them.

No one on Scarborough’s program was willing to ask him what he thought the President should have done in response to the Paris attack. That’s not surprising because while I am not a consistent viewer, I have never seen any of his guest/co-hosts willing to contradict Scarborough to his face and thus risk their meal ticket. You notice quickly how the rules work: When Joe speaks everyone else shuts up…even if they are in the middle of a sentence. And Joe, himself, is never to be interrupted. That is the power that you can bring to your program when your guests are very well paid and you decide just who those guests will be. (Mika will do the occasional eye roll, but that’s the extent of any negative response to a bloviating Joe.)

Much is being made of the South Carolina bout of mud wrestling that now constitutes their primary election. The talk is all about Donald Trump and who can stop him. Unfortunately, for the Republicans, no one can stop him. Some of the discussion centered on why Trump can say anything he likes and keep his followers following, while Hilary Clinton’s followers seem more sensitive. I doubt that this has anything to do with the contestants; it is much more about their followers. I saw some interviewing done in a restaurant where the interviewees were two very suspicious older white guys. (The interviewer was from the “mainstream media” after all.) I didn’t see a single black face as the camera panned the restaurant during the interview. The same is true for most of the rallies. Look at Trump’s audience, at Cruz or Rubio’s audience. How many black faces do you see? South Carolina is 30 percent black. How many of them do you think will vote for Trump?

A final word: A very recent national poll has Cruz a couple of points ahead of Trump. That might be an outlier; poll results are, as the statisticians say, variables, hence they will vary. In a few days we will know if this represents a change in the voter’s preference or just a hiccup in the polling.

2016 Feb 16^th

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is dead; we can be absolutely certain of that. The consequences of his death are even now unfolding. Justice Scalia was found dead in his bed at an exclusive hunting resort in Texas. It is assumed that he died of heart attack although no physician was present nor did any physician examine the body.  At the request of his family no post mortem examination was done. The U.S. Marshall’s service provides security for Justices but Justice Scalia had dismissed them for his hunting lodge stay.

The sudden and unexpected death of this noted conservative jurist is fertile ground for conspiracy theorists. One Michael Savage, a noted radio talk show host and author of many conspiracy theories, tells us that Justice Scalia was surely murdered.  Mr. Savage is also of the opinion that the Sandy Hook children who were murdered were not murdered at all. This was just a “story” planted to demonize supporters of the Second Amendment. Savage claims that these children never existed. At one point, interviewing a parent, he asks what proof can be produced by the parent that the murdered child ever existed. Savage points out that Justice Scalia was found with a pillow on his face. He believes that this is sure evidence of murder. What murderer would be stupid enough to leave the pillow, murder weapon, resting on his victim’s face?

This “mystery” aside, we have the Senate’s leader, Senator McConnell, telling the President that any replacement for Scalia he puts forward will not get any consideration. No successor should be sent to the Senate until after the next election. Bush’s Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales heartily disagrees; he suggests following the Constitution which required the President to send the Senate a recommendation and requires the Senate to act on that recommendation in a timely manner. In a contest between political loyalty and the Constitution McConnell has clearly chosen sides and he might regret it. McConnell obviously hopes for a miracle that would deliver the Presidency to a Republican in the next election.

In the meanwhile suppose President Obama selects his Attorney General as a viable candidate for the Supreme Court. Attorney General Loretta Lynch has just gone through a confirmation hearing, though long delayed on purely political grounds, and she was confirmed 63 to 43. If the President chooses her the Republicans will delay the vote on a very well qualified black woman, the first ever to be nominated for the Supreme Court. Won’t that be a splendid start for their campaign to widen their constituency and reclaim the Presidency?

2016 Feb 15^th

The title of George Will’s column this morning is, “The progressives’ itch to regulate the nation’s speech.” Before I read the column I wondered to myself, ‘How can this be?’ Liberals, have since George Carlin’s hilarious joust with the FCC over the seven words you can’t say on television, made sport of attempts to censure naughty speech. At the risk of a longer than usual blog I herewith reprint a selection from “More of the same,” a little book of essays I published in 2009.

I see by the paper that the Supreme Court has taken up the case of deciding whether or not the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, has the authority to ban certain words from television and radio. Well, ban isn’t the right word, although if they can fine the broadcaster $325,000 for each utterance, it amounts to a ban. Some years ago a comedian named George Carlin did a routine he called “The Seven Words You Can’t Say on Television.” Of course he said the words anyway proving that you could say them, but then he got arrested. Carlin had the words numbered, and comics since then have gotten around the ban by using Carlin’s numbers instead of the words: as in, “You stupid number 5; number 6. You’re just a number 1 head!” This is entirely legal. Carlin subsequently added a few more words to his list. You still can’t say any of them on television; indeed I’m not going to list them here. Some precocious child or particularly sensitive adult might read this.

The Supreme Court focused its concern on just two words, the S word and the F word. These were both members of the original Carlin seven. There was some discussion about whether it made a difference if the words were used specifically to describe bodily actions, or just used as expletives. The court decided it didn’t matter; the FCC can ban them.

Never mind, synonyms are perfectly acceptable. We can use feces instead of the S word, and coitus in place of the F word. These words are slightly longer than the originals, and leave something to be desired as expletives. Stubbing one’s toe and shouting, “Oh feces!” lacks much of the force of the S word. Coitus has much the same problem. Saying, “Coitus this stupid wrench!” just isn’t as satisfying as using the F word. It is good to know, in any case, that these are perfectly acceptable to the FCC and the Supreme Court.

As you can see, I found the notion of progressives trying to regulate speech a bit of a stretch, but then I discovered Will’s interesting logic.

Will begins by claiming Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton are hostile to the first amendment…that’s the one guaranteeing, among other things, freedom of speech. Will’s premise for this curious attack is SCOTUS recent ruling that corporations have the same rights as people and can spend unrestricted sums of money on elections. The court has decided that money spent on an election is the same as someone speaking in favor of a particular candidate, in short, that corporations have the same free speech rights as people. This means, according to George Will, that if you oppose the notion that money is speech and can be given in unlimited amounts to influence elections, then you oppose free speech and, of course, that you oppose  the First Amendment.  (When Mr. Will finds a hopelessly recalcitrant opponent; his comment is an exasperated “Please!”) Maybe Mr. Will’s contorted logic now merits a “Please” from his opponents.

I am curious; if corporations have the same rights as people, do they have the same responsibilities? If they do, why, when they break the law, and they do break the law, do they never serve time in prison? 

2016 Feb 14^th

It’s Valentine’s Day. This is the day people are supposed to devote themselves to love and affection…unless you are a candidate for the Presidency. I did not watch last night’s performance because I was sure the important parts would be re-broadcast again today. Certainly the invective laden exchanges were re-broadcast and there was no shortage of those. Reince Priebus, the RNC Chairman, was sufficiently embarrassed by the performances of his friends on stage that he needed a scapegoat and quickly found it by blaming the CNN moderators. If the participants act like twelve year olds, blame the moderators for not properly moderating them. Why should you expect candidates for the Presidency to act like adults unless they have a firm guiding hand?

A particularly contentious exchange was between Jeb Bush and Donald Trump. Bush claimed that his brother “kept us safe” while Trump reminded everyone that the 9/11 attacks happened “on President Bush’s watch.” Trump was careful not to directly blame Bush for the attacks; he just pointed out that they happened while Bush 43 was President. This implication was not well received by Jeb Bush, and particularly when Trump had also called attention to “mommy,” Mother Bush, now appearing on Jeb’s behalf. Trump has gone on this tack before but it was not a smart position to take in South Carolina because this is a state with a strong allegiance to the Bushes and to all things military. South Carolina has many military bases and many retired members of the uniformed services live there. Trump’s various deferments and lack of any military service (except for time spent in a private military school) do not impress the local folks. Then, as I mentioned yesterday, we have Trump’s recent predilection to be foul mouthed; lie all you like in South Carolina politics, but don’t use naughty words in your speeches. There are limits! I find it inconceivable that any of these men could possibly become the successor to Barack Obama as President of the United States.

Then we have the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to deal with. Justice Scalia served this country on the Supreme Court for thirty years. Now, however, his replacement has already produced political conflict. Congress wants a delay in the nomination of his successor until after the election and they refuse to consider any nomination until then. President Obama, citing his constitutional responsibilities to nominate Scalia’s replacement, plans to suggest a name “in due course.” The Republican controlled Senate can certainly delay a vote on the matter. Unfortunately for them, if the President nominates a very well-qualified minority person, as he will surely do, these conservative Senators will be seen as bigoted if they fail to vote, and if they vote down the candidate they’ll also get that result. I believe the President is in the catbird seat.

2016 Feb 13^th

About 2000 years ago in Rome a conquering Roman general could count on a “triumph” when he returned home. A triumph was a very big deal. The hero of the day led a parade, his chariot followed by wagon loads of booty, usually gold and silver, trailing strings of former enemy soldiers, now conquered slaves. Crowds lined his path cheering another Roman victory. But riding in the hero’s chariot and standing just behind him was another man, often a slave, who whispered to him, “Remember, you’re just a man.” This was intended to guard against excessive hubris, a Greek concept but surely applicable to Roman generals.

Now we have another conquering hero and he has had many splendid triumphs. Thousands and thousands have come to see him and hear him speak, but no one stands behind him to suggest that he “is just a man;” that is unfortunate because “Mr. Trump,” as he is always called by his myriad employees, is riding perilously close to the edge of being truly offensive to a portion of his public.

He cannot offend the people who come to see him; they will cheer for him and wave banners no matter what he says. If someone in the audience disagrees with him his supporters will shout, “Kill him,” or “Burn him alive.” Trump never objects to such comments when they are directed against those who disagree with him. Many of his comments over the course of his candidacy have led to predictions that he “has gone too far this time” but so far he hasn’t.

Will things be different now? What’s changed? Trump must now appeal to South Carolina voters. Politics in South Carolina is fraught with risk. McCain’s opponents claimed that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock when, in fact, he had adopted a Bangladeshi child. In South Carolina politicians can lie about their opponents all they like, that will not matter to the voters. The use of smutty language on the other hand is another matter altogether. Trump referred to an opponent by calling him by a gutter term for a portion of the female anatomy and he has repeatedly used other terms not ordinarily heard in South Carolina living rooms.  As one of his unhappy viewers, and former supporters said, “I cannot support someone to become President of the United States if I cannot let my fourteen-year-old daughter listen to his speeches.” I believe the lady has company.

2016 Feb 12^th

What would I do without Mona Charen? She is a gift I could not invent because no one would believe an apparently well educated person could make the comments she does…but she does! Today she blasts away at both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. When you are shaky on the issues, resort to name calling; thus Sanders is an “inane socialist demagogue.” Apparently not satisfied with “socialist,” she subsequently calls him “Bolshie Bernie;” the alliteration just too compelling for her to ignore it.

Charen is a bit more accurate with her characterization of Donald Trump as a “foul mouthed nationalist demagogue.” I would have chosen xenophobic over nationalist, but perhaps Charen figured that many of her readers would be too lazy to look up Xenophobic. Demagogue is a better choice for Trump’s followers than for Bernie’s. Bernie’s strongest appeal is to the young, particularly college students. College students are hardly the common people demagogues are supposed to go after. Trump appeals to an older, less well educated cohort and those folks more closely align with the common people whom Charen believes will succumb to demagoguery.

Not satisfied with Bernie bashing, Charen takes a shot at Hilary Clinton when she claims that “Madame Defarge enjoyed a good shakeup herself.” My goodness, if Charen is comparing Madame Defarge to Hillary Clinton she should re-read The Tale of Two Cities and re-check Mrs. Clinton’s net worth! Charen also claims that Sanders is “channeling the late Hugo Chavez in advocating a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage.” Charen may not know it but that is already the minimum wage for City employees in Portland, Oregon.

One of the curiosities of our culture is that the American taxpayer actually subsidizes the massive income of the richest family in America. I’m sure that Charen prefers not to discuss the fact that Walmart, the gigantic cash cow that the Walton family regularly milks, pays some of its employees a wage so low that the wage earner is eligible for a tax payer paid subsidy. Indeed the new employee in several corporations receive instructions in how to apply for a taxpayer funded subsidy when they are hired; nothing much about that in Charen’s column.

Charen then goes on to defend the major banks, those poor folks who must deal with massive regulations. Now it seems that they have not really been regulated enough. Mona Charen fails to mention that these banks have been fined about a quarter of a trillion dollars for their part in the near collapse of our monetary system. Of course according to Charen these banks were just trying to make a profit. Perhaps they tried a little too hard.

2016 Feb 11^th

Cal Thomas is on another rant today; this time it is against the “ultra-liberals,” (are there any other kind for Thomas?), Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. He writes, “Hearing their complaints about the economy…health care…unemployment…it appears hope had died and change is all we have left in our pockets.” His next paragraph echoes that one, listing a litany of complaints about the country, supposedly attributable to Clinton and Sanders. Sanders has certainly been critical of the “wealth gap” and everyone (perhaps excepting Cal Thomas) is unhappy about stagnant wage growth. Then Thomas says, “That’s not who we are. It is only who Democrats think we are.”

This is, as the M.A.S.H. colonel said, horse hockey! And it continues again and again in the same form; Democrats are bashing the country says Cal Thomas! Has this man never listened to a stump speech by Donald Trump? Trump never lets up on his litany of criticism of American trade agreements (weak, very weak), of immigration policy (weak, very weak), and nearly everything else Trump can think of, including tax policy. Trump would fix the tax policy by eliminating the estate tax thereby saving his heirs billions, and lowering the top income tax rate, thereby saving himself hundreds of millions a year. Of course Cal Thomas may believe this stream of criticism from Donald Trump, whose constant mantra is “Make America Great Again,” really implies that America is just wonderful as it is. Maybe this makes sense to Thomas.

Then Thomas seems to believe that Secretary Clinton has some sort of obligation to release transcripts of her talks to major banks for which she was paid big bucks. Thomas says that, “the secretary routinely demanded that a stenographer be present at her events so that she could maintain a record of what she said.” so we know that a record exists. What if it does; do we understand that Thomas believes he is entitled to a copy of a speech that a group paid a considerable sum to hear…and now he is entitled to read it free of charge? What an amazing sense of entitlement!

Thomas says that, “In Bernie Sanders America no one will ever have to work again.” Of course Sanders never said that; it’s just another of Thomas’ fabrications. Sanders does say that college should be free as should health care. How could college possibly be free here in America? It’s free in Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany, France and even Brazil…but not here. I guess the US is just not as rich as those countries and so we can’t afford that.  It is much better to saddle our graduates with thousands of dollars of debt. Welcome to the world of Cal Thomas.

2016 Feb 10^th

The winners go on and the losers go home! The problem here is that some of the losers do not yet think of themselves as losers. On the Republican side the second bananas staying around after New Hampshire are Kasich, Bush, Cruz and Rubio. Kasich was second after Trump and opened a slight gap between himself and the next three candidates. It seems Kasich’s retail campaigning helped him stay in the race. Rubio, who disgraced himself early in the debate by repeating a favorite phrase over and over was not all that severely damaged by his gaff. Perhaps his boyish charm led voters to forgive him.

Governor Christie, who savaged poor Rubio in the debate, did not profit from his viciousness. He is on his way back to New Jersey to “re-evaluate his situation,” re-evaluate is political speak for drop out. I doubt that the New Jersey people will be any more welcoming than the New Hampshire people were. Christie’s approval rating in New Jersey hovers around 30 percent; in short, they don’t like him much either. He can’t shed his “prosecutor” persona and that persona works fine when he’s on the attack but he can’t seem to turn it off and it is quite unattractive.

Then we have Carly Fiorina who is also dropping out. Ms. Fiorina tried to hang her hat on bashing Hillary Clinton and was always so angry about Hillary that she seemed in danger of a stroke. Constant anger in a candidate is not attractive to voters either and Fiorina is discovering that. This is Fiorina’s second consecutive election failure; the last one was her contest with Senator Boxer for a California Senate seat which Ms. Fiorina lost badly when Boxer pointed out that she had tripled her own salary, bought a splendid yacht while laying off some thirty thousand Hewlett Packard workers. Needless to say Boxer won and Fiorina lost. Then Fiorina let some of her staff for that contest go for several years without being paid; when one of her current staff was asked about that he said that because she lost her staff should not expect to be paid. I wonder what he thinks today.

Finally there is Dr. Ben Carson, the pediatric neurosurgeon. We haven’t heard from Dr. Carson but if he persists in his quest for the nomination he will have to climb out of a very deep hole. He got just 2.3 percent of the New Hampshire vote; he didn’t even stay around for a post-election “victory” party with his staff. He left for South Carolina instead. He has said nothing yet about withdrawing. He isn’t accustomed to losing so this might take a while to soak in…or maybe his book sales as a candidate make it worth continuing.

2016 Feb 9^th

Today, in addition to the New Hampshire vote, we must deal with a very curious letter to the editor in the morning paper, and a column by Patrick J. Buchanan. I shall take these one at a time: The letter in the morning paper, by one Salvatore Castronovo, claims that Governor Snyder is not at fault for Flint’s water crisis. Castronovo claims that the Governor “provided financial aid to solve the problem” once the “carcinogens appeared.” There are several curiosities with this letter: The most obvious one is that Castronovo concludes that “the governor was not responsible for Flint’s water problems.” Governor Snyder has admitted that the state dragged its feet in response to this crisis and he apologized for that. Citizens of Flint who complained were famously told to “relax.” So Governor Snyder has accepted responsibility for something that Castronovo tells us he did not do? I doubt that.

Then Castronovo talks about “carcinogens in the water” but the problem was not carcinogens, although there were surely a generous supply of those too: the problem was lead leached from aging pipes by the heavily treated water. Lead will arrest the development of a child’s brain and nervous system leading to substantial mental retardation. Lead is not excreted form the body so continued intake produces continued build up and more nervous system damage. This is disastrous for children, less so for adults. That’s OK, just “relax.”

Finally, Castronovo uses the word “Democratic” no less than five times in this 200 word letter. This word is, quite simply, not conservatively correct. The conservatively correct word is Democrat as in Democrat Party, never, ever Democratic Party, or Democratic anything! Be true to your principles Mr. Castronovo!

Now on to Patrick J. Buchanan, the aging xenophobe and self-described paleo-conservative: Buchanan claims that “Populism, patriotism, nationalism, defying political correctness and dissing the establishment and the elites that monitor PC is where it’s at.” It is surely true that for some of the population, particularly Trump supporters, and some others as well, that “that’s where it’s at.” But just how many is that? If trump gets 35 percent of the conservatives and if conservatives make up 49 percent of the population that means trump’s supporters are a whopping 18 percent of the population. I don’t believe that we should all head for Canada on that basis. Then Buchanan reveals once more his tenuous grasp of the way government works for he writes, “Obama doubled the debt, and the deficits are rising again.” Sorry Pat, there is no way President Obama can add to the debt unless Congress agrees and Congress the last I looked is dominated by conservatives. You’ve been involved in government long enough to know that. I believe you’ve embarrassed yourself!

2016 Feb 8^th

We have a Thomas Sowell column today and, once again, Dr. Sowell’s remarks are predictable. He is not happy about Donald Trump’s successes and blames “the media” for asking shallow questions of the candidates during debates. He suggests that each candidate have a one-on-one interview with a knowledgeable interviewer and that interview would give us a better indicator of the candidate’s views. He’s right about that. Then he goes on to fault the networks for not doing those interviews because the networks are chasing ratings. Really? And why are they chasing ratings? They chase ratings because they are operating in a profit based system that Sowell eagerly defends until that system finds itself so focused on ratings (making money) that it fails the public trust. Public television and public radio, which do not depend on ratings, but on private and government funding, could do exactly that sort of interviewing; but the government funding of NPR and PBS really upsets most folks of Sowell’s persuasion. Sowell wants to eat the fruit but hates caring for the tree.

I doubt that Sowell’s column was written after the truly ignominious performance by Senator Rubio. This Senator, even after being accused of using canned speeches by Governor Christie, used literally identical words over and over again to attack President Obama. He did this even after Christie called the audience’s attention to what he was doing. It was clear that Rubio could not think of anything else to say so he fell back on his script for a response in spite of the hazard that presented.

So the result will be what? In spite of pundits comparing this to Lloyd Bentsen’s take down of Dan Quale with his, “You’re no Jack Kennedy, Senator,” I doubt that this will have much negative effect on Rubio or positive effect on Christie when the votes are tallied tomorrow. Let’s face it, in spite of that very effective put-down, Quale ultimately became Vice-President and Bentsen did not.

Likeability still matters. Let’s face it, several of these candidates are just not very likeable and some I’d enjoy talking to or meeting for coffee. At the top of the list I’d put Jeb Bush and John Kasich…and maybe Marco Rubio. (These are in no particular order.) At the other end there are a few I’d prefer not to talk to at all. At the very bottom I’d place Carly Fiorina. From her TV appearances I doubt that she is capable of listening if she could be talking. (In that regard she is a little like Donald Trump.) Her companions at the bottom would be Governor Christie and Senator Cruz; both of them look like they’ve taken a brief break from a crime drama movie set where they play a pair of unprincipled heavies. I’ll ignore those who have dropped out of the race…except for Senator Lindsay Graham whose politics, although disagreeable, compensates for that with his wit.

2016 Feb 7^th

Today I’ll hold my usual trenchant comments on the political scene because it’s Super Bowl Sunday! Here is a bit I posted on this event last year; time may have dimmed your memory of it or perhaps you haven’t seen it before. Here it is:

Watching football is much more meaningful if you have a lexicon to interpret the announcer’s comments; without such help the viewer will be irretrievably lost, so here follows some commonly used terms and their meaning:

Negative yardage: When yards are lost the runner is said to have gained negative yardage. This means that the running back really did run back. Running backs are supposed to run forward. No one knows why they are called running backs instead of running forwards.

Offensive player: Almost all football players are offensive, particularly after losing a game…or even after they win one if you catch them in the locker room before they shower.

Skill player: This term is very irritating to the three-hundred-and-thirty pound linemen who are not considered skill players. Sometimes they then become offensive players.

Pass interference: Your team is not supposed to let a player on the other team catch a pass. The defender is supposed to interfere with the opposing player’s early progress down the field or try to knock the ball away at just the last minute; however, if he knocks his opponent to the ground or trips him, that is against the rules and is not allowed. Certain kinds of pass interference are just fine, other kinds are not; It all depends on which team gives the biggest tips to the referees.

Roughing the kicker: If your team member runs into an opponent’s kicker after he punts the ball that is roughing the kicker and it is a major no-no. Sometimes a player just comes close to the kicker who then falls to the ground grabbing his knee and writhing in pain. This convinces the referee, who has been ogling the cheerleaders, that a roughing penalty should be called. The better punters, in addition to being former soccer players, were also undergraduate drama majors.

Two point conversion: This is not a religious experience although it’s close. Once a touchdown has been scored the scoring team can elect to take the ball on the other team’s two yard line; if they can get it over the goal in one play they get two points.

Tight end: This is a guy who can either block or run down the field to catch a pass. If he should catch the pass he usually gets hit by several opponents who hope that will make him drop the ball. Tight ends aren’t usually tight although a belt or two before the game greatly helps their outlook.

Eligible receiver: The eligibility of an eligible receiver has nothing whatever to do with his marital status; it has to do with being eligible, according to the rules, to catch the football.

Nose guard:  This is not a player whose job it is to guard noses. A nose guard is a defensive player who lines up opposite the offensive center. He is usually concerned only with guarding his own nose.

Pooch kick: Relax SPCA members; no one is kicking a dog. A pooch kick is a low flat trajectory kick that bounces along the ground and is difficult to field,

Run out the clock: This doesn’t mean that someone runs onto the field with a clock; it means that a team which is ahead makes only very safe and time consuming plays thus leaving little time left for their opponents to get the ball back and score.

Bootleg: A bootleg occurs when the quarterback pretends to hand the ball off to a running back but instead keeps it himself to deceive the defense. It has nothing to do with the repeal of prohibition.

And finally-- understand that backs are not scalable; a full back cannot be exchanged for four quarter backs…although many coaches hope that will change!

2016 Feb 6^th

Mona Charen has an “open letter to Jeb  Bush” in her column this morning. In it she advises Bush to drop out of the race for President, the reason she gives is that he can’t possibly win. She points out that he spent 15 million in Iowa to come in sixth. She also points out that there has never been a third President from the same family. She tells him that he is a fine conservative and was a good conservative governor of Florida, but that he has been an awfully dull candidate. She says that, “One senses that you find Donald Trump’s conduct disgusting and even a little bewildering. Good for you. It is.”

Then we begin to approach the real issue here and it’s not Charen’s concern for Jeb Bush. She begins to berate Jeb for not directing his negative ads against Donald Trump but instead directing them against Marco Rubio. She rails about Bush’s negative Rubio ads. “Your ads have been embarrassing. You’ve dredged up long since debunked stories about credit cards…missed votes in the Senate. Really? Is that all you’ve got? …attacking Rubio for taking the same position you took on illegal immigration.” Now the subtext of Charen’s column becomes clear. She has attached herself to Marco Rubio whose star is ascending and she doesn’t want Bush’s waning moon to obscure it. (Is that an overdrawn metaphor or what?)

Rick Santorum dropped out of the Republican race for President and threw his support to Marco Rubio. Rubio would have been much better off if Santorum had thrown something else at him. Santorum was on “Morning Joe” soon after that and Joe asked him what accomplishments Rubio had produced in his Senate career that occasioned Santorum’s support. Oh dear! Santorum couldn’t come up with any, not one. Santorum blamed this on the Democrats’ control of Congress during Rubio’s first two Senate years but then Republicans have been in control now for well over a year so that excuse didn’t work. In fact no legislator can point to any accomplishment except for the Speaker, Paul Ryan, who got together enough votes to pass a budget and forestall a government shutdown that, had it happened, would again be blamed on Republicans. That’s not seen as an accomplishment by many conservatives who wanted exactly that outcome.

In her peroration Charen gets down to her real plea to Jeb: “If you were to drop out and endorse Rubio, or at least call off the attack dogs,…it would be a gracious and inspiring gesture. It would be a different way to serve your country”. (It looks like these attacks on Rubio are beginning to worry some of his supporters.) Charen’s concern for Jeb’s legacy sounds so heartwarming…as long as you don’t realize just how cynical she is.

2016 Feb 5^th

George Will, in his column today, claims that “One person who left Iowa having earned the nation's gratitude is Nebraska’s Senator Ben Sasse. He campaigned for Cruz, Fiorina and Rubio… and to…remove the Trump distraction.” As you know George Will is a fierce opponent of Donald Trump so he is naturally most impressed by anyone, particularly a Republican anyone, who opposes Trump; Senator Sasse’s views fall right in there. Will’s phrase, “having earned the nation’s gratitude,” is hyperbole of course, unless Will is confusing himself with “the nation.”

Will’s column was obviously written after the results of the Iowa caucuses were in and after the skullduggeries pulled by the Cruz campaign were well known. Cruz’ attempt to bully and frighten supporters into going to a caucus and voting for him by using a mailing stamped “Election Violation” in big red letters is not even mentioned by Will; it surely contributed to Trump’s low vote total and Cruz’ surge. Then there is the curious email by Congressman Steve King of Iowa that informed folks that Dr. Carson, another popular evangelical, was dropping out of the race and hoping that his fans would vote for Cruz. Will never mentioned that fraud either. The unexpected Cruz surge, according to Will, must be the result of young Nebraska freshman Senator Sasse’s efforts.

Further on in his column Will has this to say: “Distributional conflict is written into the arithmetic of economic sluggishness.” (Perhaps Will could include a brief concordance at the end of each column.) He goes on to cite the surging debt and the “entitlement state” without ever suggesting an increase in taxes to reduce the debt. He cites Steve Jobs who became a billionaire by producing “Apple products that make Americans happy” while ignoring Sheldon Adelson who became a billionaire by owning and pandering to less family friendly gambling interests.

Cal Thomas also has a column in the paper today. Thomas is a 73 year old white evangelical and quite opposed to the changes in the heterosexual culture that began over the past dozen or so years. Thomas also cites a right wing conservative think tank in his column today. He claims that the Gatestone Institute is “non-partisan;” If that’s true then so is John Bolton, the former Bush recess appointment as US Ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton is an enthusiastic and vigorous right winger whose appointment as Ambassador to the UN had to be a recess appointment if it had any chance of succeeding; so much for Cal Thomas citing this outfit as “non-partisan.” Thomas joins Pat Buchanan in his rejection of what he calls multi-culturalism. We have seen this before in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 which prohibited any immigration of Chinese and was not repealed until 1943. The Chinese were also very different from the rest of us. Of course the new immigrants are reviled because they are Muslim. Whether or not they pose a risk to democratic society because of their religion or whether they pose a risk disproportionate to their numbers because of their lack of education and wealth remains to be seen. Thomas and Buchanan have already decided the issue…and who is surprised?

2016 Feb 4^th

I had the misfortune to tune into CNN this morning just as Carly Fiorina was being interviewed. Her campaign is in desperate straits and I suppose she believes that her hate filled rants against nearly everything not Carly will help it to recover. That is unlikely; she will soon be falling by the wayside joining Paul, Santorum and Huckabee, all watching the action and wondering how they will pay their campaign bills.

Donald Trump is discovering that politics and business play by different rules. He claims that he was treated unfairly by the Cruz campaign which he has accused of stealing the election. They did resort to underhanded methods to win, not least by claiming that Carson had dropped out when he had done no such thing; thus sending an unknown number of votes to Cruz. Trump wants a rematch but he won’t get it. He might have been able to use his attorneys in a civil action if this were a civil case but it isn’t; here he can be made to look like a sore loser and looking like a sore loser is terrible for his image…even if he is a sore loser. His chances of a clean win in New Hampshire are very much better.

Listening to Senator Cruz is almost as bad as listening to Fiorina. Fiorina gets so angry she is almost spastic; Cruz is constantly performing, presenting us with rhetorical pauses and arm movements to emphasize his points just as he would in a debate. One wonders what dinner is like when he joins his family. Perhaps then he leaves the stage.

Then there is Governor Chris Christie. Christie has a powerful antipathy toward Senator Rubio, who is doing remarkably well in the NH polls and that seems to irritate Christie all to pieces. I saw Christie interviewed on Morning Joe today. He was asked some questions about his stand on various issues and every time his reply was not to answer the question asked but to begin to hammer away on Rubio. He characterizes Rubio as “Bubble Boy” trying to emphasize that Rubio is protected by his handlers and that his comments are scripted and unchanging. Christie, himself, could just as easily be called “Bluster Boy” and maybe Rubio should use that, but Rubio is remaining aloof. At this point I doubt that Christie would want a close examination of his New Jersey record as Governor. His approval rating in New Jersey is about 31 percent and the state is a mess with consistently downgraded state bonds.

Addendum: I have just watched a bit of O'Reilly on Fox News. For the third straight night O'Reilly is trying desperately to blame the lie about Carson's withdrawal on CNN. It still isn't working.

2016 Feb 3^rd

Today we have additional evidence about why Senator Cruz is so heartily disliked by most who know him. Some of this emerges from his Iowa campaign shenanigans. It began with a letter to prospective voters; in red letters at the top of an official looking piece of mail was printed “Voting Violation.” That would get your attention. Here is the “explanation” the voter received:  

“You are receiving this election notice because of low expected voter turnout in your area. Your individual voting history as well as your neighbors’ are public record. Their scores are published below, and many of them will see your score as well. CAUCUS ON MONDAY TO IMPROVE YOUR SCORE and please encourage your neighbors to caucus as well. A follow-up notice may be issued following Monday’s caucuses.”

The idea was to use social pressure to get out the vote. Whether or not you voted and whether or not your neighbors voted is a matter of public record in Iowa; how you voted is not public anywhere in this country…yet. Telling people that their neighbors, Joe Smith and Mary Jones voted, and that they should vote too, does persuade people to vote; that’s been demonstrated and that’s not illegal. But Cruz pushed the limits and got this unhappy response from Paul Pate the Iowa Secretary of State:

“The Cruz campaign misrepresents the role of my office, and worse, misrepresents Iowa election law. Accusing citizens of Iowa of a “voting violation” based on Iowa Caucus participation, or lack thereof, is false representation of an official act. There is no such thing as an election violation related to frequency of voting. Any insinuation or statement to the contrary is wrong and I believe it is not in keeping in the spirit of the Iowa Caucuses.”

Cruz was not apologetic; he declared that because it was not illegal he would continue to use every means he could to win the election.

And then he topped himself; as I said yesterday his campaign declared that one of his principle competitors for the Evangelical vote, Dr. Ben Carson, had dropped out of the race. Last night I watched a brief bit of the O’Reilly performance on Fox. Bill was interviewing Dr. Carson on this very subject. In point of fact Bill was trying very hard to put words into Carson’s mouth; the words were “It’s all CNN’s fault.” Carson was having none of that nonsense. O’Reilly naturally wanted to blame the lie that Carson was dropping out on anyone except one of those fine conservative candidates who would never stoop to such dirty tricks. CNN was a convenient target but it didn’t work.

So what about the culpability of CNN? The CNN piece that O’Reilly was talking about said nothing about Carson quitting the race; it said that after Iowa he would be going to Florida for a few days. This bit of innocuous travel planning was morphed by Cruz into Carson’s withdrawal and arguably into a Cruz win.

2016 Feb 2^nd

This is an important day…and not just because we have the results of the Iowa caucuses. This is the day that Punxutawney Phil has emerged and might see his shadow. Predictions about the continuance of winter weather are just as fraught as predictions about politics, or about the stock market. Either Yogi Berra or Hans Bohr, take your pick, said that prediction is tough, especially about the future.

There were some notable moments last night: Donald trump’s congratulatory speech confirming the Cruz victory showed a different and unexpectedly civil side of Donald Trump. Ted Cruz noting that his Iowa victory was a “signal to the whole country” was a forty-nine state exaggeration…at least the Republican establishment hopes it was. Senator Graham was asked what he thought of Cruz’ chance of winning the general election if he got the Republican nomination; he said he thought it was about one chance in ten. Cruz’ win was a step on the toe of Governor Branstad who warned Iowans not to vote for him because of his hostility toward ethanol subsidies. A gallon of ethanol in Dec. 2014 was 2.40; in Dec 2015 it was 1.52 and it will continue to drop as gasoline prices drop. …One bit of nastiness that helped Cruz, Representative Steve King, a fervent Cruz supporter, put out entirely false information that Dr. Ben Carson had withdrawn from the race. Both Cruz and Carson were after the same set of evangelical voters. Guess who won them after Steve King’s message got out.

Hillary Clinton committed a boo-boo: She claimed, well in advance of the final count, that she had won the Iowa caucus. At that point she certainly hadn’t won it and she finally won it by the smallest fraction of one percent, an unpersuasive victory. Clinton has had to deal, or avoid dealing with, a reputation for deception. Claiming a win, or even appearing to claim a win, adds to that image.  Kathleen Parker, a columnist who is usually just moderately on the right side of sensible, has a column today in which she hammers Hillary Clinton on her “truthiness.” She even goes back to 1996, 20 years ago, to William Saffire who accused the Secretary of being “a congenital liar.” Mr. Safire is also noteworthy for claiming the Iraq war was imperative because Iraq absolutely had cached weapons of mass destruction. Parker also cites “Any number of fabricated—or at least exaggerated—stories” by Mrs. Clinton but gives no examples. Benghazi is mentioned by Parker, yet again, with emphasis on Clinton’s initial claim that the facility was not attacked by terrorists. Exactly why the allegiance of the attackers is important is unclear…as is the retroactive classification of the Secretary’s emails as top secret. Of course she shouldn’t have had a private server and she has apologized for that but this retroactive email classification will continue.

Another question raised by the Iowa caucuses is the fate of the single digiters: Bush, Fiorina, Kasich, Christie and Santorum. When will they be seized by an accurate perception of reality and wake from their dream? Huckabee has already dropped out. Who will commit to writing a check to Carly Fiorina after she pulls a 1.9 percent in Iowa? She stiffed the people who worked for her in her bid for the Senate against Barbara Boxer. I’ll bet there are some very nervous supporters in her current campaign.

2016 Feb 1^st

Here it is; is this the day the sun stood still? Not quite; it’s the day of the Iowa Caucuses and the whole western world waits for the result. Even that’s not quite true! The whole Iowa Caucus thing is mightily over hyped and overblown. It’s worse than judging the winner of a mile and a quarter horse race on the basis of who’s ahead after three yards. No matter, all of the pundits are out in force. If they can’t interview a major candidate they’ll settle for a minor one, or perhaps a “spokes-person” who will answer any question asked about their candidate, any question at all, with a selected few words from their candidate’s stump speech. Do I sound cynical? In the words of a newly resurrected, previously failed politician and noted moose hunter, “you betcha.”

George Will has ignored the election today; his column is about taxes. Its title is “Smart tax reform would ignite growth.” Not a word in it refers to any candidate and that is refreshing even if Will’s column otherwise makes little sense. Without having read his column what would you imagine he means by “Smart tax reform?” You can bet that he isn’t going to suggest an increase in anyone’s taxes and you are absolutely right. Will wants to reduce the corporate tax which he says, “…are the highest in the industrial world.”

That may be true of the tax rates (The top tax rate for very profitable corporations is 35 percent.) but Will neglects to tell us that very few corporations pay that rate. For example within the Fortune 500 companies, the largest public companies in the country, there are 26 profitable companies that have paid nothing at all in taxes over the last five years.  Here is a portion from a New York Times analysis:

“Profitable corporations are supposed to pay a 35 percent federal income tax rate on their U.S. profits. But many corporations pay far less, or nothing at all, because of the many tax loopholes and special breaks they enjoy. This report documents just how successful many Fortune 500 corporations have been at using these loopholes and special breaks over the past five years. As a group, the 288 corporations examined paid an effective federal income tax rate of just 19.4 percent over the five-year period — far less than the statutory 35 percent tax rate”.

How did American corporations manage to get these exceptions to the “normal” tax rate? This was a gift from their friends in Congress.  The gift was encouraged by lobbyists but they no longer call themselves lobbyists; they are now consultants. They have even changed the name of their professional lobbying group to something less odorous; The American League of Lobbyists is now the Association of Government Relations Professionals. Could this be what people mean by “putting lipstick on a pig?” The current estimate of money spent on such efforts is about nine billion dollars and much of it goes to former legislators. There are laws prohibiting former legislators from immediately lobbying their old congressional friends, but if they aren’t really registered lobbyists there is no problem. Chris Dodd, former Senator, said he would never become a lobbyist and he hasn’t. He has however become head of the Motion Picture Association of America with appropriately excellent relations with Congress and that job nets former Senator Dodd over 3 million a year…but of course he’s not a (registered) lobbyist.

The back to Dr. Will who has not told us just how his prescription for increasing growth by reducing corporate taxes will work. I guess we’ll just have to take his word for that.