Saturday, February 6, 2016

Madoff for President!

Bernard Madoff is in jail.  He is in jail for running a Ponzi scheme that resulted in taking money from investors to pay off earlier investors to satisfy their expectations of his achieving tremendous benefits for those investors.  That is illegal in the private sector.  Those investors who had received the returns that had been promised by implication were very, very satisfied...lauding Mr. Madoff's abilities and worthiness to others and recommending him to their friends...until the law came after them and making them return the money because it had been originally obtained fraudulently and therefore could not be passed on to them or anyone else.  Oh, the anguish and gnashing of teeth...they had believed that, even with the discovery of the con, they had been "lucky" and won the equivalent of a financial game of musical chairs.

So, you ask, what is this nonsense of Bernie Madoff being President?

Both History and current events hold the answer!

For over 3 Presidential terms, the individual in the Oval Office in the White House has "bought" things for the American people.  Benefits of money, influence, real and imagined power, and insulation from the rule that regular people thought needed to be followed.  All to provide the profit to the person in the Oval Office of election, re-election, power and status.  Those, it can be argued, are the equivalent and even superior in the minds of some, of ill-gotten money.  Our leaders have lied to us...and that is a moral lack.  But...we have received benefits that we have not invested it, that cost money that we will never pay.  As with Bernie Madoff, that money is expected to be paid for future investors in...the future taxpayers of...the United States of America: the children and grandchildren of the current citizens.

We have people running for election to the American Presidency who are promising "free" stuff to many, vowing to take the money from current citizens who have legally acquired their riches.  But those riches, even if taken completely away by the government and applied to the cost of the promises, both past and future, would not even make a small impact on reducing the debt.  Consider that the National Debt at present exceeds Nineteen TRILLION Dollars;  There are about 400 Billionairs in the United States at present...if you took all of their wealth you would not net more than just over ONE Trillion Dollars.  Where is the rest of the money coming from?  FUTURE taxpaying INVESTORS.

Bernie Sanders is making these promises.  Hillary Clinton is promising to continue the benefits that President Obama has granted over more than seven years in office that added more than Fifteen Trillion Dollars a sum that current citizens expect will be paid by LATER taxpaying INVESTORS.

And the earliest Madoff's citizens accept the "investment returns" promised by Mr. Obama, and currently promised to be continued and extended by Sen. Sanders and Sec. Clinton.   And no one seems to even consider that our national financial game of musical chairs is subject to the stopping of the music at any time...or even that we imagine and talk ourselves into even believing that there is any music at all, much akin to the Emperor's New Suit of Clothes.

When Congress passed the RICO statutes that made it possible to really attack and more successfully prosecute those involved in "Organized" crime, they exempted themselves from its application.  Why?

President Bush waged a war that wasn't paid for...its cost was just added to the national debt.  The amount was huge...Trillions of Dollars.  But the actions of our Presidents and of Congress since then make that amount look like chump change.

Honest and well-meaning people can discuss and argue over governmental policy and ideology endlessly.  That is valid, and experimentation with different approaches based on the will of the people is to be expected...even encouraged.

But to steal from innocent taxpayers not yet born to fund benefits wanted as a "right" and not earned, is the very essence of corruption, crime and immorality at any level, sectarian or religious.


But I fear that our citizenry has become so narcissistically oriented that they knowingly refuse to acknowledge the truth, their greed, and their disregard for their children and grandchildren. so....


Might as well go all the way and acknowledge our corruption and greed as a nation!

Sunday, January 24, 2016

Why a "President" Trump may be best for America

Until this morning I had favored the election of Mr. Trump as President as a means of punishing professional politicians for their narcissistic, inbred consistent ignoring of their constituents wishes, requests and needs, choosing instead to form their badly disguised cross-aisle cooperation to protect each other at the taxpayers' expense.  They all needed to rediscover and suffer consequences. I reasoned that an outsider would accomplish that, and although Mr. Trump seems likely to be far more liberal than I would like, it was paramount to punish all those with such a longer track record of not listening that I ignored his liberal potential.

But this morning my thoughts suddenly turned in a much more positive direction.

One of the constant complaints heard is that our government is not only responsive, but that it just can't get things done.  We hear that our President had no interest in creating any working relationship with Congress in general, with the "other" side, and even is aloof from those office holders from his own party.  We note that even wanted actions by the executive branch don't help because upon an election of a President who thinks otherwise, those decrees can be no business or individual can invest in any business because of that inherent risk.

Others point to the Congressional impasses that result in lots of words and votes, but either stall or end up being vetoed by the Chief Executive.

May I suggest that electing Donald Trump is extremely likely to solve all of these complaints, relegating them to the scrap heap.


What is Mr. Trump's broadest impact on the world?  No, not his Real Estate empire or accomplishments.  It is the book, "Art of the Deal."  It clearly demonstrates Mr. Trump's desire to "get things done"...preferably at a profit, but always as economically as possible.

To accomplish something that he deems essential, is he likely to walk away from anything because of ideology?  I don't think so.  He will want to have proof of what it will cost, where the money will come from (if from borrowing, he'll want to know how it will be paid back), and who and how will the costs be controlled and the results be guaranteed.  No  verbal assurances are likely to be acceptable to him...put it in the "voted for" document for everyone to see.

How or why is this good?

Because now...finally...there is supreme motivation for getting good people to run, and for getting people out to vote for Congressional and Senate elections!

It is very likely that a President Trump will work with whatever Congress the people elect...Republican, Conservative, Democrat or Liberal.  And those elections will determine who will be "dealing" with President Trump.  It is entirely likely that the more conservative the Congress, the more conservative the deals that will be made.  But, conversely, if the "people" chose to elect those of the Liberal or Democratic viewpoints, Mr. Trump will work deals that would be more liberal.  None of us would be completely happy, but I strongly suggest that government would, again, work!  Remember that President Reagan worked with a Democratic Congress to get things done.  So did President Clinton.  Good administrators will find a way to accomplish more things in ways that make the most people more content.

So...if more and more people come to the same conclusion, I think that a lot of Democrats will cross over to vote for Mr. Trump...if he is nominated...knowing that if they also achieve numerical superiority in Congress, their views and wants will be heard and respected.  And those of a more conservative bent will feel the same.  Everyone will then focus on those Senate and Congressional races, realizing that the President will honor those elections in the manner in which he negotiates government action with the Legislative branch.

And THAT would be a good thing for the entire country.

Monday, January 18, 2016

Is MLK's Dream dead?

Most of us remember the essence of Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech.  It had (and still has) the capacity of pulling our minds and hearts up short and calling us all to check our motivations before acting, speaking, writing and...yes...even thinking.  Today, a lot of people have apparently forgotten some things: First, that he was a "Reverend", a man of the cloth who was a devout Christian who reminded America...a nation founded on Christian mores and beliefs...of how we should live life; Second, that his message was one of inclusion, not separatism or divisiveness.

In the late 1950's he spoke at a church in Montgomery, Alabama, and part of what he said was, "How do you go about loving your enemies? Begin with yourself."  And later he advised, "When the opportunity presents itself for you to defeat your enemy, that is the time when you must not do it."  Further, he quoted from the Bible: "Love your enemies, bless them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you..." Matt. 5

During the year...and particularly on Martin Luther King's designated holiday...there are celebrations and coming together of various groups to allegedly celebrate not just his recognition, but his message.  Yet so many of these groups clearly act, think and speak in manner that reveals that not only have they abandoned MLK's views, but now are clearly diametrically opposite in their goals and actions.

Black Lives Matter (BLM) actively chants for the killing of Police.  BLM has never condemned or distanced itself from those who have murdered Police, usually calling for "understanding" of their motivation.  Black leaders have spent more time pointing to anecdotal mistreatment and actions by a minority of Police Officers as a defense and only as a one sentence add-on said that killing was wrong.

LGBT folk have, upon getting equality in the secular world, used that position to enact vengeance on any people who, based on their religious convictions, declined to produce certain products.  Once they no longer had to hide, they have taken that opportunity to "get even."  That is absolutely contrary to MLK's admonitions and the goal of his movement.  Unity and acceptance were his goals.  Note that nowhere did the term "approval" come into the picture.  I can argue that my neighbor should be free to do whatever he or she wants as long as it doesn't physically harm others...but that doesn't require me to approve of everything the do, or create a legal right for them to require me to cheer for their actions.

If I go to church or synagogue, wear a dress shirt and tie with Bermuda shorts, they are not required to take a public position approving of my actions.  Why should the reverse be considered "politically correct?"  As a matter of fact, I consider the phrase "politically correct" an oxymoron anyway.

But...shouldn't the media or someone call out these people?  BLM advocates murder, LGBT advocates vengeance, University Professors advocate elimination of the First Amendment, and University students advocate abandonment of integration and freedom of speech in favor of apartheid and controlled speech.  Rev. King looks down on these people and actions and I am sure that tears flow down his cheeks...and it is sad.  It is also despicable.

Honoring MLK's thoughts, beliefs and goals would have us ignoring physical differences, honoring each other, respecting ourselves and those around us by holding ourselves to our standards even as we allow others to chose differently.  Wonder if it will ever be seen that way again...

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

How to equalize pay for everyone...

Our politicians have been talking non-stop about pay inequality.  They drone on about how the Middle Class is not only disappearing, but losing purchasing ground.  The claim that this is because of deficiencies in our Republic's practice of capitalism.

For the purposes of this discussion, I will ignore that the classifications of "Poor", "Middle Class" and whatever the name is for those above the middle class but not a "one percenter" fail to recognize that the membership in these defined areas is always in flux; that people move up and on all the time.  Unlike Europe, any classification is not one that you remain in for your entire least not in most cases.

But, back to the discussion of assuming that inequality needs to be "fixed."

I will tell you how to do it almost instantly.  Really!

Simply index the prices of everything that people buy.  You get a card from the government that identifies you "class" and that is based on your income.  All prices are indexed.  Food, cars, houses, vacations, insurance, bus rides, taxi fares, indexed so that everyone pays the same percentage of their earnings for everything.  As an example, a Ford sedan doesn't cost $18,000.  For a poor family it might cost 5000, but for a millionaire it might cost $200,000.  The same approach with food too should apply; a Middle class family might pay $400 for a weeks food for 4, while a rich family of 4 would pay $2,000 for the same amount of food.  That way everyone would be equal, right?

So the "problem" is now fixed.

I don't pretend to discuss or identify how, under this kind of approach you would motivate people to work harder to earn more money.  I have no idea...but today's politicians seem to discount that as being important to our country or our individual well-being, so I won't spend time even considering it.  Tell you representatives about my they love it.  Of course, I strongly suspect that if they enacted it as law they would exempt themselves from its application, just as they exempted themselves from application of the RICO statutes...they aren't 100% nuts.

Saturday, January 2, 2016

Social Justice Warfare

This past week I came across the following comment.  The source was declared to be unknown, or I would credit the author.  However, it encapsulates every stray thought I have ever had on the subject...putting them together in a way that seems remarkably powerful.  As I said, I would honor the writer if I knew who he or she was...and if I should ever get that information, I will edit this to provide the proper honor.  I hope you appreciate this as much as I did:

“We are fighting to end hate, to unite as one and love each other. We are fighting to be treated right without discrimination and for everyone to have equal opportunities.”

Nonsense. You have no quantifiable metrics for injustice, so you have no victory conditions (for a very simplified example, when blacks hold X% of all engineering jobs and are only Y% of all prisoners, racism is ended). That would be fine by itself, but you believe in fighting injustice with injustice (gays have historically been denied gay marriage? let’s get random CEOs fired for opinions they held six years ago). You don’t seek converts, you seek to punish and bully – straight white males who disagree with you must be purged and publicly humiliated. Even the jihadists will spare you if you convert; no apology or future correction will satisfy a SJW.

I could forgive that too if you weren’t all hypocrites and liars. Your treatment of women and minority dissenters is appalling; if they don’t want you acting on their behalf, that’s their choice, not “internalized patriarchy” or whatever. You rob them of moral agency. When called out for these behaviors (as you always insist on calling out others), you lie. You strawman your opponents (criticized a woman? misogynist!), you group them with the worst (you’re a gamer? you’re as bad as the anonymous rape threateners!) and when confronted with your own flaws, you restate them less threateningly (motte and bailey argument). You phrase all arguments as Kafka traps (disagreeing with your assertion that we are evil is taken as proof that we’re evil). You publish manipulated and misleading statistics, and then lambast anyone who questions them.

You insist on vigilante justice against random acts of the week for your two-minute hate. Why is it the NFL’s business to punish domestic violence? And, if it is their business, why isn’t Hope Solo receiving the same attention from your side?

Then you claim to be arguing for equality, but you’ve taken the idea of racism (hatred based on skin color is bad) and replaced it with a new concept where only one race can be guilty of racism. You excuse racial prejudice and hatred based on what I’ve already explained are arbitrary, unmeasured states of being. Your solution for the unequal treatment of whites and blacks is to hold whites to a higher standard. Your side lobbied the FBI to redefine rape so more women victims would be counted, but also so that “made to penetrate” does not count, leaving male victims in the cold. Because of male privilege, apparently.

Historically ignorant SJWs think whites hold collective guilt for the awful things our ancestors have done. But they don’t care about the unspeakable atrocities by other races. The only difference between whites and others was that whites had the social and technological prowess to do evil efficiently; Africans, Asians, Indians, and everyone else practiced genocide and slavery, they were just less adept at doing it right. Given the means, they would have done the same. But nope, only whites are guilty; Arab oppression of blacks and Caucasians never happened, not to us, nope.

I’ve been lucky enough to grow up in America, so this shit is new to me. But I’m descended from puritans, and I know my history; I know how they treated dissent. I also know how commies treated dissent; I grew up next door to a grizzled old Russian who barely avoided the gulag by smuggling himself out of the country. I know what you petty tyrants have turned into every time you gained enough power.

Worst of all, you turn the very principles of freedom against us. We tolerate you because we believe in free speech and civil discourse, not bullying and violence. But that means we have to watch you advocate against that very freedom. We don’t believe in ruining a stranger’s professional life over an opinion, but that means that we can’t punish your actions.

We believe that the rightness of our actions should speak for itself. You believe in bullying, even as you claim to love the oppressed.

Funny how the evil and all-powerful patriarchy has seen fit to act according to SJW whims for all of recent memory, punishing those they hate and protecting those they love. Funny how the evil oppressor males have to speak anonymously, while the SJWs fighting the power can use their real names and get mainstream media coverage for fun and profit. How when a million straight white male nerds get bullied, no one cares, but the minute one gay person hangs himself, suddenly bullying matters – and the solution, of course, is more bullying, but by the “right” people.

That’s the arrogant core of it. You do the same evil, in the same pattern, as so many before you, because mob justice, punishing dissent, and repression of others is just fine and dandy so long as the “right” people are doing it to the “wrong” people.

All I ever asked was to be left alone.

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

"Terrorism" is a tactic, not an enemy

It is maddening to hear the universal cacophony of voices talking about "Terrorism" as our enemy.  Such misdirection and/or sloppiness is embarrassing.

Terrorism (causing terror) is exactly like "carpet bombing", "gorilla warfare", or "flanking."  It is a tactic used by nations, groups and individuals in an attempt to accomplish something; the "something" does not have to be cogent or even sane.

The mass murderer who kills children in a school is using "terror" as a tactic; we don't understand it if he is insane, but it is his chosen tactic instead of standing in the middle of the road and waving a sign.  A homeless women engages in an act of Terror when she drives down a sidewalk, killing folks she doesn't even know.  A person who snipes at people driving cars by on an Interstate road is combining two tactics: gorilla warfare and terror.  I could go on and on, but the point is made:  Terror is a is a means to do any one or more of many goals.  The goal is not particularly important.

Terror, when used by an individual, may have a goal.  It may not.  A mentally ill person may engage in a terrorist act and have no goal.  Mental illness was and remains the enemy.

A bank robber may shoot up, wound and kill many in the robbing of the bank.  The terror of multiple wounds and killings is for the purpose of causing fear and confusion and to make escape easier and more certain.  The Criminal Act was and remains the enemy.

When an extended group adopts the tactics of Terror for a purpose, it helps to identify the enemy, and the source that created that group as an enemy.  It does NOT help to focus on tactics; I remember the focus on the gorilla warfare of the North Vietnamese instead of on the source of their vision of the United States as their enemy.  What a waste of effort...and we failed to achieve our goals in that conflict.

Currently we have ISIS (ISIL or whatever other derogatory name is currently in vogue) as our enemy.  Their tactics include infiltration, conventional military warfare, psychological warfare, as well as Public Relations efforts in recruitment, terrorist acts,  and many others.  All of these are tactics.

Why does ISIS see the West in general and the United States in particular as the enemy?  They say (and it behooves us to listen to our enemy when the consistently declare why the hate us and avoid trying to re-define it in terms that we find comforting (and, most harmful, misleading), that we are destroying their their way of life, bringing immoral and unacceptable behavior to their countries, interfering with their way of life and trying to erode their lifestyle, indoctrinating their youth with the immoral and wasteful ways of the west and showing them and their brand of civilization no respect.  They also will quote the commands of their religion, Islam, as contained in the Qur'an, that they conquer the world and convert all to Islam.  Dying in this cause is seen as a guarantee of entry to Paradise, hence the willingness to engage in the terrorist tactic of body bombs and mass killings when death to the perpetrators is all but guaranteed.

Any reasonable person bothering to ask questions, read, and analyse all of this cannot escape the finding that the self-declared enemy attempting to fight, kill, and terrorize the west and the United States is Islamic in nature and most specifically involves devout extremist Muslims who have decided that they need to act now to save their perception of what civilization should be: Islamic.

There are Muslims in name only, just as there are Christians in name only; these folks claim the title and show up on special occasions and actually value the heredity of Islam...but neither group actually is dedicated to live the life that either the Bible or the Qur'an dictates.  They are not enemies of anything other than having their lives interfered with by the folks who comprise ISIS.  Still others have fully embraced the qualities and practices of the western world for various reasons:  women because of the freedom to make their own decisions and dress as they wish, the LGBT community because it avoids being put to death...and others.

The West in general and the United States in particular doesn't want to acknowledge the truth of what is presented here for a variety of reasons.  A main one is that the west has become afraid of confrontation and developed a distaste for stress of any sort; I call it the "pc movement."  How dare anyone make us feel "uncomfortable."  ...or "wrong." ...or put in an unwanted position of having to actually "do" something!  Like Neville Chamberlain, they just want to believe that everyone really just wants "to get along."  Wanting and acknowledging the truth are often not co-existent.

I wonder if we will ever see our President or any world leader acknowledge, and identify the enemy instead of repeating over and over references to the "behind the lines tactics?"  I am starting to doubt it.  Even if they called the tactics of terror a form of gorilla warfare it would be an improvement, because it would make everyone consciously aware that we have avoided actually putting a name on, and thus identifying, the real enemy.

That would be the start of what perhaps could become victory.

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Is Change possible without admitting Error?

What a question..."Is change possible without admitting error!"  Is it an important question?

To define the discussion, let us assume that change made as a result of our own evaluation process is a change made by choice.  That is not strictly true, but space requires a condensing of the discussion. And let us also stipulate that change imposed by other people or outside events  are not "choice" driven.  With those boundaries in place, let us consider the question again.

There are two different kinds of changes we make in our lives;  First, we change to choose a better path or result; Second, we change to avoid a bad result that is contrary to our intention.  The first is an improvement and the second is an avoidance.  That is all well and good...but do we have to acknowledge that fact?  I would suggest that the change to improve the result often is not consciously acknowledged...unless it is in the business world.  If it is in the business world, that evaluation is often trumpeted as proof of ability to evaluate and succeed, so not only is it acknowledged, it is headlined to the public as well as in our own consciousness, and is not seen as labeling the initial direction as "wrong" but merely as an "interim" step in "doing the job right."

But...what if the change is imposed upon you by your superior at work?  Now the change is not your discovery or choice at all.  Yes, of course you will (it is your bosses command, after all) make the change and you will attempt to do your best to make it happen...but will your effort be the same 110% that you would have put in if it had been your discovery?  I would argue that it depends on whether you are able to admit that the first direction was in error, even if only by degree, acknowledge that fact, and commit to the new process or goal.  Otherwise, your effort will be something less than it could be.

So...when a change is imposed upon you it is logical that it will be less than optimally successful unless you can see that the original direction was in error.  Applied to the current discussion, "No, change is not possible without admitting error!"

What about our private life decisions and paths?  Those changes which we determine are appropriate...all by ourselves (or, at least not imposed by others) are likely to be successful. we acknowledge that the original path or choice was "wrong?"  No...I suggest that does not often happen.  But our subconscious mind does play games with us, doesn't it?  The "new" choice is better and the "old" one least in "no longer being optimum!"  Isn't that just a polite way of saying that the "old" choice is now seen as "wrong?"  I think the answer is, "Yes, we do acknowledge error in the original choice and once again optimize the change because we do see the improvement and accept responsibility for ourselves to make the change happen.

However, now the trick question: "Does this apply to politics and voting?"

I argue that not only does it apply, but that history proves that it applies.  Just looking at the current administration (one could make the same observations about each and every other one, with the same result) we can see that a choice of who to vote for had been made twice.  The first was by and large an acceptance of a promise for "Hope and Change" in which specifics were never provided; each of us imagined that the definitions of "Hope" and of "Change" by the candidate were the same as ours.  For many, that was clearly not so.  Yet at the next election, the result was the same.  And dialogues after the second election showed that most people were unable to admit that their expectations were in error.  The majority of voters were not able to come to terms with their own error in evaluating campaign promises and character, much less commit to any change.  Only now, after almost 7 years of facing the facts on a daily basis does it appear from polls that the majority of voters are beginning to admit "error" to any degree, no matter how small.

Many in our country prefer that our subconscious deal with admitting error and putting it in an acceptable format before bringing it to consciousness.  Perhaps all of us do!  Either way, I suggest that no change is ever possible or successful without admitting error in the preceding choice, and denial only slows the correction.