A Story From My Dad

Let me tell you about my Dad, the greatest man who ever lived. Bear with me because I’ll get to the point shortly.

In the midst of the Great Depression my Dad contracted a disease called osteomyelitis, a bacterial infection of the bone. Today if someone contracts the disease they can usually be treated with antibiotics, but in the 1930’s my Dad had to suffer through a process referred to as “debridement” which has a surgeon opening access to the infected bone where it can be scraped and flushed. He had bones debrided in his leg, his head, his face, his arms, his hip…you get the idea.

When he was eight years old my Dad was in bed for about a year fighting that disease and when he finally recovered his right hip was out of socket. It remained that way until he died at age 74, so his right leg was about four inches shorter than the left requiring a “lift” on all his right shoes.  During his life he had surgery at least 36 times and every step he took from the time he was eight years old until the day he died was painful. He still taught me to play baseball, to hunt and fish, multiplication tables, and how to curse at appropriate times (this was likely unintentional).

He was the toughest, and most gentle, human being I’ve ever known.

The other thing you need to know is that he worked. Hard. He worked in a plant that bottled milk, starting as custodian and machine operator and retiring after almost 40 years as plant superintendent although doctors had offered him disability twenty years earlier. He finally retired because he just couldn’t continue walking on the concrete floor ten hours per day, but even after retirement he went back to the plant on Saturday mornings to answer the phone and take orders because he loved working.

When I was young I remember him telling some of his buddies a story, and that story has influenced my attitudes and my life. One day he had some trucks that needed to be unloaded but he didn’t have enough crew to unload them. He drove up town to the courthouse where he knew unemployed guys hung out, and he offered to pay these guys to come help unload the trucks. They responded that they didn’t need to unload the trucks because their “government check” was due the next day.

So here you had my Dad who was in pain 66 of his 74 years (but who NEVER complained once) offering healthy young men work, but they didn’t want it. This anecdote has always made me question the impact excessive welfare has on society.

I absolutely favor using my taxes to help those who cannot help themselves.

  • People who are severely handicapped either physically or mentally are welcome to my tax dollars because I offer them willingly.
  • I’m more than willing to help fellow citizens who earn too little to pay for healthcare because I believe people should have that access regardless of their income.
  • And I understand the capitalist economy and know that at any given time there are some people who just cannot find jobs, and I want to help these folks through the rough stretches.
  • And I know that a very large number of American jobs pay so little that folks holding those jobs cannot support a family, so I’m more than happy to help them as well.
  • I’m also happy to provide free breakfasts and lunches to kids in schools just because some of those kids come from homes with too little food.

You get the idea. I’m more than willing to help my fellow Americans who need my help. I’m glad I am in a position to pay those taxes.

I’m less enthusiastic about supporting my fellow citizens who are capable of working but are unwilling to do so. People who are capable of working sometimes game the system and consequently give other Americans a negative impression of “welfare” programs.

To be clear, the number of folks abusing the system is almost certainly pretty low, but:

  • According to federal law, to receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients must either work, seek work, engage in job training, or volunteer between 20 and 35 hours per week. In 2013, the last year for which data are available, only about 1/3 of adults receiving TANF actually met these standards. In that year more than half of TANF recipients were completely idle.
  • There is fraud in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
  • Some fraud exists in the Medicare program.
  • Fraud is a problem with the Earned Income Tax Credit that gives larger tax refunds to those with lower incomes.

It is estimated that more than 10% of welfare payments either result from fraud or other improper welfare payments. That is more than $70 billion per year.

But I think there is more to this issue than dollars lost. It is time to re-think our notion of welfare and who is eligible to receive it. I’ve known people who were able to get disability benefits while simultaneously working for cash under the table. I’ve had people try to sell me their food stamps for cash. I’ve known couples who avoided marriage because it would impact benefit checks.

Some of our policies result in a culture of dependency. Thankfully this culture is not pervasive, but I believe it is corrosive.

Before my liberal friends start deleting me from Facebook and unsubscribing to my blog, read this from former President Obama:

“I think we should acknowledge that some welfare programs in the past were not well designed and in some cases did encourage dependency.… As somebody who worked in low-income neighborhoods, I’ve seen it where people weren’t encouraged to work, weren’t encouraged to upgrade their skills, were just getting a check, and over time their motivation started to diminish. And I think even if you’re progressive you’ve got to acknowledge that some of these things have not been well designed.”

Our social benevolence has actually created a culture of dependency and entitlement rather than one promoting self-reliance and independence. Everyone in a society should contribute to that society according to their ability and some of our policies make it possible to avoid doing so.

I wish people gaming the system had the chance to meet my Dad.

And don’t get me started on my Mom who retired at age 74 and at 89 still volunteers more hours than many Americans work.

Did Russia Interfere?

I’ve been writing this blog about a year and if you’ve been following along you know that I moderate all comments to be certain they are civil in nature. So far I’ve not rejected a single uncivil comment!

In recent months another good reason to moderate the comments has emerged; I get about ten spam comments each day generated by some computer program, and I’m really glad those don’t get posted automatically. Here is what’s interesting: In my unofficial estimate about 30% of these comments from non-subscribers are written in Russian, so somebody (or some bot) in Russia is trying to post comments to my blog.

This made me start paying closer attention to the accusation that Russia manipulated social media, especially Facebook and Twitter, in an attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election. As with many news stories these days I assumed this one was exaggerated by the media.

I don’t think it was.

Twitter has now admitted that upwards of 50,000 fake accounts were created by Russians to post automated content, and about 3,800 of those accounts were traced back directly to Russian state operatives. Tweets would, for example, attack Hillary Clinton’s performance during the debates. Some of these fake tweets were then re-tweeted by Trump campaign folks such as Kellyanne Conway and Donald Trump, Jr. who assumed they were legitimate.

Russians also created fake Facebook accounts that spread political propaganda, and they did so in such a way it appeared the post was being shared by real voters, especially in swing states that would determine the final outcome of the election. This political activity was verified by cybersecurity experts at George Washington University.

Here is one example:

 

Phttps://democrats-intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/6053177352305.pdf

Pretty subtle, huh?

Here is another post that received 13,000 Facebook “likes”:

Click to access stop_ai_burqa.pdf

Other fake Facebook posts did not specifically support a candidate but apparently were intended to further divide the American public.

Click to access blacktivist_oc_343308009345635.pdf

And yes, a few even attacked Donald Trump, again presumably attempting to divide the country.

Click to access 6056284937087.pdf

Click here to see a few other examples of fake posts traced to Russia.

In prepared testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last fall Facebook executives said that approximately 126 million American Facebook subscribers viewed Russian-generated content. Elliot Schrage, one of Facebook’s vice presidents, said “Most of the ads appear to focus on divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum, touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights,”

It appears that the Russian accounts were primarily supportive of Donald Trump’s bid for the Whitehouse but were also aimed at ultimately harming America’s already fractured society.

And using social media was not the only strategy employed by the Russians. As far back as October of 2016 the United States Intelligence Community accepted the conclusion that Russian operatives had hacked email accounts and stolen emails, later released by WikiLeaks and others, and that the theft was intended to influence and disrupt the American election. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded that it had “high confidence” that the hacked emails were shared with WikiLeaks and other organizations by Russia and that “Moscow will apply lessons learned from its campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts in the United States and worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes”.

On Monday of this week Mike Pompeo, President Trump’s CIA Director, said he believes Russia will again try to meddle in the 2018 midterm elections.

There is no way to determine whether Russia’s activities actually influenced the outcome of the 2016 election. As I’ve said before both presidential candidates in that election were deeply flawed. But likelihood of success should not matter. What should matter is that another nation is doing everything it can to influence our democratic processes.

Russia is America’s most dangerous enemy and our number one adversary on the world stage. It is possibly the number one threat to our security, so why is this issue seemingly on the back burner? Well, there is another Russian probe under way (I’ll write about it in another post) that has sort of diverted America’s attention, and I can also think of countless other issues that have led us to focus elsewhere. Examples: North Korea, accusations that President Trump paid a porn star to keep quiet about an affair, constant diversionary Tweets by our President, Charlottesville, moving the American embassy in Israel, DACA, the tax overhaul bill, hurricane damage to Puerto Rico, reports of the President’s disparaging comments regarding poor countries, the Paris climate accords, firing James Comey, firing Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Anthony Scaramucci, repealing Obamacare, Roy Moore, stalled infrastructure legislation, our President attacking his own appointees, the wall (not to be confused with Pink Floyd’s “The Wall”), attacks on the free press, the stock market, attacks on football players, controversy over President Trump’s frequent vacations and golf games (at his own resorts), attacks on our own intelligence community, repealing environmental policies, and much more.

It’s just hard to focus on our enemy’s attempt to control elections, but we should.

 

 

The Republican Party and Family Values

Every four years the two major parties publish their “platforms” which include all the issues, beliefs, and policy statements they will support through the next presidential election cycle. Here are all the bullet points from the current Republican platform which focuses on seventeen separate issues such as college costs, healthcare, safe neighborhoods, and combatting drug abuse.

At the very top of the Republican agenda the first two issues highlighted are:

You may click on these to see how the GOP specifically defines each, but what you will find is predictable if you know anything about the Republican Party. In recent decades that party has focused on “traditional” family values (one woman and one man), church, neighborhoods, God, and marriage. The current platform rejects the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Obergfell v Hodges guaranteeing same sex couples the right to marry and states a desire to reverse that decision. The platform also argues that businesses should be allowed to deny service to same sex couples if serving those couples violates the owners’ religious views.

The platform concludes that the decline of traditional values has led to a greater dependence on government because “families, schools, congregations, and neighborhoods” create “spaces where government should not intrude” and allow citizens to work together to solve their own problems “without government interference”.

Again, none of this is surprising to anyone familiar with the Republican platform in recent years. These views are consistent with contemporary “conservatism”.

Most Republicans today would call anyone “liberal” who believes government should ONLY interfere in people’s lives when individual actions might adversely affect others. This is the view that if my actions don’t harm anyone but myself I should be left alone, and that freedom would cover a host of activities from marriage to wearing seatbelts. If, for example, my marriage or relationship with someone doesn’t have a direct impact on you, it is none of your business. The truth is that those views are not liberal but are, in fact, libertarian (ultra conservative) and should on principle be shared by Republicans who argue for limited government. Remember that the current platform argues for less “government interference”?

In my opinion this is the major Republican Party inconsistency (and before you begin jumping to conclusions, remember that I absolutely am not a Democrat). The GOP doesn’t want government interfering in businesses, doesn’t want government providing healthcare, opposes many governmental efforts to protect our environment, and wants to limit individuals’ rights to sue doctors who engage in malpractice thus limiting the government’s role in resolving such disputes. Again, all of this is in the platform.

But the Republican Party DOES want the government involved in defining family and family values, and that definition would be one woman and one man with kids and a dog (preferably a Golden Retriever). The GOP’s platform offers valid data demonstrating that children raised by such a family are less likely to engage in questionable behavior, and it is true that children born out of wedlock are statistically more likely to live in poverty, use drugs and alcohol too early, and engage in criminal behavior. On those points I agree, but that’s only part of the story. It assumes that the only legitimate families are those involving two parents, a male and a female.

Same sex couples were given national marriage rights less than three years ago. That means those couples have been raising families in very small numbers, so there is no way to measure the success of such families raising children over time. Based on my own observations I would be willing to bet children raised by same sex couples will statistically be at least as healthy, happy, and  well-rounded as kids raised by “traditional” families. I know a good number of same sex couples who are wonderful parents and their children are lucky. I also know some “traditional” parents who should be nowhere near kids. I also assume that two loving and caring individuals of the same sex would be much better parents than the many dysfunctional “traditional” families children suffer through.

And I don’t disagree that children should ideally be raised by two parents (I cannot imagine walking that path alone!), but sometimes that just isn’t possible. Young men and women (or boys and girls) driven by hormones often have unprotected sex, committed couples may split up leaving only one full time parent, relationships may become abusive leading to divorce, and spouses sometimes die. Again, I know a good number of single parents who are raising or have raised very wonderful and successful kids. We should try to find ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies and then offer support rather than condemnation when it does happen or when children otherwise have only one parent.

It also seems that Republicans supporting traditional family values would oppose infidelity and divorce. However,  26% of Republicans have been divorced, only slightly fewer than the 29% of Democrats.

And what about infidelity? A couple of years ago Ashley Madison, a website that helps married people link up and have extramarital affairs, polled 105,000 of its members to determine who they were. In that poll 25.1% said they were “born again” Christian (only 1.4% claimed atheism). Again, this group would be mostly Republican. This is an unscientific poll and doesn’t necessarily reflect society, but the results are interesting nevertheless. And a 2009 poll found that 15% of Republicans admitted having at least one affair (again only slightly lower than the 19% of unfaithful Democrats).

It seems to me that a party truly supporting traditional family values would fight to pass laws banning divorce and would spurn those engaging in extramarital affairs, but the Republican Party:

  • Nominated and supported a Senatorial candidate from Alabama who was accused of stalking and molesting teenage girls (there was a great deal of evidence supporting those claims).
  • Continues to support the Missouri governor who admitted to an extramarital affair with his hairdresser.
  • Continued to support Newt Gingrich even after  he admitted having affairs on his first two wives.
  • Nominated and helped elect a serial philanderer who admitted cheating on his wives and bragged about grabbing women’s private parts and who is now accused by the very conservative Wall Street Journal of paying a porn star to remain silent about a sexual relationship (one that allegedly occurred after marrying his current wife).
  • And more.

Since 2000 3/4 of the political sex scandals involved Republicans.

And remember that I don’t like either major party and I believe it is time to throw them both out of office, but in my opinion the Republican Party’s hypocrisy on “family values” pretty much takes the proverbial cake. How can the party openly state that it supports traditional family values yet support its members who blatantly disregard those values?

Maybe it is time for the GOP to return to its truly conservative values and get government out of the private lives of American citizens. It is certainly time for that Party to stop claiming the moral high ground and once again begin focusing on the legitimate argument that government is too big.

Don’t worry. I’ll write about the Democratic Party’s problems sometime soon.

 

The Illusion of Security and Our Diverted Attention

My wife and I just returned from a week of vacation on a beach in Mexico. We travel as often as possible (well…as often as we can afford) because there are so many wonderful places yet to see and too few years in a lifetime to see them. Every time we tell friends that we are planning another trip someone (often several someones) will say “be careful, its a dangerous world out there”. Well…yeah, but getting behind the wheel of my truck is dangerous and I do so without thinking twice.

From the time we become self-aware we build a cocoon of invincibility around ourselves. Even when we see others die in automobile crashes, die from alcoholism, or die at the hands of a deranged 64-year old Las Vegas gambler, we convince ourselves that we, on the other hand, are secure. We aren’t. However, the things we tend to fear most are likely our least worries.

Here is my favorite example. About 84% of Americans consider terrorism a critical threat to our safety, and we become even more  focused on terrorism after attacks occur in France or other Western nations. I doubt most people know that in 2015 about 78% of deaths caused by terrorists resulted from attacks in Nigeria, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.  It is easy to forget about the rest of the world. If you take out the 9/11 attacks, only 0.5% of terrorist attacks occurred in ANY Western nation between 2000-2015. In a ranked index of 39 countries suffering serious terrorist attacks the United States comes in at…drum roll…#35!.

And only 20% of terrorist attacks in the West were carried out by Muslim extremists meaning about 80% were perpetuated by other extremist groups. You might be interested to know that between 2008 and 2016 right-wing extremist groups were responsible for almost twice the number of American terrorist attacks as were Muslim groups, and they were often more deadly.  And yes, there were also left-wing terrorist attacks perpetrated by ecoterrorists and animal rights groups, but these were much more infrequent. Yet the only terrorist attacks our President or other governing officials ever acknowledge is the Islamic variety. And they use that incomplete information to justify public policy decisions such as “enhanced vetting” of refugees, building border walls, or banning certain people from our country.

Interestingly, research by the libertarian (ultra conservative) Cato Institute concludes that the number of terrorist attacks from people coming from the seven countries on which President Drumpf originally imposed a travel band was a whopping…zero! Cato also concluded that there was almost no national security benefit to the ban.  In fact, we are 253 times more likely to be killed by someone other than a foreign-born terrorist.

This focus on Muslim terrorists is another good example of politicians misdirecting or diverting our attention, a topic about which I posted several weeks ago. They keep us from focusing on  things that really matter by throwing red-meat (though often insubstantial) issues our way.

So what are the threats to our secure lives about which we should be worried? What are the ways we are likely to pass on into the next world? Here are a few interesting odds:

  • Heart disease: 1 in 7
  • Cancer: 1 in 7
  • Influenza/pneumonia: 1 in 70
  • Motor Vehicle Accident: 1 in 113
  • Assault by Gun: 1 in 358
  • Complications from medical procedure or surgery: 1 in 1,523
  • Force of Nature: 1 in 3,122
  • Choking on Food: 1 in 3,409
  • Bicycling: 1 in 4,337
  • Fall From a Building: 1 in 6,115
  • Exposure to Excessive Natural Cold: 1 in 7,399
  • Airplane or Spaceship Accident: 1 in 9,738
  • Heat Wave: 1 in 10,785
  • Animal Attack: 1 in 30,167
  • Death by Foreign Born Terrorist: 1 in 45,808
  • Shark Attack: 1 in 8,000,000
  • Death by a refugee terrorist:  1 in 46,192,893
  • Death by illegal immigrant terrorist: 1 in 138, 324, 873

In other words there are lots of things more likely to kill us than terrorists. Does that mean we should let down our guard and not worry about terrorist attacks? Absolutely not! If we can minimize ANY cause of death we should do so. However, it also seems reasonable to focus on other causes and try to minimize those as well, especially since they are more likely to result in our death. And it is time for politicians to dial back the rhetoric and focus on issues that have a greater impact on our lives than does terrorism.

  • The likelihood of dying by heart disease and cancer can at least be reduced by changing our exercise, eating, smoking, and other habits. Governmental policies reducing pollution, limiting smoking in public places, and requiring truthful labeling of food content can also have an impact.
  • We could reduce the number of motor vehicle deaths by increasing funding for infrastructure improvements (highways, rail systems, airports, bus systems)
  • We can impose reasonable restrictions on gun sales that might reduce the statistical likelihood of dying by gun shot. ( I read interesting research recently that argues otherwise, by the way).
  • We could protect folks from heatwave death by providing cooling centers for those capable of leaving their homes and air conditioners for those who cannot.
  • We minimize the likelihood of dying in plane (or spaceship) crashes by imposing safety regulations.

You get the idea. There are ways to prevent many unnecessary deaths although the chances are pretty darn good that something will eventually get us. However, it is easier for politicians to direct our attention toward terrorists or other less important issues than it is for them to, you know, actually GOVERN!

 

The Tax Reduction Bill

By now you know that Congress passed The Tax Reform and Jobs Act reducing taxes on most Americans and corporations. The bill’s passage led to mass hysteria on both sides of the political aisle with the conservative Wall Street Journal  questioning the bill’s focus on tax breaks for the wealthy and The Federalist, an even more conservative publication, defending it. Forbes, another conservative publication, gave its 2017 “Lump of Coal Award” to the bill! And if conservatives are this conflicted about the law you can imagine the melodramatic Democratic response!

The truth is that  nobody can forecast the law’s ultimate outcome. I highly doubt it will be as great as the Republicans claim or as bad as the Democrats predict.  I obviously hope the new tax law is successful and that all Americans will benefit, but I’m not optimistic.

You probably know that the bill may add at least $1 trillion, possibly $1.5 trillion, to the national debt.  This from conservatives who are, at least in theory, against adding to the debt by running deficits. The reason they voted against their consciences is actually pretty simple; their donors threatened to stop future contributions if Congress didn’t reduce their taxes. At least that is the standard pattern in DC these days.

Since I cannot predict how this law will affect the economy over time I want to instead focus on “trickle down” or “supply side” economics, the theory used by Republicans to defend the law.

I have to admit that the two economics classes I took in college were the absolute worst and I learned less from them than from any other classes. However, grand economic theories such as the ones being used to support the tax bill don’t really require much academic understanding (although understanding the details certainly would). I’ll make this brief because I can already imagine your eyes glazing over and your mind wandering (much as mine did in two semesters of ECON classes).

As I said, the Republican tax reform is based on an economic theory referred to as “supply-side” economics which is closely related to “trickle down” economics (although there are subtle differences I’ll refer to them synonymously).

The argument is very simple; cut taxes on those earning the most (including corporations) and the tax savings will trickle down to those in the middle and lower classes. The wealthy will invest their tax savings in such a way that new products will be developed,  jobs for lower and middle classes will be created, and the economy will prosper, again leading to new jobs, higher wages, and better benefits for workers. So under this notion corporate taxes and capital gains taxes, those most often enjoyed by the wealthy, are reduced and tax credits are increased for investment. Importantly, this theory expects government to reduce regulations on business (this is either good or bad depending on one’s political leanings).

OK. Sorry. That was boring but I hope you will bear with me. I’ll try to get to the good part shortly. You can read much more about supply-side theories here.

By the way, the opposite of supply side economics is “demand side” or Keynesian economics and is based on the idea that the workers should have more money in their pockets to spur economic growth. Under this theory corporations and the wealthy are taxed at higher rates and those tax benefits are redistributed to those at lower economic levels.

I’ll only focus on trickle down theories since that is what we are currently facing. When liberals/Democrats eventually regain control I’ll probably wind up criticizing demand-side economics as well (assuming I live that long).

How does trickle-down economics work in the real world? As my friend and colleague the Economics Professor says, “it doesn’t”.

Those defending trickle-down theories often point to “Reaganomics”, President Reagan’s massive tax cuts and the coincidental economic turnaround. What they ignore, however, is the fact that President Reagan also increased government spending significantly (about 2.5% per year) which is actually a Keynesian or “demand side” policy, tripling the federal debt by increasing government spending. So we cannot really use Reaganomics as an indicator of success. And remember that George Bush called Reaganomics “voodoo” economics and said it was nonsense.

Example #2:

President George W. Bush reduced income taxes early in his presidency and the recession came to an end, but unemployment spiked as well. So the recession ended but more people became dependent on government programs. Research following these tax cuts found that only 17 cents of every dollar in income tax reduction and 50 cents of every corporate tax dollar reduced actually find their way back in to the economy. In other words very little of the amount individuals and corporations save via tax reduction actually does what supply siders say it will.

Another example?

In 2012 the State of Kansas drastically reduced taxes in an attempt to promote economic growth. This attempt at stimulating the economy via supply-side policies didn’t work. The State’s economy lagged behind the economies of other states, growth didn’t occur, and tax revenues dropped to the point that the Republican legislature actually reversed the policy and raised taxes.

Well…

There are few foreign examples of what my have been successful trickle-down policies, but those almost always occurred in countries with dismal economic conditions unlike anything comparable to the US. And those policies were much different than those passed by Congress.

Numerous academic studies  also conclude that trickle down policies rarely work. They conclude that those who benefit most from the policies (the wealthy) shelter the saved money in tax havens, the tax breaks are almost never offset by improved economies, and corporate tax cuts favor shareholders and CEOs rather than workers. The U.S. Treasury Department does conclude that a tax reduction almost always provides a temporary boost to the economy IF the economy is weak (and ours isn’t) but long term boosts are rare.

Finally,  trickle down policies lead to increased  income inequality, and increased inequality has a number of consequences other than, you know, inequality! Most important is the fact that if wealth becomes increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few (the 1%) the economy will stagnate because those of us in the working and middle classes have less to spend on stuff we need and want, and spending is what stimulates the economy.

OK. That’s enough. I’ve gone WAY above the level of my college ECON courses.

The bottom line is that the economic theory used to justify the tax reduction law is flawed. In all likelihood the economy will get a short term boost that will not be sustained, over the next ten years the rich will become richer, and the gap between America’s rich and poor will grow. None of these outcomes are good for America.

Again, I obviously hope I’m wrong. To hope otherwise would be unpatriotic.

 

 

 

I’m Perpetually Confused

\

Here is a partial list of things that I’ll never understand:

  • How any human being can consciously drive into a crowd of other human beings, set a bomb, or fire a weapon with the intent to kill or maim innocent people. I’ll never understand how anyone can celebrate another person’s violent death.
  • Why discussing political issues with civility and respect is so difficult. A good many people find it impossible. Just read comments on news websites.
  • Why people think they are getting accurate information from sources such as Al Sharpton, Rush Limbaugh, George Soros, and the Koch brothers. These people have an agenda. More reliable conservative and liberal political commentators are available.
  • Physics (and most hard sciences).
  • How Kim Jung Un, who was educated in Switzerland, can be such a megalomaniac.
  • How anyone can continue supporting or defending President Trump but cannot offer reasons for doing so.
  • Why a college football coach is the highest paid state employee in most states. Their salaries are as high an $9 million per year. I love sports but this is absurd. I’d prefer making police officers, social workers, and teachers the highest paid state employees.
  • Why there are people who remain unconcerned about climate change although scientists overwhelmingly agree that it is real and that human behavior is largely responsible.
  • Why we think it is OK for Americans to pay more for medications than Canadians and people living in other countries.
  • How Congress can have an approval rating as low as 12% but continue passing unpopular legislation and refusing to find ways to overcome partisan squabbling.

Here are confusing things that take more space:

  • How politics can endanger programs such as the Children Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Because of partisan politics federal funding for CHIP ran out back in September and states are beginning to run out of money to support the program. EVEN THOUGH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS HISTORICALLY SUPPORT THE PROGRAM! In 2016 CHIP provided medical care to 8.9 million children whose parents could not afford health insurance. Yes, it is highly likely that children will go without healthcare unnecessarily because of Congressional partisan politics. The issue? Members of both parties want to extend CHIP funding until 2022 but can’t agree on how to pay for it. Just fund it!!
  • How conservative Christians can blame liberals for society’s decline when  80% of evangelicals supported a presidential candidate who was on his third wife, had bragged about cheating on the first two, bragged about molesting women, and more? I know he ran against Hillary Clinton, a flawed Democratic candidate, in the final election, but most evangelicals also supported him during the primaries against legitimate conservative candidates (one of whom I supported). How can they explain the fact that Alabama evangelicals  still supported Roy Moore for the vacant U.S. Senate position when evidence overwhelmingly indicates he molested or tried to molest young women when he was in his 30s and a county prosecutor? Exit polling indicated that 80% of white voters identifying themselves as “born again” or “evangelical” voted for Moore. I’m pretty certain their reaction would have been different if Roy Moore and Donald Trump had been Democrats. 

This is a short list but I need to go make a living. Feel free to use the “comment” section to add to the list.

An Unstable Leader

I’ve made my views regarding our current president abundantly clear in two previous  posts.  I asked readers to defend President Trump but nobody was willing to do so although some said they supported him. My previous posts expressed concern over his hypocrisy, flip-flopping on policies, boorish/sexist/racist behavior, possibly unethical and illegal behavior, racism, and essential disdain for American citizens. Now I’m concerned that he is a real danger to our country and to the world.

And I’m not alone. The top editorial in Thursday morning’s New York Daily News was entitled “Donald Trump is a Madman: The President’s Wednesday Twitter spasms confirm what many Americans have long suspected“. The editorial continued: “After his latest spasm of deranged tweets, only those completely under his spell can deny what growing numbers of Americans have long suspected: The President of the United States is profoundly unstable. He is mad. He is, by any honest layman’s definition, mentally unwell and viciously lashing out”.

FYI: The New York Daily news endorsed Mitt Romney (Republican) over Barack Obama (Democrat) in 2008.

Unless you were tuned out on Wednesday you know that President Trump retweeted three anti-Muslim videos (at least one of which has already been debunked) that had been produced by a British alt-right group. It would be similar to a leader of another country re-tweeting videos produced by America’s KKK. Trump’s tweet was racist and was praised by white supremacist David Duke.

When his press secretary was asked about the tweets she said it didn’t matter whether the videos were genuine. And when the leader of our staunchest ally, British Prime Minister Teresa May, rebuked President Trump for the tweets he essentially told her to mind her own business.

Thankfully he stopped there. Right?

When challenged over the videos President Trump resorted to his usual tactic: deflection. He tried to change the focus to someone else by tweeting “And will they terminate low ratings Joe Scarborough based on the ‘unsolved mystery’ that took place in Florida years ago? Investigate!”. This tweet refers to the death of an intern in Scarborough’s Florida office when he was a member of Congress. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, Trump was accusing Scarborough of murder. The death was thoroughly investigated and the coroner determined the intern had been physically ill and fell, hitting her head and ultimately dying. But again, facts don’t matter to our post-truth president.

And, by the way, ratings for Scarborough’s show, “The Morning Joe”, spiked a few months ago when Trump started a Twitter storm about the show because it criticizes him daily. I’m sure Scarborough appreciates the President’s attention. And, by the way, the Morning Joe’s ratings actually reached an all-time high last month. Facts are so bothersome.

More evidence of our President’s instability?

  • At an event honoring the W W II Navajo code talkers earlier this week President Trump referred to Elizabeth Warren as Pocahontas. Yes. This is also a racist remark that insulted Native Americans.
  • Trump ridiculed Senator Al Franken and Matt Lauer for their inappropriate sexual behavior while excusing Alabama Senatorial candidate Roy Moore. This from a man who admitted being unfaithful to his wives. And this from a man who was recorded bragging about grabbing women’s private parts and forcefully kissing them. And this from a man accused of groping, assaulting, sexually harassing, or otherwise mistreating a rather long list of women. Many of these incidents were corroborated by witnesses. His first wife was one accuser. Another accused him of raping her when she was thirteen years old. But he feels comfortable commenting on the inappropriate behavior of others?
  • Our government will shut down next Friday, December 8 unless Congress can pass an appropriations bill that the President can sign. The smart thing to do is for the President to meet with Congressional leaders to plan a course of action, and that is precisely what was scheduled on November 28. However, earlier that morning the President tweeted a deflecting criticism of the Democratic leaders concluding that “I don’t see a deal”. He was sabotaging the discussions before they happened. And when Democratic leaders chose to skip the meeting because of the tweet he pulled a Clint Eastwood moment by leaving their chairs and name cards as props for media opportunities. And then he and Republican leaders said a shutdown will be the fault of Democrats. Nope. The unnecessary tweet and Republicans’ inability to accomplish anything even with control of Congress and the White House will be to blame.
  • Remember President Trump’s terribly inappropriate speech to the Boy Scouts earlier this year in which he bragged about the size of the crowd (they were Boy Scouts there for a jamboree, so a captive audience), called Washington a cesspool, threatened to fire a Cabinet member, and discussed his yacht and real estate dealings? To Boy Scouts?

If you pay attention at all to the news you know I’m just scratching the surface of President Trump’s erratic behavior.

We were warned. In 2016, for example, retired four-star Admiral John B. Nathman said of Trump: “What is required is not just the recognition of Trump’s lack of temperament to serve, but I would add it also takes personal courage to say it out loud.” Nathman continued by stating that “…his unstable temperament and ignorance make it clear he cannot serve as president.”

A recent Fox News poll found that 60% of Americans believe President Trump is unstable. Only 33% (his solid base) disagree. I’m optimistic that at least most Americans can see the obvious problem.

Our President’s stability matters as Congress is unable to pass major legislation, North Korea is becoming a nuclear power, Russia keeps trying to influence American politics, our State Department is constantly undermined and unable to engage in diplomacy, support for Puerto Rico remains woefully inadequate, and countless other world issues go unaddressed.

We need a leader with a real plan rather than one who, in his book The Art of the Deal, said : “Most people are surprised by the way I work. I play it very loose. I try not to schedule too many meetings… I prefer to come to work each day and just see what develops.” He doesn’t believe in planning. That may work when you are building casinos or hotels, but it doesn’t work when running the country.

And he also said “I play to people’s fantasies,” …”people may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That’s why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular.”

We need a president who uses less hyperbole and who resides more in the real world.

I expect to lose readers over this post but my offer to submit opposing views still stands. I will gladly publish any comments based on facts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Consequences of Incivility

Back when I was a kid and we travelled in horse-drawn carriages our parents never hesitated to wash out our mouths with soap if we used crude language or said things that were otherwise inappropriate. I was always glad when Mom reached for the Ivory rather than Zest because Zest left a really bad aftertaste.  We learned quickly to not use such language, or at least to be careful of the company in which it was used.

I often long for those days (the civility, not the soap). To be clear, I use off color language on occasion when I’m alone and (for example) running a chainsaw, watching college football with my wife, or in the company of my very closest friends. I try very hard to not use language that others might find offensive in public or on social media. There are certain words I NEVER use in public because my Mom and my Dad (who could use salty language with the best) taught me better.

So you can imagine how I cringe when I read comments on Facebook or on news websites. It is like some people are willing to grab a megaphone and shout obscenities from the highest mountain top and they could care less who is reading those comments. To be honest I’ve removed as many people from my Facebook news feed for dropping the F-bomb as I have for obnoxious political posts. And I often overhear such language in restaurants or walking down the street.

I know I sound prudish but those who know me well know better. I’m just offended by public displays of crudity. Have these people no shame or sense of propriety? Did their moms not know how to effectively use a bar of soap? It seems that good behavior and manners are no longer important to a portion of our population.

My unscientific observations have been validated by studies of workplace behavior. In a poll lasting fourteen years researchers found that 98% of America workers had experienced uncivil behavior in their workplace and the study found that incidents of incivility essentially doubled in ten years.

2013 survey found that 70% of Americans believed incivility had reached crisis levels. Respondents stated that they experienced incivility, on average, 2.4 times per day. Further, 81% of the respondents believed increased violence was a consequence of incivility. Interestingly, more than 90% of each generation (millennials, Gen Xers, boomers, etc.) believed there was a civility problem in our country.

Of course this incivility has increasingly worked its way in to American politics. And yes, I know American politics has always been nasty, but the 24-hour  media outlets and social media exacerbate the problem. We hear every crude or outlandish comment immediately and repeatedly until the next news cycle pushes it aside only to replace it with more of the same.

And the troubling thing is that we as a society seem to accept it. Even worse, we excuse it. In my mind that leads to excusing all sorts of other unacceptable behaviors. In fact it is almost as if no behavior is forbidden, no language or behavior is condemned. And what’s strange is that quite often those whom one would expect to most loudly condemn such language and behavior are precisely the ones excusing it. And yes, I’m referring to those who continue to excuse the totally unacceptable crude behavior of President Trump, Roy Moore, Bill Clinton, Kathy Griffin, Al Franken, and others. If you excuse any of these people you are part of the problem. Psychologist Jim Taylor said it best: “…the loss of civility is a step toward anarchy, where anything goes; you can say or do anything, regardless of the consequences”.

Here are a few behaviors I consider uncivil: bullying (including internet bullying), cutting in line, road rage, humiliation, overt racism or sexism or any other “ism”, intimidation, disrespect, rudeness, belittling, lying, gross sarcasm, exaggerating, using crude language in public, inappropriate tweeting.

And the consequences of incivility are tangible.

  • As many as 25% of parents have changed a child’s school because of uncivil behavior.
  • Incivility in the workplace leads to lower productivity, lower job satisfaction, and employee burnout. There is also evidence that uncivil behavior is often returned in kind, leading to a downward spiral. Rudeness leads to other rudeness which eventually destroys the work environment.
  • An unhappier home life. Research indicates that when people work in an environment of incivility they often bring that anger home.
  • Incivility can devolve into violence. According to the Department of Labor there are 1.8 million incidents of violent behavior in the American workplace each year, for example. And there’s no way to count the number of violent incidents resulting from road rage or other uncivil behavior.

If you want to read the depressing truth about the prevalence of American incivility you might want to read through this recent survey on the topic.

So what do we do about it? As I’ve said many times previously, stop excusing uncivil behavior.  About 75% of Americans believe politicians are the main drivers of unacceptable behavior, and I agree. We should expect our leaders to display respectful behavior.

About 69% of Americans believe social media promotes incivility, so block people who use crude language or who belittle or bully others. I no longer follow some people of all political stripes because of their obnoxious use of social media. The same is true of news media outlets; don’t read the comments where internet trolls spend their days trying to start fights.

Finally, kindness and civility begin with the individual. I know students on my campus get tired of it, but I never meet anyone on the sidewalk or in the hallway without speaking to them and giving them a smile.

AND:

I used a quote by Jim Taylor earlier. Here is the rest of that passage: “Civility is about something far more important than how people comport themselves with others. Rather, civility is an expression of a fundamental understanding and respect for the laws, rules, and norms (written and implicit) that guide its citizens in understanding what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. For a society to function, people must be willing to accept those strictures.”

I hope we can regain that respect and willingness.

 

 

 

 

 

Should we Just Accept Hypocrisy?

We are all hypocrites to one degree or other. I know, for example, that I preach objectivity and open-mindedness but there are some issues on which my views are pretty well established and almost unchangeable. I also follow a pretty healthy lifestyle in  general but will sometimes eat or drink things I know I shouldn’t. I think we all are guilty of similar hypocrisy.

What I want to discuss is blatant, over-the-top hypocrisy that has apparently become part of our daily political and social discourse. It’s almost as if the truth and honesty have become secondary. Examples are numerous.

  • “Insider trading” occurs when someone trades stock based on information unavailable to the general public. It has been illegal for Americans to engage in insider trading since 1934 when laws were passed after the stock market crash. Guess what?  The laws did not apply to members of Congress and members of both parties apparently benefitted from inside information  prior to the 2008 stock market mini-crash. A 60 MInutes report in 2012 found Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and Republican leader John Boehner among the offenders and The Wall Street Journal identified 72 members of Congress who benefitted. After the activity was exposed Congress passed a law restricting insider trading by members of Congress and their staff. Great! Except Congress later repealed important parts of the law by “unanimous consent” on a Friday afternoon after most members were gone for the week. Yep…that is hypocritical. You may remember that Martha Stewart went to prison for insider trading.
  • While addressing a United Steel Workers event in 2010 Nancy Pelosi (House Democratic Minority Leader) said “We’re talking about addressing the disparity in our country of income, where the wealthy people continue to get wealthier. That disparity is not just about wages alone. That disparity is about ownership and equity. It’s all about fairness in our country.” Finally, a political leader doing everything she can to fight the broad gap in wealth disparity! Except that Pelosi’s 2015 income disclosure places her in the top .0001 of Americans (yes, that is the top 1/10 of the top 1%). She lives in a multi-million dollar townhouse in DC, owns several other properties, owns a vineyard in Napa Valley, and more.
  • Of course President Trump’s hypocrisy is also well known. On three occasions he tweeted criticism of Barak Obama for golfing, yet in his first 30 days in office he played golf six times for a total of 26 hours on the course. In 2013 Trump tweeted that it was “unbelievable” that taxpayers were funding Obama’s vacations, yet his three trips to Mar-a-Lago in less than a month cost taxpayers $10 million (not to mention the amount spent sending his son and others on “trade missions” to cool locations). In 2012 he tweeted that “the electoral college is a disaster for democracy” but after winning the electoral college while losing the popular vote he tweeted that “The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play. Campaigning is much different!”.  I could write a hundred posts about President Trump’s hypocrisy, but I’ve previously let readers know how I feel about him as a president and human being so I’ll let it go.
  • In 2008 Barak Obama accused President Bush of being “a president who only saw the people from the window of an airplane, instead of down here on the ground trying to provide comfort and aid” because after hurricane Katrina Bush flew over damaged areas rather than landing and visiting New Orleans. Then last year when Baton Rouge and other areas were suffering from historic flooding and damage Obama remained on Martha’s Vineyard watching fireworks and playing golf.
  • OK. One more from President Trump. He has repeatedly criticized federal judges who ruled against his decisions. He called one a “so-called” judge, disparaged another for his Hispanic name and heritage, and said judges would be to blame if terrorists attack us again. Even Neil Gorsuch, president Trump’s Supreme Court appointee, responded that “When anyone criticizes the honesty, integrity, the motives of a federal judge, I find that disheartening, I find that demoralizing, because I know the truth.” If President Trump finds judges inadequate we could expect him to appoint exceptionally qualified judges when these vacancies occur. Right? Well…he has now nominated  36 year old Brett Talley, an Alabama attorney who has never actually tried a case in court, to fill a vacancy in that state. The American Bar Association rated Talley  “not qualified”.  Remember that these are lifetime appointments.
  • Thankfully we can trust our religious and spiritual leaders to be morally and ethically consistent. But wait! In 2001 Rev. Jesse Jackson admitted to fathering a child out of wedlock and just last week was accused of recent sexual harassment. And remember when Rev. Ted Haggard, the fundamentalist minister who preached against homosexuality, admitted having sexual relations with a younger man? Or when Rev. Jimmy Swaggart was caught with a prostitute after accusing other ministers of sexual indiscretion? Or that miracle healer Peter Popoff, who knew intimate details about members of his audience because he was in touch with God, was actually getting that information via a receiver in his ear (his wife was telling him what to say). Remember Jim Bakker?

I could continue offering examples of such blatant hypocrisy using political, spiritual, and social leaders, but I feel certain you understand. The question is how do we respond to such hypocrisy?

Cambridge University historian and politics professor David Runciman  concludes that we should accept the fact that anyone we elect to office is a hypocrite. Politics cannot ever be completely sincere because those running for office have an agenda (to be elected) and will bend the truth and offer insincere ideas to garner votes. And we know they are not telling us the truth because their claims are so unbelievable. Runciman also considers lying a form of hypocrisy. He concludes that we just have to decide which hypocrite/liar we will elect because they are all hypocrites and liars. Our challenge, he says, is to distinguish between harmful and harmless hypocritical statements. His take on last year’s presidential election is quite interesting.

If we accept Runciman’s arguments we must do the same with all our leaders; decide which are the most harmful and which harmless. This notion flies in the face of my generally optimistic nature, but I’m not sure I can argue against it these days. Can you convince me otherwise?

Too Much Stuff Going on in My Head

There are just too many things going on in the world (and in my life) for me to focus on only one topic right now, so here are a few random observations.

  • In an earlier post I offered my views regarding gun control and the 2nd Amendment. The killings at the Baptist Church in Texas over the weekend were the 307th “mass shooting” (four or more shot at one time) in the United States this year. As of November 6, 2017, 13,203 Americans have been killed in gun incidents and 27,045 have been injured just this year. By comparison, even one of the most conservative anti-Islam websites could find only 19 Americans killed by “radical Muslim extremists” thus far in 2017. Still, Americans’ fear of terrorism is our second greatest concern (second only to corrupt government officials). So our chance of being killed by terrorists is almost zero while the liklihood of being killed by a fellow citizen with a gun in 2017 is almost 700 times greater, but we focus on terrorism rather than easy access to guns. Makes sense.
  • F. Scott Fitzgerald once said that “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time”. It appears a large number of my fellow citizens do not satisfy this definition. In personal conversations I’ve had recently and in comments I’ve seen in the media, when the issue of Russia’s involvement in our elections and the possible collusion of Trump campaign officials is raised, one response is “well what about Hillary Clinton and the Uranium One deal in Russia”. These are not related events. One does not justify the other. If Clinton is guilty she (and any others involved) should be prosecuted. The same is true for any guilty Trump officials. I’ve actually had Americans tell me they don’t care if Russia impacted our presidential election. Yes…that is frightening.
  • The “me too” campaign has really shed light on sexual assault and harassment, and I’ve been bothered a great deal by the number of friends and family who typed “me too” as their Facebook statuses. By 2017 one would hope we were beyond the “boys will be boys” (or “men will be men”) excuse, but it appears some men still believe their authority and power give them the authority to grab, grope, demand sex, or otherwise assault women (or other men). And, by the way, I’ve also wanted to put “me too” in my own status but I didn’t want to explain and I also thought it might somehow cheapen women’s experiences.
  • A month ago the Las Vegas shooter killed about 60 and injured another 500 using a “bump stock” which allowed him to fire a lot of rounds in a short period of time. You have probably heard that the sales of “bump stocks” soared after the Las Vegas shooting. The manufacturer stopped selling them and Congress said it would begin hearings on the devices (a month later still no hearings and most gun dealers sold out). Now the manufacturer decided to release more bump stocks onto the market again. Yet another example of profits taking precedence over lives.
  • I’ve previously discussed America’s low opinion of President Trump. As it turns out Americans have a pretty low opinion of the Democratic and Republican parties as well. Support for the Democratic Party is at a twenty-five year low , with only 37% of Americans viewing that party favorably and 54% viewing it unfavorably. Only about 30% of Americans view the Republican Party favorably and 60% view it unfavorably. What America needs is a third party that offers common sense, non-ideological solutions to problems like unemployment, declining infrastructure, the drug crisis, the debt, and other similar problems.
  • Last week I was in Denver for a conference. It is a beautiful city with lots of great things going for it. However, I was struck by the number of homeless people on the city’s streets. I had the opportunity to interact with several of these folks and it became obvious that most of them were suffering from a serious mental illness. Earlier this year Scientific American reported that America’s mental health has declined in the last twenty years. Suicide rates are higher, opioid use has skyrocketed, and more Americans have been declared disabled because of mental illness. I don’t have a solution but I do know that I saw a bunch of folks in Denver (and see others here in Columbia) who do not have much of a life because of a mental illness.
  • OK. We need something happier. I’ve often said that most people are genuinely good, caring, loving, and kind and the number of jerks is very small. That sentiment was proven once again in Denver where I met fellow conferees, baristas (lots of those), people in restaurants, people on planes and trains, and people in airports. Everywhere I go I find very good people and find that they are the overwhelming majority.

That’s all I have for now. I do appreciate you reading!