The March? -Fog of Vague Purposes

Remember “Occupy Wall Street?” More currently, “Black Lives Matter?”  And the latest example, “Women’s March?”  They have this much in common:

  • Loose Organization
  • Diverse Membership
  • Aggregate Complaints
  • Unfocused Intentions
  • Non-Specific Proposals
  • Outdoor Meetings
  • Catchy Names

“Occupy Wall Street” was pretty much just news items about their encampment.  “Black Lives Matter” fails to note that Federal statistics show that 80-90% of murdered “black lives that matter” are victims of black killers.  Half of all murder victims, nationally, are black; blacks are less than 15% of the population.  Where is that protest and call to action?

In the context of this protest, do they mean “Black, Mexican, Muslim, LGBTQ, Women’s Lives Matter?”  Or do they mean “Black, Young, Men’s Lives Matter,” but this just happens to be a women’s march?  Just what do they mean?

It seems that the “Women’s March” was all about disappointment, fear, and frustration transformed into pink anger.  Disappointment that Hillary did not win, fear that women’s rights will be undermined, and frustration that women do not receive equal pay.

Trump became the effigy to blame for everything.

Misogyny:  How many participants, do you think, could cite specific instances when President Trump recently disrespected women who were not attacking him?  Where is the acknowledgement of the nonchalant treatment of wives and women by iconic presidents such as JFK, and Bill Clinton?

If the marchers are promoting equality for women, his business organizations reflect great respect for women by hiring them, promoting them into management and paying them well; sounds like equality to me.  Why not ask women who work for the Trump organization how they feel about their misogynist boss?

Immigration:  First, Trump got trapped in the “Newspeak” of the way we use “immigrant.”  Many foreign nationals, from many countries, apply for visas, “green cards,” and citizenship every year.  Those who gain permanent residence or citizenship can rightly be called immigrants.  A great number of Americans are immigrants or children of immigrants.

The proponents of unlimited immigration and aligned journalists fought to not use the legal term “alien.”  They insisted on substituting “______-immigrant” until it became commonplace.  The problem is that non-hyphenated, legal immigrants heard these “_______-immigrants” being criticized and threatened, and felt included in that group; they took personally the anger, fear, and distain.

By verbally lumping the “_______-immigrants” together with immigrant citizens, they built support for their open-borders philosophy.  If we had stuck with “aliens,” and “foreign nationals,” the citizens would not have felt combined with them.

Exactly, what did he say about Mexicans?  Not just the clips, the whole statements. He said that among the illegal migrants were, drug smugglers, human traffickers, fugitive criminals, including murders, and rapists.  Is that true?  Yes.  Trump’s opponents extracted this description and implied that he meant ALL Mexicans fit these profiles.

Muslims:  Trump wants to limit and vet prospective refugees entering the US from Islamist countries tied to terrorism.  He wants Muslim communities to help identify and thwart jihadist terrorists.

Women who live in Muslim countries might not be sympathetic with the complaints of the marchers; certainly, they would or could not march on their capitals protesting.  Why not ask Muslim-American women what they would face if they went home to Arabia and Africa?  What would you face going there as a Christian?  Count your blessings that you live here in America.

There are no government proposals or actions right now that threaten women; he just took office Friday.  All the rhetoric is about what could happen; what rights they fear might be lost; what affronts they fear they may face.  Fear is a factor, but not fact

The one thing that stands out to me is concern about reversing Roe v. Wade.  I understand opposition to abortion challenges.  I support safe, informed, reasoned choice for every woman.  So, focus on defending that right or you risk people writing you off as generally disappointed with the election results, and righteously irritated at the challenges of being a woman.

The last point is this:  What do you propose, aside from replacing Donald Trump?  Many commentators have shrugged their shoulders about the purposes of the march because the marchers are not clear about what they are championing.  It was a shame that all the time, money, effort, and commitment it took to get people on the streets ended in a fog of vague purposes.

Advertisements

Donald Trump–The Matryoshka Candidate?

Matryoshka

I am amazed at the number, scope, and continuous flow of speculations about Donald Trump, as president-elect.  Now we have an American, billionaire, capitalist, accused of being a Russian sympathizer, and even a collaborator with Russia’s Putin to win the election.  Does that sound like the Russian version of “The Manchurian Candidate” to you?  (FYI:  a Matryoshka (ma-trosh-ka) is a hollow, Russian, nested, wooden doll with smaller and smaller dolls inside.)  I guess there are no limits on imagination, enmity, paranoia, malice, and disappointment.

Those who oppose Donald Trump, and those who are left bitter, dazed, angry, and confused by his election as President do not need to be rational in their relentless attacks on anything Trump.  Those accusing him of being soft on Russia, a Putin sycophant, and naïve about our enemies might take a minute to reflect on how silly that sounds.

Is it soft to sell some rich Russians overpriced condos and land in the US?  Is it sycophantic to use Putin to criticize political opponents as being weak?  Is it naïve to get the Russians to pay premium prices to have the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow?  Do I hear a no?

Until now, Mr. Trump’s interest in Russia has been limited to money, i.e. making money, not losing it, and not giving it away.  All his dealings with Russians have been real estate in the US, or visiting Moscow for a US-based beauty pageant.  Trump has never met Putin face-to-face, or made any deals with him.  Putin even cancelled a scheduled meeting with Trump during the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow.  Does that sound like love to you?  I believe Trump could continue to make money from Russians without being President, and without being friends with Putin; therefore, I do not think there is a sinister link. What else would he have to gain?

Some cite the friendly, respectful tone of comments and letters between the men.  A friendly demeanor is not the same as friendship; sometimes negotiations can benefit from pleasant diplomacy.

Others suggest that Putin sees Trump as weaker than Clinton.  Do we have some evidence that Trump is as passive as Obama has been in foreign matters, such as Crimea and Syria?  Or maybe evidence that Putin is afraid of Hillary after meeting her as Secretary of State?

Let us see what happens after January 20th.

Who Examines Presidents? – Whoever They Choose

 

Americans deserve and need to know the health of our President, and our Vice-President; but we do not.

That is right:  There is no impartial national medical team for our country’s top executives, or those who seek those positions.  Each president and vice-president picks their own doctors, and decides what medical information they disclose.  In fact, several presidents have withheld and even falsified their health conditions to the public.  Kind of scary to not know the health of the most powerful politician in the world.  And, a heartbeat away, it also makes knowing the health of the Vice-President more than a casual concern.

The 25th amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides emergency options, should the president be incapacitated.  It lays out protocols for the vice president to take over, temporarily, when the president is stricken.  Why rely on such extraordinary measures when we can anticipate, and avoid problems by knowing the health of our president?  We have the technology.

In a 1993 edition of The Journal of the American Medical Association, former President Jimmy Carter advocated “the creation of a ‘nonpartisan group’ of physicians to help decide when a president’s illness affects his judgment.”   Apparently, doctors of previous presidents said presidential disability was a terrible problem.

Examples of hidden conditions:

Ronald Reagan

Reagan fought hard to dispel any rumors about his ill health, even after surviving an assassination attempt and colon cancer.  Some historians speculate the 40th president suffered from dementia  while he was in office.  He was publicly diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease before his death in 2004.

John F. Kennedy

John F. Kennedy presented the image of youthful vigor, but was in chronic pain due to back troubles from a World War II injury and constantly fatigued from Addison’s Disease (a chronic insufficiency of the adrenal glands).

Franklin D. Roosevelt

FDR hid the severity of his polio until after his death in 1945. Roosevelt was barely able to stand as he governed through World War II.

Woodrow Wilson

Wilson concealed the fact that he had three minor strokes leading up to his run for the presidency.  During his second term, Wilson suffered a massive stroke that left him paralyzed and blinded on the left side of his body.  He couldn’t have a cabinet meeting for nine months.

His vice president, Thomas Marshall, refused to take over; Wilson could only manage his presidential duties with the help of his wife, Edith, who decided which issues deserved the president’s attention.

In this case voters were denied knowledge of conditions that seriously limited Wilson’s ability to govern.

William Henry Harrison

The 9th president of the United States died in his first month in office of “bilious pleurisy” which appeared as “inflamed lungs,” an “engorged liver,” and a “delirious mental state.”

We want to know that our top leaders are healthy enough to perform their vital roles.  As we approach the 2016 election, Americans are concerned that we have no reliable way to learn about the physical and mental health of the presidential candidates, and their running mates.  Right now, with no other mechanism in place, only the candidates can relieve our concerns.

Warnings in the News

Warnings in the News

The Great Recession has lasted so long that people do not remember inflation.  But, three recent statements, one from the meeting of the world’s central bankers, and two from the G20 Summit in China, ring the alarm bells warning us that inflation is on the way:

August 28, 2016 – JACKSON HOLE, Wyo. (Reuters) – Central bankers in charge of the vast bulk of the world’s economy delved deep into the weeds of money markets and interest rates over a three-day conference here, and emerged with a common plea to their colleagues in the rest of government: please help.

 In a lunch address by Princeton University economist Christopher Sims, policymakers were told that it may take a massive program, large enough even to shock taxpayers into a different, inflationary view of the future.

“Fiscal expansion can replace ineffective monetary policy at the zero lower bound,” Sims said. “It requires deficits aimed at, and conditioned on, generating inflation. The deficits must be seen as financed by future inflation, not future taxes or spending cuts.”

Translation:  We are going to spend our way to prosperity with inflation.

 September 4, 2016: U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed that both countries would “refrain from competitive devaluations and not target exchange rates for competitive purposes. at the G20 Summit held at the Hangzhou International Expo Center.

Translation:  We are going to lower the value of our currencies through inflation.

September 6, 2016: Leaders of the Group of 20 economies meeting at the Hangzhou International Expo Center pledged to use spending to improve infrastructure and the global economy.

Translation:  We are going to spend our way to prosperity with inflation.

In plain language, global economies are weak and weakening.  Governments can no longer stimulate their economies with lower interest rates, because they at or near zero.  They cannot afford to raise interest rates for fear of pushing us back into recession.  What can they do?

Inflation.  They are going to make money out of thin air and spend it to mollify their people.  At the same time, we will wiggle out of our mounting debts & Social Security obligations because inflation will let us pay in cheaper and cheaper dollars.

How will they do that?  Borrow money from themselves and spend it under the guise of “rebuilding infrastructure,” “investing in our future,” and “making America great again.”  So what if prices go up a year from now, and the year after that, etc.

Tax Reform will be like Robin Hood; tax the rich, give to the poor; “equality” and redistribution.  But it will not tax enough, or cut spending enough to balance the budget, or reduce the national debt.

Globally, it will be about which countries can inflate their currency faster to gain trade advantages, and reduce any debts they have from other nations.

Domestic inflation example:  You earn $100,000 per year and a house costs $250,000.  You borrow $200,000 to buy the house, and pay 25% of your income ($25,000) per year for your mortgage.

Suppose inflation doubles prices and wages.  Your salary might have to increase to $200,000 just to buy the same amount of food, gasoline, clothes etc. because prices have doubled.  You would be no better off in lifestyle, but your $250,000 house would be valued at $500,000.

However, your mortgage would still be $200,000.  You used to pay 25% of your $100,000 salary to cover the mortgage ($25,000 per year).  Now, $25,000 is only 12.5% of your $200,000 salary.  Inflation has cut your debt in half, as a percentage of your income.  And just look at the $300,000 of equity you have in your house!

Inflation would also lighten the government’s $1 trillion annual deficit s and $19 trillion national debt load and allow government to continue to borrow even more.

Think it cannot happen?  When I came to Texas in 1977, house prices were going up so fast that people were “flipping” homes like pancakes.  Of course, mortgage interest rates were double digit, and CD’s rates were too.  And federal debt jumped 17% that year.

Just look at the inflation we have experienced in the past.

The chart below shows 100 years of history.  The Consumer Price index (CPI-U) for January 1913 was 9.8.  The CPI-U for September 2013 was 234.149.  This means that something that cost $9.80 in January of 1913 would cost $234.15 today!

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation/Cumulative_Inflation_by_Decade.asp

The average annual inflation rate in the 1940’s was 4.86% in the 1970’s it was 6.5% and the 1980’s was 13.5%. Each of those decades were especially hard economically for people trying to make ends meet while prices increased and wages didn’t keep up.

Perspective on Inflation

Inflation Unemployment Average Income Average House Multiple of Income 4yr College Multiple of Income
1960 1.4% 5.50% 5,200 16,500 3.17 8,000 1.5
1970 6.5% 3.50% 7,700 23,400 3.04 16,000 2.08
1980 13.5% 6.00% 16,700 64,600 3.87 30,000 1.80
1990 5.4% 5.60% 28,700 122,900 4.28 38,000 1.32
2000 3.4% 4.00% 41,500 169,000 4.07 47,000 1.13
2010 1.6% 9.60% 48,700 221,800 4.55 69,000 1.42
2015 0.5% 5.30% 53,700 296,200 5.52 78,000 1.45

 

This time, it looks like inflation could really hurt most people because wage increases and inflation adjustments for fixed income Social Security retirees probably will not keep up with rising prices.  That will make buying a home even more difficult, in that prices are already a bigger multiple of income than they have ever been.

New York Times Silly Defense of Hillary

I woke up this morning to a silly, unchallenged report of Hillary Clinton’s email issues published by the New York Times.  I would have used the terms “inane” or “preposterous” in place of “silly,” but that would have required a higher Lexile level.  Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. Neither she nor her staff learned anything about top-level classified information or communications, based on her testimony and interviews.

Come on now; “a top aide to Mrs. Clinton told the company that housed her server to delete an archive of emails from her account.”  The implication of the New York Times article was that the servers were “housed” i.e. located with Platte River Network.

But wait:  Wikipedia reported that, “The domains were pointed to a private email server that Clinton (who never had a state.gov email account) used to send and receive email, and which was purchased and installed in the Clintons’ home for her 2008 presidential campaign.”

Oh, I guess that was just a slip of the keyboard.

“According to the F.B.I., in December 2014 a top aide to Mrs. Clinton told the company that housed her server to delete an archive of emails from her account. The company, Platte River Networks, apparently never followed those instructions.”

“On March 2, 2015, The New York Times reported that Mrs. Clinton had (sic) exclusively used a personal email account when she was secretary of state.  Two days later, the congressional committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, and Mrs. Clinton’s response to them, told the technology firms associated with the email account that they had to retain “all relevant documents” related to its investigation.”

But then, so, so conveniently:

“Three weeks later, a Platte River employee had what the F.B.I. documents described as an “oh shit” moment and realized he had not deleted the emails as instructed. The employee said that he then used a special program called BleachBit to delete the files. The F.B.I. said Mrs. Clinton (said she) was unaware of the deletions.”

That is so flimsy, so lame, no wonder Hillary has such low credibility.

Next, the Secretary of State, like all members of the Cabinet, is responsible for classifying information, not standing by expecting department employees to tell them what should be classified.  Who is in charge here?  But we are fed this report:

“In Mrs. Clinton’s interview with the F.B.I., she said she did not recall receiving any emails “she thought should not be on an unclassified system.” She said she had relied on State Department officials to use their judgment when emailing her sensitive information, adding that she “could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received at her email address.”

But what secure, official email address were they to use?  Apparently she had none.

And then, she gets a reply from Colin Powell warning her about including private email for government communications, “Be very careful. I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data.”  In other words, he used secure, government email for business.

According to a summary of her interview, Mrs. Clinton said that she did not know exactly what Mr. Powell was saying in that email and that his message “did not factor into her decision to use a personal email account.”

Mrs. Clinton showed high IQ in every part of her life but this one.  What happened?

Then the article questions the intelligence of either Mrs. Clinton or her staff and closest aides.

“Mrs. Clinton said in her interview that it was “common knowledge” that she had a private email address because it was “displayed to anyone with whom she exchanged emails.” But the F.B.I. said in a summary of its findings that “some State Department employees interviewed by the F.B.I. explained that emails by Clinton only contained the letter ‘H’ in the sender field and did not display her email address.” The F.B.I. said that some of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides were aware that she used a private email address but did not know that she had set up a private server. The aides told the F.B.I. they were “unaware of the existence of the private server until after Clinton’s tenure at State or when it became public knowledge.”

The rest of the article makes me weary:

“Mrs. Clinton kept her BlackBerry in a State Department secure area, where it was prohibited

According to the summary of the investigation, Mrs. Clinton brought her BlackBerry into a secure area on the seventh floor of the State Department, where such electronics are prohibited. The F.B.I. interviewed three former State Department diplomatic security agents who said that Mrs. Clinton kept her BlackBerry in her desk drawer in the secure area, a so-called Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF. But Huma Abedin, a top aide to Mrs. Clinton, told the F.B.I. that Mrs. Clinton left the secure area to check her BlackBerry, often going to the State Department’s eighth-floor balcony to do so.

Mrs. Clinton had a lot of electronic devices

The F.B.I. said that it had identified 13 mobile devices that Mrs. Clinton potentially used to send emails. Mrs. Clinton’s aides were in charge of buying replacement BlackBerry devices when she was in office, often obtaining them from AT&T stores in the Washington area. Ms. Abedin told the F.B.I. that “it was not uncommon for Clinton to use a new BlackBerry for a few days and then immediately switch it out for an older version with which she was more familiar.” Ms. Abedin and another aide told the F.B.I. that “the whereabouts of Clinton’s devices would frequently become unknown once she transitioned to a new device.” An aide to Bill Clinton, Justin Cooper, who helped set up the server, told the F.B.I. that he recalled “two instances where he destroyed Clinton’s old mobile devices by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer.”

This September 2 repeat of the email reports showed nothing new, and seemed to soften the edges on criticisms of what Hillary did.  Tsk, tsk, NYT

Public Broadcasting Unable to Balance Reporting on Campaign 2016

I am sad and embarrassed that I have defended PBS ala KERA for years against politically conservative and independent friends’ accusations of blatant bias to the left.  I tried to support the balance of individual programs, like Diane Rehm, and the “broadening” value of clearly unbalanced programs like Texas Standard, The Takeaway, and Latino USA.  But I have been undermined by the clear favoritism displayed for Hillary Clinton.

If I had not watched start-to-finish PBS coverage of both national conventions, and listened to subsequent commentary on TV and radio, I might have continued this defense.  Alas, after this experience, I surrender to the right-wing and independent critics.

Did anyone else notice the obviously terrible sound engineering during the Republican National Convention?  Constant drowning out of the commentators by the convention floor noise was, if not intentional, amateurish.  Again and again, the words of the cast were obliterated by background sounds.

Not so during the refined, carefully orchestrated coverage of the Democratic National Convention.  In fact, a transparent barrier appeared behind the broadcasting commentating crew, which, seemed to dampen the convention floor noise and allowed viewers to clearly hear every favorable word spoken.

This morning, I heard Cokie Roberts suggest the best strategy Hillary Clinton should use to counter Donald Trump, i.e. (as closely as I can remember,) “she should not waste her money on TV ads, that seem not to have any effect, but on get-out-the-vote efforts.”

It is no secret that Cokie Roberts is not acting as a neutral journalist, but as an undisguised supporter of Hillary Clinton.  I did not hear that clarification before, during, or after the segment described as the news.

I feel betrayed.  I have my own political ideas, and try mightily to encourage balance and civility in the discourse between partisans’ increasingly divisive rants.  I discourage both ends of the political spectrum from ad hominem attacks and political “racism” (e.g. “conservatives are all idiots.”)  Yet, here I am, overwhelmed by the evidence of bias.

I can no longer underline the “public” in Public Broadcasting System.

 

 

Love Is Blind – Exaggeration Is Rampant

Those who love Hillary Clinton can hardly contain their hyperbole.  Let us put it this way:  Hillary Clinton is not, “the best qualified candidate for president America has ever seen.”  While she has done many admirable, and noteworthy things, it takes a fairly partisan filter to make them presidential.  In fact, we would have to give a “participation trophy” for many of the things she has done.

Achievement is not attendance, support, involvement, engagement, pursuit, publishing, membership, advocacy, writing, researching, promoting, and most of the descriptors in the articles, blogs, and websites promoting her qualifications. 

Is she really better qualified than Abraham Lincoln? Yes, he was a man with few credentials, but he managed the most excruciating period in all of our nation’s history.

Is she even close to George Washington? George Washington was chosen by acclamation; rightly so in that he led the colonies to victory over the greatest military force in the world. He was a highly principled man, who pandered to no one. He was a successful wealthy businessman.  He managed the most challenging period in our early history.

What about Franklin D. Roosevelt, who defied his social class to lead the nation through the worst combined experience in the last century?

How about Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Bill Clinton, Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson (the top 10 according to a 2014 Washington Post survey.), or Barak Obama (Ranked 18)?

Does being First Lady, being a senator, or being a cabinet appointee give her astounding qualifications to be president?

As far as I can see, the only elected executive position she has held was “president of the college’s student government associations” at Wellesley College.

(Update: “Hillary Clinton Removes Hamas-Israel Ceasefire Accomplishment from Biography as Gaza Tensions Rise”

https://www.ijreview.com/2016/02/528923-hillary-clinton-removes-hamas-israel-accomplishments-from-biography/

Ah well, history in the remaking.)

 

Where can we find descriptions of her achievements and qualifications in very supportive, favorable publications?  Here are extracts from two articles that called for examples of her qualifications.  It seems that both articles point to her efforts and activities instead.  You be the judge.

First, extracted from https://www.quora.com/What-has-Hillary-Clinton-achieved

phrases used to describe Hillary’s achievements:

  • became engaged in politics
  • took part in political campaigns
  • graduated from Wellesley College
  • was involved in student government
  • elected president of the college’s student government associations.
  • worked with the college’s African-American students
  • became the first student in Wellesley’s history to offer its commencement address
  • received a 7- minute standing ovation
  • criticized Senator Edward Brooke
  • was on the editorial board of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action
  • worked with the Yale Child Study Center
  • wrote “Children Under the Law”
  • researched issues affecting migrant workers
  • served as staff attorney for the Children’s Defense Fund
  • moved to Arkansas with Bill Clinton
  • began teaching criminal law
  • joined the Rose Law Firm
  • pursued patent infringement and intellectual property law
  • became a partner in 1979
  • co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families
  • publish scholarly articles in the field of children’s law
  • served on the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation
  • served as First Lady of Arkansas
  • served as chair of the Arkansas Education Standards Committee
  • implemented standards for curriculum and mandatory teacher testing
  • served on the board of nonprofits
  • was on the corporate board of TCBY and Walmart
  • pushed for environmental reforms and for more women in its corporate management
  • regarded as the most politically influential first lady in the history of the United States
  • played an important part in vetting presidential appointments
  • headed the unsuccessful effort to achieve national healthcare reform
  • worked with the U.S. Senate to pass the State Children’s Health Insurance Program
  • was influential (in) the passage of Foster Care Independence Act
  • traveled extensively and advocated for women’s rights around the world
  • was elected United States Senator from New York twice
  • served on Senatorial committees
  • worked in a bipartisan manner
  • was instrumental in securing funding for recovery efforts and increased security for New York state.
  • voted for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
  • began calling for gradual withdrawal from Iraq
  • opposed the increase of troop deployment of 2007
  • voted in 2007 for a spending bill that would require a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
  • voted against Bush’s tax cuts
  • supported immigration reform as a senator
  • led a bipartisan effort to bring broadband access to rural communities
  • was the first former First Lady to occupy a cabinet position
  • conducted many diplomatic missions
  • visited over 100 countries
  • did a great deal to repair international relations
  • lead the U.S. response to the Arab Spring in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen
  • was the key advocate for U.S. participation in the military intervention in Libya
  • argued successfully that the United States not release photographs of the Al Queda leader
  • was vital in conducting relations with Pakistan and Afghanistan
  • worked to restart negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians
  • establish(ed)ing direct talks in 2010
  • travel(led)ing to Jerusalem in 2012 in an effort to stop the 2012 Gaza conflict.
  • promoted women’s right and human rights
  • advocated for gay rights at the UN Human Rights Council
  • oversaw damage control in response to the Wikileaks revelations of State Department cables
  • testified to Congress regarding the killing of U.S. Diplomatic staff in Libya
  • co-chaired the U.S-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in 2009
  • mediated in the electoral crisis in Honduras in 2009
  • unveiled the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative for Bill Clinton’s Clinton Global Initiative.
  • visited Haiti in 2009 and Chile in 2010 in response to catastrophic earthquakes.
  • played an important role in lobbying the U.S. Senate to ratify the new START treaty in 2010.
  • was outspoken in support of legitimate democracy in Russia
  • was the first Secretary of State to visit Burma since 1955
  • played a vital role in the passage of the Turkish-Armenian Accord
  • initiated reforms in the State Department

Am I missing something?  Which of these supports qualification to be president?

Second, an article from politico:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/carly-fiorina-debate-hillary-clintons-greatest-accomplishment-213157

THE FRIDAY COVER

What Is Hillary’s Greatest Accomplishment?

Carly Fiorina dared Democrats to name it. 20 top Dems accepted the challenge.

By POLITICO MAGAZINE

Getty

“If you want to stump a Democrat, ask them to name an accomplishment of Hillary Clinton,” Carly Fiorina quipped at Wednesday’s Republican debate. The line got hearty applause—but it also cut to the core of one of the defining lines of attacks against the former first lady and Democratic presidential frontrunner. After nearly forty years in public life, what exactly has she accomplished?

It’s a question that even, at times, has tripped up Clinton herself: During her 2014 book tour, when ABC’s Diane Sawyer asked her about her “marquee achievement,” Clinton changed the subject and she fumbled over a similar question during a women’s forum in Manhattan last year. “I see my role as secretary—in fact leadership in general in a democracy—as a relay race. You run the best race you can run, you hand off the baton. Some of what hasn’t been finished may go on to be finished,” she told Thomas Friedman. “I’m very proud of the [economic] stabilization and the really solid leadership that the administration provided that I think now leads us to be able to deal with problems like Ukraine because we’re not so worried about a massive collapse in Europe.”

The question Fiorina posed has also tripped up members of the Obama administration. When State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki was asked last year to “identify one tangible achievement” accomplished through one of Hillary Clinton’s key projects as Secretary of State—the first-ever audit of the department—Psaki punted, “I am certain that those who were here at the time, who worked hard on that effort, could point out one.”

Hillary’s supporters have been stumped too. When Bloomberg Politics’ Mark Halperin asked a focus group of Iowans this summer about Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments, one Democratic supporter said, “I honestly can’t say I followed along [with] everything that was going on.”

So is Fiorina right? Are Democrats really unable to defend Clinton’s record on the merits? To find out, Politico Magazine on Thursday asked the nation’s top Democratic leaders and thinkers to name Hillary Clinton’s biggest accomplishment.

What is the most impressive item on Clinton’s record? Which legislative or policy triumph from her many years in office will be most important on the campaign trail? Not surprisingly, those surveyed all came up with an answer to defend their party’s likely presidential nominee. Whether these count as “marquee,” “significant,” or “tangible”? You be the judge.

‘It’s kind of hard to pick one accomplishment’

By Bill Burton, former senior strategist for Priorities USA Action, a super PAC in support of President Barack Obama.

It’s kind of hard to pick one accomplishment for Hillary Clinton. Personally, I’m sure she’d say her daughter and grandchild are her greatest accomplishments. Professionally, how about these three?

  1. Her China speech on women
  2. Her role in killing Osama bin Laden
  3. Management of the State Department during which time we saw a 50 percent increase in exports to China
  4. Aggressive work on climate (particularly at Copenhagen)
  5. The effort to create and implement the toughest sanctions ever on Iran—helping to lead us to the agreement currently on the table.

‘The sanction on Iran that brought them to the table’

Howard Dean is the former governor of Vermont and the former chair of the Democratic National Committee.

Hillary Clinton was the principal author of the sanction on Iran that brought them to the table.

‘Nearly every foreign policy victory of President Obama’s second term has Secretary Clinton’s fingerprints on it’

By Harry Reid, Senate Democratic leader.

American foreign policy was stronger when Hillary Clinton left the State Department than when she arrived. She took the reins from a Bush administration that had left America’s reputation deeply damaged and planted the seeds for the foreign policy successes we see today. From the

  1. agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon
  2. landmark normalization of relations with Cuba, nearly every foreign policy victory of President Obama’s second term has Secretary Clinton’s fingerprints on it.

Her accomplishments extend to health care, as well.

As First Lady, she helped create and guide through Congress Children’s Health Insurance Program, a key program that brought health care coverage to millions of children.

As a Senator, she worked across the aisle to provide full military health benefits to reservists and National Guard members.

Secretary Clinton was also an outspoken champion for women around the world. She set records for travel while leading the State Department and used every trip to empower the women of the 112 countries she visited. She made gender equality a priority of U.S. foreign policy. And she created the ambassador at large for global women’s issues, a post charged with integrating gender throughout the State Department.

 ‘The SCHIP program … which expanded health coverage to millions of lower-income children’

By Anita Dunn, Democratic political strategist.

After universal health care failed in 1994, the Clinton Administration was reluctant to go anywhere near healthcare again—Democrats lost the Senate and the House in 1994, and losing the house was for the first time in 40 years.

Then-First Lady Hilary Clinton ended up being the White House ally and inside player who worked with Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch to create the SCHIP program in Clinton’s second term, which expanded health coverage to millions of lower-income children.

She has other accomplishments but this one made a huge difference, and came at a time when politically the Administration was cutting deals with Newt Gingrich on the budget and not necessarily all that enthusiastic about revisiting health care.

This obviously isn’t her only accomplishment but it is meaningful because she took a political battering after the failure in 1994 but came back to fight again, and was able to work on a bipartisan basis during a very polarized time to get this done. Seems relevant!

‘Clinton is one of the most accomplished people ever to run’

By Chuck Schumer, U.S. Senator for New York, Democratic party.

Hillary Clinton is one of the most accomplished people ever to run for the Presidency. I’m lucky enough to have seen those accomplishments up close from her time as Senator from New York and as Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton

  1. was instrumental in helping secure $21 billion in federal aid to help New York rebuild after 9/11. She fought tooth and nail to protect the first responders who rushed into danger when the towers collapsed and was pivotal in the passage of legislation that helped those first responders who got sick get the care and treatment they deserved.
  2. worked night and day to protect and create jobs in New York, whether that was at the Niagara Falls Air Force base or the Center for Bioinformatics at the University of Buffalo. She also led the charge on the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Equity Act, which is now the law of the land.

‘Rebuilding America’s leadership and prestige overseas after the Bush years’

Bill Richardson is a former secretary of energy and governor of New Mexico.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was key in rebuilding America’s leadership and prestige overseas after the Bush years.

She restored our alliances with the EU and key Asian allies as well as key relationships in Africa and Latin America.

 ‘The Pediatric Research Equity Act’

By Chris Dodd, former U.S. Senator for Connecticut, Democratic party.

Having worked with her in the Senate and on the HELP Committee, the first thing that came to mind was her

  1. authorship of the Pediatric Research Equity Act. This law requires drug companies to study their products in children. The Act is responsible for changing the drug labeling of hundreds of drugs with important information about safety and dosing of drugs for children. It has improved the health of millions of children who take medications to treat diseases ranging from HIV to epilepsy to asthma. Millions of kids are in better shape and alive because of the law Senator Clinton authored.

‘Crippling sanctions against Iran’

By Paul Begala, political analyst for CNN and counselor to President Bill Clinton.

Easy: Iran sanctions. Sec. Clinton accomplished the nearly impossible mission of getting China, Russia, the European Union and the civilized world on board with crippling sanctions against Iran. This is what brought Iran to the negotiating table.

‘Clinton struck major and consequential diplomatic achievements’

By Bill Scher, senior writer at the Campaign for America’s Future.

Hillary Clinton has four major accomplishments from her tenure as Secretary of State: winning the

  1. UN resolution supporting military intervention in Libya
  2. New START arms control treaty with Russia
  3. renewing diplomatic ties with Myanmar
  4. setting in the motion talks that culminated in the Iran nuclear deal.

We don’t see the Clinton campaign or other Democrats leap to cite most of these accomplishments because they come with degrees of future uncertainty and, in the case of Libya, associations with the tangentially related Benghazi attack. But they are significant accomplishments nonetheless.

Clinton is often mocked for failing to “reset” relations with Russia. But the New START treaty is being followed and helping contain tensions. She won Russia’s support for UN sanctions on Iran that helping bring the rogue state to the negotiating table. And she cajoled Russia to abstain on the Libyan resolution, which was critical to securing its passage in the UN Security Council. (In fact, she may have “reset” too well. Vladimir Putin, who was not President at the time, opposed the resolution and that may have contributed to his decision to reclaim his post.)

The aftermath of that Libyan intervention has been messy, with rival governments fracturing the country, although unity talks are currently taking place. Myanmar has not been perfect either. The promise of released political prisoners has only been partially filled. And the military is being accused of manipulating the upcoming general election. Still the participation of the previously banned National League for Democracy party is a step forward.

These are reminders that, in the real world, progress is often halting. But the fact remains that Clinton struck major and consequential diplomatic achievements, even if the final historical judgment on their lasting impact is years away.

 ‘I’ve seen, first-hand, her exceptional work at every level

By Patrick Leahy, U.S. Senator for Vermont, Democratic party.

I’ve seen, first-hand, her exceptional work at every level—when she was in the White House as First Lady; later, when we were partners and neighbors as senators; and after that, when she was Secretary of State.

  1. Just one example, which is one of her enduring legacies as First Lady, was her partnership with Congress in developing the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which has improved access to essential health care for millions of kids.
  2. In the Senate we worked together on efforts to clean up Lake Champlain and to help Vermont’s and New York’s family farmers.
  3. (As a senator from New York,) She was at the center of securing help for New York’s 9/11 first responders.
  4. We worked together in enacting the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which was the first bill signed into law by President Obama.

I was chairman of the State Department’s budget committee when she was Secretary of State, and I worked closely with her—week to week, and sometimes day to day—on a wide, wide range of issues and challenges, from human rights to global health.

  1. We traveled together to Haiti as we worked to help that country recover from the devastation of the earthquake.
  2. She had a leading role in securing tougher sanctions on Iran.
  3. We worked together to successfully overcome obstruction by House Republicans of the funding she requested to improve embassy security around the world.

Some of her most important achievements were her steady, methodical efforts, with the President, to help reintroduce America to the world.

 ‘She was the point person … compelling the Chinese to commit to cutting carbon emissions.’

By David Axelrod, former Senior Advisor to President Barack Obama.

When I was there, she played a very active role in

  1. rallying the world behind the global sanctions against Iran that brought them to the table over their nuclear program.
  2. She was the point person in Copenhagen in compelling the Chinese to commit to cutting carbon emissions.
  3. She personally negotiated a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

Those are a few that come to mind.

‘The Adoption and Safe Families Act’

By Neera Tanden, President of the Center for American Progress.

As First Lady, Hillary was the

  1. point person in the Clinton Administration on the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, a bill that refocused adoption policies on the needs of the children, made it easier to remove children from abusive situations, provided support and services to adoptive families, and encouraged adoption of children with special needs. The bill increased foster adoptions by 64 percent by 2002.

Hillary helped develop the idea behind this bill, first writing about it in a 1995 article. She went on to work with Republicans and Democrats in Congress, including moderate Rhode Island Republican John Chafee, to see the bill through to final passage, helping broker compromises to ensure the bill’s passage.

This was not a big bill that dominated headlines. But for every child who was placed in a loving home because of this legislation, Hillary’s work was more than an accomplishment on a resume; it was an important part of the reason their lives were better.

 ‘Clinton has at every turn fought for progress and opportunity’

By Tracy Sefl, former senior advisor to Ready for Hillary.

The reality is that Hillary Clinton has at every turn, fought for progress and opportunity. As her campaign continues, she’ll continue to share exactly what those fights have entailed, and for who—

domestically, on behalf of children, veterans, active military, first responders, victims of gender-based violence, family caregivers, pregnant women.

As Secretary of State, she helped restore America’s standing during challenging times, meaning that her tireless diplomatic efforts brought forth progress with

  1. tougher sanctions
  2. missile reduction treaties
  3. ceasefires
  4. strengthened international coalitions.

And critically, her core belief—that the improved lives of women and girls worldwide will leads to stronger and safer economies—is proving to be transformational in the 21st Century.

‘The new START Treaty’

By Hilary Rosen, a Democratic strategist.

Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, led the negotiations that led to the new

  1. START Treaty, a landmark revision of our nuclear arms agreement with Russia. It received bipartisan support in Congress and represents a critical leg in our national security and a safer world.

‘A relentless advocate for women and children’

By Douglas Schoen, pollster for President Bill Clinton.

Hillary Clinton has:

  1. has championed women’s reproductive rights as well as establishing the importance of early education.
  2. played a critical role in the creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act.
  3. introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act as well as the
  4. Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

‘Galvanizing the Senate after the tragedy of 9/11’

By Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator for California, Democratic party.

What Hillary Clinton has accomplished in any given year–from leading efforts to impose the toughest

  1. Iran sanctions
  2. making women’s rights central to our foreign policy to
  3. galvanizing the Senate after the tragedy of 9/11 to rebuild the city and take care of our brave first responders.

‘A ‘smart power’ diplomacy’

By Harold Koh, former Legal Adviser of the Department of State.

As Secretary, Hillary Clinton defined and tried consistently to implement a “smart power” diplomacy that combines diplomacy, development, aid, rule of law and private initiatives with limited applications of hard power to project U.S. global leadership abroad.

In an age where our hard power resources are limited and near exhaustion, her approach is a much more promising than the Republicans’ to addressing our hardest global problems in the years ahead.

  1. The Iran nuclear deal
  2. multilateral trade talks
  3. climate change negotiations are only three current concrete examples of that approach in action.

‘She helped hold together the Presidency and the country’

By Dennis Kucinich, former U.S. Representative from Ohio.

When the Clinton Administration was under attack and facing impeachment, Hillary Clinton

  1. s(h)owed great courage, fortitude and perseverance.
  2. She helped hold together the Presidency and the country by virtue of her steadfastness and determination.
  3. Her conduct revealed an extraordinary resilience and grace under pressure, which are the hallmarks of a strong leader.
  4. Even more than her considerable work on health and education, her effort to be a unifying force at that time was important for America.

‘The world is safer and people are more free thanks to Hillary Clinton’

By Donna Brazile, Democratic strategist and contributor to CNN and ABC News.

  1. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was instrumental in building an international coalition around the toughest regime of sanctions against Iran in history.
  2. She went to Beijing 20 years ago and declared that women’s rights are human rights.
  3. More recently, she stood before representatives of nations like Russia and Uganda and stated boldly that gay rights are human rights, too.

Today, the world is safer and people are more free thanks to Hillary Clinton.

Here at home, from her very first job out of law school—at the Children’s Defense Fund—Hillary Clinton has delivered results for Americans most at risk of discrimination and restricted opportunity.

As First Lady, she

  1. championed healthcare reform at the comprehensive level and through SCHIP for children living in poverty.
  2. In the Senate she fought to raise the minimum wage,
  3. she stood up for 9/11 first responders and she was a tireless
  4. advocate for legislation to protect and expand the right to vote.

 

Summary

Compiling the 47 answers and eliminating duplication, here is what they said were her lifelong greatest accomplishments:

Pre-First Lady:

  1. First job out of law school—at the Children’s Defense Fund
  2. She went to Beijing 20 years ago and declared that women’s rights are human rights

As First Lady:

  1. Point person in the Clinton Administration on the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, a bill that refocused adoption policies on the needs of the children, made it easier to remove children from abusive situations, provided support and services to adoptive families, and encouraged adoption of children with special needs
  2. Championed healthcare reform at the comprehensive level and through SCHIP for children living in poverty.
  3. Advocate for legislation to protect and expand the right to vote.
  4. She stood before representatives of nations like Russia and Uganda and stated boldly that gay rights are human rights, too.

As Senator from New York:

  1. Stood up for 9/11 first responders and she was a tireless
  2. Fought to raise the minimum wage,
  3. Introduced the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
  4. Author(ed)ship of the Pediatric Research Equity Act. This law requires drug companies to study their products in children. The Act is responsible for changing the drug labeling of hundreds of drugs with important information about safety and dosing of drugs for children.
  5. Worked together on efforts to clean up Lake Champlain and to help Vermont’s and New York’s family farmers.
  6. Worked night and day to protect and create jobs in New York, whether that was at the Niagara Falls Air Force base or the Center for Bioinformatics at the University of Buffalo
  7. Traveled to Haiti worked to help that country recover from the devastation of the earthquake.
  8. Worked together to successfully overcome obstruction by House Republicans of the funding she requested to improve embassy security around the world.

As Secretary of State:

  1. Point person in Copenhagen in compelling the Chinese to commit to cutting carbon emissions.
  2. Multilateral trade talks
  3. Instrumental in building an international coalition around the toughest regime of sanctions against Iran in history.
  4. Her role in killing Osama bin Laden
  5. Management of the State Department during which time we saw a 50 percent increase in exports to China
  6. Landmark normalization of relations with Cuba, nearly every foreign policy victory of President Obama’s second term has Secretary Clinton’s fingerprints on it.
  7. UN resolution supporting military intervention in Libya
  8. Renewing diplomatic ties with Myanmar
  9. START Treaty, a landmark revision of our nuclear arms agreement with Russia. It received bipartisan support in Congress and represents a critical leg in our national security and a safer world.
  10. The Iran nuclear deal

I invite you to review and weigh the importance of her individual accomplishments on the scale of presidential qualifications.

 

Tools from Carl Sagan’s BS Detection Kit

We are in an age of hyper-information/persuasion/spin about all aspects of our lives, from what we eat, to what we buy, to what we attend, to whom we choose as leaders.  Now, as always, we can benefit from screening the inputs to our lives, and weighing our beliefs on a scale of clarity, and verity.  Carl Sagan gave us some sage tools to evaluate and detect fallacies of arguments, and false claims.  After the quote, I will try to translate, without bias, his precise language, and references, into reasonably understandable terms.

A. Evaluate Ideas to Approach the Truth:

  1. Wherever possible,there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
  2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
  3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science, there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
  4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
  5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
  6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
  7. If there’s a chain of argument,every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
  8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the dataequally well to choose the simpler.
  9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.
  1. Avoid Common Pitfalls of Common Sense

Just as important as learning these helpful tools, however, is unlearning and avoiding the most common pitfalls of common sense. Reminding us of where society is most vulnerable to those, Sagan writes:

In addition to teaching us what to do when evaluating a claim to knowledge, any good baloney detection kit must also teach us what not to do. It helps us recognize the most common and perilous fallacies of logic and rhetoric. Many good examples can be found in religion and politics, because their practitioners are so often obliged to justify two contradictory propositions.

He admonishes against the twenty most common and perilous ones — many rooted in our chronic discomfort with ambiguity — with examples of each in action:

  1. ad hominem— Latin for “to the man,” attacking the arguer and not the argument (e.g., The Reverend Dr. Smith is a known Biblical fundamentalist, so her objections to evolution need not be taken seriously)
  2. argument from authority(e.g., President Richard Nixon should be re-elected because he has a secret plan to end the war in Southeast Asia — but because it was secret, there was no way for the electorate to evaluate it on its merits; the argument amounted to trusting him because he was President: a mistake, as it turned out)
  3. argument from adverse consequences(e.g., A God meting out punishment and reward must exist, because if He didn’t, society would be much more lawless and dangerous — perhaps even ungovernable. Or: The defendant in a widely publicized murder trial must be found guilty; otherwise, it will be an encouragement for other men to murder their wives)
  4. appeal to ignorance— the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist — and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we’re still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
  5. special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble(e.g.,How can a merciful God condemn future generations to torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead: you don’t understand the subtle Doctrine of Free Will. Or: How can there be an equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the same Person? Special plead: You don’t understand the Divine Mystery of the Trinity. Or: How could God permit the followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — each in their own way enjoined to heroic measures of loving kindness and compassion — to have perpetrated so much cruelty for so long? Special plead: You don’t understand Free Will again. And anyway, God moves in mysterious ways.)
  6. begging the question, also called assuming the answer (e.g., We must institute the death penalty to discourage violent crime. But does the violent crime rate in fact fall when the death penalty is imposed? Or: The stock market fell yesterday because of a technical adjustment and profit-taking by investors — but is there any independent evidence for the causal role of “adjustment” and profit-taking; have we learned anything at all from this purported explanation?)
  7. observational selection, also calledthe enumeration of favorable circumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses (e.g., A state boasts of the Presidents it has produced, but is silent on its serial killers)
  8. statistics of small numbers— a close relative of observational selection(e.g., “They say 1 out of every 5 people is Chinese. How is this possible? I know hundreds of people, and none of them is Chinese. Yours truly.” Or: “I’ve thrown three sevens in a row. Tonight I can’t lose.”)
  9. misunderstanding of the nature of statistics(e.g., President Dwight Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence);
  10. inconsistency(e.g., Prudently plan for the worst of which a potential military adversary is capable, but thriftily ignore scientific projections on environmental dangers because they’re not “proved.” Or: Attribute the declining life expectancy in the former Soviet Union to the failures of communism many years ago, but never attribute the high infant mortality rate in the United States (now highest of the major industrial nations) to the failures of capitalism. Or: Consider it reasonable for the Universe to continue to exist forever into the future, but judge absurd the possibility that it has infinite duration into the past);
  11. non sequitur— Latin for “It doesn’t follow” (e.g., Our nation will prevail because God is great. But nearly every nation pretends this to be true; the German formulation was “Gott mit uns”). Often those falling into the non sequitur fallacy have simply failed to recognize alternative possibilities;
  12. post hoc, ergo propter hoc— Latin for “It happened after, so it was caused by” (e.g., Jaime Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila: “I know of … a 26-year-old who looks 60 because she takes [contraceptive] pills.” Or: Before women got the vote, there were no nuclear weapons)
  13. meaningless question(e.g., What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? But if there is such a thing as an irresistible force there can be no immovable objects, and vice versa)
  14. excluded middle, or false dichotomy — considering only the two extremes in a continuum of intermediate possibilities (e.g., “Sure, take his side; my husband’s perfect; I’m always wrong.” Or: “Either you love your country or you hate it.” Or: “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem”)
  15. short-term vs. long-term— a subset of the excluded middle, but so important I’ve pulled it out for special attention (e.g., We can’t afford programs to feed malnourished children and educate pre-school kids. We need to urgently deal with crime on the streets.  Or: Why explore space or pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?);
  16. slippery slope, related to excluded middle (e.g.,If we allow abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy, it will be impossible to prevent the killing of a full-term infant. Or, conversely: If the state prohibits abortion even in the ninth month, it will soon be telling us what to do with our bodies around the time of conception);
  17. confusion of correlation and causation(e.g., A survey shows that more college graduates are homosexual than those with lesser education; therefore, education makes people gay. Or: Andean earthquakes are correlated with closest approaches of the planet Uranus; therefore — despite the absence of any such correlation for the nearer, more massive planet Jupiter — the latter causes the former)
  18. straw man— caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack (e.g., Scientists suppose that living things simply fell together by chance — a formulation that willfully ignores the central Darwinian insight, that Nature ratchets up by saving what works and discarding what doesn’t. Or — this is also a short-term/long-term fallacy — environmentalists care more for snail darters and spotted owls than they do for people)
  19. suppressed evidence, or half-truths (e.g., An amazingly accurate and widely quoted “prophecy” of the assassination attempt on President Reagan is shown on television; but — an important detail — was it recorded before or after the event? Or:  These government abuses demand revolution, even if you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Yes, but is this likely to be a revolution in which far more people are killed than under the previous regime? What does the experience of other revolutions suggest? Are all revolutions against oppressive regimes desirable and in the interests of the people?)
  20. weasel words(e.g., The separation of powers of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the United States may not conduct a war without a declaration by Congress. On the other hand, Presidents are given control of foreign policy and the conduct of wars, which are potentially powerful tools for getting themselves re-elected. Presidents of either political party may therefore be tempted to arrange wars while waving the flag and calling the wars something else — “police actions,” “armed incursions,” “protective reaction strikes,” “pacification,” “safeguarding American interests,” and a wide variety of “operations,” such as “Operation Just Cause.” Euphemisms for war are one of a broad class of reinventions of language for political purposes. Talleyrand said, “An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public”)

Like all tools, the baloney detection kit can be misused, applied out of context, or even employed as a rote alternative to thinking. But applied judiciously, it can make all the difference in the world — not least in evaluating our own arguments before we present them to others.”

 

“Equality” – An Evil Definition

What qualities are we trying to “E?”  Who decides “equal?”  How does anyone improve the qualities of another person?

When a political party adds a word to their platform, shouldn’t they define it?  Does anyone believe our human race was advanced and improved by denying the qualities that surpassed “normal” or “average?”

I cannot seem to find anyone anywhere who can or will say exactly what they mean by “equal,” or how “equality” will be achieved.

If fostering equality means reducing those who excel by taxation or regulation, what will that accomplish for the “unequals?”

What politicians are ready to point at individual citizens and say, “You are unequal, you are above equal, you are exactly equal.”?

Am I supposed to be so ignorant that I do not interpret this criminalization of success as a naked call for federal government stripping resources from those with money to finance distributions of resources to those who are “below equal.”?  Do I want to live in a communist society where everything is artificial, and nothing works?  No.

Millions of people have risked life and limb to get to the place where they are unencumbered by lack of opportunity – the USA.  They are here to improve their chances for a better life for themselves and their children.  They see that here they have a chance that their efforts will pay off.  Do they require a perfect environment?  Do they insist that the government remove the obstacles to their accomplishments?  No.

Oh, and by the way, where is the campaign for GLOBAL equality?  (Silence)  Hmmm, so giving up what we have that exceeds what other people have in other parts of the world is different.  Hypocritical at best.

Kurt Vonnegut was prescient in a short story he wrote in 1961, (just as George Orwell was in 1944 when he published “Animal Farm.”)

Read what he wrote.

 <HARRISON BERGERON by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr  1961

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal.  They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way.  Nobody was smarter than anybody else.  Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else.  All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

Some things about living still weren’t quite right, though.  April for instance, still drove people crazy by not being springtime.  And it was in that clammy month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron’s fourteen-year-old son, Harrison, away.

It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn’t think about it very hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn’t think about anything except in short bursts.  And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear.  He was required by law to wear it at all times.  It was tuned to a government transmitter.  Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.

George and Hazel were watching television.  There were tears on Hazel’s cheeks, but she’d forgotten for the moment what they were about.

On the television screen were ballerinas.

A buzzer sounded in George’s head.  His thoughts fled in panic, like bandits from a burglar alarm.

“That was a real pretty dance, that dance they just did,” said Hazel.

“Huh” said George.

“That dance-it was nice,” said Hazel.

“Yup,” said George. He tried to think a little about the ballerinas. They weren’t really very good-no better than anybody else would have been, anyway. They were burdened with sashweights and bags of birdshot, and their faces were masked, so that no one, seeing a free and graceful gesture or a pretty face, would feel like something the cat drug in. George was toying with the vague notion that maybe dancers shouldn’t be handicapped. But he didn’t get very far with it before another noise in his ear radio scattered his thoughts.

George winced. So did two out of the eight ballerinas.

Hazel saw him wince. Having no mental handicap herself, she had to ask George what the latest sound had been.

“Sounded like somebody hitting a milk bottle with a ball peen hammer,” said George.

“I’d think it would be real interesting, hearing all the different sounds,” said Hazel a little envious.

“All the things they think up.”  “Um,” said George.

“Only, if I was Handicapper General, you know what I would do?” said Hazel. Hazel, as a matter of fact, bore a strong resemblance to the Handicapper General, a woman named Diana Moon Glampers.

“If I was Diana Moon Glampers,” said Hazel, “I’d have chimes on Sunday-just chimes. Kind of in honor of religion.”

“I could think, if it was just chimes,” said George.

“Well-maybe make ’em real loud,” said Hazel. “I think I’d make a good Handicapper General.”

“Good as anybody else,” said George.

“Who knows better than I do what normal is?” said Hazel.

“Right,” said George. He began to think glimmeringly about his abnormal son who was now in jail, about Harrison, but a twenty-one-gun salute in his head stopped that.

“Boy!” said Hazel, “that was a doozy, wasn’t it?”

It was such a doozy that George was white and trembling, and tears stood on the rims of his red eyes. Two of the eight ballerinas had collapsed to the studio floor, were holding their temples.

“All of a sudden you look so tired,” said Hazel. “Why don’t you stretch out on the sofa, so’s you can rest your handicap bag on the pillows, honeybunch.” She was referring to the forty-seven pounds of birdshot in a canvas bag, which was padlocked around George’s neck.

“Go on and rest the bag for a little while,” she said. “I don’t care if you’re not equal to me for a while.”

George weighed the bag with his hands. “I don’t mind it,” he said. “I don’t notice it any more. It’s just a part of me.”

“You been so tired lately-kind of wore out,” said Hazel. “If there was just some way we could make a little hole in the bottom of the bag, and just take out a few of them lead balls. Just a few.”

“Two years in prison and two thousand dollars fine for every ball I took out,” said George. “I don’t call that a bargain.”

“If you could just take a few out when you came home from work,” said Hazel. “I mean-you don’t compete with anybody around here. You just set around.”

“If I tried to get away with it,” said George, ” then other people’d get away with it-and pretty soon we’d be right back to the dark ages again, with everybody competing against everybody else. You wouldn’t like that, would you?”

“I’d hate it,” said Hazel.

“There you are,” said George. The minute people start cheating on laws, what do you think happens to society?”  If Hazel hadn’t been able to come up with an answer to this question, George couldn’t have supplied one. A siren was going off in his head.

“Reckon it’d fall all apart,” said Hazel.

“What would?” said George blankly.

“Society,” said Hazel uncertainly. “Wasn’t that what you just said?

“Who knows?” said George.

The television program was suddenly interrupted for a news bulletin. It wasn’t clear at first as to what the bulletin was about, since the announcer, like all announcers, had a serious speech impediment. For about half a minute, and in a state of high excitement, the announcer tried to say, “Ladies and Gentlemen.”

He finally gave up, handed the bulletin to a ballerina to read.

“That’s all right-” Hazel said of the announcer, “he tried. That’s the big thing. He tried to do the best he could with what God gave him. He should get a nice raise for trying so hard.”

“Ladies and Gentlemen,” said the ballerina, reading the bulletin. She must have been extraordinarily beautiful, because the mask she wore was hideous. And it was easy to see that she was the strongest and most graceful of all the dancers, for her handicap bags were as big as those worn by two-hundred pound men.

And she had to apologize at once for her voice, which was a very unfair voice for a woman to use. Her voice was a warm, luminous, timeless melody.

“Excuse me-” she said, and she began again, making her voice absolutely uncompetitive.

“Harrison Bergeron, age fourteen,” she said in a grackle squawk, “has just escaped from jail, where he was held on suspicion of plotting to overthrow the government. He is a genius and an athlete, is under-handicapped, and should be regarded as extremely dangerous.”

A police photograph of Harrison Bergeron was flashed on the screen-upside down, then sideways, upside down again, then right side up. The picture showed the full length of Harrison against a background calibrated in feet and inches. He was exactly seven feet tall.

The rest of Harrison’s appearance was Halloween and hardware. Nobody had ever born heavier handicaps. He had outgrown hindrances faster than the H-G men could think them up. Instead of a little ear radio for a mental handicap, he wore a tremendous pair of earphones, and spectacles with thick wavy lenses. The spectacles were intended to make him not only half blind, but to give him whanging headaches besides.

Scrap metal was hung all over him. Ordinarily, there was a certain symmetry, a military neatness to the handicaps issued to strong people, but Harrison looked like a walking junkyard. In the race of life, Harrison carried three hundred pounds.  And to offset his good looks, the H-G men required that he wear at all times a red rubber ball for a nose, keep his eyebrows shaved off, and cover his even white teeth with black caps at snaggle-tooth random.

“If you see this boy,” said the ballerina, “do not – I repeat, do not – try to reason with him.”

There was the shriek of a door being torn from its hinges.

Screams and barking cries of consternation came from the television set. The photograph of Harrison Bergeron on the screen jumped again and again, as though dancing to the tune of an earthquake. George Bergeron correctly identified the earthquake, and well he might have – for many was the time his own home had danced to the same crashing tune.

“My God-” said George, “that must be Harrison!”  The realization was blasted from his mind instantly by the sound of an automobile collision in his head. When George could open his eyes again, the photograph of Harrison was gone. A living, breathing Harrison filled the screen.

Clanking, clownish, and huge, Harrison stood – in the center of the studio. The knob of the uprooted studio door was still in his hand. Ballerinas, technicians, musicians, and announcers cowered on their knees before him, expecting to die.

“I am the Emperor!” cried Harrison. “Do you hear? I am the Emperor! Everybody must do what I say at once!” He stamped his foot and the studio shook.

“Even as I stand here” he bellowed, “crippled, hobbled, sickened – I am a greater ruler than any man who ever lived! Now watch me become what I can become!”

Harrison tore the straps of his handicap harness like wet tissue paper, tore straps guaranteed to support five thousand pounds.

Harrison’s scrap-iron handicaps crashed to the floor.

Harrison thrust his thumbs under the bar of the padlock that secured his head harness. The bar snapped like celery. Harrison smashed his headphones and spectacles against the wall.

He flung away his rubber-ball nose, revealed a man that would have awed Thor, the god of thunder.

“I shall now select my Empress!” he said, looking down on the cowering people.

“Let the first woman who dares rise to her feet claim her mate and her throne!”

A moment passed, and then a ballerina arose, swaying like a willow.

Harrison plucked the mental handicap from her ear, snapped off her physical handicaps with marvelous delicacy. Last of all he removed her mask.  She was blindingly beautiful.

“Now-” said Harrison, taking her hand, “shall we show the people the meaning of the word dance? Music!” he commanded.

The musicians scrambled back into their chairs, and Harrison stripped them of their handicaps, too.

“Play your best,” he told them, “and I’ll make you barons and dukes and earls.”

The music began. It was normal at first-cheap, silly, false. But Harrison snatched two musicians from their chairs, waved them like batons as he sang the music as he wanted it played. He slammed them back into their chairs.

The music began again and was much improved.

Harrison and his Empress merely listened to the music for a while-listened gravely, as though synchronizing their heartbeats with it.

They shifted their weights to their toes.

Harrison placed his big hands on the girl’s tiny waist, letting her sense the weightlessness that would soon be hers.

And then, in an explosion of joy and grace, into the air they sprang!

Not only were the laws of the land abandoned, but the law of gravity and the laws of motion as well. They reeled, whirled, swiveled, flounced, capered, gamboled, and spun.

They leaped like deer on the moon.

The studio ceiling was thirty feet high, but each leap brought the dancers nearer to it.

It became their obvious intention to kiss the ceiling. They kissed it.

And then, neutraling gravity with love and pure will, they remained suspended in air inches below the ceiling, and they kissed each other for a long, long time.

It was then that Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General, came into the studio with a double-barreled ten-gauge shotgun. She fired twice, and the Emperor and the Empress were dead before they hit the floor.

Diana Moon Glampers loaded the gun again. She aimed it at the musicians and told them they had ten seconds to get their handicaps back on.

It was then that the Bergerons’ television tube burned out.

Hazel turned to comment about the blackout to George. But George had gone out into the kitchen for a can of beer.

George came back in with the beer, paused while a handicap signal shook him up. And then he sat down again.

“You been crying” he said to Hazel.

“Yup,” she said.  “What about?” he said.

“I forget,” she said. “Something real sad on television.”

“What was it?” he said.

“It’s all kind of mixed up in my mind,” said Hazel.

“Forget sad things,” said George.

“I always do,” said Hazel.

“That’s my girl,” said George. He winced. There was the sound of a riveting gun in his head.

“Gee – I could tell that one was a doozy,” said Hazel.

“You can say that again,” said George.

“Gee-” said Hazel, “I could tell that one was a doozy.”>

 

“Harrison Bergeron” is copyrighted by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., 1961.

The Revolution Is Here – Take It To Heart

In every revolution, the “intelligentsia,”are swept aside.  They represent an entrenched notion of superiority and upper class that would keep change within their purview for ever. They call anyone who is not aligned with them “ignorant.”

But Americans have developed a different model of “knowing” called “trending.”

Ignorance is what?  What does a person have to “know” to rise above ignorance? Over the past six decades, we Americans have gradually diluted and “re-purposed”public education to reveal a new role for our schools:  Day Care and fail-proof graduation.

BTW:  What we don’t know, we can, like, Google, right?  Like, the internet is a great source, right?  And, like, almost better than rumors.  And Twitter, hey.  Right?  It is not only right; it is right now!  Who needs to be smart when they have smart PHONES;)

Each generation allowed to drift away from personal responsibility and thoughtful challenge dims our future, and insults our past.  Then the child become the parent, their children become parents, ad nauseum.  There is a saying, “Wisdom comes with age.”  But apparently, sometimes, age comes alone.

What has come of the devaluation of deep education, and elimination of critical thinking/learning skills?  Is it fair to castigate an electorate that has been hoodwinked into accepting whatever their equally educated associates and self-proclaimed leaders tell them?

What do we expect from uber-indulged offspring, un-chaffed by the requirements of self-reliance?  Why should we be surprised when 4th generation union laborers cry out in pain when their family traditions leave them without a clue or a paycheck?

We find ourselves in 2016, after wrenching damage to our smug image of ourselves as Americans with unlimited potential, who need only show up to garner success.  The wounds inflicted by 9/11 are still with us after 15 years of missteps in response.  We have tried to deny the damage; we have launched counterattacks on the phantoms of suicide using oceans of borrowed money to fund distant wars with professional warriors; we have salved our pain with money borrowed to buy homes and the trappings of wealth against a mirage of future prosperity; we drowned in the aftermath of deluded excess; we barely made our way back to the shores of reason and a semblance of recovery.

Now, we use deceitful yardsticks to measure our return to Camelot.  Empty words like “employment” when a person finally finds a job at 60% of their former pay.

We make false implications like “college education” when a barely literate and numerate high school “graduate” borrows the price of a new home to learn to read, write, and use a computer; then, the search for work that will pay the student loans, while the “college graduate,” either stays in the family basement, or shares desperate apartment space with like-indentured contemporaries.

When I say “we,” I mean our shackled culture.  We have been fooled into believing what we are told, minding our “political correctness,” and allowing mobs to control our justice system when, the results do not satisfy them.  We have allowed loud minorities of no more than 3-5% of our population to direct our legislatures and judiciaries to give them control and sanctions over the rest of our society.  We have succumbed to the notion that Americans have to allow others to flaunt our laws, treaties, and alliances because we should never stand firm, confront evil, or fight dirty.

The idealized America of the past was pretty hard-nosed, and seldom a patsy for, “that’s not NICE.”  Our heroes were tough guys who would not stand for threats or false promises.  Somehow we believe we are still tough when we are just the opposite.

The social organizers, the media and professional politicians have informally colluded to keep Americans in their recliners, consumers of what they conjure, passive observers of life in America.

But we all have our limits, and when those limits are breached, we get up and fight the bullies who have tried to keep us under control with their well-honed rules.  Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are appealing to the Americans who have suffered and who see not relief, but more suffering.  They are mad as hell, and they are not going to take it anymore.

Even if these gladiators are martyred by “the System,” they have awakened those who have let things go too long.  These revolutionaries will not accept sophisticated “ideas” or convoluted promises; they want palpable relief.  They want to push the buttons, and pull the levers, and see results that make a difference.

False Hope Is Far Worse Than No Hope

What is wrong with hope?  We know that in an impossible situation where the outcome is unknowable, hope can keep us in that situation long enough to triumph or despair.  The problem comes when hope is not accompanied by action.  When things look hopeless, we either give up or fight on with everything we have.  When we are given false hope, assurances that all will be well, despite the looming crisis, we either relax in the happy notion that it will work out, or we fight on, but not with everything we have, rather with the idea that fate or miracles will save us.

It seems that the past few years in America, we have operated on the false hope that the federal government has the ability to control economic and world events.  Our hopes were elevated after 9/11 by the war on terrorism, including military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The results have been weak to poor.  We have burdened the future taxpayers with four to six TRILLION dollars of future obligations, and for what?

We have exhausted our volunteer military with short turnarounds and multiple tours.  We have aggravated and elevated the importance of the leaders and citizens of the region with our misunderstandings, ignorance, and arrogance.  No one has ever been able to extract the minds of the people from the secular feuds, endemic poverty, and warlord mentality since before the birth of Christ.

Everyone else on the planet sees our hubris and disrespect for other cultures, yet we continue our Crusades.

What if we had recognized the damage and pain inflicted on our national psyche by the 9/11 attacks?  What if we had reconsidered our smug attitudes toward the rest of the world?  What if we had just revised our approach of insisting that democracy is the best form of governance for everyone regardless of their history, culture, economy, and philosophy?

Instead, we embarked on a path of attack and appeasement.  We attacked anyone who remotely seemed to be a threat with no idea what to do and whom to do it with or to.  We were ready to believe that the vast expenditures and capabilities of our military could subdue the culprits and liberate the subjects of our perceptions of tyranny.  We took no heed of the clear indications that the religious and cultural context these people were born and raised, they see as absolute truth.

What made us think that pouring billions of dollars into the hands of a culture that values corruption and cheating as an art to respect would buy us anything but hate and deceit?  Where else have we bought victory or power with our Niagara of free money?

We fooled ourselves that the impact of the attacks on world confidence and finances was easily healed.  We proceeded to go on a spending spree of unheard of proportions, borrowing as much as our credit could bear, and more, when politics made buying a home hysterically important and easy for virtually anyone.

Our false hopes led us down a path of self-destructive thinking and acting.  In the midst of an unmitigated world financial crisis, governments took on the bad debts of citizens using the creditworthiness of nations.  Now that that burden has become untenable, we see financial strategies that verge on desperation and still try to maintain the illusion that the solution is at hand.

I wonder what paths we might have taken without the false notions and optimism on which we proceeded to get where we are today.

Raising the U. S. Minimum Wage in a Lower-Wage World

What are we Americans and our elected politicians thinking?  The real minimum wage is zero for many Americans who cannot find a job at all.

At this tenuous stage of our economic recovery, raising the federal minimum wage would only make businesses more prone to raise prices, to put greater work responsibilities on fewer employees, to adopt technology alternatives, and to outsource work to the lower-labor-cost, domestic and overseas vendors and suppliers of services.  The last choice is to go out of business or adopt a new business model.

Think a minute about how the minimum wage is used and to whom it applies.  Minimum wage is paid for entry level jobs, part time jobs, jobs for under-educated or untrained workers, etc.  Those who do a good job, and prove reliable, usually get raises.  In other words, entry-level, unskilled, or transient workers start at minimum wage. (See notes and links below)

So let us suppose the federal government raises the minimum wage to $10 or even $15 per hour, as some fast food workers propose.  Sure, those who get the higher wages will be happy, but who will choose the employees to keep?

Imagine you are the owner or manager of a business that has a very thin profit margin now.  If you calculated the added costs of a higher minimum wage would erase or greatly erode that margin, you would have six choices:

  1. Raise prices on the goods and services the business provides.  This option is greatly limited by the likes of Walmart.  If your customers can get the same or equal/services for less, where would they go?
  2. Increase the workload of a smaller staff.  This option is limited to the most work you could expect from each employee.  If the work gets to be too much, employees look for other work.  Walmart, and other discount retailers, squeeze suppliers and staff to limit costs.
  3. Adopt technology that replaces unskilled labor.  This is limited by the functions technology can fulfill.  We are all familiar with voice menus, websites, self-service, and vending machines.  Imagine what else technology can be designed to do.
  4. Outsource to US contractors.  The US military has greatly reduced the number of soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen by contracting civilian companies to do non-combat and combat support services, such as food services, equipment and vehicle maintenance, etc.
  5. Outsource to foreign contractors.  Wages in other parts of the world are much lower, even for skilled work.
  6. Quit the current business and take on a different business model.  Many retailers have shifted from stores to online catalogs, for example.  Some businesses have shifted away from low-margin operations to higher market levels.

So, we would have growing unemployment among those who could get jobs at the old minimum wage, but not the new minimum wage.  Who bears those costs?

Add this to the list of ideas that sound good, but have unintended and undesirable consequences.

Notes:

  1. If you are not up to date on recent labor statistics, review the U.S. Department of Labor publication below, or go to http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm and read or download the report and the appendices.
  2. Some states have slightly higher minimum wages than currently mandated by the federal government, but none more than Oregon’s $9.10. (http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-minimum-wage-chart.aspx)
  3. Although not included in the statistics, many self-employed people end up with less than minimum wage for the time they spend, depending on business conditions.

A Business Owner’s Response To Obamacare

What a great time to load more burdens on business.  Just as the US economy has leveled off from its scary decline, the federal government has chosen to add regulations and taxes relating to health care insurance to the choice of whether to hire or keep an employee.

I suggest that now is the perfect time to deal with this extra cost head-on with a new concept of employment compensation:  Total Compensation Agreements.  That’s right, fire all your employees and rehire them under TCA’s.  A Total Compensation Agreement would put a number on the total amount the employer will pay for the services of an employee.  If the number is $75,000, then that amount would be allocated among the employer’s costs related to the employee; what was left would be their paycheck.

We are fortunate to live in the age of computers that can calculate how this would work out.  For example, if the employee’s health insurance is $25,000 for a family of 4, the program would subtract that amount from the $75,000 leaving $50,000; if the employer’s cost of  FICA, unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation, etc., was $5,000, that would be subtracted from the $50,000 leaving $45,000; if the employee’s withholding and FICA was $7,500, that would leave take home pay of $37,500.  That is it.

If the business cannot afford to pay more than $75,000 for this employee’s services, or the employee cannot afford to live on $37,500, then no job.

The TCA structure would eliminate all minimum wage employees, and almost all less skilled workers from consideration.  Only those people whose productivity and lifestyle matched the profile would be employed.  Already, many business have found that redesigning their business model to use technology and fewer people makes sense.

What else can a business owner do?  It is either this approach or failure as a business.  Do the numbers.

So far, the only thing a business owner does not have to do is stay in business.

Word Warriors Win the Immigration Battle – How Advocates of Unlimited Immigration Use “Newspeak” to trick America

What is in a word? Some would say, “The power of thought.”  Others might say, “Limits on the power of thought.”  The wholesale adoption of one “politically correct” term by the news media, politicians and advocates of unlimited immigration to the United States has tricked many citizens’ and paved the way for major changes in our country’s future.

Illegal Aliens – Replaced by Undocumented Immigrants. The phrase ‘Illegal Aliens’ implies that these people are a bunch of law-breaking creatures from outer space, while ‘Undocumented Immigrants’ suggests that they are good old-fashioned immigrants that simply have not gone through the hassle of being ‘documented’ yet.”  www.newspeakdictionary.com.

The genius behind this language switch is that the word “immigrant” means a US Citizen who came from another country, obeyed the law, and completed the legal process of adopting America.  From the time they arrived here until the time they received citizenship, they were “registered aliens.”  By using the word “illegal” combined with “immigrant,” unregistered aliens are associated and equated with law-abiding citizens.  No wonder immigrants are angry; they are being lumped together with unregistered aliens, living here illegally.

But how and when did rigorous, ethical, journalists and other “guardians” of our language abandon their posts and join forces with the promoters of wholesale disregard for our legal system?

ABC gives some background on the media’s usage: http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/linguists-york-times-illegal-neutral-accurate/story?id=17366512

According to the article, Jonathan Rosa, an assistant professor of linguistic anthropology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, disagrees with the immigration activist Jose Antonio Vargas, who launched a campaign to monitor the use of the term by major news outlets.

“There is nowhere in the legal field that the phrasing ‘illegal immigrant’ has been the norm. However, that same phrasing has been part of certain political strategies,” Jonathan said.

The article continues: “A group of 24 scholars, led by Rosa, put out a statement last week arguing that “illegal immigrant” should not be the preferred phrasing because it’s imprecise and frames the debate in narrow terms. “It is baffling to think that [The New York Times] would suggest ‘illegal immigrant’ is accurate and neutral,” Rosa said in an interview with ABC/Univision. “The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act defines immigrants as people who have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence, so “legal immigrant” is a redundant concept and ‘illegal immigrant’ is oxymoronic,” he noted.”

Americans should take note that they are being subjected to this style of “newspeak” tactic on many fronts every day.

Texas psychiatrist John Tennison, M.D wrote an article in 2004 following 9/11 and passage of the Patriot Act, “Newspeak:  Manipulation of Language, Thought, and Behavior by Those in Power.”  http://texaspsychiatry.com/Newspeak.htm

Dr. Tennison cites examples of language manipulation and “repurposing” in George Orwell’s 1984, Fahrenheit 451; he warns Americans about the intentional subversion of the words we use to manage our perceptions.

“As a result of 9/11, the site (www.newspeakdictionary.com) takes a look as such expressions as “Cowardly Act,” “Attack on Freedom,” “Terrorist Attack,” “Shock and Awe,” “Enemy Combatant,” and “Iraqi Terrorists.”

“Thus, regardless of the field of inquiry – world politics, psychiatry, etc. – careful and precise use of language, and vigilance for its abuse, will help us all live more closely to the truth and be less easily manipulable by powers that might be well-intentioned, but misguided, or that might not have our best interests in mind.”

Where do “political correctness,” “euphemistic avoidance,” and “semantic manipulation,” touch your thinking and your life?

Know the Language Before You Talk About Guns – Do Not Shoot Off Your Mouth If Your Brain Is Not Loaded.

Recently, guns have become a widely broadcast topic, aside from waging wars for the last decade or so.  Regardless of your feelings or attitudes towards firearms, you will be better served to have your terminology straight before you enter a discussion on the topic.  You could lose considerable credibility if you display ignorance of the basic terms.

Just to put my credentials in order, my father gave me my first 22 rifle when I was 12, after rigorous teaching, training, and practice of the gun safety and hunting rules.  Later I learned about and used pistols, shotguns, and high-powered rifles.  I spent six years in the US Army, including a 1969 tour in Vietnam.  I have disassembled, cleaned, reassembled, and fired all the military small arms (proficiency with pistols, assault rifles, machine guns, and grenade launchers), shy of a 50-cal machine gun.

The language used in our news media, video games, and reports of gun-related incidents does not accurately match the vocabulary of those with a background in weapons.  Here are several key distinctions to make in your thinking and speaking, if you concern yourself about guns:

1)  Single-shot, vs. single action, vs. double-action.

a)   Single shot – means the weapon must be manually reloaded and cocked   before   each shot.  Examples: a barrel-loaded musket, a flint-lock pistol, a single-shot shotgun.

b)  Single action – means the weapon must be manually cocked to reload before each shot.  Examples:

i)  The Colt Single Action Army revolver— also known as the Model P, Peacemaker, M1873, Single Action Army, SAA, and Colt 45; when the hammer is cocked it rotates the cylinder to the next shell chamber.  The user must pull the trigger to fire the round, and then manually cock the weapon again to bring another round into position

ii)  The Colt 1911 magazine-fed pistol (the firer must manually cock the trigger to fire the first round; the recoil pushes back the slide which ejects the spent round on its way back, then loads the next round from the magazine, on the way forward, and cocks the weapon, ready for semi-automatic firing )

iii)   The Winchester, lever-action 30-30 rifle, (ratcheting the lever expels a spent shell and loads a live round into firing position and cocks the trigger – allowing the user to fire the round)

iv)  All bolt-action rifles (ratcheting the bolt back and forward expels the spent round and loads a new round into firing position – pulling the trigger fires the round.)

v)   Pump-action shotguns – store shells in the stock of the weapon. The pump action ejects the spent shell and feeds a new shell in to the chamber.

c)  Double-action – means that pulling the trigger reloads, cocks, and fires the weapon.  Example:

i)  A six-round Smith & Wesson Police Special 38 cal. revolver pistol (the first part of pulling the trigger pulls back the hammer, and rotates the cylinder aligning a new round to firing chamber; then the last part of the trigger pull releases the cocked hammer to fire the round).

2)  Semi-automatic, Automatic, Hybrid

a) Revolvers – Technically, a double-action revolver is also semi-automatic, but is not magazine-fed, and does not eject the casings.  Most revolvers hold 6 rounds in their cylinder.  Rapid re-loaders are sets of revolver shells in a holder that allows the firer to first, open and empty the revolver’s cylinder and eject the shells, then use the re-loader to replace all the shells at once.  Those skilled with revolvers can fire at almost the same rate and continue to fire as many rounds as the users of semi-automatic magazine-fed weapons.

 b)  Semi-automatic tube-fed shotguns – a semi-automatic shotgun can hold 5 or more shells in a spring-loaded tube under the barrel.  The recoil of each shot ejects the spent shell and loads a shell from the tube.

 c)  Magazine-fed – hunters have used magazine fed shotguns and rifles for decades.  The military needed faster reloading, more rounds per reload, and the ability to pre-load ammunition in advance to meet the demands of combat.  A military magazine is designed to hold several rounds (usually 20) and has a strong spring in the bottom to push the rounds up to the chamber.  The number of rounds a magazine can hold is effectively limited by the strength of the spring to push them up

d)  Semi-automatic – in magazine-fed weapons, means that pulling the trigger fires a round, ejects the spent casing, loads another round, and cocks the trigger in one action.  Each pull of the trigger fires another round from the magazine.

e)  Automatic – pulling the trigger fires a round, ejects the spent casing, loads another round from the magazine, cocks the trigger and releases to fire another round as long as the trigger is depressed.  A machine-gun is by definition an automatic weapon.

f)  Hybrid – a manual selector switch sets the weapon to either semi-automatic or automatic.  When either setting is selected the weapon fires accordingly: semi-automatic requires the firer to pull the trigger for each round fired; Automatic means continuous fire when the trigger is pulled and held.  Military and police rifles have this option.

I post these distinctions mostly for people not familiar with the terminology for firearms.

The media uses the term “semi-automatic” quite regularly when describing shooting incidents; without these distinctions, people who have only seen weapons on television or in movies might confuse “semi-automatic” with “Automatic” machine-guns.

Federal Gun Laws spell out requirements and restrictions that apply nationwide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

States have additional gun laws concerning registration, ownership, and use of various types of weapons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

Many people know much more than I do about guns.  If anyone notices a factual error, please comment so I can correct the mistake.

A Long Close Look In an Honest Mirror – Self-Deception, Fear, Blame, Righteousness, and What Is So

I could examine how I think, believe, choose, and behave every day; but I do not.  I have many opportunities, occasions and reminders that I control my life choices, responsibilities, and results; New Year’s Day is one of those annual openings to reflect; this is a great time to examine the mirrors I use to see the world, others, and myself.

Have I been using my “Snow White Wicked Queen’s Mirror?” – I can hear the echoes of my version of “Who Is the Fairest of Them All?”

What do I see in my “Fun House Mirror?” – I find exaggerations, along the lines of “Does This Make Me Look Fat?”

Do I find myself driving with trepidation, eyes glued to my “Rear View Mirror?” – Do I doubt myself with a self-recriminating, “And, How Has That Worked Out For You?”

How often do I view, blame, and judge others through my “Two-Way Mirror?” – I find safety and superiority in many versions of, “Guilty, Undeserving Suspects in the Line-up?”

Could it be the right time to dust off my “Honest Mirror?” – Am I ready to ask myself:

  •  Do I feel driven to be attractive enough, good enough, careful enough, superior enough?
  • Do I??
  • Do I need these things to take and find joy in my life?
  • Am I in a beauty contest?
  • What is the prize?
  • Am I in a life or death talent show?
  • Can I ever win?
  • Am I what I fear from my past?
  • Who am I?
  • Are There Really Monsters Under My Bed?
  • Am I afraid to wake up, get up, and turn on the lights?

In my Honest Mirror I expect to find some answers, some chagrin, and once again another year of smiles.