Time's Up: I vote no more debates

 Most of those who forced themselves to watch the debate were nursing headaches.  I had decided to skip it, and my sanity was preserved as a result.

Many analysts (how can they keep analyzing this nonsense after the circus that politics has become?  It was not a circus, but the Trump gang has decided that it suits them to make it so.  One of Trump's "coaches", Chris Christie, has been heard to say that Trump was "Too hot."  I wonder what "hot" means, in the parlance of para-Trumpism) say that Trump did poorly.  Only about half of his staunch supporters have been polled as saying that Trump improved his chances of winning the election.

Let's face it:  Trump was dealt some big punches to the waistline these last few years.  But he's president.  He should be able to take it.  But his response to every setback is to come out vaguely blaming some other party, and refusing to take responsibility for making it right, and then, unbelievably, claiming that it has been solved, whatever the problem was.

A lot of people out there do not like how things are going.  They don't like too many foreigners coming into the US, and behaving like they belong here.  (Never mind that they are competent, and do a better job than anyone else, for the price.)  They don't like that Gays are allowed to marry.  (They never saw that when they were kids!)  They don't like it that all the cheap stuff they like to buy is now made in China.  (That's the only way to get it for the little that they're willing to pay for it.)

Think about this.  It is only Chinese manufacturing that enables us poor Americans to strut about sporting iPhones.

Trump tried to play games with China in trade deals.  But he doesn't know enough to play those games properly, and he cannot win.  The fact is that labor is less expensive in China, and we have nothing to counter that ace that they can play anytime.

Americans can make anything that the Chinese can make.  But we're used to being paid more for doing it.  So if we want to have nice things, we must either go to the Chinese, and ask nicely, or save up for longer!  Don't get mad at me; almost everything I own was made in China, and I am suitably embarrassed.

So, if you are confident that these debates are not going to change your mind about voting--or not voting--for Trump, then don't watch them.  The Pence Harris debate might be interesting; at least those individuals are able to obey reasonable rules.  (But Pence has been learning from Trump; perhaps he will convince himself that sometimes it works better to ditch the rules!)  Then Harris will shrug, and ask whether she can be excused, and go home.

Arch

Do We Need to Watch This Debate?

This debate should be watched only by those who are willing to change their minds.

Let's see.  It is possible that Trump will do just a fantastic job.  It is likely that Biden will simply fall apart.  But there is not likely to be anything that changes my mind; it is only likely to make me feel sadder about this election, or make me feel slightly better, and certainly, make me feel angrier, which is not a good thing.

If any of my readers are still on the fence, these words are not for you.  I have no advice for people who still feel that they might vote for Trump.  We have arrived at a moment where all that we have seen have made us aghast at what sort of person Trump is, what sorts of things he tends to do, and likes to do; and what sorts of thinking goes on within the Republican Party--either temporarily, while their unexpected Messiah, Trump, holds the party in his hand; or permanently, in order to defeat a lot of the policies that Democrats have, with difficulty, put in place.

After this election, we will have to re-evaluate not just the policies of the Democrat Party, but also the policies of the Republicans; or rather, they will have to rethink what they stand for.  I think (and I certainly hope), that there will be a landslide in favor of the Democrats, but I have been wrong before, and maybe Trump will win another chance to do what he thinks is best for the country and for him.  If that happens, we as a nation will truly deserve it.  And we will have to wonder what sort of country we live in.

Arch

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the Elections

Young Ruth Bader Ginsburg

While I was living my life, Ruth Bader Ginsburg quietly died.

As anticipated, Trump* and McConnel** have combined to set in motion filling the vacancy in the Supreme Court with a woman from the Appeals Court whose politics are considered to be conservative.  While much of the public frustration over the pick has been heatedly negative, I have the distinct suspicion that this lady--Amy Barrett--might be a more reasonable member of the Supreme Court than Kavanaugh, for instance.  So, while the injustice of the inconsistency of the Senate is still raw, there is little we can do about it, except to exercise our right to vote.

It all underscores the problem that many of the things that we depend upon to have government run smoothly are traditions, and precedent, and people's convictions about what sorts of decisions are decent.

On one hand, it might have struck a superficial person like Trump, that a lot of the ways in which things are done hamstring big business, and even medium-sized businessmen like Trump.  (Such as how he conducts his business while he sits in the White House, for instance.  There are plenty of people who could have run his business perfectly well, but no one who would have cut corners like Trump has.)  A lot of these conventions have benefited Democrats in the past, and perhaps Republicans feel that it was time to loosen up those fetters, and get ahead while the Democrats were down.  But when Trump got rolling with all these abuses of power, a few Republicans began to get uncomfortable.

We don't really know what a typical Trump supporter thinks.  The most rabid of them--such as those who turn up for his rallies--probably do not worry about such things very much; they have trust in Trump, and are confident that he will steer them through the quagmire of Government procedures, which they never understood anyway.

A lot of other Republicans are just watching what happens.  They're frustrated with, and sick and tired of, the roll that the Democrats have been on: giving unbelievable rights to women; treating minorities as though they were human beings; being polite to foreigners; making a fuss about the huge profits that the oil companies and the big retailers were making, etc, etc, and are ready to try new ways of pushing the conservative agenda; curtailing the rights of gays, putting the environment on hold, and preventing the Democrats from raising the taxes on the rich to pre-Reagan levels.  If and when they think matters are going beyond their ability to control it, and they want to go back to the old, civilized way of doing things, they can throw out Trump, and tell the world that it was all Trump's fault, and that they were only going along with it to see how far he would go.

Trump knows this, and is suspicious of the Republican Party.  But now he's more confident that the Republican leadership is sufficiently scared of him.  He thinks that the threat of his Tweets will keep them in line.  But the thinking of the multitude of former Republicans is by no means uniform, and very difficult to depend upon.

Fooling around with voting rights, and the election process is something that Trump is perfectly willing to do.  But then, in future elections, what is going to happen?  Not all the conservatives are foolish enough to think that if they win this election, future elections will take care of themselves.

Many of these Republicans have been in politics a long time, and know the pitfalls of breaking the rules, even if the rules are not actually rules, but agreements, and even if these Republicans are getting old, and have bouts of Dementia.

I will find it hard to forgive the Republicans for these several months of uncertainly and confusion they have inflicted upon us.  Many think Trump has been a coward for not facing up to the virus Pandemic the way a Democrat would have.  Well, yes; it is cowardice, but political cowardice, and uncertainty about how to deal with the crisis.  Trump's way has always been to point the finger of blame at some other agency--ideally Obama--and say that it was his fault, or her fault.  But in this case, he is not confident that doing that will work, therefore he has allowed the States to make the unpopular decisions.

During a pandemic, that does not work.  Because Americans have generally felt free to zip around the country, playing golf, attending meetings, meeting their mistresses, or whatever, and so containing the infection in a state is impossible.  Lowering transmission rates has to be handled nationally, which means that the President has to lead the way, and pacify the businesses and employers that the Federal Government will have their backs; and at the same time convince workers and employees that the Federal Government will have their backs.  Unfortunately, US Businesses have set things up so that workers are essentially on their own.  Social Security is a tiny bit of support for workers, which doesn't give them much, and certainly not enough for during a major national disaster***.  The social programs that states have put together are not competent to support citizens during an economic collapse.

If the population at large were sophisticated enough to look at the facts, and make reasonable decisions, Trump could never win this election.  But that's not what we have; for instance the people of Kentucky have been electing Mitch McConnell to the Senate for several decades, though he does not have their welfare at heart.  He does not have anyone's welfare at heart!  (Unfortunately, this is true for certain Democrats as well.)

But we can't make calculations based on what foolish and inconsistent people are likely to do.  (Political Science is a discipline that tries to do this, and by now my readers know that I am deeply annoyed at it.)  So we have to think of ourselves, decide on who we will vote for, refuse to be stampeded, make it clear (if we choose to) to our neighbors how our thinking goes, put up lawn signs, etc, when it is safe to do so, and vote as usual.  Vote anyway, if you don't usually vote!  Don't panic and change your plan, because there is a large number of people--some of whom are deliberately trying to confuse people about the voting procedures; some of whom are trying to foil the plans of those who are trying to confuse us--sending us information in the mail.  This should be outlawed.

So, to summarize: keep calm, and vote.

Arch

*The current President

**The current majority leader in the U.S. Senate.

***This is why the Dems want to make the Safety-Net for workers a much more reliable thing.  This is not Socialism; lots of not-at-all-Socialist countries have powerful safety-nets for when there is massive unemployment, etc.

Getting Some Sleep in this Election Season

Ever since I wrote that post on Socialism, I have been worried, thinking that anti-socialism folks would see their worst fears confirmed.  Though I am certainly in favor of Health Care Reform, even if it isn’t Medicare For All—which has to be improved in numerous ways, if it is to be friendly to everyone, take into account any grifters who have hung onto the medical system like leaches, and the numerous administrative folks who tend to tap into the enormous amounts of cash that flow through the medical system.  Some of these will end up working for the Health Service, but a lot of them will have to find some other whale to stick to, e.g. golf courses, or electric charge stations...—rich conservatives, who see the livelihoods of their friends going away, and their investments in Health Insurance disappearing, will begin screaming about Socialized Medicine, assuming that just those words will scare everybody.  Socialized Medicine is pretty much exactly what I want, if I had my druthers, and let me tell you: unless you’re a lot wealthier than I am, you will get better health care for less money than you’ve ever got so far.  It remains to find out whether doctors in Socialized Medicine countries are paid as well as doctors in the US (which would tell us something whichever way that goes).

 

No matter what goes on between now and Election Day, the more Democrats go to the polls and vote, the more likely that a Democrat will win.  And what’s more, the more likely that all those Democrats who are running for Senate Seats will win.  And for Congress.  It’s that simple.

Of course, Trump and his pals are creating a whole virtual world of fake news; declaring the election over as soon as the votes on November 3 are in, at midnight, etc.  There are all sorts of scenarios about how votes in Blue States are counted, etc. etc.  Well, there is nothing we can do between now and then; that sort of attack has to be taken care of after it happens.  Now, Trump and his friends are depending strongly on the Supreme Court ruling in their favor about their election shenanigans.  But telling the Supremes what to do is like herding cats.  Just saying.  Even Kavanaugh cannot be depended upon to salute, and vote Trump’s way.  He’s a Supreme for life, quite a different position than Trump’s.

Of course, in another four years, we will have to vote against another Reality TV star that the GOP will put up.  (Not the GOP Politburo, but the GOP rank and file, led by the Alt-Right, who are, it seems to me, an aggregation of yahoos, who realized that the inner core of the GOP could be smothered by a colorful character like Trump.

We can cross that bridge when we come to it.  It’s going to be a slow 4 years with Biden at the helm (but who knows?  We may not get socialized medicine, but if Biden decides to efficiently repair the highways and bridges, the many government buildings, schools and airports, putting a huge number of people to work, that would satisfy me.  Above all, Andrew Yang’s idea of a Universal Basic Income looks really good, even if it is restricted to people of low income).

My advice is: ignore the news and the TV.  Ignore your junk mail.  Stay focused on voting.  Get a good mask to wear, comfortable clothes, and a folding chair.  And on Election Day, keep your eyes peeled for Trumpy officials trying to turn voters away from the polls.  I think the GOP wants violence, so that they can turn Election Day into a brawl, call out the troops, and declare the election invalid, and impose military rule, or something like that.  Unfortunately, the military, too, isn’t too happy about Trump and his friends.  Heel spurs.  Right.

Arch

Socialism, the New Bogeyman

 The US is full of former Socialists.  Actually, they're Socialists, but not rabidly socialist; the main reason they have (or had) given up on socialism, is because there was such a deep-seated opinion on the part of certain people, that the poor, which meant minorities, and the handicapped, and single mothers, and Native Americans, and addicts—in short, all the people that everyone has had a great time despising and vilifying—do not deserve to be bailed out of their marginal existence.

If you ever asked these people (if you could find out who they are,) why they do not want the most poor and indigent among us to be supported by the government, they would not have been able to give you a good answer.  Some of them—the more reasonable ones—probably think that it would be a load on the government, and would put the country even more in the red (raise the deficit is the common way of describing it) than it already is.  More vindictive ones would say: well, we had to work hard for our own savings; why should these people get handouts, just for staying at home?  The poor, of course, have been accustomed to being downtrodden, and take this abuse without much complaint.

That was the case, until COVID struck.  Now, millions are out of work, struggling to pay their rents, which means their landlords (some of whom lived like kings) are unable to pay their bills, and so on, so unexpectedly, a lot of people are thrown into poverty who were never this poor before.  These people are not accustomed to taking the sort of abuse that people have been accustomed to throwing at them, so that there is now (as never before) a political base for anyone who wants to change the conditions of the very poor.

Talking about "socialists", the people who have been socialists for a long time are used to waiting.  We tell ourselves: we are in no hurry.  Once the One Percent goes too far, the vast majority of the population will put its collective foot down, and the country will head towards a sort of Socialism where the government will control everything, and will probably not do it well.  

Young people who have only recently seen the point of socialism tend to want all of the aspects of socialism right away.  In practice, it makes a lot more sense to do a little at a time, until the public becomes comfortable with the idea, before they proceed further.

America has done fairly well with almost complete private ownership of all resources, (and of course, now businesses are screaming to control public lands and forests) but unfortunately these businesses, over the years, have come up with all sorts of tricks in order not to give value for money for the things they sell to ordinary people.  They buy up the competition (e.g. the phone companies), they do price-fixing; they do bait-and-switch; they fight against minimum wage, and so on.  If the government begins to own some companies, the private businesses cannot indulge in price fixing anymore.  (Small businesses see themselves on the side of Big Business, which is slightly funny, but they have a point.  If there is, for example, a government beer distributor in a town, the private beer distributors can't raise their prices higher than the government distributor.  But you can easily see how a private distributor can offer things the Government distributor would not bother offering, so... you see how that goes.

It makes perfect sense to speculate how this thing will go down, to prevent the GOP and the rabid Alt-Right crowd trying to scare everyone.  The most urgent, and easily enacted legislation will probably be undertaken first, followed by the more disruptive pieces, for which it is more difficult to get consensus.

One of the most annoying and frightening things we see in a Pandemic, or whenever there is a crazy wave of illness sweeping through the continent, is loss of health care.  When you lose your job, you lose your health care.  Many Democrats want to fix this problem once and for all.  (Taking this particular benefit out of the control of employers makes an enormous improvement in the dynamics between workers and employers.)  What if the Federal Government pays all the medical workers some reasonable rate, and requires that all hospitals take anyone who is sick for free?  That would be the best case scenario, but most Americans will hate that.  American citizens do not feel comfortable getting something for nothing.  (Will these workers be paid as well as they're paid now?  Will they all be paid the same, or will workers in New York be paid better than those in Podunk, Pi? Etc, etc.)  Or the government could take over the Insurance Companies, Blue Cross, Aetna, Prudential, etc., workers, managers and all.  Eventually, like all mergers, they will lay off unnecessary workers, which of course these workers will hate.

Another annoying thing is the fluctuating price of gasoline.  The government could take over the gasoline companies, and smooth out the distribution of gasoline.  Everybody expects that, if that is done, that the price of gasoline will go up.  I'm not sure why that is seen as inevitable.

One of the biggest actions that could be taken, as Andrew Yang has been advocating, is to give every person a small stipend, something as small as $500 a week.  In New York City, that will not go as far as it would in Podunk, Pi, but somehow, a way to make it work has to be found.  If this plan, called a Universal Basic Income is put into practice, it will be clear that people who want to continue to live in NYC will only do so if there is something that makes it convenient to live there.  So there will be a gentle pressure for people to move out of NYC, unless there is some advantage in living there, such as being close to some workplace.  Or being close enough to Trump Tower that you could go stand in front of it, and absorb its awesomeness.

Many big cities—and some quite small cities—allow anyone to ride a bus, for almost no money, and sometimes for free.  The more people ride the bus, the fewer of them will be driving to work.  A car carrying a single person to work is an enormous load on the environment.  Outlawing single occupant cars, alone, will improve Global Warming by an incredibly large amount.  Of course, we Americans value our polluting cars highly; almost more than anything else.

Finally, there is an initiative to either forgive outright, or heavily subsidize, college loans.  I am not certain that is fair; some young people take on part-time jobs while in college, which helps pay their fees, and for the rest, take out only very small loans.  Others do not work at all, and take out enormous loans.  If all these loans are paid off, it would appear that those who took out large loans get a larger advantage than those who have already worked their way through college.  However, if the government takes over those loans, they could reduce the rate of interest considerably, which would help all college graduates struggling to pay off their loans.  Banks have passed on revenue from college loans to their stockholders for far too long.

So, as you can see, it is possible for Joe Biden to do as little as he thinks the public can stand to do, and as little as Congress can stand to put into law.  I have never paid more than 25% income tax, and I doubt that any new tax law that Biden and the new Congress will put together will raise my taxes higher.  Many of my readers, those of you who are in the 35% tax bracket and higher, may see their taxes to up, but I'm sure they will pay the extra assessment with rejoicing and song, because who does not want the poor and the indigent to get a break, after all these horrible months?

Arch

Some Principles for the Post George Floyd Age

[First published 2020/9/10]

 As I reported recently, some people are not satisfied with non-violent protests.  (They say that Whites take no notice of them.)

Looting, destroying property.

We were brought up to believe that destroying property was wrong, no matter whose property it was.  But now, the Looting and Pillaging front proposes the principle that some looting is OK.  What are we to think?

I think--and I do not know the answer to every question, though I pretend I do on the Internet--that we've got to consider the property as a resource.  If you destroy a restaurant, you do hurt the proprietor, even if he is a policeman who is as likely to shoot you on sight as to bring you your check.  But more, you hurt the dozens of people working there: cooks, waiters, etc.  Your call.

Wearing a Mask.

People have been studying this issue, and there is absolutely no doubt: (1) places where people wear masks have lower infection rates than places where people do not wear masks.  (2) Places where some people wear masks do better than places where no people wear masks.

Of course, a mask is no protection if a huge number of people are crowded in a room together.  It's worse if the crowding continues for a long time.  In situations like that, it almost doesn't matter whether you wear a mask or not, but I'm not going to go along with that.  Wear a mask, but get out of that room.

Sending your kid to School.

This is a real tough one.  I think it depends on the school.  Some schools hide behind the privacy issue, and refuse to test, and sometimes refuse to tell you whether there have been infections.  Other schools are completely open.

If (1) it's a small school, and/or (2) they try to hold many of the classes outdoors, and/or (3) half the kids are staying home, and following along remotely, and (4) the sessions are short, and (5) the classrooms are aggressively ventilated,

then there's a good chance that Junior will be safe, especially if people in your area hardly ever leave town.  But there are some jokers who want to attend every game, every gathering, every rally, every anniversary, in short every opportunity to collect a virus or two from buddies they haven't seen for a long time.  If there are such jokers in your environment, I say keep your kids at home.  Stupidity is an aggravating factor for disease control.  Braveness has nothing to do with it.

If the safety precautions are being followed, I have to admit that, even if kids are with their teacher for a quarter of the time they would have, before the virus, they could end up learning a lot.  Many teachers I know have been frustrated at being separated from "their" kids!  It's a funny thing.  Some teachers don't mind teaching over the Internet, especially High School teachers, but it's kind of hard on kids who don't have as much access to technology.  Other teachers hate remote teaching with a passion, including most elementary teachers.

Many parents are looking at this from the point of view of child care.  They can't work, with the kids at home.  This is a slightly separate issue, but the present administration (and the State Governments, who are not encouraged to be creative by Headquarters) are not trying to think of novel ways of solving this problem.  For instance, every family has a couple of other families that they trust, with whom they can make a pact saying that none of them are going to indulge in risky behavior.  If that is done, one of the parents can supervise a sort of camp, say at a playground, or a clubhouse, or a church basement, where the kids are allowed to play quietly.  Of course, there are some little people who will go crazy at the sight of their buddies, but . . . what can you do?  This is America, and we have to recognize that some people are going to make things suck!  This is what Elizabeth Warren has been saying: nobody has taken child care seriously.  It is unfair to dump the child-care task on the schools, because schools have people trained for teaching; child-care is only an incidental skill that they learn in order to get the teaching done.  They're quite professional about it, but . . . there you are.

Vote by Mail vs. Vote in Person.

This is a tough call.  I have decided to vote in person, because we live in a small town, and I doubt whether the lines are going to be very long.  I have other reasons for doing it, but that's my choice.

Many people have already voted, especially in states where they have early voting, such as Arizona and California, and I believe, Colorado.  Those people are beyond being confused by the President's asking people to vote twice, which in Pennsylvania means you go to jail.  (We didn't make it a law forbidding a president from requesting the population to perform a felony, because nobody thought a president would do such a thing.  I mean, we don't have a law forbidding presidents to ride motorbikes without a helmet, either.)

I have run out of ideas.

What I notice a lot is that many of my friends are on the brink of panic about the elections, and the antics of the White House, and other sectors of the administration.

You have to realize that Mr. Trump comes from a Reality TV background (though nominally he's suppose to be a cross between a hotelier and a real-estate guy).  He mainly wants to be on TV all the time, therefore he dreams up some drama every day, like the Kardashians.  Ignore it, but make sure you vote.  Just start a new hobby.  In eight weeks, our agony will be over.

Arch