We Vote (DAY AFTER-) Tomorrow!

All these last several weeks, some folks—whose main occupation seems to be thinking about the political situation—have been driving themselves distracted, worrying about what the outcome of the election will be; will Trump win a second term; will the Democrats win a majority in the Senate; will they maintain a majority in the House, what will the State Houses look like after the election, and so on.

All we can do is go out and vote, and then worry about what to do next.

There are a number of things that we ought to worry about—after the elections:

* How to eliminate, or strongly reduce, the role of money in politics.

* How to deal with this problem of Gerrymandering, which is particularly bad in Pennsylvania.

* How to get people back to work, given that there is a highly contagious virus in our environment.

* How to get—and keep—school-age and college-age youth's minds sharp, given that conventional classes are really not an option—even though some Democrats seem to support a return to school.

* How to stem the tide of the GOP's little presents to the 1%, and to the business community generally.

* How to deal with the incoming tide of immigrants from the South, without being cruel or harsh.

And—

* How to deal with the Corona Virus, and COVID-19.

But first we have to vote, and verify that there is indeed a strong leaning towards the Democrats in this election; so much so that the entire Republican Party is bearing the brunt of people's dissatisfaction with how political business has been conducted in the last several years.

As one writer wrote (quoting Senator Ben Sasse [R Nevada]), Trump seems to have viewed the Presidency as a business opportunity.  There is no legal means for us to combat such an attitude, except to vote him out.  There have been numerous instances where Trump has shown a lack of understanding about what is expected in a President.  As far as we can tell, he seems to be thinking: what's in it for me?

Even without the problems with Trump's deafness to voices of conventional rectitude, the GOP has had his back for four years.  They defended him against the impeachment, and they watched while Trump subverted the Justice Department and the State Department, and made them instruments of the Trump so-called Empire.  It will take a long time to repair the damage done to the administrative agencies of government, and even longer to repair the damage, and build back the public's trust in those agencies.  The Democrats are considering a number of constitutional amendments that will block some of the moves that a president might take, inspired by the example of Donald Trump.  Another analyst says that what is most worrisome is that another nominee will arise, whose objective would be to do more of what Trump did, but do it more ruthlessly, and more competently.  This is a frightening thought.

In some ways, things are beginning to look like a pendulum.  Sometimes pendulums are such that if there is a swing in one direction, there is a bigger swing in the opposite direction.  (Little kids know this, by riding on swings, and pumping their legs.)  Perhaps Trump was made possible by Obama's great success.  If Trump makes possible a huge landslide towards the Democrats, they must be careful about not overplaying their hand.  An even bigger swing towards the Republicans next time around, will be very unpleasant for everyone, especially minorities and women.

We must be careful to moderate the propensity of some among us to take retaliation against the conservatives.  There is the possibility that some anti-social elements might respond to the results of the election by destroying the property of the winning side, especially if they're marked with Biden-Harris stickers, and so on.  If Biden-Harris win, the best we can do to the frustrated Alt-Right is—for a few days—pretend that they do not exist.

Arch

Learning How Foolish Our Neighbors Are

The major spreading events, over the year, have all to do with: Celebrations.  Business celebrations, birthdays, Sweet Sixteen parties, etc.

Some people just have to celebrate.  We always knew some of our friends were spoiled.  They would whine about something that they were being denied, such as having a big party to celebrate some stoopid thing, until whoever was preventing this from happening said, OK, go ahead.  Don't blame me if you get sick.

We obviously don't know about all such instances; we only know about the events that ended up being spreader events, such as the President held.  Covid follows the Pres like a gleeful herd of Minions!  I think it was cheap of the Pres to blame it on Gold Star Families (like he did); he accused them of coming up to him and kissing him.  Some Gold Star families are probably not the brightest; they aren't as clever as the Pres, who said he had a bone spur, or something.

The number of infections in any locality is a measure of the stupidity of that area, except for those who are forced to go into work in unsafe areas, because otherwise their bosses would fire them.  (Think nurses, ambulance drivers, etc.)

Thank goodness I'm retired; I don't know how I would have dealt with being forced to work in this environment.  My heart goes out to everyone who has to brave unsafe conditions in order to put food on the table of their families.  I have very little sympathy for those who go around without masks on their own time.

Arch

Money For Nothing!

The American Dream is different for different people.  For people like Trump, it looks very much like: you stumble on a money pit, and then you sit back while the shekels roll in, and spend all your time bolstering up your public image.

This works---and had worked---for many of us; the easiest way was to get money from the land.  Farming was too painful.  But hiring a lot of poor people to dig coal out of the ground was a good idea.  (Those who worked the mines took all the risk.)  Cutting down trees was another good one, especially if there was a boom in housing construction.  Once they started mass-producing cars, they needed steel.  There were iron mines, which made some people rich.  Then there was oil.  And gas.

Then there was the Stock Market!  Then there was Real Estate!

Then there was the Great Depression.  Then there were the Wars.  (Some people got rich from the wars.)

Then, there was a change.  Young people began to travel outside the US, and began to get strange new ideas about equality.  They seemed to think that not just White Americans, but everyone, even the women, deserved a share of the power and the wealth.

They also seemed to think that it was important to keep the air, the water, and the land clean.  They got into Congress, and then into the Senate.  They studied science, and what sorts of things polluted the environment.  Soon, the Money Specialists, who had focused on how to get the most rent out of poor tenants, and how to get the most suckers into the casinos, looked up, and all they could see was these people--who looked like low-budget communists to them---making rules that got in the way of duping customers.  It wasn't enough to sell people soda; people wanted to know how much sugar there was in the damn soda.

These people were aghast at all the roadblocks that the Democrats were throwing up in the way of easy profits, and wanted to make America safe for unscrupulous businessmen again.

Let's talk about America and The World.  There was a certain time in which American Idealism was a refreshing contrast to the cynicism of the Old World.  Anyone who had a good idea would be sneered at everywhere except in the US.  There was a time when an inventor would be given a fair chance in the USA.  There was a time when someone with a grievance would get a fair hearing in the USA.  Side-by-side with the capitalists with tunnel vision, were friendly folk who were not suspicious of people, as long as they were confident you were not one of those horrible communists.  This was the time that the Alt-Right looks back at with longing; the US would frown on the shenanigans of some countries, and was eager to take leadership in any new project.  We were No. 1.

Soon those awful Democrats turned around to look at what was going on in the US itself, and began passing legislation faster than ever; Social Security, and Medicare, and Equal Rights, and Handicap Accessibility, and Unisex Toilets, and Gay Marriage, and the decriminalization of abortion, and lots of people wanted things back the way they used to be.

But the things that really made America great are probably not the things that the Alt-Right think made America great.  The things that Trump urges those at his rallies to do are not the things that ennobled the USA in the eyes of the world.

Trump knows this perfectly well.  All he wants is for his ardent followers to imagine that the things Trump wants do make America great.  It is a hoax.  A lot of what Trump engineers are little hoaxes, and they're hoaxes on his own people.  This is probably why when some of his assistants get tired of what goes on in the White House, leave the fold, and make such an about-face.

How much do Trump's nominees to the Supreme Court see through Trump's hypocrisy?  How much are they committed to altruistic ideals?

Does American need to be No. 1 in everything to regain the respect of the world, and a position of leadership---to some degree---among the nations of the world?  I think that depends on whether they can trust the US to be impartial, and to keep our word.

Arch

Hate as a Business Model

For those of you who have found it too wearying to work out the ins and outs of US politics, here is a good opportunity to straighten out those kinks in your reasoning.

Bear in mind, though, that whenever anyone tells you that they're trying to help you straighten out your thinking, by all means give them a listen.  But also be very careful that they're not slanting their reporting to the benefit of some particular view, and that's the case here, too.  And it is also the case when I go on one of my rants, or even when I explain something that seems to be in a reasonable 'voice'.

Particularly in politics, the lines of motivations are very tangled.  There is nothing that this speaker says that I have not realized, without any external prompting, a year or two, or even a decade or two ago.  But Matt Taibbi really seems to me to gather up all the threads that sometimes elude us, and explain things in such a way that we can be a little less frustrated about the day-to-day news, wondering whether we're missing something.

I stumbled on this video by Matt Taibbi just last night.  It is very clear and lucid, and is intended for a very general audience.  It is basic information, information that will be invaluable for several kinds of people:

* People who just do not like the wholesale prejudiced atmosphere we have now, where we almost have to avoid people with one sort of opinion, and only talk with those who have our point of view.  We know this is unhealthy, and you'll begin to see that this state of affairs was actually--possibly unintentionally--manufactured by Business Interests.

* People who do not like to have to think for themselves, and need their prejudices figured out for themselves by experts.  (This was intended to be funny, but honestly, it is very tiring to have to unravel the twisted motives of people we see in the news, particularly when these motives change daily!)

* People who used to have friends of all types: white, black, conservative, libertarian, liberal, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Israeli, Palestinian, Arab, Russian, European, British, Irish, Mexican, etc, and deplore how things stand today, where it seems almost a felony to want to talk to these people again.

The basic problem has been that, back in the Sixties (as Matt T. explains,) both Radio and TV news services were at pains to capture the largest possible audience.  This meant presenting the news with as little emotion as possible, not appearing to support any particular side.  Doing this even-voiced reporting ensured that you did not alienate any sector of the audience.

Once the sources of news proliferated, and in particular, once the Internet became a source of 'news', but more accurately, a source of opinion mingled with news, it became more profitable for each news service to select a particular demographic, and focus on getting a solid grip on them.  The most successful of these news services (Fox News) learned that the best strategy was to make their target audience mad about the news, and keep them mad, and only show them news that kept them mad.  That should be enough for you to figure out the rest without Matt Taibbi's help, but for the more feeble among us, Matt goes above and beyond the call of duty, dotting every i and crossing every t.  MSNBC is the same as Fox, except that they focus on keeping Democrats permanently angry.  Today, he explains, every news source has identified its target audience, and relentlessly pursues the objective of permanently keeping their tempers simmering, by selecting the news stories that support that anger and hate.  So, unless you switch your news sources around, you're never going to hear about good things happening around the world, or even around the continent (North America, to be exact) that may take you off the simmer, and miss a juicy advertisement.  As someone once said, the responsibility of every business is to maximize its profits, and not worry about the well-being of its workers, or the good of society.  Good businesses have to be bastards.  (As if I didn't have it in for business already, here is one more nail in the coffin of my good feelings for business.)

The people who don't waste energy on getting angry are: Business Interests.  As long as they can sell their advertising, as far as they're concerned, hate is good.  Small businesses are not party to this cruel strategy; and in any case, it is the news services that really keep the news anchors' toes in line with this strategy for maximizing their advertising profits.  As Matt explains, once the news anchors arrive at a winning formula, the advertisers hate when the news anchors depart from it, because the profits begin to plummet immediately.  A happy audience is not an audience glued to the TV, and biting its nails.

Arch

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.