That's Not The Point - That IS THE POINT!!

Due to Michigan's proximity to Canada, we are exposed to semi-regular news stories detailing the issues with the Canadian healthcare system that drive Canadians to America to receive needed care.  That is one reason among so many why I remain steadfastly opposed to any further movement toward a nationalized healthcare system in the US.

One of the primary criticisms of healthcare in the US is that healthcare is rationed by virtue of cost.  If you can't pay, then you can't have.

With national healthcare systems such as those in Canada and the UK, healthcare is rationed by virtue of time.  You can't have any until the government approves the procedure.  In some cases, approval takes a very, very long time.  Approaching "never"...or just simply never.

Along comes the case of Jolene Van Alstine, a citizen of the Canadian province of Saskatchewan.  She suffers from a rare parathyroid condition.  The solution to the condition is the removal of the parathyroid.  This is a standard procedure that is known to resolve the problem.

So to solve the issue one sets up an appointment with a doctor and has the procedure done.  Spit.  Spot.  Move along.

Except, one must first get a referral to an appropriate doctor to perform the surgery.  No such qualified doctor exists in Saskatchewan.  And their NHS has (thus far) declined to offer a referral outside of Saskatchewan.

Apparently, this condition is quite painful.  Ms. Van Alstine is in sufficient distress that she has begun the process of applying for MAID from the Canadian healthcare system.

MAID stands for Medical Assistance In Dying.  The stated purpose is that a person suffering from an incurable, intractable medical issue can request assistance in committing suicide.

For the record, I think the approach stated above is a sound basis upon which to create assistance in dying.  If a person dying from cancer (or Parkinson's, or nerve damage rendering them a quadriplegic, or...so on)  is faced with the choice between several months of increasing pain or a quick exit at the moment of their choice, then the latter is the most humane and ethical option on the table.

But in this case, the problem persists because their NHS refuses to give permission to a qualified doctor to set up a practice in Saskatchewan.  And they have, thus far, declined to issue a referral to Ms. Van Alstine to visit a qualified doctor outside of Saskatchewan.

You may want to read [one] and [two] articles on this event.

What I find unconscionable is the response from various officials responsible for healthcare in Canada.  From the articles:

Starting with this bit of mealy-mouthed non-responsiveness.

"Due to patient confidentiality, we cannot comment on specifics of an individual’s case and outcomes," the spokesperson said. "The Government of Saskatchewan expresses its sincere sympathy for all patients who are suffering with a difficult health diagnosis.

"The Ministry of Health encourages all patients to continue working with their primary care providers to properly assess and determine the best path forward to ensure they receive timely access to high-quality healthcare."

After an American broadcaster steps into help:

Tom McIntosh, a professor of politics and international studies at the University of Regina who focuses on health policy, says Canadians should not allow political posturing to draw their attention away from the real problems.

“Whatever kind of foolish opportunism that Glenn Beck is demonstrating for his own purposes, we, I think, should try not to be distracted by that,” McIntosh said in an interview on Wednesday.

 And this from the government health ministry:

A Ministry of Health spokesperson confirmed the meeting shortly after and sent CBC a statement.

"Due to patient confidentiality, we cannot comment on specifics of an individual’s case and outcomes," the spokesperson said at the time. "The Government of Saskatchewan expresses its sincere sympathy for all patients who are suffering with a difficult health diagnosis.

"The Ministry of Health encourages all patients to continue working with their primary care providers to properly assess and determine the best path forward to ensure they receive timely access to high-quality healthcare."

The point, from their perspective, is not that their system is broken in a way that leaves people vulnerable to not receiving needed care.  The point is not that they need to take quick action to resolve the issue to keep a person from the alternative; preventable suicide.

Their point seems to be that this is all just an American circus pitching its tent in Canada for fun and profit.

That's not the point.  The point is that nationalized health care systems deny citizens their ability to access needed care.  Nationalized health care systems fail to respond to market pressures because they destroy the market signals that reveal those pressures.

Had they allowed physicians to open an office where ever the physicians saw an opportunity to serve people (and earn a profit), then this wouldn't have been an issue.  Ms. Van Alstine would have had multiple doctors from which to choose.

Had their system allowed a local doctor to make a referral to ANY qualified doctor in Canada, then this would not have been an issue.

The problem is created by rationing care which is the inevitable result of any nationalized health care system.

Socialism and Communism - Kissing, Turbulent Cousins

One of my many pet peeves is the incessant mischaracterization of the Nazis as being "far right" on some sort of linear political spectrum.  There are no common elements between the economic/social controls that the Nazis imposed and the typical, liberal, capitalist, small-d democratic form of government practiced by most western nations.  The communist assertion that the Nazis were "far right" is patently false.

[More about political spectrums at the bottom.]

My understanding of the history of leftist ideology is that the communists originally call themselves "left wing socialists" while they label fascists and similar ne'er-do-wells as "right wing socialists".  Free markets don't even register on the communist political spectrum.  Those of us that support free minds and free markets exist outside of their reality.

Fascist governments have historically engaged in social and economic controls that are very similar to those imposed by communists.  The problem is that no socialist group wants competition.  As a result, the first thing the socialists do after getting into power is shoot the communists.  And vice versa.  They are competing to position their faction as the best expression of collectivist ideology.

I came across a brief essay by Gustavo Jalife at The Conservative Woman.  His thoughts on the topic are quite similar to mine.

The characterisation of the ‘far right’ as nationalist, racist and authoritarian ideologies that seek to eliminate democratic systems, even through violence, is repeated daily by mainstream media pundits who deliberately try to smear whoever defends democracy by resisting the intrusion of the state into every crevice of private life. However, the formula perfectly applies to forces dwelling on the opposite side of the political arc. The Soviet Communist Party, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party NSDAP (the Nazi Party), the National Fascist Party of Italy and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, among other totalitarian ensembles, fit the description precisely. That the flagrant subversion of a primary concept has taken root even among presumably learned people confirms the resounding success of one of the greatest propaganda operations ever undertaken.

Gustavo referenced a longer essay by Allen Gindler titled "How and Why Fascism and Nazism Became the ‘Right.’” originally published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies.  I'm still chewing through the essay, but there were some early nuggets worth quoting.

Instead, Marxism is a particular and extreme current of socialism called communism. In other words, Marxism is undoubtedly leftist, but the Left is not entirely Marxist. Marxism did not invent socialist thought, which originated centuries earlier and is known by the collective name “utopian socialism.” Marxism’s founders initiated the communist camp and clearly distinguished themselves from contemporary socialists, whom they contemptuously called “so-called socialists.”

and

According to Engels, the last group—democratic socialists—shared the majority of communists’ political objectives but stopped short of accepting all the provisions of Marxist doctrine. They were satisfied with achieving goals within the framework of social democracy. Communists engaged in partnerships with democratic socialists and tried to convince them to embrace communist thought in its entirety.

and

The lesson to be learned and remembered is that left-wing intellectual circles were vibrant yet at the same time hostile environments. Despite the fact that the Left has only one common enemy—capitalism—intractable contradictions in the tactics and strategies of its overthrow made them implacable adversaries.  Even though the bourgeoisie was the Left’s openly proclaimed enemy, they were treated less harshly than opponents from their leftist circles, who were treated like vile traitors. History showed that as soon as one of the left-wing parties gained real power, it immediately persecuted its fellow socialists from other factions.

I invite you to read the essay for yourself.  Thus far it is a clarifying piece that documents the history of leftist factionalism.  From my perspective, there are no significant differences between socialism (even so-called "democratic socialism") and communism.  The only differences are a matter of style...and how they put the bullet in your head for having the temerity to utter the phrase they hold in highest contempt; "I disagree".

---

Regarding political spectrums.  The entire framing of politics as a linear spectrum also has roots in early French republics and other parliamentary systems.  Representatives in those governments had partisan seating such that those on the perceived "left" were seated to the left.

A more accurate depiction of political options is offered in the image below.  Whenever I engage with one of these quiz-based political maps, I generally wind up somewhere in the green circle.  Communists generally end up somewhere toward the left edge of the black circle and fascists end up in the blue area of the black circle.  My point is that communists, socialists, and fascists frequently have far more in common than might be imagined if one uses the flawed, linear political spectrum that places communism at one extreme and fascism at the other.

Horseshoe theory is real.

Most western societies, including the United States, including the much-reviled MAGA movement, generally fall into a range that is a bit above and a bit to the left of my green circle.  You can take one such quiz here. 

Division

It's been a rough week.  If you have the time for a 5-minute video, I hope you'll spend a few reading my thoughts as well.

My political life began in the United States Marine Corps.  It began with the rather rapid change from suburban/rural kid from a predominantly white public school to being a recruit in boot camp who ended up showering with a bunch of black guys.  There were other groups present as well, but let's be honest and acknowledge that within the context of American history, that is one of the biggest changes that could have happened to someone like me.

Except, the Corps didn't see color.  We were all green.  While the pragmatists always recognized that there were dark green Marines and light green Marines, we were expected to serve together and support one another.  Any green is green enough.  The Marine Corps taught me strong tolerance for people of other ethnicities.

Within a year, I had to help clean out the wall locker of a young Marine who was discharged for the "offense" of thinking that he might be gay.  This was long before "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  He'd never affirmatively done anything beyond hanging out and drinking beer with some gay civilians.  This Marine was tough.  He had won the Golden Gloves in his hometown.  He was smart.  He was attending some of the hardest aviation maintenance schools the Corps offered.  But he said the wrong thing to the wrong person and his departure was so fast that it caused a low pressure pop of the air.  A Marine leader said something along the lines of "Idiot.  If he'd have just kept his mouth closed, no one would have cared."  There's more to that story that makes it even more surprising if you buy into stereotypes.  At the end of the day, the Marine Corps, taught me tolerance for gay folks.  It turns out he wasn't the only gay Marine I'd ever know.

It became apparent early on that politicians would have a serious influence over my life.  The policies they supported/opposed could result in poor equipment, poor training, poor living conditions, or sending my tender backside to the other side of the planet for worthy or unworthy purposes.  So I started reading.  Newspapers.  Magazines.  History, current events, you name it.  

Eventually, I would develop an appreciation for a well defended argument.  I wasn't always right, but I always tried to have the facts.  "Steel-manning" is the phrase that pays these days.  I was pretty good at.  And some might say that I spent a little too much time at it.  I'd spend time at the local library using the microfiche to find old magazine articles and bringing that new information back to the discussion.  The Corps taught me to engage in good faith discussions with people who have a different point of view.

As a side note, Ronald Reagan once said something in the 80's about "welfare queens" who were defrauding the government.  I had the singular privilege of watching two of my brother Marines go at it over that issue.  One thought Reagan was full of it.  The other thought he was spot on.  Ironically, it was a dark green Marine (married with one child) who was raised in the inner city who said that he had witnessed everything Reagan was talking about and we ought to cut back on welfare.  It was a light green Marine (single, girlfriend had a child) from the farmlands who was concerned that the government wasn't doing enough to support his girlfriend.

A second side note comes from the wake of the killing of Malice Green in Detroit.  It obviously became a point of discussion.  Let's just say that I learned a few things about the state of (then) modern policing from people who had lived with it.  It was an honest exchange and we all got back to the business of being Marines.  The Corps taught me that listening to other perspectives is a good idea.

Those kinds of sessions taught me the value of skepticism.  At one point in time, I said something silly about the impact of marijuana on the behavior of marijuana users.  I didn't know it was silly then, but it did motivate me to learn a thing or two down the road and I eventually changed my mind.  The Corps taught me that just parroting the last thing you hear or failing to spend the time getting the "rest of the story" will inevitably cause something silly to fall out of your mouth.

After I left active duty, I continued engaging in what were then good faith discussions.  Mostly online.  Probably spent too much time at that and not enough time at more important things.  At one point I had the modestly rewarding experience of pointing out the many problems with nationalized healthcare systems and having someone tell me a few months later that they lived in a country with a national healthcare system and this person had discovered that I was right.  They had experienced the government deciding to deny them care.

I started a blog where I wrote about different topics including current events.  And eventually, the world changed.  Not for the better.  And my engagement has largely waned over the years.

The liberals in those conversations were eventually replaced with progressives, socialists, and communists.  Where the liberals might be persuaded by facts, the rest were thoroughly engaged with dogma/propaganda.  It became quite rare to experience an exchange where someone said "Dann, you've got a good point."  I wasn't looking for utter victory.  I wasn't seeking to crush my enemies, see them driven before me, and hear the lamentations of their women.  Just a recognition that perhaps their position could use some refinement and perhaps there is a middle ground where we could both find agreement.  

Then there was the change in the major media.  While a leftist bias in the media has long been an issue, there used to be a firmer wall between news and opinion reporting.  That started slipping over the years until you get to the point where a major online dictionary changed the definition of a word during the nomination hearings for a potential Supreme Court Justice just to make the nominee look bad and the major media embraced that action in a manner that should have made George Orwell spin in his grave at 1984 RPM.  

The combination of a dishonest media coupled with those who embraced a socialist/Progressive agenda and were disinterested in any other perspective sapped my motivation to engage.  

Leftist/progressive politicians and leaders along with their allies in the major media have called every GOP nominee for President in this century a "Nazi".  Mitt "Milquetoast" Romney was called a "Nazi" for a hot minute until it was clear that he had no chance of winning.  

For the record, George W. Bush is not a Nazi/fascist.  John McCain was not a Nazi/fascist.  Mitt Romney is not a Nazi/fascist.  And Donald Trump is not a Nazi/fascist.  There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to make about each of them.  Asserting that they are a Nazi/fascists is illegitimate.

The major media no longer maintains the pretense to reporting all of the facts, including the ones that are inconvenient for leftist/Progressive politicians and leaders.  When something bad happens that makes the leftist/Progressive position look bad, the major media reports on it briefly at best or ignores it completely at the worst.  If the folks on the right make a big deal about it, the media story is about the right-of-center response to the event and not the actual event itself.  The most recent example of this phenomenon being the murder of a Ukrainian woman Iryna Zarutska.  Killed by a man that a sane society would have put in prison for lesser crimes before he had a chance to take her life.

We have heard, time and again, the call for a "national conversation" over a broad range of issues.  Leftist/Progressive politicians and leaders routinely call for a national conversation whenever some serious event occurs.

But the modern leftist/Progressive debating tactic is to hurl invectives like "Nazi", "racist" , "homophobe", "sexist", and "transphobe" whenever they encounter an opinion that does not perfectly align with the leftist/Progressive leadership's position of the moment.  They do not use that language to be accurate.  They use those words to say "shut up".  Their objective was to have an opportunity to lecture and not to have a conversation.  Within the modern leftist/Progressive leadership mindset, the very worst hate speech in the world is only two words long; "I disagree".

Which, unfortunately, brings us to Charlie Kirk.  Love him.  Hate him.  Agree with him.  Think he's full of it.  Charlie Kirk was up for a "national conversation".  It was the foundation for everything he accomplished.  If someone wants a discussion, Charlie was up for a discussion.

A discussion where all sides get heard.  Where all sides get fact checked.  Where the flaws in everyone's arguments get exposed.

And I don't know how much I ever agreed with Charlie.  He's a fast talker.  I'm skeptical of fast talkers as they can toss out a lot of information that may (or may not) be accurate.  In a world where news organizations are not committed to reporting all of the truth, some lies ends up halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on.

But if there was going to be a national conversation, Charlie Kirk was ready to be a part of it.  Until someone told him to shut up.  With a bullet.

There will be more to this story in the coming days and weeks.  I am already seeing people twist little threads to change the narrative of this story.  My usual advice is to wait about a week before getting ready to say something about an event.  The easy and quick response is rarely the best one.

I will say that there are too many folks spoiling for some sort of civil war these days.  As with every other person who graduates from boot camp, I have a solid understanding about the hazards of war.  I served in a combat zone but never was in the thick of a fight.  I just fixed airplanes on an air base hundreds of miles from the front.  We weren't safe, but we were a long way from where the bombs and bullets were flying.  Trust me.  We don't want another civil war.

A final piece of advice is to remember that most folks are just folks.  Don't let the politicians, activists, and other political leaders have too much influence.  Remember when you are talking to a neighbor or co-worker, that y'all share a lot more than might divide you on an issue or two.  Leave some room for reasonable disagreement.  Leave some room for others to change their mind without pushing their back up against the wall.  A little bit of what some folks call "grace" goes a long way.

Diplomacy - December 7th

This isn't my story to tell, but it is a story that should not be lost to the mists of time.  Credit to The Diplomad/Lewis Amselem.

A Little Lighthearted Diplomatic Mayhem re Pearl Harbor

I served in Guatemala in the 1980s. While there, I attended countless diplomatic receptions and functions. Most have long slipped from my memory. One, however, I always remember when December 7 rolls around.

Among others in the U.S. Embassy, I got invited to an event at the Japanese Embassy in honor of the Emperor. You guessed it, the reception was on December 7. A couple of us joked about it, but, off we went. Japanese receptions were always among the best: superb food and drink; everything artfully and tastefully done; and their diplomats were nice, well informed, and seemed to like Americans. As the party was winding down, I slid over to one of my Japanese contacts and kidded him about the date, "You have guts throwing this event December 7."

He seemed perplexed, "We decided to hold it today instead of tomorrow, because of American sensitivities about that day."

Now I became the perplexed one, "What's so sensitive for us about December 8?"

My Japanese friend looked at me as though I were the biggest ignoramus on the planet, he whispered, "You know, Pearl Harbor attack day."

I couldn't help but laugh at this bit of international miscommunication. I told him, "On this side of the international date line, the attack took place on December 7."

He, however, did not laugh. Mortified, he turned bright red. I thought he would order the entire staff to commit seppuku on the lawn. He was so embarrassed, I got embarrassed. He could not stop apologizing for the error; I started apologizing for having brought up the matter. For weeks afterward, whenever he saw me, he would apologize; I would apologize, too.

A day after the reception, the Japanese Ambassador sent our Ambassador a bottle of very expensive sake with a long note. Our Ambassador, a wonderful, rough, tough oil man--and a Marine in the Pacific during WWII--called on me in a staff meeting, "What the hell is this about? Why is the Japanese Ambassador apologizing to me?"

I explained.

He smiled and said, "Ah! Well, then this is yours." He handed me the sake.

It is my privilege to be the host/MC for this year's Pearl Harbor Day observance being held at the USS Arizona Memorial of Michigan.  The ceremony begins at 1 PM.  Please attend if you can.

When Greta Meets Reality

 Courtesy of Mad Mike via Tom Kratman

H/T Mad Mike

One crisp winter morning in Sweden, a cute little girl named Greta woke up to a perfect world, one where there were no petroleum products ruining the earth. She tossed aside her cotton sheet and wool blanket and stepped out onto a dirt floor covered with willow bark…

— Tom Kratman (@TKratman) October 28, 2023

Sums It Up - Meme-o-riffic Version

 

Found elsewhere, but this pretty much covers where we are these days.  Leftists are getting the vapors over white nationalists trying to glom onto the trucker convoys as if the presence of the white nationalists defines the larger protests over Covid restrictions.  Compared with the George Floyd protests, the violence and vandalism associated with the trucker convoys have been (thus far) quite minimal.

That doesn't excuse violence and vandalism.  Those individuals should be arrested and prosecuted accordingly.

Based on what has been meted out to most of the rioters in the George Floyd and the Antifa riots, those in the trucker convoys probably should get about a minute and seventeen seconds in jail.

Pending Musing on a Pending Nomination

As many know, President Biden has promised to nominate a black woman to the US Supreme Court.  He made that promise to obtain the support of a prominent Democrat.

If you look at the data, women make up about 37.5% of federal judges.  Judges who happen to be black are roughly 5.4% of all judges.  That means that President Biden is limiting his range of choices to roughly 2% of the total pool of federal judges.  How likely is it that his nominee will be among the best of the very best experienced, legal minds in the country if he limits his pool of nominees based on race and gender?

I suppose he might select someone outside of the judiciary to be on the Supreme Court.  That happens infrequently.  I also supposed that it might be a bit much to hope that he would nominate Condoleezza Rice if he looked outside of the pool of current federal judges.  No need to hold my breath on that one.

I noticed something a bit odd in the demographic data for federal judges.  The proportion of judges who are either black, Asian, or Hispanic actually increased during former President Trump's term in office.  According to some, Mr. Trump is the biggest racist to reach the Presidency for a very long time.  But his administration's nomination of judges led to greater racial diversity.  The percentage of women on the bench also went up.  

The racist and misogynist President improved diversity on the federal bench.  Perhaps the mainstream media narrative isn't quite as valid as some might otherwise suggest.

From a few early reports, it looks like U.S. Appeals Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is in the lead for the nomination.  I had never heard of her before.  From this profile, she seems to have the basic temperament and intellect for the job.  Former US House Speaker Paul Ryan thinks well of her ability as a judge.  Judge Brown Jackson's husband is the twin to Paul Ryan's brother-in-law.

The judge clerked for retiring Justice Stephen Breyer.  I'd be happier if she had clerked for former Justice Scalia, but we can't have everything.  Her educational background (Harvard) would be part of a disappointing trend.  Her professional background as a defense attorney would represent a historically unique and welcome (in my opinion) addition to the bench.

Hopefully, if she is nominated, her confirmation hearings go smoothly and no odd-ball legal theories will be revealed.  It would be nice to see a competent judge make it to the Supreme Court with a minimum amount of fuss.

Justice Sotomayor is a rank disappointment.

Update - with these things, there will always be something more.

It turns out that Joe Biden used the Senate's filibuster rules to block the first black woman to be nominated to the US Supreme Court.  Her name is Janice Rogers Brown.  She was nominated by then President George W. Bush.  Biden was part of a group of Democrats that filibustered her nomination to a US circuit court position.  Columnist Robert Novak said the event was “the first full-scale effort in American history to prevent a president from picking the federal judges he wants.”

That effort was successful, but Judge Rogers Brown was re-nominated and confirmed a couple years later in 2005.  She was considered for a US Supreme Court appointment a couple years later.  Biden again offered to filibuster her nomination.  She would have been the first Supreme Court nominee to the filibustered in the history of the nation.

It seems to me that the Democrats allege that the filibuster is racist precisely because of their past experiences in using the filibuster for racist purposes.  They can't imagine it being used for anything more principled.  They are projecting.  They almost always are.

8/6/2025 - pronoun trouble! corrected

Settled Science?

 Found...and shared...

Yet Another Government Action Undermining Our Republic

There is an article over at Rasmussen discussing the 2020 census and the "updates" that have been applied by the Biden Administration.  While this is written as an opinion piece, it is being hosted over at Rasmussen; a serious polling firm that tries to do polling correctly and accurately.

The Biden Administration has inexplicably "adjusted" the population counts for several Democrat-leaning states.   The obvious result is that those states will not lose as many seats in the US House of Representatives.  The flip side of that is that there are Republican-leaning states that will not gain as many seats in the US House.

My many friends on the left that wonder why I distrust their version of expansionist government should refer back to this issue in the coming years.

There is an extensive and well-documented trend of people moving out of Democrat-leaning states and into Republican-leaning states.  Adjusting the census values to minimize that trend is questionable.  The fact that all of the adjustments run in one political direction is also questionable.

Highly questionable.

While I am not a big fan of "deep state" conspiracy theories, I do think there are cultural issues in play.  The civilian employees have a preference in terms of their working conditions and the operations of their respective agencies.  Generally, the larger the agencies, the better the employee's chances for advancement and the less their chance of being laid off.

People living in majority Democrat places tend to expect more government services and support the politicians that advocate for funding those services.  

There is a bit of symbiosis between Democrat politicians and government employees.  This isn't a purposeful conspiracy but rather is just the natural alignment of groups with objectives that complement one another.

Here's the problem.  If Donald Trump had won the 2020 election and had his administration "adjusted" the census count to enhance Republican representation in the US House without sufficient justification, then wouldn't the Democrats have screamed bloody murder?  Impeachment?  Hell, they would have howled even if the justifications were documented and reasonable.

The mainstream media, ever a leftist-friendly group, would have come unglued.  Allegations of vote fixing would be broadcast 24 hours per day.  It would have been presented as an abridgement of the voting rights of the citizens of those Democrat-leaning states.  Other speculation would have been offered with wild abandon.

I predict that none of these people will have any issue with the Biden Administration's attempt to manipulate the census for political objectives.  I also predict that they will look at anyone that questions these "adjustments" as if they had grown a third eye in a prominent location.

The lack of a critical media response is just the latest example of how our demonstrably biased media is undermining our great Republic.

The following are from the article.  Read the whole things for additional context.

No. 1: New York -- We've been tracking the annual population/migration changes between states since the last census in 2010. Over the past decade, New York LOST about 1.3 million residents on net to other states. (This does not include immigration, births and deaths.) Still, this is a population loss that is the equivalent of two, maybe three, lost congressional seats. But the final numbers ADDED approximately 860,000. That's roughly twice the population of Buffalo and Rochester -- combined. This is the state that has lost by far the largest population over the past decade.

No. 2: Many deep-blue states had 2020 census numbers significantly revised upward from their December estimates: Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.

No. 3: Many red states had 2020 census numbers lower than their 2020 estimates: Arizona, North Carolina and South Carolina.

No. 4: Going back to the 2010 Census, the final head count in every state was within 0.4% of the original estimate, and 30 of them were within 0.2%. This time around, 19 states were more than 1% off, 7 were more than 2% off, NY was more than 3.8% off, and NJ was more than 4.5% off.

No. 5: Virtually every one of the large deviations from the estimates favored Democrats. Just five states in the 2020 census were within the same margin (0.41%) that all states were within from the 2010 census.

Media Bias - A Rumination On Ruination

 Media bias is real.  It has been measured in the past and it continues to be proven on a regular basis.  Project Veritas, in a tremendous bit of undercover reporting, got a CNN producer to admit that they had altered their news coverage to make Donald Trump look worse and Joe Biden look better.  Their intent was to alter the results of the 2020 Presidential election.  

It looks to me like they were successful.

A few weeks before that, CBS's 60 Minutes program offered some fake news as real news by attempting to paint Florida Governor Ron DeSantis as being in some way corrupt in his administration's deployment of the Covid vaccines.  60 Minutes lied.

What brings me to this topic today is how the illicit bias of our mainstream media is helping to undermine American civilization.

I watched it for years.  My dad would frequently go off on a rant about Donald Trump.  Sometimes he was right.  But more often than not he was basing his thoughts on his continual media diet of CNN along with occasional pieces from CBS, NBC, etc.  At no point did he encounter any media personality offering a dissenting opinion.

I'm not sure if it makes me sad or glad that dad wasn't around to find out that he was sold the fiction of the Trump/Russia allegations.

I am sad to see that it never ends.  The policies of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo undeniably resulted in tens of thousands of senior citizens dying due to Covid-19.  His administration lied about those deaths for months.  Yet the mainstream media lionizes Gov. Cuomo as being a marvelously successful governor.  Parenthetically, the administration of Michigan's Governor Gretchen Whitmer followed similar regulatory policies with reasonably similar results.

The same media portrays Ron DeSantis as being an absolute failure with respect to Covid-19.

The data tells a much different story.  As of February 15th, Florida's deaths due to Covid on a per capita basis were below the national average.  At the very least, in the middle of the pack.  Michigan ranked a bit higher.  A bunch of northeastern, high-density states had the worst outcomes.

But this isn't the story that you get from our mainstream media.  Instead, we get a highly distorted narrative where reporters commit verbal contortionism to create the impression that Democrat governors have all the correct policies while Republican governors have all the wrong policies.  So-called "red" states are presented as if people are dying in the streets.

The truth is more complex and a bit nuanced.  It is also true that attempting to fit any reporting on Covid into a strictly "Democrat vs. Republican" narrative is impossible if the media is committed to reporting the facts.  Some Democrats had good policies and some had bad ones.  The same is true for Republicans. 

If they are instead committed to acting as agents of propaganda, if they have taken a political side within the American culture, then the reporting of facts is no longer of concern.

And the ruination of American civilization lies dead ahead like the iceberg waiting on the Titanic.

Re-Visiting Those Damned Cold Equations

Fans of science fiction will generally be aware of the short story "The Cold Equations" written by Tom Godwin and first published in Astounding Magazine in 1954.  A super short summary of the plot is that a young girl has stowed away on an emergency rocket that is being sent to a planet with a serum needed to save the people on the planet.  The rocket is designed to make the trip with only the pilot aboard...barely.  The additional weight of the stowaway is sufficient to cause the rocket to miss its destination.  The story frames the choice as between killing the girl so that the rocket can reach its destination, or letting the people on the planet die of some lethal illness.

The story was first published in the 1950s when science fiction frequently framed issues as binary choices.  While stories from that period might feature a clever protagonist to discover a third path, it was just as likely that poor choices would result in predictable disaster.  The best criticism that I have read is that the rocket did not have a large enough safety factor.

There is a forthcoming anthology of rebuttals to The Cold Equations.  I expect many essayists to add elements that are not present in the original story to reach their own preferred conclusions.  Rather than address the story as written, they will probably add in a factor that is not otherwise evident as a lever to be used against the main purpose of the story.

Rather than discussing the merits and criticism of the story, I'm first going to travel to Texas, rhetorically.

Lt. Governor Dan Patrick implied that he was willing to die to ensure the survival of his children and grandchildren.  He went on to suggest that lots of grandparents would make the same choice.  The context of his comments was the "choice" between maintaining our self-quarantine that is significantly damaging our economy or resuming normal social habits at the demonstrable risk of killing off a substantial number of our elderly.

"No one reached out to me and said, as a senior citizen, are you willing to take a chance on your survival in exchange for keeping the America that all Americans love for your children and grandchildren?" Patrick, 70, told host Tucker Carlson. "And if that's the exchange, I'm all in."

Dan Patrick is a former radio talk show host.  Like other media personalities that have been elected to public office, Mr. Patrick needs to recall that people in his current position need to exhibit a bit more discretion when they speak.

That's the polite version of "Dan Patrick decided to be an idiot for a few minutes".

We are not currently at the point where we need to be deciding who lives and who dies.  We are most certainly not at the point where we need to risk the lives of senior citizens by prematurely restarting the economy.

That being said, we do have to make choices; sometimes hard choices.  The decision to build an interstate highway can spell success or destruction for a small town.  The decision to raise or lower taxes can result in a change in mortality and life expectancy that is measured in real lives but experienced so diffusely that you can never truly identify a single life specifically cut short as a result.  The decision to regulate how medicine is practiced and funded might save tens of thousands of lives in the next year, but cost tens millions of more lives in the coming centuries by altering how new medicines and procedures are developed and deployed.

We are currently rushing to produce more ventilators.  Manufacturers are repurposing their facilities to meet the current demand.  The race pits innovation and ingenuity against literal death.  Innovation and ingenuity might well lose the race in a big way.  Unlike literature, there is no deus ex machina to save the day.

The fact is that we all have to make choices based on what we hope is the best of information.  We are all learning now about the importance of certain types of medical and personal protective equipment.  We are learning that we had manufacturing and import capacity to cover the usual needs of society, but not enough to cover our needs during a pandemic.  We are learning that we had stockpiles sufficient to cover a few significant regional calamities, but such stockpiles were entirely insufficient for a larger catastrophe.

What comes next?  Will we have a nationally organized database of manufacturers that are pre-qualified/pre-positioned to shift manufacturing for these critical items?  Will the design of those critical items be periodically updated? 

And of course, there will be new calls for a nationalized health care system in the US.  The most common indictment of the US system is that it rations care based on income.  Will those critics evaluate the other methods of health care rationing used in nationalized health care systems?  In the US, almost all get some level of health care and some get more than others.  In most nationalized systems, all get some level of health care and sometimes all get none when it comes to modern treatments.  Will we have a full and rational discussion or will there be more of the usual propaganda?

Will the critics of The Cold Equations pause in their rush to suggest alternative conclusions to acknowledge the practical limitations, however ham-handedly presented, that were in play?

The utility of science fiction is that it allows us to take an issue out of the pressing moment and twist it and test it and look at it in a different way.  Are the principles in play appropriate?  Is the design sufficient to the task at hand or is the safety margin to low to ensure success?  Do we sometimes have to make do with what is available now rather than wishing for a perfect solution to arrive too late to be of any value?

Science fiction allows us to ask the hard questions, to examine the cold equations, so that we can craft a rational response to real problems.  The other option is to emotionally demand that we unquestionably cherish the old and infirm as if we possessed unlimited resources.

Loving a senior in the age of Covid-19 certainly means doing our level best to prevent them from being infected and that, once infected, they get the very best of care that is available.  In the age of Covid-19, there may not be care available.  The doctors and nurses may have to choose between using a ventilator for a senior or using for someone in their 20s.  How does an emotional plea to cherish the elderly help resolve that choice?  The same doctors and nurses may have to choose between using chloroquine (or a similar drug) for a senior or reserving it for a person using it to address a long term autoimmune problem.  How does an emotional plea to cherish the elderly inform help to resolve that choice?

The single greatest flaw in The Cold Equations is that it does not explore any alternative solutions.  It does not examine why the safety margins had to be so slim that the mass of a single stowaway was sufficient to lethally undermine the purpose of the rocket.  Tom Godwin simply establishes a binary choice that is to be made and then allows time to elapse.  The Cold Equations presents the emotional mirror of cherishing those at the greatest risk from Covid-19 without examining the reality of the limited resources that are available in that moment.

What The Cold Equations does do quite effectively is cause the reader to confront that situation where the fuel cell is empty.  Where the tank of air has been depleted.  Where the last morsel of food has been divided and consumed.

We are ill-served by those that pretend that hard choices do not exist.

-----------

There are other works that deal more effectively with issues surrounding questions of survival and the utilization of available resources.

Lucifer's Hammer by Larry Niven

An asteroid crashes into earth causing massive tidal waves, earthquakes and throws the earth's climate into a far cooler range of temperatures.  Modern technology is...largely....gone.

The White Plague by Frank Herbert

After an Irish terrorist kills a scientist's wife, the scientist cooks up a bug designed to kill all human women.  He lets it loose on the island of Ireland after notifying the world of the need to quarantine the island.  The world does not listen.  Things go...poorly.

The women that survive find themselves with a tremendous amount of power and influence due to their unique...ummm...resources.

Seveneves by Neal Stephenson

Another "large body crashes into the Earth" story.  This time it is the moon or at least pieces of it.  The race is on to get humanity off of the Earth in a way that allows them to survive and perhaps thrive. 

The Last Dance (The Near-Earth Mysteries, #1) by Martin L. Shoemaker

The Earth isn't under attack.  But in this story, humans explore the deadly reaches of our solar system; pretty much anywhere that isn't firmly on terra firma.  The main protagonist is a spaceship captain who built his career on identifying and minimizing risks.  His planning and engineering necessarily mean making tradeoffs and planning for tragedy.  He imparts that sensibility on his crew at every turn.  There is also a whodunnit mystery and a lot of astrophysics involved.  This was one of my best novel nominees for the Hugo Awards for 2020.

For The Record

I care a whole lot more about what is going on between a political candidate's ears than the pigmentation, configuration, and application of their genitalia.

The same goes for pretty much everyone else.

The Biological Differences Between Men and Women

I ran across this item that is posted on Reddit.  The graph is from a large scale study of the American public.  The data illustrates the relative strength between men and women in the US.

The Reddit entry, with the study data and description, are here.

Click to embiggen

This was a part of Megan McArdle's longer discussion about the pay of the US Women's National Soccer Team relative to the USMNT.  The thread extends for quite a while, and she makes some great points.

The rain has stopped in Washington DC, but there's still a tweetstorm coming!

Today we're talking women's World Cup, and equal pay for our champions.https://t.co/9Kdepmnyrc

— Megan McArdle (@asymmetricinfo) July 10, 2019

Mostly I'm just saving this for future reference.  The folks in Reddit's Data is Beautiful do an outstanding job of presenting complex information in a manner that is easy for almost everyone to understand.

Authors and Social Media

I had an interaction with an author a short while back via social media.

The author is an indie author.  They had put out something that was unrelated to their works.  It was something political.

The item considered a comparison between a socialist/communist dictator to Che Guevara as being positive towards the dictator.  I pointed out that Che Guevara murdered a whole ton of people.

The author responded by calling me a "crypto-fascist" and attempted to get a dogpile going in my direction.  No dogpile resulted.  The author also went into "whataboutism" mode by pointing out that the US government had killed a bunch of people in the 20th century.  (He is right on that count.  More context below.)  The author was either unwilling or unable to engage in a civil discussion about Che Guevara's history of malign actions against the people of Cuba.

I lamented the fact that our modern age offers enough access that we can learn all sorts of things about authors that most readers would never have known.  Nothing I offered was insulting.  The author asked me not to respond any further and I honored that request.

Some other person (also an author....I think)  came along with a response that was more pointed than mine.  That individual made some mildly insulting remarks towards the author while also questioning whether Che is worthy of laudatory comments.

And that was largely the exchange.

You may note that I haven't named the author, their books, the social network, or the socialist/communist dictator.

That is because, this incident aside, I like this author and I enjoy their books.  They only have two books out right not, but they are both great.  The third book in the trilogy is due out later this year.  I can't wait.

And I do not want anyone harassing the author.  Again, this incident aside, I like this author and I enjoy their work.

But I do want to talk about the author's ultimate response which was a couple of blog posts.  One was about indicating that they were stepping back from social media.  The other was lamenting the emotional drain that being in near constant contact with one's readers/fans has on an author.

Ironically, the first one was titled to give the impression that a discussion of that social media platform in particular.  No such discussion was forthcoming.

I'm sure that the constant contact with fans and the perceived need to continually create new engagement is emotionally draining. 

Everyone has to figure out how much social media they can take without harming their own well being.  

One helpful approach is to be well grounded in one's postings.  Kind words for Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, or Adolph Hitler (number 4 on the mass murdering dictator list) are going to invite a pretty significant reaction.  While Fidel Castro (and by extension Che Guevara) didn't have the same raw numbers in terms of people murdered, the percentage of the population that was murdered was certainly closer to that for the people that suffered under history's "big four" murdering dictators than to a true democracy.

The table below comes from the Power Kills website that is maintained by the University of Hawaii.  That website presents the research data of the now deceased Professor Emeritus R.J. Rummel.  Professor Rummel researched the number of civilians killed by government action; military combatants excluded.  I have extracted a few lines of data from the professor's database.

My point?  Cuba under Castro was a bloody mess.  His regime murdered at least tens of thousands of Cubans for the crime of dissenting from his communist regime.  We aren't talking about violent dissent.  We are talking about people that were insufficiently supportive by cutting corners on rationed goods or who participated in black markets for staples that most Americans purchase at a local grocery store.  And gays.  Castro murdered (and imprisoned) lots of gay folks for the "crime" of being gay.

Cuba under Castro was a far more bloody mess than it was under Batista.  That is almost always the case when comparing a non-socialist/communist government with the socialist/communist government that replaces it.

In fact, the Cuban government killed far more Cubans (domestic deaths) than Americans that were killed by the American government (again domestic deaths).  The US is clearly a much larger nation, yet the government killed far, far fewer people.  In an apples-to-apples comparison, the Cuban government was far more murderous (0.807% of the population vs. 0.016% in the US).

Looking at democratic governments, including the US, in comparison with totalitarian and communist regimes (kinda the same thing, IMHO), democratic governments are far less likely to start killing their own people.  Democratic governments, including the US, are far less likely to run around killing civilians in other nations as well.

We should all be decent to one another online.  Don't reach for invective and insults too quickly.

And don't offer praise for people that are undermining the human condition on a massive scale.  You will get called on it.

Edit - 6 September 2019

I've had limited exchanges with the author after the events above.  Mostly I've just "liked" and re-posted their promotional posts.  The third entry in their series dropped this summer. 

I'm about halfway through it and the author's performance remains excellent.  I said so in the same forum where we had that more heated exchange.

The author apologized for their behavior, acknowledged that I had responded to their behavior civilly, and thanked me for my support despite their self-described unacceptable behavior.  Supporting the work of someone with whom one has other disagreements was in some measure remarkable to this author.

For my part, I apologized for offering an opinion where it was not expected.

Neither one of us apologized for our opinions.  It wasn't required.

Again, I'm not calling out the author by name as that wouldn't be helpful.  But I do think it is helpful to note that given a bit of time and introspection, they came to regret the manner of their response.

I try to be a work-in-progress.  I think this author is trying as well.

Developing That Curriculum Vitae

After writing most of this, I came to believe that there will be many readers that won't be interested in the "longer version".  Here is the short version:

• Hillary Clinton is a misogynist.
• Her achievements as a legislator are vanishingly small.
• Her stint as Secretary of State was unproductive.
• She either believes herself to be above the law or she is incompetent when it comes to obeying the law.
• Her financial history reeks of corruption.

Here is another "short version".  Those that supported her bid for the Presidency are good and decent people.  They are not "otherwise good and decent people"; just good and decent people with whom I disagree.  We have a fundamental disagreement about what constitutes good and legitimate government within the US.

Progressives are not stupid and evil. Conservatives are not racists and misogynists.

The sooner we stop using disagreement as an excuse for maltreatment of others, the sooner we might find some common ground upon which we can all move forward.  Treat one another well.

If you must.....the longer version follows.

Trump - A Year Plus In

Here we are a year and several weeks into the Trump Presidency.  It seems like a good time to account for where we seem to be going.

I could probably write a couple pages on each of the topics below.  To keep this from getting too tedious, I'm only going to keep it as brief as possible.  If there is a part of a topic where you, dear reader, are inclined to say "except.....", please assume that I am not suggesting that successes (or failures) are being offered as without flaw (or completely flawed).

Where are we experiencing progress - 

Judicial Appointments - Mr. Trump has largely been appointing men and women of experience, probity, and temperament to apply the Constitution as written.  The US Constitution was written to think expansively of individual liberty and restrictively towards the size and scope of the federal government.  His appointments mostly are pointed in the correct direction.

Tax Cuts for the Middle Class - The recently passed tax cuts appear to be largely aimed at folks that are not rich.  The updated tax laws apparently will increase the total tax burden on the folks at the top of the income scale by limiting SALT deductions.  Those are reasonable changes.

Cutting the Corporate Tax Rate - Our corporate income tax rate was one of the highest in the world.  It discouraged companies from bringing overseas profits home.  It discouraged overseas companies from investing in facilities and jobs in America.  That is no longer the case with positive results, thus far.

Reductions in Regulations - Just as we are Taxed Enough Already, we are similarly regulated enough already.  While there are areas where new regulation might be useful, there are far more areas where existing regulations are numerous and counterproductive.

Trade/Treaties - I support free trade.  I believe that our general trend towards engaging in free trade agreements has largely served to improve conditions in the United States while also benefiting our trading partners.  At the same time, I also believe in fair trade.  It is hard for American workers to compete in a global marketplace where other nations do not have the same level of environmental and employment regulations.  Persuading our trading partners to embrace worker and environmental protections should be a part of crafting effective trade agreements.

The Economy - I am generally of the opinion that a President's actions take months and years to impact the economy.  I am generally of the opinion that government policy has less impact on the economy than some people imagine.

But you have to admit that the US economy came busting loose starting in November/December of 2016.  Mr. Trump wasn't even in office and things were improving.  Why?

Because we knew that we would not have to face another 8 years of an administration that could not express a limit as to how much government should collect in taxes, how much government should spend, and how much government should regulate.

Couple what Mr. Trump's administration is not taxing/spending/regulating with their other actions and I am hopeful for our economic future.

But not everything is rosy...see below.

Beating the ISIS/ISIL "Caliphate" - ISIS was in control of regions of Iraq and Syria before Mr. Trump assumed the Presidency.  Our military had been supporting local efforts to undermine ISIS for years without much measurable progress.  Within 10 months of taking office, ISIS no longer controlled cities in Syria or Iraq.  The US military can accomplish a great deal worth accomplishing when they are unfettered by overly restrictive rules of engagement.

Foreign Policy/Diplomacy - Right at the start, I want to point out that Nikki Haley is precisely the sort of person that we need at the United Nations.  She fearlessly highlights abusive and despotic regimes with precision and passion.

It is also useful to note that our belligerent administration has caused Iran to cease harassing our ships in the Persian Gulf.  It has motivated North Korea to begin a rapprochement with South Korea without conditioning that action on meeting with the U.S.  Neighbors should talk without the US having to be at the table.  This is what diplomatic progress looks like.

We could also include the change in attitude in the Middle East following our recognition of Israel's capital of Jerusalem as their legitimate capital.  There is a growing recognition that the PA has little interest in a negotiated solution.  As such, the world is moving past their concerns and forcing them to re-evaluate their perspective.

As with every diplomatic issue, events will unfold over time.  History may well render this reading as overly optimistic.  One year in and things appear pointed in the right direction.

Cabinet Appointments - From Jim Mattis to John Kelly, Rex Tillerson, Ben Carson, and Betsy DeVos, the cabinet seems to be staffed by people that are capable and competent.  Mr. Trump appears to be listening to those people...at least some of the time.

Immigration - While a bit of a mixed bag, we have seen some progress in this area.  The Obama administration's DACA program was illegal.  Only Congress can establish our immigration standards.  By terminating the DACA program, Mr. Trump has put the proverbial ball back where it belongs; in Congress.  I'm generally supportive of giving the DACA kids a legal path to residency.  Citizenship begins at a US embassy or consulate.  Not by jumping a fence or overstaying a legitimate visa.

I appreciate the desire to move towards a merit-based immigration system.  I also think we need to re-balance our immigration quota system to make it fairer for people in more populous countries.  (A special hint for those in need, that means that we'd have more legal immigrants from Mexico and fewer from some European nations.)

We need to discuss positive changes to our immigration system.  But at the core of that discussion needs to be the twin principles that our representatives in Congress get to determine the conditions of immigration and that respecting US immigration laws is a pre-requisite for eventually becoming a US citizen.

Where things are off the rails:

Immigration -  This issue can get just flat divisive.  Normal folks just want to know that the government is reviewing potential immigrants to filter out criminals.  I know too many people that have followed US immigration laws to become valued and productive US citizens to want that process to be shut down.

Mr. Trump's insistence on shutting down immigration from south of our southern border while simultaneously signaling that people from Norway would be welcome gives the appearance of racism in public policy.  Given his history, this is probably something more than "appearance".  And it is a deeply disturbing distraction from the process of negotiating sane changes to our nation's immigration policies.

TWITTER! and other acts of randomness -  There just isn't enough space to list all of the weird "ideas" coming out of the White House these days.

There was his idea for a military parade like the one he saw in France.  I will bet that the number of folks serving in the military that would be willing to trade a long, holiday weekend with the chance to practice drill for a couple of months before participating in a general cluster of a parade could be safely contained in a public restroom.  A very small public restroom.

The most recent weirdness was Mr. Trump's praise for Xi Jinping effectively declaring himself China's "president for life".  Mr. Trump suggested that he'd have to try that sometime soon.  Ummm...no.  Just....no.

And as a final example, there was his approval of eliminating due process considerations when seizing guns from people deemed a threat.  Has he never read the Constitution?  On second thought, don't answer that.

We will all have another group of bizarre proclamations to discuss by this time next week.  Fixing that problem will not be easy.

Constant brinksmanship and randomness - While some of his "tactics" have yielded positive results, his other tactics are downright ghastly.  Challenging North Korea was sound.  The use of diminutions like "rocket man" and discussions about who has a bigger red button ought to be beyond discussion.  The man has impulse control issues on a staggering scale.

Again, fixing that problem will not be easy.

The Economy - This was originally rolled into the Twitter and Randomness above, but it rates its own entry.  Now we are going to engage in a trade/tariff war?  Has the man never heard of Smoot-Hawley?  Is he unfamiliar with American history?

I am all for fair trade, but that support ends when it morphs into outright protectionism.  I predict that this "trade war" will not end well for anyone if it continues unchecked.

Racism/Sexism -

My outline for this section used the phrase "whiff of racial animus", but that is a poisonous use of euphemism.  Donald Trump may not be actively racist in the vein of the Klan or other such groups.  His comments in the wake of events in Charlottesville, VA may only represent his being habitually and/or reflexively racist.

The racism is there either way.  His history as a New York landlord also suggests that he is as committed to classifying people based on their race as any left-wing activist engaged identity politics.

His denigration of women from claiming to grab 'em by the pussy....we're going euphemism free here....or cheating on his wife with a porn star are easy indications of how he perceives women's roles in our modern society.

I have no desire to have either perspective as a part of our national leadership.

What are the alternatives?

A Republican could certainly enter the primary against Mr. Trump.  As I didn't vote for Mr. Trump in either the primary or the general in 2016, I'm certainly willing to look at alternatives.

The Democrats could run a viable candidate for a change.  Had they done so in 2016, I believe that Mr. Trump would have been significantly less likely to win.

What would a "viable" Democrat look like?  Not Hillary Clinton.  Not Bernie Sanders.  Not Elizabeth Warren.  They need to find someone willing to supporter lower tax rates and a simpler tax code.  This prospective candidate needs to appreciate the sterling benefits of free markets.  They need to support simplifying and modernizing government regulations.  They should support a position of American strength on the global stage...diplomatic, economic, and military...to support oppressed people that are denied their individual human rights.  They should be focused on broad-scale public policies aimed at blue-collar voters.  They need to abandon the left's obsession with identity politics.

If the Democrats run a candidate that displays most of those qualities, then they might well get my vote.

If they don't, then at the least we will have a President that is guaranteed to have at least one success every day as soon as they get out of bed.  They will not be Hillary Clinton.

A Note To The Professional Actor, Author, Painter, Musician, Etc.

Dear Professional Entertainer,

Your opinion matters.  Your ability to express that opinion matters.  It is thoroughly unacceptable for critics to suggest that you "shut up and" do whatever it is you do to entertain the world.

Your opinion is not the only one that matters.  The caterer that provides food for your events has an opinion as well.  The person makes sure that electricity makes it to your home has an opinion.  The person building/repairing our nation's highways and byways has an opinion.  The person that monitors inmates at the local jail has an opinion.

And all of those opinions matter as well.

The primary difference is that the caterer, the power company employee, the road construction worker, and the jailer do not enjoy a prominent platform from which to offer their opinion to the world.  Instead, those very same people enable the privilege of your very prominent platform that you  use to present your thoughts on passing events.  They buy your books.  They buy your albums.  They buy tickets to your concerts, movies, and theater performances.  And they help create that platform by being fans that are interested in the life behind the creative efforts that they so frequently enjoy.

So instead of reflexively reaching for snark, instead of using that most over used tool of sarcasm, perhaps it would be better to have a bit of restraint.  Instead of painting people who possess a different opinion with a broad, tar-laden brush, it might be better to exercise a bit more precision.

Instead of denigrating those that create your privileged position while not similarly enjoying a equal opportunity to comment on passing events, perhaps you should demonstrate a modicum of leadership.  Show us how people that disagree can do so with a modicum of civility.

Regards.....

A Presidential Molehill - Mountains Need Not Apply

So my social media is being infested with stories about President Obama granting a large number of pardons and clemencies yesterday.  It made me a little curious, so I did a little digging.

First, it is useful to know the difference.  A "pardon" essentially sets aside all of the facts of the case as well as the verdict and punishment.  It is a complete forgiveness that erases the act from the criminal record.  A pardoned person recovers all of their rights and is no longer considered convicted of any crime.

Clemency involves ending or reducing the sentence of a convicted individual.  Their crime remains a matter of public record.  However, their punishment, typically confinement, is reduced or terminated.  This is frequently granted to individuals where the President (or state Governor) feels that the sentence imposed by the court far exceeded what the conditions of the crime merited.

Mr. Obama apparently did set a record for the number of combined pardons/clemencies granted by a President in a single day.  But what is the larger context?  (Special note, the statistics on the site were last updated in October and therefore do not reflect actions since then.)

Mr. Obama has been quite frugal with respect to granting pardons.  Prior to yesterday's actions, he actually had granted the fewest pardons of any President dating back to the 19th century.  Now he is just at the low end of the range.  He has granted a little over 100 full pardons.  As a comparison, Richard Nixon granted 863 full pardons and Dwight Eisenhower granted 1110.

Mr. Obama has been far more generous with granting clemency.  Given how much our legislatures have taken to creating statutory sentencing minimum, it is no surprise to learn that we are giving lengthy prison sentences to people who either cannot afford a good attorney or who simply are not able to assist in other prosecutions.  Essentially, these people cannot get the sort of "deal" that is routinely offered to other defendants.  Also, Mr. Obama has correctly questioned the results of a system that offers disparate punishments for the possession of powdered cocaine and the possession of crack cocaine.  The drug is the same in both cases.

And so he has been far more generous in granting clemency.  Properly so.

There is a bit of hypocrisy here as one might expect.  One of the sentencing modifiers created by the Congress is the presence of a weapon; specifically some sort of gun.  The intent is to give prosecutors the ability to put extra bad people in prison for extra long periods of time based on factors that have little to do with the actual crime that was committed.

For example, the DEA busts into an apartment and arrests everyone on drug charges due to the boxes of criminalized drugs stacked up along the walls.  The find a gun and are able to add more prison time onto the sentence(s).  People who intend to do bad things being kept in prison for a longer period of time is probably better for society.

Unfortunately, such laws get twisted into serving injustice.  For example, someone hides a gun in their girlfriend's apartment.  She smokes some weed from time to time and gets busted.  The cops find the gun and multiply the girlfriend's sentence.  The result is certainly more expensive for society but in a non-trivial number of cases it probably doesn't make society better as a result.

So where is the hypocrisy?  Most of the folks that are appalled at Mr. Obama's use of his clemency powers for cases involving gun possession would probably be apoplectic at the prospect of someone in possession of a couple of ducks/fish/etc. over the legal limit being given an extra long sentence due to the presence of a gun.  Yet that can and does happen just as well.

Correcting prosecutorial indiscretion is an appropriate use of Presidential powers.

In any case, this really isn't that big of a deal.  Mr. Obama has granted far fewer pardons that most Presidents.  When you take it down to a per-year and per-capita consideration, he has been downright stingy in his use of that Presidential prerogative.  He has granted clemency at a much higher rate.  Combining pardons with clemency, he isn't really doing anything that differs from other Presidents.

The Election 2016

Like most of the rest of the U.S., this election has me shaking my damned head.  This year has been the worst in my lifetime in terms of the dearth of candidate character and substituting personal attacks for rational debate of the issues.

I usually have post-election thoughts that I share every four years.  But I see no need to wait.  I'll share them now and then intend to take the next month off of political/election oriented reading and writing.

Soooooo, here we go.

On Donald Trump:  We may well wake up on November 9th with Mr. Trump as our President-elect.  If so, then he will be my President.  I will support his policies when I can and respectfully oppose them when I cannot.  I will criticize him when he steps outside of the law and/or otherwise fails our Constitution.  But it will be done with respect and without vitriol to the best of my ability.

All elections matter.  If Mr. Trump wins, then he will be my President.

On Hillary Clinton:  We probably will wake up on November 9th with Mrs. Clinton as our President-elect.  If so, then she will be my President.  I will support her policies when I can and respectfully oppose them when I cannot.  I will criticize her when she steps outside of the law and/or otherwise fails our Constitution.  But it will be done with respect and without vitriol to the best of my ability.

All elections matter.  If Mrs. Clinton wins, then she will be my President.

On the GOP:  I'm not looking to change your vote.  However, your candidate is heavily flawed.  He's about as attractive as a bucket of warm moose drool.  If you cannot identify and understand those flaws, then you are part of the problem with American politics these days.

You had other choices.  You had a whole raft of other choices running from John Kasich to Marco Rubio to Carly Fiorina.  Any of them would have left Mrs. Clinton in the dust.  And you opted for a bucket of warm moose drool.

When your candidate loses, don't look at the rest of us.  Take a good long look at yourselves.

On the Democrats:  I'm not looking to change your vote, either.  However, your candidate is heavily flawed.  She's about as attractive as a bucket of warm pig drool.  If you cannot identify and understand those flaws, then you are part of the problem with American politics these days.

You had other choices.  Jim Webb would have been a solid candidate that would have left Mr. Trump in the dust.  You have an entire party of worthwhile candidates.  And you opted for a bucket of warm pig drool.

When your candidate loses, don't look at the rest of us.  Take a good long look at yourselves.

On buckets of drool:  If you are interested in debating the relative merits of moose drool vs. pig drool, then you are also part of the problem with American politics these days.

ETA - well crap.  You always forget a couple things.

On those threatening to leave:  So you have threatened to leave the U.S. if your candidate doesn't win the Presidency.  Samuel Adams covered this quite well.

"...May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

You haven't got what it takes to be an American.

I enjoy a wealth of acquaintances and friends from across the political spectrum.  We argue.  We fight...rhetorically.  To a person, every single one of them is an American in their heart and in their head.  The(y) love freedom even though we disagree on the best means of pursuing that freedom.

There are millions of people that have immigrated to the U.S. in pursuit of that freedom.  People from Iran and Iraq and other parts of the Middle East that are fed up with living under various flavor of dictatorship; theocratic or otherwise.  Millions more have come from south of our border to escape dictatorships, oligarchies, kleptocracies and other offenses to the cause of individual liberty.

And you know what?  Millions more have the same unquenchable thirst for freedom.  They have in their heads and in their hearts the desire to be left to live their lives in peace and liberty and away from the bullying nose of government.

And if you lack that thirst, then please find the nearest exit.  Leave your citizenship at the door.  You don't have what it takes.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.  We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.  May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams"

On those threatening to move to Canada:  You have a particularly ignorant and racist position there.

It is ignorant in that Canada has some pretty strict rules for immigration when compared with the U.S.  They want young people with skills and/or education to be in their labor force for a long time.  The old, uneducated, and unskilled need not apply.  The election of either of the major candidates will not qualify you as a political refugee in any place beyond your imagination.

It is racist in that these folks never threaten to move to Mexico.  As most of the "or I'm moving to Canada" folks seem to be quite a bit left of center, I'm also surprised that they don't want to move to the Chavista paradise that is Venezuela.  They have bucket loads of that "democratic socialism" down there.  And yet they almost always offer to move to Canada.....or less often to "Europe".

They never offer to move to a place where they could use their skills and education to improve life for the people in their new country.  Must be too many brown skinned people for their taste.

Precisely How Elite Are They?

A number of thoughts come to mind in the wake of the British referendum on leaving the European Union as well as events in this year's US Presidential elections.

Central to those conflicts, large and small, is the perceived sense of self-worth of the self-described elites; the folks whose opinion should matter just a little more than the hoi polloi.  The suggestion is that the world would be better off if we let those elites offer a bit firmer guidance in the affairs of state.

This perspective is shockingly highlighted by the usually progressive....more accurately socialist leaning....Rolling Stone magazine.  Matt Taibbi's article suggests that the reaction to Brexit justifies why Brexit became an issue in the first place.

The overall message in every case is the same: Let us handle things.

But whatever, let's assume that the Brexit voters, like Trump voters, are wrong, ignorant, dangerous and unjustified.

Even stipulating to that, the reaction to both Brexit and Trump reveals a problem potentially more serious than either Brexit or the Trump campaign. It's become perilously fashionable all over the Western world to reach for non-democratic solutions whenever society drifts in a direction people don't like. Here in America the problem is snowballing on both the right and the left.

Even the quote from Mr. Taibbi illustrates the sort of non-self-aware perspective that pervades the leftist perspective.  It is most certainly undeniable that Mr. Trump has used indelicate language on the subject of race on mulitple occasions; specifically in commenting on American immigration policies..  It is equally undeniable that blatantly racist individuals and groups have come out of the proverbial woodwork in support of Mr. Trump.  Similarly, there were racists supporting the Brexit initiative.

Mr. Taibbi fails, as do many critics of Mr. Trump, when he conflates the small but vocal racist component with the respective larger movements.

Permit me to pause here to note that I didn't have any position on Brexit...that is for British citizens to decide....and I am 99+% certain to vote for Gary Johnson in the U.S. Presidential election this fall.  Back to the issue at hand.....

What Mr. Taibbi and those critics fail to understand is that the U.S. government has the authority and the responsibility to determine who gets to immigrate into our country.  There is nothing racist with expecting that immigrants obey our immigration laws.  There is nothing racist with the expectation that potential new citizens abandon the governmental traditions of their home nations in favor of the governmental traditions expressed by the Constitution of the United States.

I possess a passion for the US Constitution.  It describes a limited scope of authority for the federal government and presents an expansive view of individual liberty.  American liberals have generally been successful on those issues that can be properly framed as pursuing the interest of individual liberty.  American conservatives have similarly been successful on issues that are framed by the Constitution's limits on the size and scope of government.

The Constitution is the rhetorical DNA of the American political system.  America succeeds when the plain language of the Constitution succeeds.  We falter when that same language is subverted.

A similar perspective applies in the case of Brexit where an unelected and largely unconstrained government in Brussels perceives itself to be superior to the founding documents of the British commonwealth.  The British people have the reasonable expectation that they will be governed in a manner consistent with which they have previously given their consent.

Michael Totten, an author I hold in high esteem, offered his perspective on Brexit.

If I lived in the United Kingdom, I would have voted to Remain in the EU, but it’s not hard to see why the majority voted to Leave. I wouldn’t want the United States to join the EU for the same reasons the Brexiters want out of it.

The EU is a brilliant idea. Unite splendidly diverse yet like-minded nations into a powerful bloc that’s greater than the sum of its parts. Provide minimum standards and guidelines for countries that aren’t as advanced (such as Greece and Romania). Pull down trade barriers and do business in a common market. Open up job opportunities and leg-stretching room for all. (I wouldn’t want to be confined to a place as cramped as Belgium for the rest of my life, but I’m one of those cosmopolitan "elites" everyone likes to complain about nowadays.)

The actually existing EU, though, isn’t so brilliant. It includes all the good stuff, yet it’s crushed by a staggering amount of centralized regulatory bureaucracy and a disregard for the wishes of its individual member states. It’s hardly a gulag empire, but it’s autocratic enough that Europe’s democracy deficit has its own Wikipedia page.

Mr. Totten is what I consider to be liberal of the old-school variety; open-minded and tolerant.  While I suspect that we would disagree on some of the particulars that describe an appropriate level of government, we most definitely agree on the basic instrument of the role of the people in establishing and maintaining that government.

It is regrettable to note that the "elites" have little interest in analyzing where they went wrong.  Instead they work for another referendum, another election, another opportunity to get an answer of which they approve.  If only we can give them enough time, they will develop a system of mathematics that will let two plus two equal five.

In their minds, the only election that matters is the one they win.

I do have to offer some appreciation for former President Bill Clinton in his response to the 1994 elections that saw both houses of the US Congress to the Republicans.  Rather than dig in his heels, he eventually modified his agenda to work with the Congress.  The Republicans did the same.  It wasn't perfect, as illustrated by the government shut-down.  But Mr. Clinton did demonstrate an appreciation for the fact that ALL elections matter; not just the one that he won.

In contrast, American leftists only seem to care about Mr. Obama's election.  Mr. Obama himself has demonstrated little interest in working with Congress to achieve whatever might be possible within two very different philosophical agendas.  Hence the his lack of success when compared with Mr. Clinton.

While I would certainly disagree with the average Briton about what constitutes an appropriate level of government, I wholeheartedly agree that the perspective of the average voter ought to influence the actions of government.  When a government undermines the legitimate objectives of all people to freely pursue a satisfying life, those same people have the right to change their government, or institute a new one, in a manner that to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

When the elites in government lose the tangible supports of the average citizen, it is incumbent upon those elites to undertake serious self-evaluation and reflection on their actions and whether or not they have been good stewards of the public interest.  Their first step should not be to change the rules of the game so as to ensure a different (electoral) result.  Their purpose should be to respond in a manner that is above the brown-shirts attacking people peaceably attending political rallies in California.  It shouldn't be to join them.

*modestly edited 6/29/2016