Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Charlottesville

August 21, 2017

Since everyone else has an opinion on the recent events in Charlottesville, Virginia, I might as well share my thoughts on the subject.

In books and movies and such, there is generally one side that is portrayed as the heroes or good guys, the side the reader or audience is expected to root for. The other side, the side that opposes the good guys are the villains or bad guys. In real life, there is not often such a clear-cut distinction between good and evil as there is in fiction. In most conflicts both sides believe that they are in the right and are trying to do what they believe is best. All too often, the conflict is not between good and evil , but evil and evil.

World War II is usually considered the “good war” because the Allies were fighting against one of the most evil regimes in history, Nazi Germany. If ever there was a clear-cut conflict between good and evil, surely the fight about Nazism was it. Yet, the Nazis didn’t see themselves as evil. They believed that they were saving the world from the menace of the Jews. More to the point I’m making, one of the Allies, the Soviet Union was actually even more evil than Nazi Germany, in terms of total number of people murdered and disregard of the most basic human rights.Stalin was more cruel than Hitler, and potentially more dangerous, since he didn’t make the kind of impulsive mistakes that cost Hitler the war. The two nations were even allied at the beginning of the war, dividing Eastern Europe between them, until Hitler double-crossed Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union. As far as the Eastern front of the European Theater of World War II went, it was truly a struggle of foul against vile. The fact that Stalin fought against Hitler and that the Russians were instrumental in defeating the great evil of Nazism did not make Stalin a good guy.

Which brings us to the recent events in Charlottesville. As I understand it, there was a rally of various groups belonging to the so-called “Alt-right”, reportedly members of the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, racists, and White supremacists to protest the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. I do not know how many of the people there actually belonged to racist groups. It is possible that many were simply against the  removal of the statue. Whatever the case, the racists are unquestionably vile people who hated others because of their race and are willing to use violence against the people they hate. They are the bad guys. There were also counter-protesters. Perhaps many of them were peaceful protesters against the hate groups, but many were members of the “Antifa”, the gang of left-wing thugs who have been shouting down conservative speakers on college campuses, rioting, and assaulting supporters of President Donald Trump. Naturally the event turned violent.

The media would like to spin a narrative of the good anti-racists versus the evil racists, and when Donald Trump condemned the violence on both sides, the media excoriated him for giving aid and comfort to right-wing extremist. But, President Trump was right. There was violence and extremism on both sides and political violence needs to be condemns no matter who is committing it, even if it is against Nazis. The media and the Democrats are the ones giving aid and comfort to both sides. They are covering up and excusing violent actions taken by Antifa, giving them encouragement. But by taking sides and all but approving of violence and censorship, they are giving the Klansmen and Nazis reason to believe themselves to be persecuted. Part of the belief system of the extreme right these days is that they are bravely speaking truth to power against the Jews or whoever. Also, by lumping together mainstream conservatives with these louts and calling everyone who dissents from politically correct orthodoxy racist, helps to mainstream the real racists out there. A fight between Fascist ans Antifa is a fight between evils and decent people shouldn’t favor either side.

One thing has to be made completely clear. If you are in favor of political violence for any reason, even against despicable people, you are not one of the good guys. If you think that punching a Nazi, or someone you think is a Nazi is acceptable behavior, you are not one of the good guys. If you believe that people who hold certain beliefs should not be allowed to speak out, if you believe that such people should be fired from their jobs, if you believe that it is acceptable to harass over over the internet, you are not one of the good guys. You may detest the Nazis and the racists, but you do not understand what makes them detestable. You only oppose them because they are the opposing team. You would feel just as comfortable among the Nazi as among the anarchists.

As a Northerner, I have absolutely no sympathy for the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. I do not think it is a heritage to be proud of. Not only was the South fighting for the worst cause imaginable, the right to hold their fellow human beings in bondage, but I think that most of the men who led the South before and during the Civil War were idiots. They succeeded from the Union knowing that it would start a war that they had only a slim chance of winning and they bungled any chance they had to win. Worst of all, the whole war was unnecessary. President Lincoln did not have the power to free a single slave, as he himself admitted, and by secession, the people who wanted to preserve slavery took the only course of action that would have ended the peculiar institution. As far as I am concerned, the whole Lost Cause mythology of brave Southern struggle against the overwhelming forces of the North was devised by the former Confederates to cover up and excuse their incompetence and bad judgement. These men don’t deserve to have statues raised in their honor.

Having said that, I am still opposed to this business of taking down the statues. It has too much of an Orwellian, Soviet feel to it. It is too reminiscent of Mao’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution for my comfort. The effort seems at best a distraction from the real problems of this country and of African-Americans and seems to be too much like an effort to erase history, to go back to the Year Zero. How long before they start attacking other periods of American history? Hardly any body in history could measure up to the strict standards of political correctness that they seek to apply.

It’s better to learn from the past than to erase it and to try to make a better future than to endlessly revisit old grievances and we would be a lot better off trying to find things to unite us all as Americans, rather seek new causes of division.

The Fisher King

July 23, 2017

The Fisher King is a figure in Arthurian legend. He is the guardian of the Holy Grail who has been wounded in the foot and cannot discharge his duties as king of the land he rules. Many scholars believe that the foot or leg is an euphemism for a wound in the groin and that the king is impotent. Whatever the case, according the the legend, because the Fisher King is barren and impotent, so is the land he rules. The health of the land depends on the health or virtue of its king.

This happens to be a motif found in many places in mythology, folklore, and political propaganda. There seems to be a strong need to believe that a strong and virtuous king will have a flourishing kingdom, while the kingdom of a weak or evil king will be desolate. The Chinese belief in the Mandate of Heaven held that the prosperity of the Empire was directly dependent on the virtue of the Emperor. If China was doing well, the Emperor must be good. If there were natural disasters or economic catastrophe, than the Emperor must be at fault somewhere. In the Old Testament there is an explicit link between the devotion of the kings of Israel and Judah and the welfare of the kingdom. It makes sense that if the king or emperor is the representative of God or the gods and is not doing a good job then Heaven might signal its displeasure by causing natural disasters.

One might think in our more modern world in which most countries are republics, such superstitions would be a thing of the past. That does not seem to be the case. It is true that people no longer ascribe earthquakes or hurricanes to the faults of our political leaders, but we do have a way of assuming that they have far more influence over the affairs of the country, especially over the economy, than they actually do. Here is an example from Sean Hannity.

President Donald Trump has made the United States more than $4 trillion richer since taking office last January, but you wouldn’t know that from watching or reading the mainstream press, writes Fox’s Stuart Varney.

As the destroy-Trump media continues to obsess over Russia-Trump conspiracy theories, the President has made good on his campaign promise to unleash the American worker and get the US economy back on track.

Since the President’s inauguration, Trump has added roughly $4.1 trillion to the nation’s overall wealth, affecting all Americans with a 401k, an IRA, a savings account, loans, stocks; essentially anyone with “a dime in the market.”

President Trump did no such thing. He does not have the power to add $4.1 trillion to the economy. It is possible that the policies he supports will encourage economic growth, but six months is far too early for any presidential policies to take effect. Of course, a good deal of economics is psychology. It is likely that if the president is perceived as pro-business, businesses will be more inclined to expand, believing that the economy will improve, creating a self fulfilling expectation. On the other hand, if the president keeps talking about spreading the wealth around, businesses will play it safe, anticipating an economic downturn, that their actions will help precipitate. I think that if Bernie Sanders had been elected president, we would be going into a deep recession. We can give Trump credit for inspiring optimism, but not for any magical powers.

Here is a more egregious example from a singer named Lana Del Rey

I feel less safe than I did when Obama was president. When you have a leader at the top of the pyramid who is casually being loud and funny about things like that, it’s brought up character defects in people who already have the propensity to be violent towards women. I saw it right away in L.A. Walking down the street, people would just say things to you that I had never heard.

I definitely changed my visuals on my tour videos. I’m not going to have the American flag waving while I’m singing “Born to Die.” It’s not going to happen. I’d rather have static. It’s a transitional period, and I’m super aware of that. I think it would be inappropriate to be in France with an American flag. It would feel weird to me now—it didn’t feel weird in 2013.

Women started to feel less safe under this administration instantly. What if they take away Planned Parenthood? What if we can’t get birth control?

This is precisely the same country in 2017 as it was in 2015. The only difference is that the person who is president has changed. If Ms. Lane is not as proud of her country now as when Obama was president, than she is not really very proud of her country at all. Trump cannot make the streets of Los Angeles more or less dangerous. He has no control over people’s character defects. He cannot take Planned Parenthood away. Even if Congress should cut Planned Parenthood’s federal funding, which they should, Planned Parenthood has other sources of revenue. Trump cannot ban birth control. She is ascribing to Trump powers that no president has.

Why do we do this, assume that our political leaders have greater power over events than they actually do? Part of the reason must be that this is what they want us to think. How many politicians running for office criticize their opponent’s handling of the economy? How many politicians boast of the economic growth that occurred during their time in office? They might as well be bragging about how good the weather was. Indeed, the whole idea behind the global warming/climate change alarmism is that national and international governments can change the climate.

Whatever the reason for this kind of thinking, we need to get over it. The president does not run the country. We do. . President Trump cannot make America great again, though he can lead the effort. It is up to each one of us to make this country a better place.

 

 

The Resistance

July 8, 2017

I don’t object to the opposition that Democrats have shown towards President Trump and his policies. The Democrats are the opposition party and their job as the opposition is to, well, oppose. I am not one who complains much about gridlock or that the government isn’t moving fast enough. As far as I am concerned, gridlock is precisely what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution. They were most concerned about protecting the rights and liberties of the people and did not want a situation in which the majority could vote away the rights of the minority, thus they intentionally made it difficult for the federal government to do much without a broad consensus among the people. If I wanted a government in which everyone marches together in lockstep, I would consider moving to China or North Korea. What I do object to is the way that the people most opposed to Donald Trump have taken to calling themselves “The Resistance”. Not the loyal opposition, not simply the other party who happens to have disagreements on policy, but the Resistance, as if they are fighting against an enemy occupation.

The Resistance is deliberately named to harken back to the resistance movements in France and other countries occupied by Nazi Germany during World War II. This is a ridiculous conceit on their part. The resistance fighters of World War II faced considerable danger and hardships. The Nazis were not known for their kindness towards those who fought against them and their countrymen who chose to collaborate with the Germans could be far crueller. The only danger that a resistance fighter against Donald Trump could possibly face would be being interrupted by a standing ovation in the middle of a public rant against the president or developing carpal tunnel syndrome from being at their keyboard too long. In other words, there is no danger at all in “resisting” Donald Trump. If anything, judging from recent headlines, it takes more courage to publicly support Trump, at least in such progressive strongholds as Hollywood and college campuses.

It requires no courage to be against Donald Trump. He is not a Fascist dictator who has suspended the constitution. The police will not arrest anyone who speaks out against Trump. He does not have a paramilitary army of thugs to silence dissenters. It is the “antifa” protesters who are behaving like thugs. The Resistance is just a cheap way to feel courageous and virtuous. It is a way for people to feel as though they are fighting the good fight against oppression without having to do anything about the real oppression in the world.

Who is the Resistance and what are they resisting anyway? I notice that there don’t seem to be many marginalized, and oppressed people leading the marches against Trump. The Resistance seems to be comprised of Democratic politicians, journalists and media figures, Hollywood celebrities, academia, federal workers of the so-called Deep State, and the like. In other words, the Resistance seems to be those people with the most power to influence public opinion in the country, in many cases the people who seem to despise the “Deplorables” who live in flyover country the most. I get the impression that the are actually less concerned with losing their freedom than with losing their power to hector and bully the rest of us who do not care to follow the policies they see as enlightened. Trump’s populist tone and his “political incorrectness” must be really frightening to these people.

What are they resisting if Donald Trump is not a dictator who seized power in a coup or a puppet of an occupying power? They are resisting the duly and constitutionally elected President of the United States as well as the elected representatives, of at least the majority party, in Congress. The Resistance likes to accuse President Trump of shredding the constitution, but they are the ones who have been proposing one unconstitutional means after another to remove Trump from power. After the election they were urging the electors who were pledged to support the Republican candidate to be faithless electors and vote for someone else. They have proposed that Trump’s cabinet invoke the twenty-fifth amendment to declare him unfit for office. They are now promising to impeach Trump if the Democrats regain a majority in Congress, even though there is no evidence that Trump has committed any crimes. The Resistance is resisting the results of a democratic election. They are resisting the concept of democracy in this country. They are resisting the idea that we the deplorables should have any say in the direction this country takes. They are resisting the idea that the United States should have a government of the people, by the people, for the people, wishing instead to have a government of the elites, by the elites, for the elites.

For some time now, I have had the strangest feeling that I was living in a country occupied by an enemy determined to destroy, or at least fundamentally change, every aspect that makes this country unique. It seems to me that the people who have been running this country and shaping public opinion have been doing nothing but attacking America and the ordinary people who have made it great. Our history has been disparaged as nothing more than a history of systemic oppression and racism. Our founding fathers, the greatest men who have ever lived, have been dismissed as dead, White, slaveholders. Our great heroes are defamed as racists who committed genocide. Our religion has been mocked as intolerant. Our values and our way of life are derided as old fashioned and obsolete. If we dare to take a stand and ask that our concerns be addressed, we are called racists and bigots.

Both political parties have been taking part in this. The Democrats are openly against us. The Republicans listen to us before the elections, but as soon as they get to Washington, they decide that they don’t need to keep their promises. We had the Tea Party to try to get them to listen and it has had some success, despite the unanimous opposition from the media. It wasn’t until Donald Trump ran for president that they started to notice us, and even then we were all racist deplorables. I still do not altogether trust or like Trump, but he does seem to be one of the few people in Washington who really gets it. He won the presidency by understanding why so many of us in flyover country are so upset, and he seems to really be trying to fight for us.

It is really we who are the Resistance. We are the ones fighting to restore democracy in this country. We, the bitter clingers, the Deplorables, the people who love this country and want to see it become great again are the revolutionaries against the people who think there that this country was never really great and who want to see it transformed into something quite different. Donald Trump is the leader of this resistance movement, for the moment, but if we want to see America great and free again, we cannot rely on any leader. We have to rely on ourselves. It is up to us all to make America a great nation. Let’s get out there and fight.

The Election of 1860

June 17, 2017

The Election of 1860 was, without doubt, the most contentious election in American history, ending as it did with the secession of the South and the Civil War. For democracy to work, the loser of an election, along with his supporters have to be willing to concede to the winner. This can happen as long as the consequence of an election is not an existential threat to the lives and liberties of the losers. For the first, and so far only, time in the history of the United States a large portion of the electorate simply refused to accept the results of a democratic election, in part because they feared the results would be destructive to their way of life.

How did it come to this, that the South so feared the election of Abraham Lincoln that it was willing to secede from the Union and risk war? Slavery had been an increasingly divisive issue for decades, yet the nation had always managed to find some sort of compromise to pull back from the brink. There had been talk of secession since the beginning of the Union, but it was mostly talk. No one seemed willing to take the fateful step to dissolve the Union before 1860. After his election in 1856, President James Buchanan had even dared to hope that the contentious slavery debate would be settled by the of his term and peace and prosperity would be the rule. He could not have been more wrong. In fact, it was during President Buchanan’s administration that a series of events occurred that made Civil War if not inevitable, certainly increased sectional tensions to the breaking point.

Historians generally hold that the Civil War began when Confederate Army fired on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, yet in a way the Civil War had actually started almost a decade earlier in Kansas. As early as 1854 fighting had broken out between pro and anti-slavery settlers in the Kansas Territory. The Kansas-Nebraska Act had called for popular sovereignty to decide whether Kansas would be Slave or Free. Settlers from North and South poured into Kansas attempting to get a majority for their side. Election fraud was rampant and neither side was willing to concede to the other, resulting in two separate territorial legislatures. It wasn’t long before violence broke out, egged on by radicals back east only too willing to supply arms.

Then there was the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott vs. Sanford, announced just two days after President Buchanan’s inauguration. This decision which overturned the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and denied the right of Congress to outlaw slavery in the territories delighted the South and infuriated the North. Because of this ruling, slavery could no longer be contained to southern territories but could spread north. Even worse, because the Court decided that Dred Scott was not free just because his master had taken him to a state where slavery was illegal, opened the door to the possibility that state laws forbidding slavery might be effectively overturned since freeing the slaves of a person who moved North could be construed as unlawfully depriving him of his property. Chief Justice Roger Taney and President Buchanan hoped that the Dred Scott decision would settle the issue of slavery once and for all, but the uncompromising nature of the decision only made things worse.

Finally, there was John Brown’s raid on the federal arsenal at Harper’s Ferry on October 19, 1859. I don’t think the Northern abolitionists had any idea how afraid the slave owners of the South were of their own slaves. While Southern apologists depicted the Blacks as simple minded creatures, perfectly content with slavery in their propaganda, anyone who had much contact with the slaves must have known how much they resented their servitude. They had good reason to fear that the Black slaves would take a terrible revenge if they ever got the chance. When the abolitionists demanded that slavery be ended, the Southern Whites, only heard a call for their own destruction. When a terrorist from Kansas tried to incite a slave insurrection only to be hailed as a hero and a martyr by sympathetic Northerners, the Southerners must have seen their worst fears confirmed.

By the election of 1860, it must have seemed that the United States could no longer be half Free and half Slave. Either slavery would be abolished, along with a way of life that benefited the Southern elite, or slavery must spread to every part of the nation. Little wonder a Civil War resulted.

The Democratic convention was held in Charleston South Carolina in April. Since President Buchanan declined to run for reelection, the most obvious candidate was Stephen Douglas from Illinois. Douglas had served in the House of Representatives from 1843 to 1847 and then in the Senate from 1847 until his death from typhoid fever in 1861. Stephan Douglas is best known today for his famous debates with Abraham Lincoln during the Senatorial election of 1856. He was a great believer in democracy, believing that popular sovereignty should settle the slavery issue in the territories. Douglas tended to oppose the Dred Scott decision, but had to be careful lest he alienate the South.

This “pro-choice” did not please the Southern delegates at the convention who wanted a party platform that specifically protected slavery. This Douglas and the Northern delegates would not agree to and the convention broke up. This was not a good sign.

The Democrats met again the following month in Baltimore. Again the Northern and Southern delegates could not agree on a candidate or a platform, so they held separate conventions. The Northern delegates nominated Stephen Douglas, as expected, and selected Herschel V. Johnson, the governor of Georgia from 1853-1857. Their platform called for popular sovereignty in the territories.

The Southern delegates nominated Vice-President John C. Breckinridge for President and Joseph Lane, one of Oregon’s first two senators, for Vice-President. They supported a platform demanding federal protection of slavery in the territories.

Meanwhile, the Republicans held their convention in Chicago from May 16 to 18. Abraham Lincoln was not really one of the leaders of the Republican Party. The more prominent Republicans who were expected to get the nomination included Senator William Seward of New York. Governor Salmon P. Chase from Ohio, and Senator Simon Cameron from Pennsylvania. Lincoln’s political resume was thin compared to these leaders having only served in the House of Representatives from 1847-1849 and in the Illinois Legislature form 1834-1842. However, each of these leaders had made enemies and had alienated one faction or another of the party. Lincoln, in contrast was well liked and known to be a good debater. The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1856 had attracted national attention. Lincoln was also a shrewd politician and while he was against slavery, he was not as radical as some Republicans. Lincoln was nominated on the third ballot and Senator Hannibal Hamlin of Maine was selected as his running mate.

Then, because things were not confusing enough with three candidates, a group of former Whigs, along with a few Democrats and former Know-Nothings met in Baltimore on May 9 to organize the Constitutional Union Party. This party was for preserving the Union at any cost, and not much else. They were silent on the slavery question, perhaps hoping to make the controversy go away. The Constitutional Union Party nominated John Bell, who had served as Senator from Tennessee from 1847-1859. Bell had begun his political career as a Democratic supporter of Andrew Jackson, then he split with Jackson to become the leader of the Whig Party in Tennessee. By the 1850’s he had begun to create a third party composed of moderates from both the North and South in an effort to alleviate the increasing sectional tension. Bell’s relatively moderate views on slavery made him unpopular in the South, though he had some appeal in the border states. The Constitutional Union Party went on to nominate former Senator from Massachusetts, Edward Everett as Bell’s running mate.

 

Since the Democratic party was split and Lincoln wasn’t even on the ballot in the South, the the election of 1860, was essentially two separate contests, Lincoln vs Douglas in the North and Bell vs Breckinridge in the South. As one might imagine, this turned out to be an exciting and tumultuous election, with all the hoopla of American politics in the nineteenth century. Stephen Douglas broke with tradition and actually went out to campaign in person, in the South as well as the North. In the South, he pleaded for the Southerners to accept the results of the election, no matter who won. They didn’t listen. Southern newspapers continued to run editorials promising secession and war if the “Black Republican” Lincoln were elected.

The other candidates stayed at home and tried to look dignified and presidential but their supporters made up the difference in raucous energy. Bell’s supporters rang bells at rallies. Republicans were the most enthusiastic, holding parades featuring rails that the great rail splitter Abraham Lincoln had personally split.  If it weren’t for the great seriousness of it all, it would have been a lot of fun.

None of the four candidates got a majority of the popular vote, but Lincoln won a plurality with 1,865,908 votes or 39.8% of the total. Douglas came in second with 1,380,202 votes (29.5%). Breckinridge was third with 848,019 votes (18.1%C) and Bell came in last with 590,901 votes (12.6%). It is slightly ironic that if the Southern Democrats had supported Stephen Douglas, he might have won the election. By leaving the convention and nominating their own candidate, they virtually guaranteed a victory for Lincoln, the one candidate they could not accept.

The Electoral vote was more decisive, with Lincoln getting a comfortable majority. The vote was divided along sectional lines. Lincoln won the entire North and West except for New Jersey, getting a total of 180 electoral votes. New Jersey split its seven votes giving four to Lincoln and three to Douglas. Douglas was second in the popular vote, but last in the Electoral College winning only Missouri’s nine votes and three of New Jersey’s for a total of 12 electoral votes. Breckinridge won all the Southern states, except for Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, and got a total of 72 electoral votes. Bell won those three states with 39 electoral votes.

The Election of 1860

The Election of 1860

Stephen Douglas realized that a Lincoln victory would divide the country and immediately after the election he traveled south and gave speeches supporting the Union. It didn’t work and on December 20, 1860 South Carolina formally succeeded from the Union. Soon, the other Southern states followed and America’s bloodiest war began.

Obama Kids Revisited

June 12, 2017

Remember this video?

I wrote about it way back in September 2011. I still do not like the comparison made between Obama and Hitler. No American politician, either Obama, Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump is anything at all like Hitler. I also still think that having choirs of children singing the praises of a politician is more than a little creepy. It’s also odd that the same sort of people who didn’t have a problem with the Obama Cult are declaring that Trump is an evil dictator, just like Hitler. As far as I know, Trump has not had children singing about how wonderful he is, or artists depicting him as the Messiah, or celebrities pledging their unconditional allegiance to him. Perhaps this is projection? Maybe we are only safe from a would be dictator if he happens to be a Republican.

Anyway, I happened to see this video yesterday and I started to wonder whatever became of these children. They must be college age by now. Maybe some of them are attending Berkeley where they are participating in riots to drive away any conservative speaker who dares to show up. There might be one or two at Yale, screaming at professors who suggested that student might be able to choose their own Halloween costumes. They might be protesting against the systemic racism found at the University of Missouri. Perhaps they have skipped college altogether to attend “antifa” protests, fighting the threat of right-wing Fascism by beating up people and smashing store windows, in other words by acting like the Fascists did in Germany and Italy.

No contemporary American politician is anything like Hitler, but if a dictator ever does come to power in America, he won’t have any trouble finding recruits for his storm troopers from the sort of people who teach their children to sing hymns of praise to politicians.

Organizing for Action’s Values

May 15, 2017

I still get email from Organizing for Action:

Organizing for Action
Friend —

The White House is doubling down on their immigration agenda, plowing forward with their multi-billion dollar budget request for taxpayer funds to build a border wall, deportation force, and expanded detention facilities.

This agenda does not represent our values, and we have to hold every member of Congress who votes in favor of it accountable.

Add your name to join the fight against funding this harmful, discriminatory immigration agenda.

The actions the administration wants to take wouldn’t just harm the way we’re viewed around the world, or waste precious dollars that could be used to improve our schools, advance research to cure diseases, or help small businesses: They would impact millions of people who are just looking for an opportunity for a better life. It shouldn’t matter where they come from — or how they pray. They want to contribute to the success of America.

The good news is that the White House needs funding from Congress to get this done. That’s our opportunity to intervene.

We need all hands on deck to let our representatives know that we won’t stand for an immigration agenda that runs counter to the values that make us strong.

Say you’ll hold your members of Congress accountable:

Add your name

Thanks,

Saumya

Saumya Narechania
National Issues Campaign Manager
Organizing for Action

Well, as a conservative, my values include the concept of ordered liberty under the rule of law, so I prefer that laws be enforced, including immigration laws. This means that a more vigorous enforcement of our immigration laws, as opposed to the more lackadaisical previous administration, represents my values perfectly.

The problem with illegal immigration is not the immigration but the illegal. The United States of America, like every other country in the world with a functioning government, has laws regarding who can enter this country and procedures that a person who wishes to emigrate here must follow. These laws are for the benefit of the people who already live here. No one has a right to emigrate into this country, or any other, and we are not obliged to allow anyone at all into our country, if we don’t want them here. We have every right to insist that the people wishing to come here learn to speak our language and agree to uphold our values. This means that if a potential immigrant does not want to try to learn English or wants to replace the constitution with Sharia law, we can refuse to allow him entry. We also should expect that a person who comes here to obey our laws. An illegal immigrant has already broken our laws.

The people at Organizing for Action seem to believe that our immigration laws are unjust. They may even believe that our borders should be open to anyone who wants to enter. Notice, however, that they are not advocating the repeal or alteration of our current immigration laws. Instead, they seem to believe that the laws should simply be . ignored. The rule of law, then, is not among the values they believe in.

Honesty in discourse also does not seem to be one of their values. They speak of the contributions that immigrants have made to this country and urge that we allow them in as if President Trump is closing our borders to everyone. No one is presently arguing for a complete ban on immigration. There is not even a movement to reduce legal immigration. The debate is over what ought to be done about illegal immigration, whether the relevant laws should, or should not be enforced. By blurring the distinction between legal and illegal immigration and attributing motives and policies to their opponents that they do not, in fact, hold, Organizing for Action and the left generally is arguing dishonestly. Why not argue for open borders, since that is what they seem to want? Because that would be unpopular and no politician who wants to keep his office would endorse it. Instead they have to rely on changing the subject and using glib words and outright lies.

Organizing for Action’s values are not my values. I hope that they are not America’s values.

 

Coal Country Comeback

April 18, 2017

I am not sure if this is actually good news.

Hazard, Kentucky is one of those small coal-mining towns with one main road snaking through the hollow. Both sides of the road are lined with a handful of retail stores and restaurants. The windows on about half of those stores are now covered with newspaper. The signs out front say, “closed.”

That’s what happens in a one-industry town when the president turns against that industry. Carla Hall at tiny Feltner’s Barbershop, right on the main road, knows that too well.

“My business went down tremendously,” she said.

Like Carla, everyone in town, from the insurance salesman to the waitress at the coffee shop, is ultimately connected to money that comes out of the mine.

“When they start getting laid off, they stretch out the haircuts,” she said.

However, there is a new sense of optimism in coal country and that is linked to a new president who, from the campaign trail, frequently bellowed: “We are going to put our miners back to work.”

I love mining coal,” Carlos Sturdill said 250 feet underground in the E4-1 mine in Hazard. That mine shut down in the Obama years. There are many factors that allowed the mine to re-open and people like Sturdill to get back to work.

For starters, the entire economy has seen a bump. That has created a demand for steel. The high-quality coal that comes out of Appalachia is well suited for making steel.

“I’m glad to be working. I’m thankful I’ve got a job again,” Sturdill said. Then you have President Trump who started rolling back regulations early in his time on the job. One of Trump’s early executive orders was to roll back the Stream Protection Rule. The SPR was created in the 11th hour of the Obama presidency and it would have placed a burden on coal companies to test streams before during and after mining. Trump followed up by undoing the 2015 Waters of the US rule, which broadened the definition of a body of water.

Obviously, it is a good thing that people are getting their jobs back and Hazard’s economy is reviving, yet it seems to me that it is more than a little sad that these communities depend on something as difficult, dangerous and dirty as coal mining for their livelihood. Shouldn’t they aspire to something better for their children than coal mining. Besides, the reprieve is only temporary, as some residents of Hazard realize.

No one expects coal jobs to come back to their heyday. Some of the causes can be pinned on former President Obama.

Under pressure to get away from coal, some power plants shut down. Some were retrofitted to burn natural gas. Now that officials spent the money, they won’t go back — especially because hydraulic fracturing makes natural gas available and cheap.

“So, a lot of that chunk of the market has been taken away,” said Dr. Anthony Szwilski of West Virginia’s Marshall University. “Even though coal is coming back and there will be employment in the future, they are unlikely to go back to where it was 10-15 years ago.”

Technology has also advanced. The reality is this: you can get more coal out of the ground now using fewer people.

I think that advancing technology will make the use of fossil fuels obsolete, probably sooner than most people expect. Coal will probably be phased out soonest because of environmental concerns. Even if there continues to be a demand for coal, there will likely be an increased use of machines to dig the coal. Why risk the lives of miners when a machine will do it, and cost less than paying people to go into the mines? Obama may have been waging a war against coal, but he was only really accelerating a process that was already occurring. It might be better if the town of Hazard could make the transition to something more sustainable and healthier than coal mining sooner than later.

But what are communities like Hazard, Kentucky to transition to? These towns in the Appalachians are too remote and inaccessible to attract much industry. There may be some potential for tourism. I don’t imagine many people would care to visit coal mines, except as a sort of museum, but there are many places in the region that might have enough natural beauty to attract visitors. Even so, tourism will never replace coal mining as a source of income. If it weren’t for the coal mines, it is possible that towns like Hazard would never been settled at all. When coal mining is no longer there, perhaps there will  be no reason for people to live there. Is it the fate of Hazard, Kentucky to become a ghost town, an abandoned reminder of a past era in American history? Or can the people of Hazard make a better future for themselves? I hope they will find a better future for themselves.

Senator Warren is Part of the Problem

April 2, 2017

Senator Elizabeth Warren, aka Fauxcahontas, recently wrote an opinion piece in the Boston Globe opposing the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. On the whole, the article was not worth much, being composed of the usual talking points about right wing extremism and Republican class warfare against the poor, written by a woman who is worth millions but there was one or two paragraphs that caught my attention since they illustrate why there is a lack of civility in contemporary politics.

On the bench, his judicial decisions show a remarkable ability to shape and re-shape legal arguments in ways that benefit large corporations and disadvantage ordinary people seeking justice. In the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores case, when he had to choose between the “rights” of corporations and the rights of women, Gorsuch sided with corporations. In consumer protection cases, when he had to choose between the “rights” of corporations and the rights of swindled consumers, Gorsuch sided with corporations. In discrimination cases, when he had to choose between the “rights” of corporations and the rights of employees to be free from harassment and abuse, Gorsuch sided with corporations.

Notice the use of quotation marks when she speaks of rights that she disagrees with. In her mind, Neil Gorsuch cannot be simply concerned about religious freedom, the effectiveness and constitutionality of certain laws or government overreach in regulating the workplace. There is not an honest difference of opinion or priorities here that can be discussed and debated. No, Neil Gorsuch is a puppet of the corporations and right wing extremists. He has no logical reason for the rulings he has made, he is simply evil.

Warren goes on;

Gorsuch has taken positions that are even more extreme than his extremely conservative colleagues. When it comes to the rules that protect public health and safety, Gorsuch is more radical than Scalia was. Gorsuch believes that courts should not be required to defer to expert agency interpretations of their governing laws. If he had his way, he’d make it even easier for corporations to challenge health and safety rules that prevent them from polluting our air and water, poisoning our food, undermining public safety, or cheating people out of their hard-earned savings.

What she is referring to is the Chevron Deference, the legal principle established by Chevron vs. National Resources Defense Council in 1984, which holds that the courts should defer to agency interpretations of statutes unless they are unreasonable.

What this means is this. Suppose the EPA decides that a ditch in your back yard is a wetland and forbid you to drain it or develop that part of your lawn in any way, You might take the EPA to court in the grounds that they have no jurisdiction over your private property, but the courts must defer to their own interpretation of the relevant regulations, so if the EPA says they have jurisdiction; they have jurisdiction. You may question whether a ditch constitutes an actual wetland, but the court must defer to their expects, so if the EPA says it is a wetland, it is a wetland. This is a silly example that might never occur in real life, but it illustrates the principle and demonstrates why it is almost impossible to win a court case against a federal regulatory agency. The system is rigged in their favor.

This might be a good thing. One would suppose that the people working for the EPA would know the most about protecting the environment and would be less biased than a company that is polluting, but one can see the potential for abuse, especially if the regulatory agencies are staffed with activists and zealots. In any case, there is legitimate concern among conservatives like Neil Gorsuch that the Chevron Deference permits agency overreach and abuse of power. In Senator Warren’s opinion .anyone who questions the Chevron Deference cannot have any real cause for concern. They must want to allow pollution and poisoned food because they are evil and greedy.

How can you have civility in politics when one side accuses the other of wanting to discriminate and cause pollution? How can government function when a constitutionally elected president is routinely compared to Hitler and his opponents call themselves the Resistance as though they are fighting a foreign occupation. To be fair, there is a lot of this on both sides, but I think it is much, much worse on the left. At least, people on the right haven’t been calling for a military coup to overthrow the president or attacking Trump’s supporters. There was a certain amount of insanity from the right during the Obama administration, but responsible Republicans tried to keep it toned down. Where are the responsible Democrats? There don’t seem to be many left in the Senate.

Republican Stockholm Syndrome

March 8, 2017

I have always rather liked George W. Bush. He has seemed to be a decent enough guy who really tried to be a good president. I wouldn’t say that he was one of the best presidents that we have ever had, but he wasn’t the worst either. He certainly didn’t deserve the hatred and abuse heaped upon him by the left and the media. That is why it is sad to see that George W. Bush has come down with Republican Stockholm Syndrome, that mysterious malady that causes Republicans to defend their tormentors in the media while attacking their fellow Republicans. Bush has remained silent throughout the administration of his successor, Barack Obama, but has offered some criticism of Donald Trump in recent interviews, as noted in this article from Fox news.

Former President George W. Bush offered what appeared to be a thinly veiled critique of his Republican successor on Monday, as he defended the importance of the media and immigration policies that are “welcoming.”

Bush, during an interview on NBC’s “Today” show to promote a new book of military portraits, addressed a range of President Trump controversies, specifically when asked about the executive order to temporarily restrict travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries. That order stalled in court, though Trump is expected to issue a new — but similar — order this week.

He doesn’t seem to wholly approve of Trump’s combative relationship with the media.

Until now, Bush largely has remained mum about the policies not only of Trump, but of former President Barack Obama. Bush’s comments Monday stopped short of a reprimand, but highlighted differences between his and Trump’s respective approaches to common challenges.

While Trump has repeatedly lambasted media organizations and termed numerous negative reports “fake news,” Bush applauded the same media that often derided him during his Oval Office tenure.

“I consider the media to be indispensable to democracy,” Bush said. “That we need an independent media to hold people like me to account. Power can be very addictive. And it can be corrosive.”

Bush is right in that we do need an independent media to hold people in power to account. Too bad we don’t have such an independent media. What we do have, as Bush ought to know, is a media determined to advance the careers of Democrats and destroy Republicans at any cost, including the use of fake news.

For eight years the media pummeled George W. Bush with fake news after fake news for the express purpose of destroying his presidency. Does he not remember, “Bush lied, the troops died”,  misreporting on Hurricane Katrina to imply that Bush wanted Blacks to die, and much, much else. For eight years the media refused to report on anything that might reflect poorly on their anointed Lightworker, and then praised him for having a scandal free administration. Well, if a tree that falls in a forest makes no noise if no one is there to listen, than a president is scandal free if no one bothers to report on any of his scandals.

Bush is probably the last person to comment on anyone’s handling of the press. He refused to fight back, even when the most egregious slanders were reported as facts. Maybe he was too much of a gentleman to get into such fights. Maybe he thought it was more dignified to remain silent. I think that his presidency would have been more successful and the country better off if Bush had fought back against the purveyors of fake news.

There is a lot not to like about Donald Trump. He is not a conservative. He is only nominally a Republican. Trump’s instincts seem to favor the sort of big government solutions conservatives deplore. Trump can be undisciplined and too inclined to shoot off his mouth when silence would be more appropriate. But Trump has one saving grace that makes me inclined to forgive his many faults. Trump fights. He does not stand silent when he is attacked as so many Republicans do. He fights back. Trump seems to understand that being nice to the mainstream media simply doesn’t work. Trying to be presidential and refusing to dignify media attacks with a response only results in a damaged and ineffective presidency. Trump may be crude and undignified, but he does seem to know how to handle the media. I wish other Republicans would learn from him. At the very least, I wish other Republicans would learn not to attack each other in the hope of a few nice words from the media that despises them.

Who’s the Boss

March 5, 2017

While President Trump is working to make America great again, he is naturally encountering resistance. This is to be expected, of course; no president is universally popular and Trump is more controversial than most. What might not be expected is the opposition Trump will be receiving inside the federal government from the people who are supposed to be working for him and for us. This article from the Washington Post tells of the resistance from within that Trump may be facing.

The signs of popular dissent from President Trump’s opening volley of actions have been plain to see on the nation’s streets, at airports in the aftermath of his refu­gee and visa ban, and in the blizzard of outrage on social media. But there’s another level of resistance to the new president that is less visible and potentially more troublesome to the administration: a growing wave of opposition from the federal workers charged with implementing any new president’s agenda.

Less than two weeks into Trump’s administration, federal workers are in regular consultation with recently departed Obama-era political appointees about what they can do to push back against the new president’s initiatives. Some federal employees have set up social media accounts to anonymously leak word of changes that Trump appointees are trying to make.

And a few government workers are pushing back more openly, incurring the wrath of a White House that, as press secretary Sean Spicer said this week about dissenters at the State Department, sends a clear message that they “should either get with the program, or they can go.”

At a church in Columbia Heights last weekend, dozens of federal workers attended a support group for civil servants seeking a forum to discuss their opposition to the Trump administration. And 180 federal employees have signed up for a workshop next weekend, where experts will offer advice on workers’ rights and how they can express civil disobedience.

At the Justice Department, an employee in the division that administers grants to nonprofits fighting domestic violence and researching sex crimes said the office has been planning to slow its work and to file complaints with the inspector general’s office if asked to shift grants away from their mission.

“You’re going to see the bureaucrats using time to their advantage,” said the employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. Through leaks to news organizations and internal complaints, he said, “people here will resist and push back against orders they find unconscionable.”

I think these federal workers have forgotten who is the boss in this country. We do not some in some medieval despotism in which an superior caste of mandarins make all the decisions for the good of those deplorable serfs who are too ignorant to decide for themselves how to live their lives. The United States of America is a democratic republic in which the people rule and where government exists to protect our inalienable rights. These civil servants do not, or ought not, to make the policies and laws in this country. The people make the laws through our elected representatives. The job of the civil servants is to carry out those decisions made by our elected representatives. A federal worker has the same right to his opinion as any other American citizen, on his own time. If he believes a given policy is wrong, he can complain about it, or even resign if he believes that implementing a policy is against his conscience. He cannot work to undermine the agenda or policies of the elected and appointed officials who are his superiors anymore than a worker in the private sector can work to undermine the company he works for. Federal workers who are actively working to resist President Trump need to be fired. If the law prevents them from being fired, than the law must be changed.

Sometimes I think it would be better if we went back to the Spoils System. Our modern, professional, supposedly non-partisan civil service dates back to the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 which mandated that positions in the federal government should be given on the basis of merit as determined by civil service exams. Before that act the offices of the federal government were filled by a system of patronage called the Spoils System. Every federal employee was a political appointee, even local postmasters. With every change in administration after every election, there would be a wholesale turnover in the entire government as supporters of the previous administration were discharged while their jobs were given to the supporters of the incoming president. This meant that the first months of any new president would be filled with finding jobs for everyone who contributed time and money to his campaign. Since the victor gets the spoils of war, this system was called the Spoils System.

The Spoils System was not a particularly good way to run a government since most of the office holders were selected on the basis of political loyalty rather than on any ability to perform the functions of the job and the men selected were obviously more interested using their offices to gain political power and enrich themselves than in serving the public. The Pendleton Act was meant to remedy these obvious evils by putting into place a federal workers who had the specific skills and experience needed for the offices they held and who would dispassionately serve the public rather than political hacks beholden to the politicians who appointed them.

I am not certain that the Pendleton Act has been entirely successful, or perhaps it has been too successful in some ways. It seems to be that our modern, professional civil service has become an entrenched castes of elites with agendas of their own and who believe themselves to be a ruling caste who can lord over their inferiors. Even worse, they seem to be loyal to a particular political party, the Democrats, to the point of being willing to sabotage the elected officials of the opposing party. Thus, we have the worst of both evils, an arrogant ruling class of political hacks. At least with the Spoils System there was some rotation of people, and since they were political appointees they had to be at least somewhat responsive to the will of the elected officials who got them their jobs and who themselves knew they had to face the voters at the next election.

Something to think about, anyway. Our present system is not working too well. Maybe it’s time for a change.


%d bloggers like this: