Saturday, April 29, 2017

Greener Grass

People like old Gus are just not happy. No matter how high on the hog they live, no matter they have money in the bank, no matter how nice is the sunshine - old Gus isn't going to be happy. He sits like a lump and complains. One day it's politics and the next day it's the stupid neighbor. There's no end to his complaints,

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Political Liberals Have Gone Bonkers

I grew up with Roosevelt. Sat thru his efforts to get into the war, his constant push to elevate the power of the President, his push to overload the Supreme Court and so on. He became a very powerful liberal politician in America. Truman and his successors, not so much although a few tried. Then, along came Obama who forced everyone to bend. The ultra-liberal-racist-radicals were ushered into our government offices. Obama and his cronies came damn close to destroying America. He wasn't just a bad President, he was a terrible and dangerous political idiot. Today we have President Trump who was elected to clean house, correct the Obama errors, rebuild America, and return some deserved element of dignity to our peaceful nation. For years after World War II America has rebuilt our enemies, financed the military defenses of friendly nations, and provided aid to less fortunate people all over the globe. We asked no award or trophy, but instead we have been unjustly vilified and routinely  kicked in the teeth. With the overly liberal Obama in charge, we gave up our earned reputation, over-spent our money to the edge of bankruptcy, and reduced our military to the point of inability to protect the nation from mice. Okay, Trump is giving 110% trying to bring America back from the failure cliff. He is doing so despite the ridiculously brainless ultra-liberal radicals that have taken over the Democratic Party. He has incurred the wrath of brainwashed students from the one-sided liberal schools, and somehow made enemies of most so-called celebrities in Hollywood and elsewhere. There is rioting in the streets by painfully stupid  people and illiterate jerks looking for windows to break and fires to set. Into this fray strides Trump with his bulldozing manner. He his immediately detested by the liberal elite in our society, and hit on the head with dynamite sticks by the absolutely corrupt American media.

What in the hell has he done so wrong?

Obamacare. The idea that all American tax payers must pay at least some level of medical care and assistance for all other people in the nation is controversial in itself, but assuming that, at least on the surface, the idea is good and will produce this ideal concept. I don't believe it will. American tax payer don't have any responsibility to fund medical services for non-citizens - period. That might be a more realistic line in the sand. Secondly, Obamacare forces everyone that does not want to participate to enroll or pay a significant penalty. Does this not take away another freedom of choice? Third. for all American citizens to be eligible for fundamental lifesaving medical care is a wonderful ideal to work toward. To make this move which involves 20% of the entire federal budget all at once makes this a reckless and  almost revolutionary concept. I content, of at least suspect, it the program should be over a period of many years, perhaps decades, in order to be comfortably absorbed by our American tax paying society. Fourth. The overall impact on the national treasury has not been clearly defined. It can not - but is known to be larger than we can afford now. That means a significant increase in what the nation must borrow, and we are already owe about $20,000,000,000 which is nearing a disastrous national bankruptcy.

Uncontrolled Immigration. Trump wants America to enforce it's own laws. He wants to construct a superior vetting system and refuse entry to terrorists and potential terrorists. He wants to restrict the quantity flow to a reasonable level that America can absorb properly. For all of this Trump has received nothing but stubborn and stupid resistance of 50% of the civilian Americans.

The Famous Wall. He didn't start it but he intends to finish it. He believes a physical wall between Mexico and America will help our country better control the illegal immigration now flooding across the border, and help us find and reduce the out of control drug trafficking as well. He believes it is feasible, practical, and will be very effective.

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Tree Huggers

ENVIRONMENTALISTS. Political conservatives like myself are known to "look down their nose" at environmentalists (tree huggers). Usually it's because some environmentalists over state their case. No one disagrees that global warming is taking place, but even grade school kids learn that there was once an ice age when glaciers covered much of the earth, and then the planet got warm and most glaciers disappeared. All of us know that's why seashells can be found in desert lands. This history is widely accepted. Yes, there is a record of constant climate change. The three important questions we should be concerned with are; 

       1. Has "climate change" been accelerated or otherwise affected by modern society? 

       2. Is there anything we can do to reduce, alter or eliminate "climate change"?
       3. How can we best protect ourselves if nothing can be done to influence it?

Too many environmentalists, particularly liberal environmentalists, are telling us the impending disaster of "climate change" is upon us. That the sky is falling and catastrophe is around the corner. It's just not so. Traditional environmentalists suggest we not jump to conclusions. Let's study "climate change" and evaluate the threat more precisely. Let's determine exactly why it is happening, and then decide if population growth, industrialization, weapons of mass destruction, increasing use of oil and other natural resources before we turn each other inside-out and apply ineffective solutions. 

Talking with my ultra-liberal Grandson I've found that he refuses to even consider opposition to liberal concepts. He dismisses opposing thoughts completely and it bothers me. This isn't the hallmark of a well educated  person. The ability to gather facts and reason independently is the more traditional mark of an educated person.  My Grandson is a recent college graduate and like so many others of his generation has learned not to question ideas that conflict with his own. How did this happen? Is independent thinking and common sense no longer prt of education? What's going on here?

POLITICS. The recent election process wound it's way to a bitter end. The lengthy campaign was so filled with personal invective most Americans were disgusted. The federal government is now managed by a two party system. In practical terms each party has divisions within it. 
  • The Democratic Party includes an ultra-radical left wing. It is a  left leaning social-democrat-progressive element, and has become a large part of the moderate Democratic Party core. 
  • The Republican Party also includes ultra radical right wing  extremists. This ultra-conservative-libertarian faction is now a large part of the d more Republican Party core.
Republicans won this 2016 election and the presidential candidate considers himself a Conservative. It is expected that the national leadership will shift from Obama's extreme left progressive direction to Mr. Trump's traditional and conservative right direction.  Most of the folks that voted for Mr. Trump hope that this will come to pass. Political conservatism is on the rise and it is likely that there will soon be an attempt to reduce the size and the controls of the federal government. Environmentalists (mostly politically liberal) believe a reduction of controls will lead to a monumental environmental disaster. It's possible of course, but let's consider the following: 

1.  America's public lands, national parks, forests and deserts, are known to be poorly managed by bureaucratic government agencies. Political liberals believe If these bureaucrats and agencies are reduced or eliminated there will be even more damage. Conservatives suggest that since our system is failing we should consider:  

  • Returning a lot of federal land to the states.
  • Giving control of those lands to the states, with few minimum federal requirements.
  • Limiting the current federal lands to national parks, major watersheds for rivers that cross state lines, and areas considered in ecological danger, etc. 
  • Substantially reducing the number of employees in the Bureau of Land Management. 
No matter what the "tree huggers" say, we must consider human beings superior to any other living being or geographic element. Also, more important than a  project to benefit a vast area and/or population. Progress benefitting mankind should no longer be stalled or cancelled because of an insignificant bird, worm, insect, or whatever. 

Property zoning is perhaps the greatest impediment to successful land management. The federal government controls how the public lands may be used. If that control were to be given to the states great care would have to be used to ensure the quality of land use protected the land as well as the society it serves. In other words, the state would take over the zoning and the responsibility. Instead of relying on a federal government bureaucracy the control would rest with the state. 

The danger might be that by permitting unrestricted land use and thereby making possible the influx of new residents (and more tax dollars), the state would become responsible for the degradation of the (beautiful) natural environment and quality of life that the new and old residents cherish.

2.  Legal Responsibility. Our present laws do not always make sense. I shall cite an example: Around 1880 the Anaconda Mining Company was formed. By 1900 it accounted for half of America's copper production. In 1955 Anaconda began excavating the "Berkeley Pitt", an enormous hole in the ground over one mile in diameter and 1800 feet deep. The Anaconda's fortunes subseqentally declined because of foreign competition, expropriation of it's mines in Chile, and growing environmental concerns. Then, In 1976 Anaconda was purchased by Atlantic Richfield Oil (ARCO), which was more recently purchased by British Petroleum. BP closed the smelter in 1980 and the mine itself in 1983. The Berkeley Pit is now the largest and most expensive clean-up site in the United States. 

  • ARCO Claims it is unfair to hold them responsible for damage done by the previous owner - and that they purchased the assets from Anaconda, but not the liabilities.
  • In the view of the federal and state governments  ARCO acquired the assets of Anaconda including the liabilities. 
ARCO has already paid several million dollars to Montana for environmental clean-up. It's total estimated liability is considerably over one billion dollars - and growing. Who should pay?

It started with the Clark Fork, Milltown Dam, and the Pegasus Zortman Landusky Mine. That entity became Anaconda - who claims that no liabilities transferred forward. 

Is this fair?

Sunday, November 20, 2016

Radical Left Wing Whiners

Letting off a little steam is probably good for everyone, sometimes. This election year with Trump and Hillary viciously contending, has become the excuse for destructive rioting by  the Democratic Party losers. This is not good for anyone. But wait a minute. Let's not be so fast to assign blame to the Democrats. The rioting protesters don't represent most of them.  A close look suggests they are a collection of radical left wing people, many who have never voted and many of whom are not old enough to vote, and most of the rest appear to be poorly educated folks and a few professional protesters. So, let's us not conclude that these violent riots have any sort of political merit at all. Peaceful protests do of course, but violent riots do not. 

That is not to say there is no reason not to disagree with the winner, Mr. Trump, his agenda, his cabinet or the Republican Party.  Everyone has the right to peacefully protest. Mr. Trump and the Republicans have significant controversial views regarding how to ensure the future of America, and these differences are certainly open to protest - and hopefully debated to a peaceful  agreement.

I've been interested in history, particularly political history, for a long time, and I am well aware that the government structures designed by our founders were not perfect. I've also been aware that our government has held true for over 200 years, and that very few governments around the world have done better. The original intent of our founders was to create a lasting government that guaranteed "freedom limited by the least government interference necessary".

This bit about "limiting freedom by the least government necessary" has changed dramatically over the years. Human weaknesses have gradually eaten the entire structure of our federal government. Greed, for example, is built in to our capital based economy and free market philosophy. This foundation  creates competition and promotes ambition,  which in turn encourages the progress so necessary for building a dynamic nation - but bears the unfortunate side effect of creating aggression from neighbor to neighbor, infringement on the rights of others, and ugly dishonesty if not carefully controlled. 

Sadly, "greed" has invaded our federal government to the point that our citizens no longer feel they have a reasonable part in our  "representative government". They are substantially correct.

Sunday, November 6, 2016

The Sky Sky Fell

Trish . . .

I just saw a copy of your ballot. Knocked me over and then some. What happened to the single issue voter? Finally wake up? This is the most ominous presidential election in my memory. The Democrats have failed to rein in Hillary and Bill for years. He is a disgrace to the office despite being a "not bad" President. Hillary has always been a ruthless political climber. She's never been a very nice person but as she rose in politics she became a black- hearted witch. She can no longer make a good decision - about anything!

On the other side,  establishment Republicans haven't shown a brain for many years. Like Hillary they are obsessed with whatever is best for them. This election year they put forth a respectable group of nominees, any one of which would have made a good President - except one. And he's the one they put up for us to vote on. Stupid is as stupid does. Trump is a potential disaster. Hillary is a proven disaster. So we must now pick one. It's very hard to sort actual criticism from senseless personal garbage. The two parties are equally responsible. So, how do you base your vote?

For me it was easy. I've never agreed with Hillary, and rarely agreed with the Democrats. So not voting for Hillary was easy. Trump is another "dirty bird" altogether. His speech off the teleprompter indicates his subliminal thinking, and  it's not good. His "off the cuff" remarks and quick responses to complex issues, are usually abominable. He acts and talks like a New York thug and, as you know,  I tend to shy away from that blowhard, self important, I'm superior, and generally disgusting, kind of person. On the other hand Mr. Trump does have many favorable points and strong political positions. Trump is a free market capitalist above all, and tends to respect the founding fathers, the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and other documents that have determined American traditions. He has a good education, an excellent memory, a quick learning ability and a long personal history of executive management. He is flatly against Obamas effort to unbalance our three divisions of the federal government, (Congress, Supreme Court, Presidency) and Obamas schemes to circumvent the Congress and the Supreme Court and grow executive power.

Since F.D.R. American government has slowly moved to the left. Many or most of our citizens do not fear "big government" gradually taking over our lives. They should. This intrusion has become dangerous and will lead us toward socialism, communism, and finally a crippling revolution. This is Hillary's concept of the future.

Trump, crude as he is, apparently believes in reducing the size and intrusion of the federal government. He understands the danger of our growing national debt. He favors reducing or eliminating the "fed". He promises to rebuild our military to a superior force, and to protect Americans and our interests abroad.  No more turn the other cheek stuff. On the home-front Mr. Trump may finally be able to get the corruption out of some of our worst offending government entities. He says he will, but the challenge is huge. If he just worked on the Veterans Administration, Veteran's Hospitals, the I.R.S., and Homeland Security - I'd be happy. It's worth noting that if Hillary becomes President - none for these things will be done.

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Interesting Comparisons

There are no completely capitalist or  completely socialist countries in the world.

The MOST capitalist are: (Not In Order of Rank)

The MOST socialist are:  (Not In Order of Rank)  
New Zealand

The 10 Richest Nations                      The 10 Richest                 National Debt
(Per ETS by Rank)                              (Per Atlas by Rank)             (By Rank- Least to Most))
1.   Qua tar                                             Qua tar                              1.   Canada
2.   Luxemburg                                      Luxemburg                        2.   Antigua
3.   Singapore                                        Singapore                           3.   United Kingdom
4.   Brunei                                              Kuwait                               4.   France
5.   Kuwait                                             Brunei                                5.   Spain
6.   Emirates                                           Emirates                             6.   Puerto Rico
7.   Swiss                                                Norway                              7.   Belgium
8.   Hong Kong                                       Switzerland                        8.   Eritrea
9.   USA                                                  USA                                    9.   Singapore
10. Australia                                           Saudi Arabia                     10.  Grenada
                                                                                                          11.  Sudan
The POOREST nations (Not In Order of Rank)                               12.  Cyprus
Haiti                                                                                                   13.  Lebanon
Guinea                                                                                               14.  Jamaica
Zimbabwe                                                                                          15.  Iceland
Congo                                                                                                 16.  Italy
Guaziland                                                                                            17.  Greece
Sierra Leone                                                                                        18.  Zimbabwe
Madagasgar                                                                                         19.  Japan

No. Korea                                       Niger
USA                                                Bukina
Serbia                                              Mali
India                                                Central Africa
Afghanistan                                     Ethiopia                    
Pakistan                                           Eritrea
Israel                                                Guinea
Libya                                                Pakistan
Canada                                             Gambia

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Enough Politics - Vote Trump

Trump and Hillary battle it out in the most disgusting campaign ever.  Hillary is the most corrupted, dishonest, and badly schooled politician America has ever had. She's so bad that Trump is actually giving her a race. He has the right ideas and has laid them out in an incomplete but impressive plan. Perhaps he will explain the details later. Or maybe not? Trump is a crude, smart and aggressive businessman. He has taken advantage of every loophole and opportunity to move himself forward. Along the way he has undoubtably irritated or offended many people as he made his way toward enrichment. He's a shark and if you want to play with a shark you must be very very careful. With all of this said, Mr. Trump has been cautious to stay within the law. He hasn't lied and cheated and robbed the public as his opponent has done. Anyone voting for Hillary over Trump is a moron. Case closed.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

The Great Worthless Debate

The first Presidential debate of 2016 took place last night. Despite a overwhelming background of corruption and bad decisions, Hillary Clinton won - according to the pundits anyway. Actually I would state the result differently. In my book Trump failed to illuminate Hillary's terrible record  of incompetence, and Hillary slipped in so many lies and innuendo, she  put Trump off guard and defensive. 

This was aggravated by the moderator, Lester Holt, who failed to direct several questions that would have been enlightening.  He never, for example, asked either candidate about uncontrolled immigration, the questionable wealth gathering of the Clinton Foundation, or specific plans to reduce the national debt. From that point forward Trump appeared to be on the defensive.

Hillary actually dominated several areas she should not have. She questioned Trump's history of poor relations with women, his business practices that rose on the back of questionable ethics, and his record of prejudicial relations with the minority elements of American society. These topics seemed to catch Trump unprepared, but he had to know they were coming. Hillary pursued them with "facts" that were gathered mostly from newspaper gossip columns and Hollywood magazines.  In every case her questions and statements were false or misleading, but they appeared to put  him in a speechless corner anyway. A presidential candidate should have been able to easily settle each allegation. He didn't.

So, in my opinion, Hillary didn't win, but Trump certainly lost.

Friday, July 29, 2016

Rapid Descent To Chaos

The morning newspaper is grim. Article after article describes bitter conflicts between radical Islamic fundamentalists versus everybody else. This conflict is born of bitterness and reflects the misery of abject poverty among so many Muslims. There are millions who live in terrible conditions with nothing to eat, shelter, clothe, or educate. There is no foreseeable way for these down trodden human beings to raise themselves to minimum human standards. 

The entire world of people who have, by whatever resource, risen to the state of living and working in conditions that are equal  to that of the lowest level of organized civilization, are  effectively ignored. No human agency has been able to relieve the miserable poor. Churches of every religion  have failed. Governments have failed. The world wide very rich have failed. Charitable institutions have failed.  Organizations composed of all of these, like the United Nations, have failed.

There are still people that lack fresh water, edible foods, adequate shelter, and protection from those who are criminals or have power.  We tend to think these people live in Africa, China, India, and Arabia. In fact they also live in every country or area of the world. Ours included.

Every metropolitan area in America has a small population of the very poor, homeless, and hungry. In numbers this population may or may not be in the millions, but it is there - and it is a disgrace to everyone else in the country. Almost all economists and social scientists agree that within American borders there is enough natural assets and wealth to provide whatever assistance is needed to:

  •  raise our nation's impoverished population to  minimum liveable conditions
  •  to employ those who can work
  •  to educate the impoverished young 

Regretable Catholic Nonsense

I've long been interested in the reasons behind the Catholic Churches disagreement with Freemasonry.  I was told, that a Pope had issued a Papal Bull many years ago forbidding Catholics from joining Freemasonry. The Pope believed that since Freemasonry  was open to any man who believed in one God, and that a man should have direct access to the Supreme Being regardless of the his theological philosophies, it was wrong for a Catholic to join. The Catholic Church insists that all men must obey the Pope as the direct theological authority in all things. This explanation was.

I read an article published on the internet by the National Catholic Bioethic center at the University of Mary in the year 2002. Most of the article  seemed written years ago, and possibly combined from several manuscripts. It begins with an accounting of Masonic history, but quickly became an uninformed opinion of Freemasonry. The article is lengthy and sometimes hard to understand. For example: It begins with the 'supposed' origin of the name "freemason" in 1375, and returns to the year 1155 to explain that "the word freemason described an operative mason of superior skills". It  also suggested developed that there were two types; a free-stone mason who worked with softer stone that could be carved, and the less skilled rough stone masons. I suspect the actual year that the word "freemasonry" was first used was 1155

Regardless, in 1898 the New English Dictionary of the Philological Society  interpreted "freemasons"  as "skilled artisans, emanating according to medieval practice from the restrictions and control of the local guilds (unions) in order that they might travel and render services wherever any great building (cathedral, etc.) was in the process of construction". This is the interpretation adopted by the 1st. Grand Lodge of England in 1717.  Before then the Catholic Church believed that "the nature of Freemasonry as a secret society makes it difficult to accept it's reputed documents and authorities".  Freemasonry was not and is not a "secret society". Perhaps it never was. However, Masonic history is indeed complicated by fables, dreams, and speculation as well as facts. It was and is a society of men with private practices.  

A recognized Masonic scholar,  Albert Mackey, has said that "Freemasonry's history has never been written in a spirit of critical truth. . . . the missing chains of evidence  have been frequently supplied by gratuitous invention and statements of vast importance have been carelessly sustained by the testimony of documents whose authenticity has not been proved".

Masonry in modern times (after 1723 when four London Lodges reorganized the 2nd. English Grand Lodge), developed a systematic method of teaching ethics and morality by means of using symbols to assist a man's to retain it's lessons. Interestingly, the book "Anderson's Constitutions" in 1723, contained the unchangeable laws that have no legal authority, but are generally inserted in "The Book of Constitutions" of each Grand Lodge. Note that it contains: 

1. God and Religion."A Mason is obliged by his tenure to obey the moral law; and if he rightly understands the Art (Masonry),  he will never be a stupid atheist nor an irreligious Libertine. Masonry being found in allegations, even of diverse religions, are charged to adhere to that religion in which all men agree, that is, to be good men and true, men of honesty, by whatever names, religions or persuasions they may be distinguished. . . . . Thus is the centre of their union and the happy means of conciliating true friendship among persons who otherwise must have remained at a perpetual distance.

Catholics characterize this "God and Religion" text to the corresponding injunction in the old lodges of "operative Masonry". They are summed up in the words of the "operative" (pre 1717) Masons; The first charge is that you be true to God and the Holy Catholic Church, and use no error or heresy".

The contrast is clear.  Under the older Book of Constitutions a Mason was obliged to be true to God and Church, but according to the newer (1723) Anderson's Book of Constitutions,  "a Masons obligation was reduced to the observation of the "moral law",  and practically summed up in the rules of honour and honesty as to which all men agree"The Catholic Church has refused accept this change as it "removes the accidental division of mankind due to particular opinions or religious duties, national, and social prejudices". 

Further, "it places "Humanity" as the essential principle of Freemasonry.The Christian character  of the society was exchanged for the non-sectarian regulations which were to include the votaries of all sects, without respect for their differences, provided they met the conditions of morality, mature age and an approved ballot in the Lodge". This entire argument is rendered non-sense as Freemasonry is not a religion or theology, and it has exchanged nothing. 

According to this erroneous article, "the Catholic Church believes the attempt to impose "Humanity" on the Roman Catholic Church in place of "Christian Religion" is absolutely wrong. The article carries this idea forward with the statement that "Freemasonry, therefore, is opposed not only to Catholicism and Christianity, but also to the whole system of supernatural truth". 

I give up. They are going to believe what ever they want to believe.

Monday, July 18, 2016

Shooting My Big Toe

The Republican Convention is a circus and it's no surprise.This is wasting money on a huge scale.  In my old age I've noticed that Americans waste more of everything - including money spent on politics. Do we really need all the election hype? Today I count pennies to be certain there is enough to see me  and my wife out.  If there is anything left over we hope it will help our family, and if not them, perhaps a poorer person who needs a hand up. As I ponder my personal situation I also have taken my blinders off. I look around and don't like what I see. People work hard to survive and with luck and labor  they hope to improve their lot. Move a step up in society. Live a more comfortable life instead of one of hardship. Our government has only one source of income. Only one, and it is us, the citizens. There are many expenditures that meld our country together, and they are absolutely necessary. The Constitution and Bill of Rights and Federalist Papers, and Declaration of Independence  all delineate and limit exactly what those expenditures  should be used for. For over two hundred years Americans gradually, piece by piece,  erased almost all of the original limits.  Stupidly, we shot our selves in the foot a million times.

  • The federal government was supposed to be as small as possible. It's anything but small. 
  • Our elected officials were supposed to serve in government a short time, and return to their private vocation. Now, many or most they serve for life.
  • The duties ascribed to the federal government: 
  • To regulate commerce between other nations and the states.
  • To coin money and to borrow money on the credit of the United States. 
  • To establish post offices and post roads. 
  • To secure for limited times the exclusive right to inventions, writings, and discoveries. 
  • To constitute federal tribunals inferior to the supreme court. 
  • To punish felonies committed on the high seas and offenses against the Law of Nations. 
  • To make war and rules concerning captures. 
  • To raise and support Armies and Navies. 
  • To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia employed to Serve the United States reserving to the states the appointment of officers, and the authority of raining according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. 
  • Amendment X: Powers not delegated by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
So why is the federal government involved in the abortion or no abortion business?

Why do we permit our elected officials to serve more than (say) 20 years?

Why do we let our government hire private companies and mercenaries as our armed forces?

Why do we allow many elected officials to have exorbitant retirement funds?

Friday, July 8, 2016

Negro Justice

For many years the word "negro" has described a poor - and usually impoverished - dark skinned people without the means to compete in the world. Many years later most American negroes had roots in Africa. The negro majority stayed in Africa. Only a relative few came to America, and most of them were forced to come here to be sold into slavery. Since then, the mid-1800's, the level of abuse and  discrimination in America has lessened. There have actually been great strides forward for negroes and most other ethnic minorities. Sadly though, the effort to reach 'equality for all' has been slowed by the resisting attitudes of progress has been slow. Many angry and defiant individuals demand faster acceptance. 

The Civil War resulted in a giant step forward. Then progress slowed until World War II. After that war negroes surged ahead in society and began referring to themselves as "Black-Americans".  It was sometime later, perhaps after the Korean conflict, that the title was changed to "African-Americans". The intent was to signify their progress toward equality. It appeared to indicate a new and fresh  identity -  but in fact it has caused a wider gap between "whites and blacks". 

The white majority, particularly those who tended toward discrimination,  thought the angry and sometimes militant negroes were rejecting the American culture and trying to develop their own. This idea appears to have been rejected or at least lessened. Today both "whites and blacks"  seem to be re renewing their effort to come together as equals. Success, however, may be a long way off. Why?

There are fewer African-Americans than most other ethnic identities in America.  
  • Why then do African-Americans commit more crimes than all of the other ethnicities combined?     It's a fact.
  • African-Americans consider racial profiling to be illogical and unreasonable discrimination?        Actually, it is neither.
  • Why do African-Americans learn less when attending the same schools as all other ethnicities?       They are just as intelligent but without social and cultural support. 
  • Why are there proportionally more unemployed African-Americans? Because they are not as well educated.
  • Why do African-Americans require more welfare? Because America has fewer jobs for unqualified people, which has made it necessary to move toward becoming a welfare state so to prevent misery and abject poverty, which have all combined to reduce individual ambition and the pride of self reliance.
Certainly discrimination makes it more difficult for African-Americans to move forward, but what will it take to significantly improve their culture? 

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Stop and Think

During recent years, like you, I've become aware that most of civilization appears to be declining. Morals, ethics, religions, behavior, and the guidance of traditions have been steadily losing influence.  Progress of the human condition has  slowed or stopped. Unless the trend can be reversed it follows that we will return to miserable times.  Conditions perhaps like they were in medieval times

If we think of "civilization" as the total of all societies on earth combined to describe the condition of mankind in general. Our broad brush paints an ugly picture. Compared to last year, today there are more hungry, homeless, and impoverished  people than ever before. There are more that have no access to modern medicines and treatment, more that have no fresh water, more that haven't enough to eat and more that have no opportunitity to improve their lives. 

Granted, that the world is more populated and more wealthy. It doesn't change what is happening around us.  

Of course, an American faces a different world than, for example, someone from Mali, Uganda, Siberia or Pakistan and etc. But people from all of these places add to become part of "civilization".  

Today it is vital that modern societies learn how to understand and improve the civilization of Arabian Muslims. Because of their firm belief in and adherence to the religion of Islam, Muslim society has not yet joined the modern world. They have not progressed, certainly not since medieval times. 

Each society is generally located in a very different part of the world, and each has faces huge societal problems. In America for purposes of keeping this brief, we can name Medical Insurance,  Educational Decline, and Financial Danger as being at the root of most problems. Regarding Arabian Muslims we can name a different set of societal problems, such as Technical Knowledge,  an obsolete Religion, and illegal Medieval Laws.  By discussing each we will better understand how to plan ahead.


Medical Insurance. Is it the natural "right" of every citizen? Or an earned right? Or a government imposed right? And should it be equally served to rich and poor, common folk and the wealthy
?America has not settled these questions. Not in the churches, government, or educational institutions. Great strides have been made to insure the health of more citizens, but a significant number of Americans still have no medical insurance. 

At the same time pharmaceutical bills , medicines and medical care have fast and a lot. They are now close to being unsustainable.

Educational Decline. Our nation's schools K-12 were changed from local control to national control by liberal politicians desiring closer uniformity across the country. Their intentions were (perhaps) good. But the change reduced competitiveness - and began forcing uniform  federal programs. To assure compliance they refuse to fund school districts that didn't go along. Local teachers across the nation began teaching to the national uniform tests. The tests do not allow for demographic, ethnic, numerical, or population differences. Many seasoned and experienced educators and almost all teachers disagreed with the federal mandated plan. 

Sadly, the ultra liberal federal supporters have now got their foot in the door. The situation almost desperate.  The new criteria has become excessively biased and liberalized. Traditional education now has a minor role, and all subject matter has been "dumbed down". Teachers are now forced to educate the slowest students in their classes by not challenging the brightest. Student failure is no longer an option. 

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

ISIS And Other Hate Groups

Over the years one hate group has bled into another until it is difficult to figure who is who. This will be an effort to clarify.

  • The initials refer to Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. 
  • ISIS  threatens Israel, Yazidis, moderate Sunni and Shia Muslims, Kurds, Christians and Jews.
  • It uses particularly horrific terrorist methods. 
  • ISIS is a jihadist group founded in Iraq and Syria.
  • absolutely controls Gaza. 
  • now control a territory as large as a nation state including northern Syria and northern Iraq. 
  • Membership is estimated at more than 35,000       
  • The ISIS ambition is to create an Islamic Caliphate.
  • founded by Osama ben Laden
  • established in Afghanistan/Pakistan about 1988
  • USA & Saudi Arabia spent millions on Afghan rebel arms
  •  most of that money helped start al-Quaeda
  • also known as al-Quaeda in Iraq or AQI. 
  • Once had a membership estimated less than 10,000
  • now much smaller membership
  • pre-ceded ISIS and 
  • now a sub-group allied with ISIS
  • Tends to attack Western and Arab governments.
  • responsible for 9-11   3,000 deaths 
  • is a larger and older terrorist group
  • linked to Muslim Brotherhood. 
  • now a sub-group within ISIS 
  • possible membership of 20,000+
  • include the former PLO organization
  • and a long history of attacking Israel. 
  • rockets across Israeli border
  • suicide bombers, package bombs
  • often us children and elderly shields
  • attacks come usually from the south. 
  • continues to threaten Israel from the north.
  • founded in Lebanon about 1982
Muslim Brotherhood
  • founded in Egypt about 1928
  • preceded and related to Hamas

Bubba Trump's Press Conference

At Washington Orange Grade School

Boy 1:Mr. Trump why do you wear such a ridiculous hair style?

Bubba Trump: Actually I was going bald so I got some hair implants like Senator Biden did, and started to comb over my other hair to cover the hair plugs.  As I continued to lose more of the other hair  and clearly was going to be bald one day, I combed over more and more until it became out of control. I suppose I will have to eventually go bald with a smile - and no more comb over.

Boy 2:  Why not at least make your hair a bit shorter anyway so you don't look like a surf bum and more like a successful businessman
Bubba Trump:  I'll think about it.

Girl 1:  You come to the presidency without paying dues.  You've never been elected, never had a public office,  nor run a non-profit business.  How will you handle difficult political questions?
Bubba Trump:  I'm smart, honest,  and know right from wrong. The American founding documents (Constitution, Declaration, Bill of Rights, and etc.) are my guide. And I will delegate to experts and other smart people, and I will expect results. Or they will be replaced.

Boy 1:  Why did you campaign so viciously on personalities and not on issues?
Bubba Trump:  I was forced to defend myself when the media and other opposition attacked me. At the same time, I made my agenda quite clear.

Boy 2:  And would you please repeat your agenda and tell us how you plan to implement it?
Bubba Trump: Sure.
1. The basic thrust will be to make America great again.
2. To protect Americans better.
3.  To temporarily halt almost all immigration that originates from Muslim countries and
4. all Muslims with a criminal background and
5. Muslims with no declared contact or address in America.
6. To quickly devise a more effective way to identify potentially dangerous people and
7. To devise and enforce new immigration requirements and laws.
8. To complete the wall between Mexico and America.
9. To assign the National Guard to assist other enforcement agencies to  police the wall.
10. To quickly determine a year long path to citizenship for all current residents and immigrants.
11. Pass a law to  deport  to their country of origin all who do do not become citizens in one year.
12. To create a new special visa category allowing immigrants 3 months stay, and that
13 must be renewed by the court. (This to accommodate braceros, student, and etc.)

Now, I know that's not complete and I also know that many items will not be accomplished anytime soon. Implementation depends in many ways upon the amount of political resistance - and the budget.

Girl 3: Speaking of the budget, you say you will reduce the nation's debt, It stands now at almost

$20 trillion dollars. There are several methods you might use; inflation, devaluing the dollar, reducing the size of the federal government, reducing our dollar diplomacy, eliminating corrupted foreign aid, eliminate subsidies to farmers, eliminate un-necessary subsidies to  industry, reduce costs in military procurement, return some responsibilities from the federal bureaucracies to the individual states, and so forth. Would you choose them all, or would you address only the most effective? Which?
Bubba Trump:  Lordy, lordy. That's a great question and one that will probably have to be determined by several outstanding economists. I'm afraid I don't have an immediate answer.

Sunday, June 12, 2016

Followers of Radical Islam Are Inhuman Monsters

My understanding of history since about 1940 is fairly good. My opinion of it is . . .  not so much. I can recall Lawrence  of Arabia and the Mufti and the Muslim Brotherhood, perhaps from newsreels or newspapers but I've no idea if there are real facts in those memories. I was only five years old in 1940 and I do recall that there was no Israel.  Where it lies now was considered the Palestine Territory. As far as I know it was ungoverned land sparsely inhabited mostly by Semitic people or nomadic tribes. In the city of Jerusalem there were both Arabs and Jews living in harmony.

The Arabian part of the world in 1940 had few borders. Most Arabian territories that did exist were marked by geophysical elements like rivers, mountains, forests and etc.  The wandering Arabs tribes at that time believed in one of several "religions". I believe Islam had the most members, and the others worshiped animals, the heavens, and various idols. A very few were Christian. So, Arab tenanted land within the Palestinian Territory (including that of Jerusalem), had only verbal histories of property ownership. There was no government at that time capable of administering documented property titles. 

The territorial lands were not closely defined either. The area that is today Israel was then a very small part of the Palestine Territory. There were only a few Arab inhabitants.

During World War II there was almost no participation from any part of the Arab world.  What participation there was assisted the enemies of the Allied Forces. In other words, all of the Arab territories, except Egypt perhaps, were at war with the Allied Nations. and they lost the war!  In all previous ages the loser paid the winner, not vice versa.

The inhabitants of the Palestinian Territory, after being on the losing side of the war, had no claim on their land other than that granted by the Allied Nations. 

The entire world (except Muslim extremists) knew of the holocaust but few actually knew the details. It soon became known. The horrible and systematic extermination of Jews, impaired individuals, midgets and other helpless human beings . . . is unbelievably gruesome history.  No one knows how many were murdered but the usual accepted number is "more than 6,000,000".

Arabian people, including those of the Islamic faith, were not directly responsible, but they were on the enemy side during the war. . . .  and they lost the war.  

Sadly, no wanted to give any Jews or survivors of the holocaust a homeland. Certainly there was some racial reluctance but the general reason (excuse) given was that to welcome the Jews and give them land for a homeland would upset their own nation's demographics.

The Allies determined that location within the relatively desolate Arabian territories offered a solution. The new Jewish homeland would be better served and better administered. The intention included a promise to establish the most influential people in the immigrant community as the governing responsibility for the new nation.  

Thus the Israel, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon. etc. became nations with imposed boundaries. Israel was specificlly carved out of the Palestine Territory and carefully limited to a small area where Jews and Christians and Muslims had ancient historical roots. The Israelis promised any  current resident in the new nation the same freedoms that their own citizens would enjoy. They would receive title and be able to keep their land, businesses, and other property,.  The Israelis tried to be generous to the any of the existing residents. They what'd them to stay and become a valued part of Israel.

The Muslim communities refused. 

Instead, they immediately declared war upon Israel. They promised to drive the new nation it into the sea, and to murder anyone therein if they refused to embrace Islam. The rest of the world was shocked and thought this must spring from some deranged Muslim minority. They soon found it did.  It was from an anti-human, mentally defective and deranged, segment of Islam that was a large minority of radical extremist Islamic believers. 

These extremists had almost enough brute power to subdue other Muslims around the world. They did so by using terrorist tactics and imparting their murderous belief on their  young. These radical Muslims distorted their Holy Book and proclaimed that they would conquer the entire world . . . .  and establish Sharia Law on every continent. 

They also promise: to murder every person on earth who refuses or even resists accepting Islamic faith.  


Thursday, June 9, 2016

What A Mess

America in 2016 is a country with messy politics. We've been busy for years giving away our heritage and become a nation run by politicians that see themselves as  distinguished - but in reality most are despicable crooks. Their failure to address the important problems is a disgrace. By wasting our time on gutter politics, personality differences, and social issues of no merit, our political leadership has become incompetent, a political machine that mainly promotes the rich and infuriates the poor. 

2016 is an another election year, an opportunity to approve or disapprove the existing administration and elect a new one if necessary. The coming election has become a disgraceful display of stupidity. Neither political party has an agenda for the future. We've copied the worst of the third world rabble and given a stage to stupid, illiterate, anti-patriotic protesters. Watching as they burn our flag, roll over cars, break  the windows of small shops, spit on the police, and otherwise display violence and lack of respect - is disgusting.

Our vaunted jurisprudence community distorts the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence. They turn a blind eye to abuse in the name of "freedom of speech".  The viciousness reminds me of my aversion to Mapplethorp's art (?) depicting a penis with a flower on top, standing upright in a bowl of urine. I understand that Mapplethorp is a fine artist that believes art should "push the limits of public acceptability". Sometimes I think he pushes too far.  He is often degrading humanity, religions, and the moral traditions of society. 

The point? American elections need to limit and control the viciousness and personal attacks that are now the substance of elections. Let's return to campaign civility. 


One last comment
On another political matter. This year our two dominant political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans,  have each put forward two completely unworthy and unsatisfactory candidates:

Hillary Clinton 
  • Ultra Left Wing and Socialist Leaning  Democrat
  • Facing criminal prosecution and likely to be convicted
  • A well known slippery liar when dealing with personal of government affairs
  • Has a proven history of terribly wrong decisions
  • Can be expected to carry forward Obama's disastrous programs.

Donald Trump 
  • Republican (sometimes)
  • No prior government experience at all.
  • No record of government or political history.
  • Appears to have no regard for tradition. 
  • No experience with foreign diplomacy.
  • A rude and uncontrolled persona. 

Tuesday, June 7, 2016

Donald vs Arnold

Surprise of surprises. Arnold Schwarzenegger just came up in my estimation. Donald Trump's big mouth and spur of the moment speeches without notes or teleprompter, has done it again. He keeps letting slip outrageous stuff - and then refuses to either clarify or deny or apologize. 

He says his Trump University has not received fair treatment in Judge Curiels' court because he has a Mexican heritage. What a stupid statement for a candidate hoping to become President to make. In one swoop he has offended Mexicans both here and abroad, legal and illegal. 

Arnold Schwarzenegger takes issue. He couldn't be prouder of the excellent character and extraordinary legal mind of Judge Coriel. Arnold appointed him to the court.

Mr. Trump insists that the border between Mexico and the United States must be separated by a wall.  Well, perhaps. Actually a wall would guard quite a small section of the United States border. Think Canada. Think the east coast.  And, is a physical wall more economical than some other solution? High technology surveillance and National Guard interaction perhaps?

He says he will stop all Muslim immigration until we can devise a much improved system to  identify Muslim terrorists or with terrorist intentions. Mr. Trump agrees such a move would create chaos, discontent and resentment of most Muslims here and abroad. He answers, so what?  We've got to fix the problem. Should this not be carefully studied first?

He says his administration will devise a taxing system, perhaps not on income, that will more equitably distribute the federal tax load. From time to time he has said he would consider:  

  1. a single tax percentage on everyone or 
  2. a tax on the difference between cost of goods and the price of good sold.
  3. Mr. Trump says he is open to suggestions - but refuses to discuss it further.

He also says that he is not a racist, in favor of equal rights for women, a friend of the Mexican people, a realistic supporter of immigration reform, a proponent of a free market economy so far as it is pragmatic, and that he will tone down his rhetoric and act "presidential" once elected. 

I wonder, do donkeys fly?

Monday, May 12, 2014

Mad Dog Citizen

More of my genuine but useless rage. I returned from the local Starbucks with a big chip on my shoulder. What's bothering me is greedy economics. I've found these this in all politics. Not just the American variety  but let's center on them.  I've also lost confidence in the original fathers of our system. Being right off the farm, everything has to be reduced to it's simplest form  if  I am to understand it. If you are a Democrat you may replace "simplest"with "stupid". I've a thick hide and several questions regarding our American economy. 

The Federal Government was designed to handle matters important to each and all states and beyond the ability to handle at the state level. What happened to this concept? 
  • I guess it means that, despite America's inability to become economically viable any time soon, you and I have to pay a subsidy (taken from taxes I pay) to my neighbor so that he can put solar electric power at his home. Why? No one asked me! What happened to supply and demand?
  • During the years of the Eisenhower presidency the Agriculture Secretary decided to pay farmers  subsidies (again, taken from taxes I pay) to control which crops a farmer could plant and could not plant. Farmers got rich on land they did not plant? Does that make sense? Half the world is starving - and we pay farmers not to farm?
  • Next fly in the ointment. Artists (and art itself) are dubious money makers. In the days of cathedral building, powerful Royal Houses, and the wealthy elite, spent huge on the arts. It was normal, but the age passed and it wasn't long before the Federal Government decided that grants and subsidies would assure that we all supported the arts. What kind of art? Who decides? Did I have a vote on this? Who did?
  •  In all of history talented artists have had voluntary patrons, donations, other sponsors to support their work. Now, art and artists have become compensated by our tax paying citizens. Even "Mapplethorpe's display of Jesus on a penis standing in urine".  I object to paying for this! Okay. 

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Let's Talk About Rain's Comments

Now and then mistakes are made. Rain responded to a few statements that were sent to my blog. I stupidly passed them along and she didn't appreciate them. A "righty" had sent them to me - and Rain thought I was the author. I wasn't.  As you may have noticed I try to avoid comments about comments  etc. This time it called for an exception.

Rain said ". . . All that 'half subsidized' means  is those who take something from the government".

I didn't understand - but I would try another definition. Let us consider two elements. 

(1)  government purchases for public benefit

(2) government payment of  welfare for an individuals benefit.

When discussing welfare public benefit is usually not included. Only welfare for individuals . Apparently the United States spends close to $1 trillion dollars each year on welfare to fight poverty. We assume that is welfare for individuals. If so, since President Obama took office  welfare spending has increased over 40% and is now about $190 billion dollars per year.

Despite this increase, over 48 million Americans continue to live in poverty. That number hasn't changed much over the last 50 years. We must be doing something wrong. 

Rain says: HALF SUBSIDIZED includes . . . " 
         all government workers 
          all soldiers 
          all retired people 
          all handicapped 
          all farmers with crop subsidies 
          all those in the oil industry who get benefits
          and etc.    
I've very little good to say about the Republicans (or Democrats) of today. At the same time I know several elected or appointed people belonging each party. Most seem to be college graduates or at least have some college background, and most tend to be intelligent and generally extraordinary people. My conclusion is that it is our  system that is broken - not our people.

". . . I CLEARLY DON'T THINK YOU KNOW ANY POOR AND HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEIR LIVES ARE LIKE."   Rain, I know you get frustrated with all of this political turmoil, but you really went to far with this. It's not in character for you.  I'm not going to attempt a refutation.  It's enough to simply affirm my exposure living for nearly five years in Tripoli and Benghazi, Libya, and mixing generally with the hungry and miserable poor.. 

That's enough. I've been poor. Lived with the poor. Seen poverty first hand in many parts of the world. And I know what it means to be poor. 

Lastly, you are entirely within your rights to insinuate that ALL REPUBLICANS ARE NUTS, even when you know this isn't true.

And it is a fact that, compared to Republicans, Democrats prefer to think that national government can manage and spend our taxed money more efficiently and effectively than a free market tempered by supply and demand. In the most general way, Republicans believe they are wrong. Neither party is overloaded with idiots.