Yesterday, Donald Trump once again said global warming is a hoax and he will institute policies that rescind all U.S. efforts at contributing to a reduction in green house gases. Yet, at the same time, he wants to build a wall in Ireland to protect his golf course from rising sea levels. In other words, he is prepared to buy some insurance from a risk that he perceives in business, but one that he downgrades in the political world.
And that is what I don't understand about the politics of science denial. The earth is so far as we know, the only planet with water and life. We have the Kevlar telescope looking for other possibilities in the solar system and they have found over 1000 candidates for further investigation. But they are all hundreds, if not thousands, of light years away. We live on a rare planet.
And you would think, GOP politicians, who are generally a conservative type of person that would never be without insurance for their personal risks, would want global society to have that same attitude toward risk management; nothing could coincide with such conservatism more than preserving our environment, including the overall temperature of the planet.
Now I know the cat is out of the bag so to speak on global warming, but you would think some measures, that do not overly harm the economy, would be prudent to try and reduce future global warming just as a form of insurance. And you would think, American conservatives as religious people, would want to contribute to improving the conditions of life around the world by doing something to contribute to a reduction green house gases. After all, their personal environment is effected by the overall temperature of the planet.
So why is the GOP so dead set against all reductions in green house gases? My only answer is that personal greed trumps all else. Business makes money when they don't have to pay to prevent stuff that society pays for in other ways and cannot charge it back to the business. That is why business pollutes if there is not legislation which makes polluting a crime. And business can give politicians the money they need to be reelected, which is how those politicians support their life style. What I cannot explain is why the working whites who vote the GOP in, don't see that technology is what is causing their economic stress, not immigration, global trade or pro-environment regulation.
But even with that greed, I would think as conservative people they would care about the life their grandchildren and future generations will have.
But they do not, even when they have to build a wall to protect their property.
And that is what amazes me about science denial.
Saturday, May 28, 2016
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
An Alabama View on the GOP
George Hawley, a University of Alabama Political Science professor, has put into different words some thoughts I have discussed previously. This is that the Conservative Orthodoxy that drives RINO's out of the party is not really supported by a majority of GOP voters. Thus, you get a Donald Trump candidacy over a host of politicians who pledged themselves to implement Conservative Orthodoxy.
What is Conservative Orthodoxy?
"To be a true, unpolluted conservative in America today, one must be a free-market purist, a believer in limited government, a cultural traditionalist and a superhawk on foreign affairs."
In my words, to be an unpolluted conservative in American today, one must not believe in regulation of any kind, allow business and individuals to do anything they want to (except use illegal drugs) while paying less in taxes, support traditional marriage and discriminate against non-traditional people, and be a super hawk, no matter what the cost to human conditions within the military or the budget issues.
Mr. Hawley, meanwhile, is urging Conservatives to support Donald Trump if they want to have influence going forward. So Mr. Hawley clearly is not bothered that the only things we know Donald Trump stands for are things that enrich himself and harm people who he thinks are dangerous or fit one his myriad conspiracy theories. I remind you that Trump wanted to ban U.S. healthcare workers from working on Ebola and prevent them from returning home when they were finished.
So the only thing Mr. Hawley and I agree on is that Conservatives are going to have to compromise on something if they want to have influence going forward. We differ on whether Donald Trump is an appropriate vehicle for such change.
Link to Column
Meanwhile, Ken Starr, who was last seen in public prosecuting the impeachment of Bill Clinton is praising Bill Clinton. Perhaps, he has seen the light of the danger in ultra-partisan politics.
What is Conservative Orthodoxy?
"To be a true, unpolluted conservative in America today, one must be a free-market purist, a believer in limited government, a cultural traditionalist and a superhawk on foreign affairs."
In my words, to be an unpolluted conservative in American today, one must not believe in regulation of any kind, allow business and individuals to do anything they want to (except use illegal drugs) while paying less in taxes, support traditional marriage and discriminate against non-traditional people, and be a super hawk, no matter what the cost to human conditions within the military or the budget issues.
Mr. Hawley, meanwhile, is urging Conservatives to support Donald Trump if they want to have influence going forward. So Mr. Hawley clearly is not bothered that the only things we know Donald Trump stands for are things that enrich himself and harm people who he thinks are dangerous or fit one his myriad conspiracy theories. I remind you that Trump wanted to ban U.S. healthcare workers from working on Ebola and prevent them from returning home when they were finished.
So the only thing Mr. Hawley and I agree on is that Conservatives are going to have to compromise on something if they want to have influence going forward. We differ on whether Donald Trump is an appropriate vehicle for such change.
Link to Column
Meanwhile, Ken Starr, who was last seen in public prosecuting the impeachment of Bill Clinton is praising Bill Clinton. Perhaps, he has seen the light of the danger in ultra-partisan politics.
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
Michael Gerson: Trump Runs On Conspiracy Beliefs and that is Dangerous to Public Health
Not to mention the public good on any number of other points.
You Have to click here to real the whole thing, it is worth it
You Have to click here to real the whole thing, it is worth it
Thursday, May 19, 2016
House GOP Votes to Allow Discrimination Against Anyone People of Religion Want to Discriminate Against
I really can't really believe I just wrote that. I think of people who are religious as being welcoming of people with benevolence.
But that is not the case of our House of Representative Republicans. Today, in the support of religious freedom, they voted to allow anyone who purports to be religious to discriminate against anyone they want to. The law was specifically directed against gay and lesbians and transgenders, but Muslim's, Hispanic's and African-Americans cannot be far behind. And since most of these people are Christian, I would think we Jews are at risk as well.
Once you are legally allowed to discriminate against anyone, no one is excepted from someone's prejudice.
This so un-American, I was speechless when I first found out it happened. And you get bet your bippy that Donald Trump supporters are behind all this. Even tho he claims to be benevolent toward the GLT community, his hatred of Muslim and Hispanics tolerates hatred of anyone, if you claim your religion, job desires, or fear warrants it.
Will the next thing be the use of guns to support these beliefs. I can see the NRA lining up for this already. That must be why the House Republicans voted this way.
Unbelievable!!!
But that is not the case of our House of Representative Republicans. Today, in the support of religious freedom, they voted to allow anyone who purports to be religious to discriminate against anyone they want to. The law was specifically directed against gay and lesbians and transgenders, but Muslim's, Hispanic's and African-Americans cannot be far behind. And since most of these people are Christian, I would think we Jews are at risk as well.
Once you are legally allowed to discriminate against anyone, no one is excepted from someone's prejudice.
This so un-American, I was speechless when I first found out it happened. And you get bet your bippy that Donald Trump supporters are behind all this. Even tho he claims to be benevolent toward the GLT community, his hatred of Muslim and Hispanics tolerates hatred of anyone, if you claim your religion, job desires, or fear warrants it.
Will the next thing be the use of guns to support these beliefs. I can see the NRA lining up for this already. That must be why the House Republicans voted this way.
Unbelievable!!!
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Michael Gerson Shows How Trump is Defining the GOP
"This leads to a second objection. Pursuing the short-term interests of the GOP, gained by unity, may damage or destroy the party in the longer term by confirming a series of destructive stereotypes. Republicans stand accused of disdaining immigrants; their nominee proposes to round up and deport 11 million people. Republicans are accused of religious bigotry; their nominee proposes to stop all Muslims at the border. Republicans are accused of a war on women; the Republican nominee, if a recent New York Times exposé is accurate, is the cave-man candidate."
"All this is a particular blow to conservatives, among whom I count myself. Conservatives latched on to the GOP as an instrument to express their ideals. Now loyalty to party is causing many to abandon their ideals. Conservatism is not misogyny. Conservatism is not nativism and protectionism. Conservatism is not religious bigotry and conspiracy theories. Conservatism is not anti-intellectual and anti-science. For the sake of partisanship — for a mess of pottage — some conservatives are surrendering their identity."
Dear Environmentalist's
I do support efforts to keep air and water clean. I would like to address global warming.
But not at the expense of employment. When it comes to our economic engine, which is what provides work for everybody with a job, energy is the blood of the system. Energy is essential to every aspect of the economy, even if it is a 100% agrarian economy when the energy comes from food that allows people to farm and tend to animals.
When people do not have jobs, they are angry, they are depressed, they are desperate; and they will vote for someone who they believe will look after their prospects.
So environmentalists, do not be NIMBY's about energy development and transportation. They are critical to employment. What should a proper environmentalist care about then? Cleaning up the activities. Fracking can be done safely. Pipelines are safer than trains and trucks. Hydro is the cleanest form of electricity, but it requires long distance transmission lines from the places where there is water to where the consumers of electricity are. Energy development is a good place to generate jobs. It is a critical form of infrastructure and as important as roads, bridges, and water treatment plants.
What about the earthquakes in Oklahoma? Well, the water that is being pumped back down there comes from traditional oil wells and the technology being used pre-dates any concept of fracking.
Politics is all about compromise because life is all about compromise. That is a basic concept that is taught to children. People do not always agree, but there needs to be respect for positions and discussion about the options, the priorities of the goals and decisions about how best to proceed to achieve the goals. And when there is disagreement on the priorities and the paths there are elections and the majority get their way.
So the goal has to be to form a majority coalition so your priorities have a higher ordering than they would otherwise.
And environmentalists, if you don't think your policies should have room for employment and development of energy resources and transportation, you will find yourself in a very difficult election and facing a very difficult Congress because the voters only want environmentalism when they have jobs. No job, no favoring of environmental issues.
Please remember that this entire election season.
Sincerely,
An Environmentalist that wants to win elections.
But not at the expense of employment. When it comes to our economic engine, which is what provides work for everybody with a job, energy is the blood of the system. Energy is essential to every aspect of the economy, even if it is a 100% agrarian economy when the energy comes from food that allows people to farm and tend to animals.
When people do not have jobs, they are angry, they are depressed, they are desperate; and they will vote for someone who they believe will look after their prospects.
So environmentalists, do not be NIMBY's about energy development and transportation. They are critical to employment. What should a proper environmentalist care about then? Cleaning up the activities. Fracking can be done safely. Pipelines are safer than trains and trucks. Hydro is the cleanest form of electricity, but it requires long distance transmission lines from the places where there is water to where the consumers of electricity are. Energy development is a good place to generate jobs. It is a critical form of infrastructure and as important as roads, bridges, and water treatment plants.
What about the earthquakes in Oklahoma? Well, the water that is being pumped back down there comes from traditional oil wells and the technology being used pre-dates any concept of fracking.
Politics is all about compromise because life is all about compromise. That is a basic concept that is taught to children. People do not always agree, but there needs to be respect for positions and discussion about the options, the priorities of the goals and decisions about how best to proceed to achieve the goals. And when there is disagreement on the priorities and the paths there are elections and the majority get their way.
So the goal has to be to form a majority coalition so your priorities have a higher ordering than they would otherwise.
And environmentalists, if you don't think your policies should have room for employment and development of energy resources and transportation, you will find yourself in a very difficult election and facing a very difficult Congress because the voters only want environmentalism when they have jobs. No job, no favoring of environmental issues.
Please remember that this entire election season.
Sincerely,
An Environmentalist that wants to win elections.
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Sunday Musings 5/15/16
Three topics today: The Kardashian Culture, Transgender People, and Cancer.
(i) Reading about Dangerous Donald's life time of crude sexist behavior and his manipulation of power to get people to admire him and enrich his life in some manner, I was reminded that is what the Kardashian's are all about.
I know that RedStateVT dislikes the Kardashian culture. So do I. Yet, a Donald Trump victory and presence in the White House for 4 years would place the Kardashian culture as an every day existence in each of our lives.
So, Democrat's, let us not focus on the racist positions that Dangerous Donald projects as core positions of his. You need to focus on the issues that underlie those racist positions. The issues have validity even if the answers Trump presents do not. Public Safety, respect of individuality, and fairness in economic opportunity are valid issues.
(ii) My own thoughts on sexuality and gender identification have been evolving for over 40 years, slowly. These are not things that can evolve quickly. So I am left with the feeling once again of questioning why the Obama Administration is pushing an issue that is really not much of an issue in practicality for most people, and trying to protect, a few people with a national policy as opposed to simply letting people on the local scene work things out.
I am referring of course to the bathroom availability for transgender people. My son, in his class of 88, had two transgender people. His was a private school where people had to pay tuition so these young people came from family's of means. This brought home to me that transgender people are just people. They are not weirdo's, they are not predestined to be prostitutes, cross dressers, pill poppers and night lift hangers on. They just want be themselves, as they believe they should be, and carry on their lives with dignity and respect. But these people are not numerous, incidents of discrimination are scattered through out the nation, and I am left wondering why the Administration had to issue a policy. Somewhere in this administration, and I do believe it is somewhere below the President, there exists a strata of power that is determined to root out discrimination everywhere and that cannot be done from a centralized place. It can only happen on a local level. Even when laws are passed, they require enforcement and that can be important. But guidelines and executive decisions just rile up the opposition who want local customs to left alone. That may result in discrimination against some people, but a national directive is not going to change that.
(iii) Cancer is complicated and the Human Genome Project has given cancer research great insights into how complicated a disease it really is. And an extensive article in the NYT Magazine prompted a thought. Cancer is expensive to treat. A lot of high priced medical talent is focused on giving care to people with cancer. The Drugs take a lot of people who need to be paid good wages to develop and test. And the cost of all that has to end up in society either through higher health insurance premiums or higher taxes. Someone has to pay for all this; there is no free lunch, someone always has to pay for it.
So I was left to ponder the economic role of cancer in society. It is not a productive use of resources in every instance. It is easy to see the productive use in a young person who hopefully will recover and have a productive economic life in our society. There is also value in keeping parents alive who will offer guidance and love with a rich family life for children and grandchildren. But at some point, the expense and the pain of treatments becomes futile. That is where palliative care is so important.
From there I started to ponder just how much wealth is enough. I know many GOP supporters don't think there is such a thing as enough wealth, and they want lower taxes so they can have more wealth. But once you have given your kids a debt free education, and maybe set aside some money for your grandchildren's education, how much do you need to pass on. What about each individuals need to contribute to society through church, charity, and being part of the insurance pools? That has benefit to everyone by lowering the cost of insurance and spreading the enormous costs over a larger pool.
I like Hillary's idea of opening up Medicare to people over 50 or 55. I would be there in a nano second.
(i) Reading about Dangerous Donald's life time of crude sexist behavior and his manipulation of power to get people to admire him and enrich his life in some manner, I was reminded that is what the Kardashian's are all about.
I know that RedStateVT dislikes the Kardashian culture. So do I. Yet, a Donald Trump victory and presence in the White House for 4 years would place the Kardashian culture as an every day existence in each of our lives.
So, Democrat's, let us not focus on the racist positions that Dangerous Donald projects as core positions of his. You need to focus on the issues that underlie those racist positions. The issues have validity even if the answers Trump presents do not. Public Safety, respect of individuality, and fairness in economic opportunity are valid issues.
(ii) My own thoughts on sexuality and gender identification have been evolving for over 40 years, slowly. These are not things that can evolve quickly. So I am left with the feeling once again of questioning why the Obama Administration is pushing an issue that is really not much of an issue in practicality for most people, and trying to protect, a few people with a national policy as opposed to simply letting people on the local scene work things out.
I am referring of course to the bathroom availability for transgender people. My son, in his class of 88, had two transgender people. His was a private school where people had to pay tuition so these young people came from family's of means. This brought home to me that transgender people are just people. They are not weirdo's, they are not predestined to be prostitutes, cross dressers, pill poppers and night lift hangers on. They just want be themselves, as they believe they should be, and carry on their lives with dignity and respect. But these people are not numerous, incidents of discrimination are scattered through out the nation, and I am left wondering why the Administration had to issue a policy. Somewhere in this administration, and I do believe it is somewhere below the President, there exists a strata of power that is determined to root out discrimination everywhere and that cannot be done from a centralized place. It can only happen on a local level. Even when laws are passed, they require enforcement and that can be important. But guidelines and executive decisions just rile up the opposition who want local customs to left alone. That may result in discrimination against some people, but a national directive is not going to change that.
(iii) Cancer is complicated and the Human Genome Project has given cancer research great insights into how complicated a disease it really is. And an extensive article in the NYT Magazine prompted a thought. Cancer is expensive to treat. A lot of high priced medical talent is focused on giving care to people with cancer. The Drugs take a lot of people who need to be paid good wages to develop and test. And the cost of all that has to end up in society either through higher health insurance premiums or higher taxes. Someone has to pay for all this; there is no free lunch, someone always has to pay for it.
So I was left to ponder the economic role of cancer in society. It is not a productive use of resources in every instance. It is easy to see the productive use in a young person who hopefully will recover and have a productive economic life in our society. There is also value in keeping parents alive who will offer guidance and love with a rich family life for children and grandchildren. But at some point, the expense and the pain of treatments becomes futile. That is where palliative care is so important.
From there I started to ponder just how much wealth is enough. I know many GOP supporters don't think there is such a thing as enough wealth, and they want lower taxes so they can have more wealth. But once you have given your kids a debt free education, and maybe set aside some money for your grandchildren's education, how much do you need to pass on. What about each individuals need to contribute to society through church, charity, and being part of the insurance pools? That has benefit to everyone by lowering the cost of insurance and spreading the enormous costs over a larger pool.
I like Hillary's idea of opening up Medicare to people over 50 or 55. I would be there in a nano second.
Saturday, May 14, 2016
Why the Dangerous Donald is Running for President and other thoughts about GOP unity behind him.
Donald Trump will not release his tax returns. Donald Trump has changed his mind about self-funding his campaign. Donald Trump loaned this primary campaign the money it spent and can use future campaign donations to repay his loans.
Once Donald Trump is in office he can influence the IRS. How can the IRS prosecute the President for fudging his taxes when he is there boss. So when Donald Trump says he will not be beholden to special interests, be very skeptical. The only special interest Donald Trump cares about is Donald Trump and controlling the IRS on his finances is Trump's #1 priority.
Everything else he is campaigning on is because he is a bigoted ignoramus with a colossal case of ego mania. He doesn't give a rat's ass about the common people unless they are spending money in one of his casino's or being defrauded by his "university" or one of his other means of trading on his name. And then he will defend himself in court fighting like hell to deny responsibility for anything.
He denies, he changes his mind, he obfuscates, he shouts obscenities to distract and bully, and I for one do not trust him. He is so interested in only himself that I cannot believe so many voters in the GOP are unifying behind him.
I understand it is all political compromise, but if compromise is to important to party unity why is it not so important to compromise with the Democrats and run the government well. If the government were being run well, and partisanship prevents that from happening, Donald Trump probably wouldn't have gotten this far.
The GOP baffles me. They are not a responsible party fit to govern even a dog pound. Which is why, as someone who has split tickets many times, have not since I last voted against Bernie Sanders in 2008 or 2010. The banks made mistakes, but they are not evil.
Once Donald Trump is in office he can influence the IRS. How can the IRS prosecute the President for fudging his taxes when he is there boss. So when Donald Trump says he will not be beholden to special interests, be very skeptical. The only special interest Donald Trump cares about is Donald Trump and controlling the IRS on his finances is Trump's #1 priority.
Everything else he is campaigning on is because he is a bigoted ignoramus with a colossal case of ego mania. He doesn't give a rat's ass about the common people unless they are spending money in one of his casino's or being defrauded by his "university" or one of his other means of trading on his name. And then he will defend himself in court fighting like hell to deny responsibility for anything.
He denies, he changes his mind, he obfuscates, he shouts obscenities to distract and bully, and I for one do not trust him. He is so interested in only himself that I cannot believe so many voters in the GOP are unifying behind him.
I understand it is all political compromise, but if compromise is to important to party unity why is it not so important to compromise with the Democrats and run the government well. If the government were being run well, and partisanship prevents that from happening, Donald Trump probably wouldn't have gotten this far.
The GOP baffles me. They are not a responsible party fit to govern even a dog pound. Which is why, as someone who has split tickets many times, have not since I last voted against Bernie Sanders in 2008 or 2010. The banks made mistakes, but they are not evil.
Friday, May 13, 2016
Michael Gerson on the Dangerous Donald
This column is dense, but illustrates how unfit for the Presidency, the race baiting Donald Trump is and just how dangerous he is to the moral fabric of the U.S.A.
"If political leadership can increase dehumanization — as the evidence seems to indicate — Trump is guilty of it. He has falsely asserted that “thousands and thousands” of Muslims cheered after the World Trade Center came down and that Syrian refugees are entering the United States with “cellphones with ISIS flags on them.” He has called for a ban on Muslim immigration and the establishment of a database to track Muslims in the United States. “I want surveillance of these people,” Trump has said. And: “We’re going to have to do things that we never did before.”
"Trump has turned legitimate concerns about terrorism into the indictment of a religion. In his rhetoric, the distinction between “these people” and the American “we” is clear enough. But there is a problem, other than the obvious ethical one. Bruneau and Kteily also surveyed Muslim Americans. And the more they feel dehumanized, the less likely they are to report activities that might be related to radicalization."
"This is a vicious and dangerous cycle: dehumanizing rhetoric, leading to distrust of government and law enforcement, contributing to tragedies that feed dehumanizing rhetoric. Both our ideals and our safety are compromised when politicians provide permission for bigotry."
Money and Corruption Win
If you take a step back and think about it, money has been winning for a long time and didn't really need Citizen's United to continue its winning streak. But it certainly helps.
One of the crazy things about American politics is how white lower middle class people support supply side economics (which I admit has validity at tax rates greater than x%) when it has done nothing for them in this technological revolution and they need support to maintain their community.
I think that is why rural America has supported Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders overwhelmingly. They are the only candidates discussing programs to help those communities. The fact that the people believe this unrealistic plans only illustrates their desperation to preserve their community.
Now we have the specter of Brazil. A group of politicians who are under investigation for personal enrichment from politics impeach the President for moving money around from one bucket to another bucket. I have no idea on the constitutionality of that in Brazil, but I do know the President in Brazil wields a lot of power and the new President could bury all those investigations. Meanwhile, the new President has been found guilty of violating campaign finance laws and may not even be able to run for reelection. And who does he appoint to his cabinet: well, the new science minister is a creationist who does not believe in evolution; and the new agriculture minister is a soy bean tycoon who has burned down thousands of acres of rain forest and stewardship of the rain forest is within agriculture. Money and corruption are winning in Brazil in a far bigger manner than the U.S.
And let us not forget Russia and China, where people with connections to the leadership have become wealthy beyond the imagination of we mere soles who worked and saved our way into retirement. And who is a big admirer of the Russian and Chinese economic systems, why none other than Donald Trump. How will be deal with them over Crimea/The Ukraine and the man made Chinese Islands when he is in awe of their political power systems?
So while Donald Trump did not take money from the Republican power brokers, he certainly understands the power of money and is a leading believers that money installs the right to be able to buy what you need; including eminent domain and anything else that helps the wealthy earn more wealth, avoid taxation on wealth, and buy the political policies that they believe in.
So if you are a relatively economically modest person, all you can hope for is your preferred party be able to get more money than the other side and hopefully, you get policies that you can live with. And in the case of Donald Trump, you hope his access to Nuclear Codes doesn't result in him waking up one morning and deciding the only way to solve some problem is to use a nuclear weapon.
One of the crazy things about American politics is how white lower middle class people support supply side economics (which I admit has validity at tax rates greater than x%) when it has done nothing for them in this technological revolution and they need support to maintain their community.
I think that is why rural America has supported Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders overwhelmingly. They are the only candidates discussing programs to help those communities. The fact that the people believe this unrealistic plans only illustrates their desperation to preserve their community.
Now we have the specter of Brazil. A group of politicians who are under investigation for personal enrichment from politics impeach the President for moving money around from one bucket to another bucket. I have no idea on the constitutionality of that in Brazil, but I do know the President in Brazil wields a lot of power and the new President could bury all those investigations. Meanwhile, the new President has been found guilty of violating campaign finance laws and may not even be able to run for reelection. And who does he appoint to his cabinet: well, the new science minister is a creationist who does not believe in evolution; and the new agriculture minister is a soy bean tycoon who has burned down thousands of acres of rain forest and stewardship of the rain forest is within agriculture. Money and corruption are winning in Brazil in a far bigger manner than the U.S.
And let us not forget Russia and China, where people with connections to the leadership have become wealthy beyond the imagination of we mere soles who worked and saved our way into retirement. And who is a big admirer of the Russian and Chinese economic systems, why none other than Donald Trump. How will be deal with them over Crimea/The Ukraine and the man made Chinese Islands when he is in awe of their political power systems?
So while Donald Trump did not take money from the Republican power brokers, he certainly understands the power of money and is a leading believers that money installs the right to be able to buy what you need; including eminent domain and anything else that helps the wealthy earn more wealth, avoid taxation on wealth, and buy the political policies that they believe in.
So if you are a relatively economically modest person, all you can hope for is your preferred party be able to get more money than the other side and hopefully, you get policies that you can live with. And in the case of Donald Trump, you hope his access to Nuclear Codes doesn't result in him waking up one morning and deciding the only way to solve some problem is to use a nuclear weapon.
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Let Us Remember Exactly What Conservative GOP Stands For
This is getting a lot of press since Paul Ryan and others have said Donald Trump is not a true conservative.
This is what True Conservatives stand for: Cutting Taxes to starve the government of spending while balancing the budget with spending cuts that curtail financial support of the working poor and poor, harming education pushing in favor of those whose parents can afford private school, reducing the actions of public health again placing the poor at greater risk of being contaminated with insidious viruses and spending big bucks on national defense. We know this because this is what has happened in Kansas with their tax cuts and legislative actions to remain financially solvent.
In contrast the Democrats stand for government doing its jobs and protecting public safety, including public health. Thus, we have a proposal from President Obama to fund anti-Zika activities, but the GOP Congress refuses to bring the bill up. Mosquito season has already started in the South, the Virus is in Puerto Rico, and I guess the GOP is hoping a sufficient number of poor people die so they win the election in Florida in November.
This is not unlike their attitude toward health insurance. Their view is access to affordable health insurance is not a right. If you make bad decisions or have bad luck, and are unlucky enough to not have employer paid health insurance or the financial resources to afford health insurance, then too bad. The healthy should not have to subsidize your health insurance. The world was a cruel place for centuries and why should it change now when it will be a cost to people with money.
The irony in all this is that True Conservatives frequently site their beliefs in the models of Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp: Supply Side Economics with a reliance on individual responsibility. I don't deny an element of truth in all that, it is just severe disagreement on where you draw the lines on individual responsibility and what a maximum tax rate should be. And of course, as a Conservative Democrat, I believe in balancing the budget when we are near full employment as we are today. Government has to work, it cannot be shut down or starved of revenues. When it is starved of revenues, infrastructure deteriorates, the environment deteriorates, and public health is at risk.
Yet, as conservative pundits remind us, both Reagan and Kent cared about the less wealthy. They believed society has a role to play in making society fair for the less wealthy, while encouraging them to be individually responsible. And they both believed in legitimizing undocumented immigrants and integrating them into society, which is what really made America great. Donald Trump is not a Reagan/Kemp conservative, as they would not evict 11 mm hard working people who want to live in the U.S.A.
So before I turn this over to James Hohmann of the Washington Post, let me tell you what disappoints me so far about the GOP Establishment. They have taken no insight into the public's absolute disgust with a singular focus on partisanship, and actively working to reduce the effectiveness of government. That is what is driving the rejection of the GOP. There are no RINO's left in the GOP, but when their were, the party was competitive in almost every state of the union, and that rejection of moderation of the message is what has been rejected by the rise of Donald Trump who as I have previously written is completely unqualified to be President, not to mention some of his proposed policies are awful.
This is what True Conservatives stand for: Cutting Taxes to starve the government of spending while balancing the budget with spending cuts that curtail financial support of the working poor and poor, harming education pushing in favor of those whose parents can afford private school, reducing the actions of public health again placing the poor at greater risk of being contaminated with insidious viruses and spending big bucks on national defense. We know this because this is what has happened in Kansas with their tax cuts and legislative actions to remain financially solvent.
In contrast the Democrats stand for government doing its jobs and protecting public safety, including public health. Thus, we have a proposal from President Obama to fund anti-Zika activities, but the GOP Congress refuses to bring the bill up. Mosquito season has already started in the South, the Virus is in Puerto Rico, and I guess the GOP is hoping a sufficient number of poor people die so they win the election in Florida in November.
This is not unlike their attitude toward health insurance. Their view is access to affordable health insurance is not a right. If you make bad decisions or have bad luck, and are unlucky enough to not have employer paid health insurance or the financial resources to afford health insurance, then too bad. The healthy should not have to subsidize your health insurance. The world was a cruel place for centuries and why should it change now when it will be a cost to people with money.
The irony in all this is that True Conservatives frequently site their beliefs in the models of Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp: Supply Side Economics with a reliance on individual responsibility. I don't deny an element of truth in all that, it is just severe disagreement on where you draw the lines on individual responsibility and what a maximum tax rate should be. And of course, as a Conservative Democrat, I believe in balancing the budget when we are near full employment as we are today. Government has to work, it cannot be shut down or starved of revenues. When it is starved of revenues, infrastructure deteriorates, the environment deteriorates, and public health is at risk.
Yet, as conservative pundits remind us, both Reagan and Kent cared about the less wealthy. They believed society has a role to play in making society fair for the less wealthy, while encouraging them to be individually responsible. And they both believed in legitimizing undocumented immigrants and integrating them into society, which is what really made America great. Donald Trump is not a Reagan/Kemp conservative, as they would not evict 11 mm hard working people who want to live in the U.S.A.
So before I turn this over to James Hohmann of the Washington Post, let me tell you what disappoints me so far about the GOP Establishment. They have taken no insight into the public's absolute disgust with a singular focus on partisanship, and actively working to reduce the effectiveness of government. That is what is driving the rejection of the GOP. There are no RINO's left in the GOP, but when their were, the party was competitive in almost every state of the union, and that rejection of moderation of the message is what has been rejected by the rise of Donald Trump who as I have previously written is completely unqualified to be President, not to mention some of his proposed policies are awful.
"Jeffrey Frank recalls covering Kemp for a Buffalo newspaper in the early 1980s. “Kemp was a cheerful, generous man, but what most deserves recognition, in what’s left of the Republican Party, is less his fascination with such byways as the ‘Laffer Curve’ … and more his persistent voice on behalf of lifting up the needy, the jobless, the disenfranchised—take your pick among the shorthand expressions used to describe America’s poor,” Frank writes for The New Yorker. “His commitment to bettering the lives of African-Americans was passionate and genuine.” The distance between Kemp and Trump, Frank explains, “is a distance to be measured not only in degrees of ideology … but in the appeal … to the nation’s better angels. In this long season, that seems as distant as Jack Kemp’s stubborn inclination to do the decent thing.”
Conservative Post columnist Michael Gerson, who worked for Kemp early in his career before becoming George W. Bush’s speechwriter, recalls his courage. “In 1994, California Gov. Pete Wilson (along with many other Republicans) supported Proposition 187, which denied public services to illegal immigrants, including schooling for their children. In one of his finest hours, Kemp came out strongly against the measure, which he said would imply ‘an ugly antipathy toward all immigrants,’” Gerson wrote in a column last fall. “This stand probably hurt Kemp’s own presidential prospects.”
"The New York Times’ conservative columnist, Ross Douthat, admits to underestimating how unprincipled elected Republican leadership would become once Trump secured the nomination. To acquiesce to Trump as the nominee is to gamble recklessly with the party’s responsibilities to the republic, he argues today: “It is possible that a dishonorable, cowardly, unprincipled course will yield the result that many in both G.O.P. factions clearly crave: Trump defeated in the general election, his ideas left without a champion, and then a reversion to the party’s status quo ante, to the comforts of a tactically narrow ‘wacko birds versus RINOs’ family feud. But then again it’s possible that the establishment and the Tea Party are more like Byzantium and Sassanid Persia in the seventh century A.D., and Trumpism is the Arab-Muslim invasion that put an end to their long-running rivalry, destroyed the Sassanid Dynasty outright, and ushered in a very different age. No doubt many thought at first that those invaders were a temporary problem, an alien force that would wreak havoc and then withdraw, dissolve, retreat. But a new religion had arrived to stay.”
Sunday, May 8, 2016
Sunday Musings 5/8/16 Free Trade is not the Issue
Perhaps campaigns have always been like this, catering to voter's preconceived notions of what needs to happen. I am quite sure Donald Trump's and Bernie Sander's supporters would agree that is what should be happening.
But then there is reality.
U.S. manufacturing is not in the toilet. U.S. manufacturing now produces 47% more than it did 20 years ago. The problem is automation allows that production to occur with 29% fewer workers. Meanwhile, energy production has shifted from coal to natural gas and it takes far fewer workers to produce and use natural gas than it does coal in the production of electricity. As a result, many younger workers are industries that have a global presence and are both earning a living being globally competitive and producing good returns for shareholders. That is how a competitive economy operates.
We have a 5% rate of unemployment.
The level of manufacturing and employment is the result of good economic policy with free trade agreements in place. Tearing up those free trade agreements cannot be a positive for economic stability. Those who are not able to find work in the global economy need a different kind of assistance. And that assistance should vary greatly between people of different ages and skills.
But that is not a pithy campaign line nor does it cater to angry preconceived notions on the part of certain categories of voters.
Meanwhile, Ross Douthat produced a scathing column on why Donald Trump is not fit to be President.
But then there is reality.
U.S. manufacturing is not in the toilet. U.S. manufacturing now produces 47% more than it did 20 years ago. The problem is automation allows that production to occur with 29% fewer workers. Meanwhile, energy production has shifted from coal to natural gas and it takes far fewer workers to produce and use natural gas than it does coal in the production of electricity. As a result, many younger workers are industries that have a global presence and are both earning a living being globally competitive and producing good returns for shareholders. That is how a competitive economy operates.
We have a 5% rate of unemployment.
The level of manufacturing and employment is the result of good economic policy with free trade agreements in place. Tearing up those free trade agreements cannot be a positive for economic stability. Those who are not able to find work in the global economy need a different kind of assistance. And that assistance should vary greatly between people of different ages and skills.
But that is not a pithy campaign line nor does it cater to angry preconceived notions on the part of certain categories of voters.
Meanwhile, Ross Douthat produced a scathing column on why Donald Trump is not fit to be President.
"But there still remains the problem of Trump himself. Even if you find things to appreciate in Trumpism — as I have, and still do — the man who has raised those issues is still unfit for an office as awesomely powerful as the presidency of the United States."
"His unfitness starts with basic issues of temperament. It encompasses the race-baiting, the conspiracy theorizing, the flirtations with violence, and the pathological lying that have been his campaign-trail stock in trade."
"But above all it is Trump’s authoritarianism that makes him unfit for the presidency — his stated admiration for Putin and the Chinese Politburo, his promise to use the power of the presidency against private enterprises, the casual threats he and his surrogates toss off against party donors, military officers, the press, the speaker of the House, and more."
.......
"Trump would not be an American Mussolini; even our sclerotic institutions would resist him more effectively than that. But he could test them as no modern president has tested them before — and with them, the health of our economy, the civil peace of our society and the stability of an increasingly perilous world."
"In sum: It would be possible to justify support for Trump if he merely promised a period of chaos for conservatism. But to support Trump for the presidency is to invite chaos upon the republic and the world. No policy goal, no court appointment, can justify such recklessness."
"To Trumpism’s appeal, to Trump’s constituents, conservatives should listen and answer “yes,” or “maybe,” or “not that, but how about…”
"But to Trump himself, there is no patriotic answer except “no."
Once again the professional pundit writes it better than I can, which is why they get paid to do this.
Saturday, May 7, 2016
GOP Conservative Inconsistency Revealed
I happen to believe that within Donald Trump there is conservative compassion for people's personal sexuality. However, he has no compassion for 1.8 billion Muslims or 11 million undocumented residents. How Trump reconciles that internally is a puzzle to me.
Now we have the specter of the far right House of Representatives lining up behind Trump who is hardly a perfect model of policies consistent with conservatism, given his love of Putin and the Chinese leaders (absent trade of course) after they threw John Boehner out of office for being inconsistent while trying to govern the country. But lest we forget, John Boehner likes Trump so perhaps the far right will learn to like John Boehner again.
Meanwhile, Paul Ryan is sticking to his agenda to develop a set of conservative policies that will address issues of importance to the country after 6 years of stalemate governance. Tax Reform, sorely needed, will hopefully be at the top of his list and given the absolute need for some transparency on the issue, perhaps what would replace ObamaCare if the GOP were in charge might be next. I could throw All Lives Matter on that list but then that would mean you would have to address background checks on gun purchases and forbid straw man purchases and the NRA opposes both of those. There is no room for compassion in a true conservatives's policy bag. Witness Tom Brownback's Kansas policies.
So all in all, it seems to me that all the GOP is about is having power and using it to implement their agenda, what the 5?% of the population that supports Democrats want be damned. And what we really have in the GOP right is not an adherence to the Constitution and Democracy with respect for the views of all, with policies developed by compromise, but rather a desire for an Imperial Presidency that makes all policies only those approved by fiat by the GOP far right legislators.
I was wrong when I said the Tea Party seemed very quiet. They are alive and well and somehow support Donald Trump. I could be wrong, but it might all be tied to his anti-Islam, anti-immigrant message and have racist core to it. Except Donald Trump is not anti-black and believes Planned Parenthood does good work. So the Tea Party can be inconsistent as shown by their support for entitlements that benefit the elderly while cutting entitlements that help younger people.
Now we have the specter of the far right House of Representatives lining up behind Trump who is hardly a perfect model of policies consistent with conservatism, given his love of Putin and the Chinese leaders (absent trade of course) after they threw John Boehner out of office for being inconsistent while trying to govern the country. But lest we forget, John Boehner likes Trump so perhaps the far right will learn to like John Boehner again.
Meanwhile, Paul Ryan is sticking to his agenda to develop a set of conservative policies that will address issues of importance to the country after 6 years of stalemate governance. Tax Reform, sorely needed, will hopefully be at the top of his list and given the absolute need for some transparency on the issue, perhaps what would replace ObamaCare if the GOP were in charge might be next. I could throw All Lives Matter on that list but then that would mean you would have to address background checks on gun purchases and forbid straw man purchases and the NRA opposes both of those. There is no room for compassion in a true conservatives's policy bag. Witness Tom Brownback's Kansas policies.
So all in all, it seems to me that all the GOP is about is having power and using it to implement their agenda, what the 5?% of the population that supports Democrats want be damned. And what we really have in the GOP right is not an adherence to the Constitution and Democracy with respect for the views of all, with policies developed by compromise, but rather a desire for an Imperial Presidency that makes all policies only those approved by fiat by the GOP far right legislators.
I was wrong when I said the Tea Party seemed very quiet. They are alive and well and somehow support Donald Trump. I could be wrong, but it might all be tied to his anti-Islam, anti-immigrant message and have racist core to it. Except Donald Trump is not anti-black and believes Planned Parenthood does good work. So the Tea Party can be inconsistent as shown by their support for entitlements that benefit the elderly while cutting entitlements that help younger people.
Friday, May 6, 2016
Donald Trump Exhibits #1 Reason He is a Scumbag
No sooner is he presumptive nominee than, as I wrote yesterday, he starts discussing how he used the Bankruptcy Court to his personal advantage and starts speculating that is one way for him to reduce U.S. indebtedness: arbitrarily paying less than 100 cents to the dollar and buying the debt at a substantial discount.
Has he looked at countries that decided to do that? Russia, Argentina, Greece to name just a few. Has he noticed the recessions and inflation that resulted in those countries?
Economists estimate that deporting the 11 mm undocumented will generate a 2% decline in GDP. That is a recession. And I doubt anyone can even estimate what recessionary impacts a trade war would have.
This guy is a complete joke and very dangerous and only Paul Ryan has the nerve to call him out on the GOP side. I know some guys out of office have done so, but they are out of office and don't count.
Has he looked at countries that decided to do that? Russia, Argentina, Greece to name just a few. Has he noticed the recessions and inflation that resulted in those countries?
Economists estimate that deporting the 11 mm undocumented will generate a 2% decline in GDP. That is a recession. And I doubt anyone can even estimate what recessionary impacts a trade war would have.
This guy is a complete joke and very dangerous and only Paul Ryan has the nerve to call him out on the GOP side. I know some guys out of office have done so, but they are out of office and don't count.
Thursday, May 5, 2016
The Case Against Donald Trump
The paper this morning is full of stories about all things Trump. The result is that his severe character flaws are being given a drape of respectability. So lest any of my readers are tempted to succumb to his reasonableness as a candidate, I am writing this post.
The man in his past has used the legal structure to protect himself financially from his own bad decisions of which there were many. He has run poorly casinos using too much leverage, the proceeds of which flowed to him personally. He started an airline that went no where financially and then went out of business. He started a "university" that didn't teach people what it said it would and is now subject to potential class action law suits that are working their way through the court system as we speak. The profits of this university flowed to Trump while the student loans that financed this scam are a burden to those students. The only thing Trump does really well in business is lease his name in a risk free way. Others pay him in the hope that his name will bring them greater profits.
Put that all together, and Donald Trump is a financial rat. And none of that history illustrates to me a great propensity for him to be a steady leader of the nation who can work well with others. As far as I can tell from what I have seen of the type of people who work for Trump, he attracts dim witted yes men.
And where are his tax returns? I don't know when Presidential candidates started releasing them, but it is certainly time for Trump to release his.
Now his people suggest that his 1st 100 days will demonstrate that he is putting a team in place to improve things and he will not be disruptive to the economy. Yet, in his 1st 100 days he plans to confront multi-national companies and demand they move manufacturing jobs back to the U.S.. He will confront nations and demand that they pay for the U.S. military, while renegotiating trade agreements, and he will demand that Mexico pay for the wall he will be designing. He will over turn any number of Obama executive orders and start rounding up the 11 mm undocumented workers. And he will sign legislation repealing ObamaCare, without any replacement for those with pre-existing conditions or those who have benefits from the expansion of Medicaid. And he will appoint a Supreme Court justice in the mode of the late Justice Scalia. And he will ban Muslims from coming to America. Who will buy the Condo's in his next building? Will the Saudi's have to sell the Condo's they already own in his building? He doesn't think that all that will be disruptive to the basic economy around the world?
And let us remember his birthism campaign against President Obama. Ignoring the basic fact that there was no truth to it, Trump went on and on and on about it. To what end? What does his ignoring facts and using media to promote an ignorant belief tells us about his character.
If all that were not enough reason to vote for Hillary, there is one more big reason. Trump attracts support from those who are tired of political correctness. At a basic level these are people who think they have the right to not have to be part of anything politically correct because it violates their personal rights. So the remnants of the KKK support Donald Trump. Old Navy puts out an ad with a bi-racial family in it, and social media erupts with hatred for Old Navy for doing so. Trump's success encourages active racism and hatred, even tho he personally is tolerant of races and personal sexuality preferences. If Trump were President, would we be seeing Jim Crow acts start up again? Would minorities have any protection from racist white's?
I could go on citing specifics in the articles, but I am out of time and I think this post is long enough.
I
The man in his past has used the legal structure to protect himself financially from his own bad decisions of which there were many. He has run poorly casinos using too much leverage, the proceeds of which flowed to him personally. He started an airline that went no where financially and then went out of business. He started a "university" that didn't teach people what it said it would and is now subject to potential class action law suits that are working their way through the court system as we speak. The profits of this university flowed to Trump while the student loans that financed this scam are a burden to those students. The only thing Trump does really well in business is lease his name in a risk free way. Others pay him in the hope that his name will bring them greater profits.
Put that all together, and Donald Trump is a financial rat. And none of that history illustrates to me a great propensity for him to be a steady leader of the nation who can work well with others. As far as I can tell from what I have seen of the type of people who work for Trump, he attracts dim witted yes men.
And where are his tax returns? I don't know when Presidential candidates started releasing them, but it is certainly time for Trump to release his.
Now his people suggest that his 1st 100 days will demonstrate that he is putting a team in place to improve things and he will not be disruptive to the economy. Yet, in his 1st 100 days he plans to confront multi-national companies and demand they move manufacturing jobs back to the U.S.. He will confront nations and demand that they pay for the U.S. military, while renegotiating trade agreements, and he will demand that Mexico pay for the wall he will be designing. He will over turn any number of Obama executive orders and start rounding up the 11 mm undocumented workers. And he will sign legislation repealing ObamaCare, without any replacement for those with pre-existing conditions or those who have benefits from the expansion of Medicaid. And he will appoint a Supreme Court justice in the mode of the late Justice Scalia. And he will ban Muslims from coming to America. Who will buy the Condo's in his next building? Will the Saudi's have to sell the Condo's they already own in his building? He doesn't think that all that will be disruptive to the basic economy around the world?
And let us remember his birthism campaign against President Obama. Ignoring the basic fact that there was no truth to it, Trump went on and on and on about it. To what end? What does his ignoring facts and using media to promote an ignorant belief tells us about his character.
If all that were not enough reason to vote for Hillary, there is one more big reason. Trump attracts support from those who are tired of political correctness. At a basic level these are people who think they have the right to not have to be part of anything politically correct because it violates their personal rights. So the remnants of the KKK support Donald Trump. Old Navy puts out an ad with a bi-racial family in it, and social media erupts with hatred for Old Navy for doing so. Trump's success encourages active racism and hatred, even tho he personally is tolerant of races and personal sexuality preferences. If Trump were President, would we be seeing Jim Crow acts start up again? Would minorities have any protection from racist white's?
I could go on citing specifics in the articles, but I am out of time and I think this post is long enough.
I
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
Good Bye Sheldon Silver, is Donald Trump behind you?
12 years in the slammer for the corrupt politician. Let's hear it for the prosecutors that got him convicted. Given that it was real estate money greasing the skids that is putting him in jail, I wonder if this is why Donald Trump doesn't want his taxes released. Maybe he was deducting such payments as a business expense.
Sunday, May 1, 2016
Ironies In This Election Cycle
1st, the deep GOP field has produced two front runners: Trump & Cruz; that no credible politician wants to be their running mate. What is wrong with that picture and is anyone pondering how to correct GOP policies so they have some coherency with the voters desires.
Of course, that is easier said than done. As the voters desires are very conflicted. Both within the GOP between the Tea Party, the religious right, Reagan Democrats, and the secular business community; and within the broad middle between those who want a strong military and those who see the danger of trying to build a democracy with military force.
And even within those divisions there is another basic fundamental desire of the vast majority of the voters that has a conflict within it. The voters want lower taxes, affordable health insurance, a strong military while protecting Social Security and Medicare. The math for all that does not add up, but the election process does not allow for candidates to discuss the realities of that math.
The plight of the factory worker economy is real, but it is not simply immigration and free trade that caused their problems. Technology has reduced the number of people needed to manufacture stuff, and if fewer people are needed to produce, fewer people are needed to manage people. We are fortunate enough that free trade has increased global demand for things where the U.S. has a comparative advantage. And people who work in those industries are doing well, but face the same pressures from a capitalistic economy. Not every company succeeds all the time and they have to adjust their work forces and points of production.
So if you are looking for the root cause of all this angst, it is the triumph of my alma mater, the University of Chicago, which said corporate manager's primary goal is to maximize shareholder value. While I believe that, there is an economic cost to workers who must alter their role in the economy as companies adjust and that produces the anger that is present in this year's voting.
A family owned company can consider the benefits of being benevolent toward workers, but a public company cannot. So we have both Trump, Cruz, Sanders and Clinton criticizing Carrier's relocation of jobs from Indiana to Mexico and you wonder what big business could do to lessen the political pressure on themselves and improve the lot of the American worker. One way , might be to avoid the tone deafness that the Verizon President showed when she said of the strikers, "What is the difference between being an employee and a contract worker?" Well, if there is no difference, why have contract workers.
Have a good week, my faithful readers.
A WAPO columnist has similar thoughts a day later than this post
Of course, that is easier said than done. As the voters desires are very conflicted. Both within the GOP between the Tea Party, the religious right, Reagan Democrats, and the secular business community; and within the broad middle between those who want a strong military and those who see the danger of trying to build a democracy with military force.
And even within those divisions there is another basic fundamental desire of the vast majority of the voters that has a conflict within it. The voters want lower taxes, affordable health insurance, a strong military while protecting Social Security and Medicare. The math for all that does not add up, but the election process does not allow for candidates to discuss the realities of that math.
The plight of the factory worker economy is real, but it is not simply immigration and free trade that caused their problems. Technology has reduced the number of people needed to manufacture stuff, and if fewer people are needed to produce, fewer people are needed to manage people. We are fortunate enough that free trade has increased global demand for things where the U.S. has a comparative advantage. And people who work in those industries are doing well, but face the same pressures from a capitalistic economy. Not every company succeeds all the time and they have to adjust their work forces and points of production.
So if you are looking for the root cause of all this angst, it is the triumph of my alma mater, the University of Chicago, which said corporate manager's primary goal is to maximize shareholder value. While I believe that, there is an economic cost to workers who must alter their role in the economy as companies adjust and that produces the anger that is present in this year's voting.
A family owned company can consider the benefits of being benevolent toward workers, but a public company cannot. So we have both Trump, Cruz, Sanders and Clinton criticizing Carrier's relocation of jobs from Indiana to Mexico and you wonder what big business could do to lessen the political pressure on themselves and improve the lot of the American worker. One way , might be to avoid the tone deafness that the Verizon President showed when she said of the strikers, "What is the difference between being an employee and a contract worker?" Well, if there is no difference, why have contract workers.
Have a good week, my faithful readers.
A WAPO columnist has similar thoughts a day later than this post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)