Some thoughts of late.

First.  It seems the republicans and Donald Trump have a method  to the things they are saying.  For example, take the claims by DJT that Hillary Clinton's popular vote majority was based on illegal aliens voting.  Trump makes the claim on twitter and where ever he speaks; Clinton won the popular vote only because the democrats got millions of illegal residents to vote for her, especially in New Hampshire where Trump says the illegals were bussed in from Massachusetts.  Congress then determines to investigate the claim and a trump friendly congressman takes on the job.  That committee "investigates" and determines that there is no evidence to support Trump's claim.  You might think the issue is then finalized, but no.  The committee and Trump then claim that the popular vote majority for Clinton can't be proven, thus we don't know if Clinton the won the popular vote or not.  Trump claims that he won the electoral vote and no one knows about the popular vote.

Second.  Alaska has a fund called the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD).  The fund pays every Alaskan citizen who can prove they have lived in the state for a year and plans to stay a yearly stipend, that is based on the oil wealth that comes out of Alaska.  In 2015 that stipend was $ 2072 (per person; family of four over $ 8000).  However, the fund only paid $ 1022 in 2016 (don't know why).  I am not be-grudging Alaskans their free loot but it causes me to wonder why Alaskan don't lose the incentive to work by getting a handout from the state.  It is also interesting to note that Alaska has just about always voted republican in national elections and republicans are highly critical of any government program that gives people "free shit".

Third.  I will have to admit that this next thought is bizarre but then again the whole issue of abortion has been batted around since 1972.  My thought is the position doctor (or nurse) might take on abortion should be influenced to some degree by where they received their medical training.  If that training came from a state university then it seems that the law on abortion should be a factor in determine one's position on the issue.  If that training came from a religious institution (like the University of Notre Dame) then a factor is determine one's position should be the moral position of that institution.

Working Conditions

At the local newspaper store in my town the young man-from India-works six days a week and 13.5 hours per day. That is 80 hours a week. and he does not get paid overtime. I do not know what his  weekly pay is but it seems that the law is being violated in this instance.  To my knowledge the National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act) passed in the 1930's requires an eight hour day and 40 hour week, with overtime being paid for hours over that limit.  How can a company, in this case a Indian owned company, work someone in violation of the law?  Maybe for some reason the law does not apply to foreign owned companies or maybe he is considered management, but if not it seems his employer is violating the law.  I would further guess that he is in this country on a work visa and that is the only way an employer is going to get someone to work those kinds of hours.  An American worker/citizen would have legal recourse if he was that employee.  This is a reason we need reform of our immigration system.  Non-citizens are being abused while native workers are being denied a job.

Update:  Sorry, I noted the wrong labor law from the New Deal days of FDR.  The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was the legislation that set maximum hours and time and a half for over time.

Supreme Court Nominee

President Obama noted that not since the Civil War has the Congress refused to confirm a Supreme Court justice.  Now the Obama appointee-in case you have forgotten- is Merrick B. Garland. It will be interesting to see what Congress will do once the election is over.  If Trump wins they will refuse to confirm guessing they will get a more right wing nominee from Trump and if Clinton wins that will jump on Garland figuring Clinton will nominate a more left wing judge.
Update:  The MSNBC post on Facebook was; "The last time a Supreme Court seat was kept vacant through Election Day was in 1864.  At the height of the Civil War. So, this isn't about precedent.  This is about the obstruction of a broken Republican-led Congress". On Facebook on Oct 9, 2016

July 31,2016 Thoughts

We were told by the US Supreme Court that corporations are akin to people and have to be afforded the same rights as people; the Citizens United case.  I recently read in The Nation (March 7, 2016)-ok I am behind on my readings-that corporations can deduct on their income taxes "customized company-sponsored pension plans" paid to their CEO's.  Being done by half of the 383 Fortune 500 companies that provided info.  The plans cover the CEO's for the "rest of their lives", while the same companies  have done away with "guaranteed monthly compensation" for the average employee.

Now if corporations are people, then people must also be corporations and allowed the same rights.  Thus I will pay my wife-as the CEO of our family-a monthly pension check and then deduct that cost from my income taxes.  Seems only fair. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

I am one to be more concerned about domestic policy, but foreign policy developments are setting us up for some major disaster. 

First, we have been building up or modernizing our military forces and arsenals at a considerable rate.  The new F-35 plane will cost us billions, the Navy wants a new class of submarines with nuclear capability, the Air Force says we need to replace the B-52 long range bomber and build another ICBM missile to replace the Minuteman III.  

Second, we have allowed NATO (and the US) to take on the defense of former Soviet republics in the Baltic region.  We now have Russia completely surrounded by our military might.

Third, we are about to elect as President (Hillary Clinton) who is clearly a "hawk" on foreign policy, meaning she is want to flaunt our military power in the name of national interest.

(I hate to note this here, but Donald Trump says we should not pledge ourselves to the defense of countries that do not pay their share of the expenses of NATO; specially Baltic nations.)

Fourth, it should also be remembered that when nations are in the midst of domestic turmoil and bordering on civil war-racial or economic-their develops and atmosphere that is ripe for governments to use warfare to take their citizens minds off their differences and unite to defend the homeland.  A case could be made that the domestic issues in this country are at that point.

Trump and Muslims

Donald Trump says he would ban all Muslims from entering the US "until we can figure out what is going on".  Some of his supporters may want to deport Muslims or in other ways impinge on their right to practice their religion.  For someone who believes that half of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution allows just about anybody to buy unlimited quantities of firearms thus portraying himself as a defender of the Constitution, I wonder how he rationalizes the First Amendment which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"  Maybe he has just forgotten to read that part.

Ex-Patriotion

With all the talk of late about people choosing to leave the country if one or another presidential candidate wins in November, I got thinking about what it would take for someone to make that choice.  

Apart from those who leave to escape the law or hide assets in Aruba, what would cause a person to become an ex-pat? (if anything)  I wonder if any non-Jewish Germans left their country in the late 1930's when it became obvious that Hitler was taking the country to war for reasons of conquest or opposition to his policy toward the country's Jewish population?  

In this county would it be the arresting of all people of the Muslim faith (as suggested by one candidate)?  Would it be the policy of torturing POW's or killing of the families of suspected terrorists?  Would it be a sense that the country is following an immoral domestic program, or the suppression of the Constitution to allow for dictatorial powers by an executive?

In the 1960's and 70's countless young men left due to the conduct of a war, but many did so to escape the military draft, even thou some left for reason of moral opposition to an unjust war.

During the era of Jim Crow and the early civil rights campaign, people did not leave to oppose our racial relations issues.  People in the south did not leave over the wide-spread lynching of black Americans.  So what would it take for some people to move to Canada or Ireland?
Update Aug 29, 2016.  The number of Americans living abroad (nonmilitary US citizens) estimate to be 8.7 million.  In 1999 there were 4 million.  Accuracy may be in doubt.

Hawaii and the US Supreme Court

Hawaii may be on to something.  Many there want an election to determine if a new status for the island is needed; the Supreme Court ruled it could not hold that election.  If they were to become a "break away republic" the US would have to invade and then billions of dollars in construction and aid costs would occur, just like in other counties we invade (Iraq and Afghanistan).  Hawaii could stay in the Union and be ignored or revolt and be heard. 

It would place us in a situation like Russia when faced with the loss of their Black Sea naval base they had to invade Crimea when the Ukraine broke away from Russia.  We would have to invade Hawaii to protect Pearl Harbor.

On a bright note, conservatives could then claim that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and repeal the last eight years.

Immigration Policy

Some incomplete thoughts on the issue of immigration in this country today.  Why not create a policy where the present immigrants in this country would be granted permanent legal status as "resident aliens".  That way they could be granted some legal and workplace protection.  They  would be expected to pay social security taxes as well other taxes that they are obligated to.  They would not be citizens so they could not vote (which should put the conservative mind at rest).  Maybe most important of all, their children born in the US would be recognized  by all as being US citizens (even thou they are already, it would also serve to end the argument of "birthright citizenship".  A major plus of this policy would be the wages earned would be subject to FICA taxation thus bulking up the Social Security Trust Fund.  Maybe the biggest benefit of this approach would be to bring the 11 million people here illegally out from the shadows providing them a better life and providing the nation with a needed workforce.

August 2015 Stock Market news

In an article in The Record on Sunday 8/23/2015 it was noted that because gas prices have fallen, consumers have more money in their pockets.  But, to the dismay of businesses, those consumers are opting to "pay off debt instead of going shopping".  It seems to me that the business community wants to pay as little as possible for labor while also wanting those with less to spend what little they do have on the products of the business community.  It proves that the economy will be in the crapper until the consumers have some real reason to begin to spend again.

Obama and Gun Violence.

In response to the killing of nine people in a Charleston, SC church because of their race, calls for change have been many.  Some of demanded the removal of the Confederate battle flag being taken down from the grounds of the state capital in SC and many have called for more control over who can buy a handgun.  President Obama comments that things will not change until "the American people feel a sufficient sense of urgency" and say this is not normal in a society.

I have said before, after Columbine, and Sandy Hook that I for one make a pledge to not vote for any politician who takes money or support from the NRA or the Gun Owners of America.  That will apply for every office for which an election is the way to pick the office holder.  That might leave me with no one of the major parties to vote for, but there will always be a minor party with someone with gun money.  If we all took this pledge then things would change.  I am not talking about denying gun ownership to hunters or those who have a legitimate need for one.  Just get in registered and don't allow anyone to sell a gun without a background check and a licence to sell.  The Second Amendment does include the words "well regulated" in regard to gun ownership and that's all most people are asking.

US Economic System

Our economic system seems to have it all wrong.

We drive down wages by destroying unions, refusing to raise the minimum wage, and shipping jobs overseas.  Those workers make so little they don't owe-or pay very little-income taxes, while also getting government benefits in the form of food stamps.  On one hand that results in less revenue coming into the federal treasury while at the same time more money going out to make up the difference from what companies are refusing to pay their workers.  All in all less revenue to pay for the services and programs people need.

On the other hand we allow more and more wealth to accumulate into the pockets of the very wealthy or almost very wealthy.  We then create a  tax structure that limits the amount of revenue the government can acquire from the rich.  We allow those making just under half a million dollars a year to pay a Bush II era tax cut rate.  We tax capital gains at a lower rate than regular income, we tax unearned income (interest and dividends) at a reduced rate than earned income and are about to approve a plan to eliminate inheritance taxes on the extremely wealthy.

If that's not bad enough already, the corporations owned by the very wealthy  take their headquarters off-shore to avoid paying income taxes.

Could we possibly have created a system that is more ---- up?  The reality of an economic system is the average citizen and the spending they do is what keeps an economy strong; the rich have the money but they don't spend enough of it to make up the difference of the paucity of spending by the average person who only had enough to afford the bare necessities.  All of this and we continue to spend for defense like we were still fighting World War II.  

This country-if we keep this up-is heading for a major fall.

TPP

The Senate democrats have agreed to go along with the trade deal President Obama and the republicans want.  It seems the debate will continue but a formal vote has not been taken.  I thought it of interest that the democrats went along when they "...reached agreement with republicans for votes on other enforcement measures to protect workers who lose jobs as a result of exports".  Doesn't that agreement mean that the trade deal-TPP-will result in the lose of American jobs, and if so, why in the hell has the Senate agreed to it?

(The Virginian Pilot on 5/15/15).

Political corruption and Citizens United

We create a system where corporations can give politicians an unlimited amount of money (Citizens United Supreme Court ruling) by saying they (corporations) are people and have a First Amendment right to free speech, thus allowing them to spend to their heart's content.

Then we prosecute a politician who takes the money the court rules is legal to give.

If we are going to go after pols who are influenced by donations-donations they need to win reelection-then lets ban all donations to political candidates and go with public financing and require the media to provide free air or print time to all candidates from recognized parties.

Get the money out of politics.  Of course, that may mean no-one will want to run.

Mob Rule

An armed mob confronts government police officers who are attempting to enforce the law, causing a stand-off, and this doesn't just scare the shit out of you?  This mob action in favor of a bigot who thinks black Americans would be better off enslaved, not does he want to pay a fee (and fine of $ 1,000,000 for using someone else's land.  It gets worse.  One of the two major political parties defended them, at least for awhile.

Snowden and the NSA

A few items of interest from The Record on Dec 26, 2013 regarding the issue of Edward Snowden's release of thousands of documents about the NSA surveillance program.  A District Judge-Richard J. Leon-said he believed the program was "probsbly unconstitutional" but it seems he had no way of making that case legally. But Snowden's disclosures have given Leon the "chance to weigh in on the matter".  "Earlier challenges (to surveillance programs) were thrown out of court because civil libertarian plaintiffs couldn't prove that the NSA was collecting data about them".  Now the NSA has had to acknowledge the existence of the spy program so court cases can go forward, and one is expected to reach the US. Supreme Court.  There was a Supreme Court case in 1979 that the NSA claims gives them the authority to gather information.  It seems that the 1979 case "held that telephone records aren't private because citizens share them with the telephone company".  This, of course, is an ongoing issue with much more to follow.  Till then.

Lock and Load

In Houston, Texas-the state that might just be the gun capital of America-a birthday party for an 18 year old ended with a gun fight.  The OK corral is back.  One party goer took out his handgun and fired off a round in celebration, much like they do in middle east countries to note a victory against the great satan of North America.  Problem being is that another party goer pulled out his handgun and fired back in what he thought was self-defense.  This is  what one might expect if everyone was carrying a piece; a vision of the NRA's perfect society

NSA

The FISA court-a secret court, that we know about but are not privy to its deliberations-has given the NSA the authority "to keep collecting US phone records".  The NSA director-James Clapper (or is it Grapper?)-let it be known that the collection of records would continue under the Obama admin's order.  Clapper "at one time told Congress his officers do not collect such data".  The leaks by Edwin Snowden made Clapper's claim a lie.  Please tell me why Clapper is not being charged with lying under oath as Bill Clinton was?  If anyone believes anything the NSA or Clapper says in the future they should have their heads examined.

(Source:  The Virginian Pilot on 10/12/13 "Secret Court Allows NSA to Keep Collecting US Phone Records")

Update:  Snowden, in a video posted by Wikileaks from Moscow, claims that the surveillance program he uncovered is going to "...hurt our economy and country...limit our ability to speak and think and live and be creative, to have relationships and to associate freely".  If he is right it will be like America under the tyranny of Joe McCarthy when people were unwilling to speak their minds being afraid they would be accused of communist leanings.  Our foreign policy toward China in the late 1940;s and 1950's was most certainly effected by this self-censorship of policy makers and commentators and other with knowledge of the issues of the day.  Maybe that would give some reason to say that is the damage that Snowden has done. 

NSA surveillance program

On 7/31/13 The Record reported on the NSA program by headlining "NSA papers released, but concern in growing".  I thought the following passage informative.   "A senior NSA official conceded that the surveillance effort was the primary tool in thwarting only one plot-not the dozens that officials previously suggested".  

This program comes under the supervision of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court with the order to record "phone calls, emails, chats and the browsing histories of millions of individuals".

But we are assured that "only appropriately trained and authorized personal have access to the records" (like Edward Snowden, I would ask).

NSA Surveillance Program

I am having a problem understanding how the NSA surveillance program is suppose to work; or how it is suppose to protect us.

If the program records all phone calls, then the NSA knows that my number has called your number 9 times in the last week (remember, we were told the NSA doesn't know what was said).

So the NSA now has millions of millions of recorded phone calls; so what do they do now?  They can't manually look at them, so a computer must isolate certain numbers as suspect.  How do they ascertain which are those numbers?  If the NSA knows of a suspected terrorist, OK then, record all the calls that person makes.  But, unless that suspected terrorist calls me there is no purpose in recording my calls.

The only purpose of the program then becomes one of determining who I am calling; an adult book store or a  socialist party magazine and so on.  But what does that have to do with stopping terrorists?