When Traditional Family Values Cause Pain

Posted on September 24, 2016 by tonyj126

I feel the term “family values” is misused. Wouldn’t you think family values would mean that we treat people as we treat our family members – or should treat them at least? Don’t you think that no person should be discarded just because they act or believe differently than we do? “Family,” for that matter, should be more encompassing than just the nuclear or extended family. Family should be the human family – the community.

We see that during natural disasters. People of all races, creeds, and social-economic classes come out to offer assistance to the injured, grieving and displaced. Some send money or supplies, and others go to the affected area and offer what assistance they can. Doesn’t that seem like a better definition for family values? We should value all human beings. We make an effort to support them through hard times, and we celebrate with them during the good ones.

And that is true for those struggling with less visible problems. Certainly in rural parts of the country, drug abuse –  including prescription opiate addiction – has taken a toll out of so many Americans’ potential to thrive in today’s society. People from those rural areas are also some of the most stalwart supporters of traditional family values. They use selective, conservative biblical interpretations of the Bible to guide their lives, and in the process, sometimes hurt themselves or others.

I am reminded of an NPR story from December 2015 (http://www.npr.org/2015/12/08/458887771/plans-to-roll-back-medicaid-expansion-doesn-t-seem-to-worry-rural-kentuckians). Angel Strong, an unemployed nurse from McKee, Kentucky, received health insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion provision which was embraced by democratic Governor Steve Beshear. In fact, Kentucky saw one of the steepest drops in the rates of uninsured adults following the Medicare expansion.

Kentucky’s new governor, republican Matt Bevin, campaigned on traditional family values and on rolling back the Medicare expansion. Ms. Strong and an overwhelming majority of her fellow Jackson County citizens voted for Mr. Bevin based largely on the family values issues, primarily his positions against gay marriage and abortion. According to the Census Bureau, 34% of residents of Jackson County live below the poverty line, which is about four-fifths higher than the state average of 19%. Ms. Strong was quoted as saying, “My religious beliefs outweigh whether or not I have insurance.”

Let’s look at a couple biblical verses which have to do with when life begins as a guide to the pro-life family value issue. When does life begin? According to Genesis 2:7, “then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.” So life begins with the first breath, i.e., at birth.

The writers of the Torah had no concept of sperm and egg, either in humans or in their domesticated animals. They were farmers and the sexual act was thought of as planting a seed in fertile ground. In a society in which malnutrition or other hardships could cause miscarriages, the child only became a person when he or she was born, just as the plant became viable only when it broke the ground. There were still many dangers to both child and plant, but it became man’s job to protect them once they were born. Part of that protection, of course, was to obey God’s rules and pray for God’s blessings, but that was still the farmers’ job.

Exodus 21:22-25 gives us more information about how God’s faithful thought about fetuses. If a woman has a miscarriage as a result of injury sustained from two men fighting, the woman’s husband could demand a fine for the lost property of the unborn child from the man who was responsible for the fight. If, however, the woman sustained permanent injuries to her person, the penalty would be an “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” Exodus 21:22-25 considers an unborn fetus to be property, not a person.

Really, these biblical interpretations matter little. Church attendance in poor rural communities is at a much higher rate than in urban and suburban ones. In addition, the faithful from poor rural areas are much more likely to be Born Again Protestants, and for them, the messages on abortion, gay rights and creationism are integral parts of the worship service and teachings. That forms the rural voter’s persona. To quote Michelle Dillon and Megan Henly from the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire, “Rural Americans in particular care about abortion and same-sex marriage; undoubtedly, in any election, a candidate’s stance on these issues will also figure into rural Americans’ voting decisions.” (http://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=carsey)

I have worked hard to keep judgment out of this post, but I think I am failing. When impoverished people vote based on traditional family values, they often hurt themselves, their families and others in their communities because the family values politicians are also likely to be the ones who want to cut social safety net programs such as Medicare and food assistance. If we go back to my idealized family values definition, we should consider our community to be our family, and we should make sure no one is falling through the cracks – that no one is abandoned. If we are not doing a good job at this by ourselves, don’t we need our government to help?

Posted in Economics, Religion, U.S. Politics, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Darwin Award by Proxy

Posted on September 23, 2016 by tonyj126

My wife suggest this post while we were hiking in the mountains in Utah and it started to rain lightly. She said, “Dear husband, I do not want to be immortalized in the Darwin Awards when we slide off the side of a mountain to our deaths because we were hiking in the rain.” We turned around and returned to the hotel.

For those of you who have never heard of the Darwin Awards, it is a website (www.darwinawards.com) whose stated purpose is to “salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who accidentally remove themselves from it….”

In other words, the human species is better off when those who do stupid, dangerous things die because they cannot pass on their genes to future generations. I am not saying that it is a good thing to laugh at the deaths of others, but it is interesting to look at some of the creative ways people have managed to accidentally end their lives.

Since that hike turned out to be shorter than we had planned, and I have pathological need to get my money’s worth, so to speak, I headed right back up the mountain to get my hiking fix. And that’s where the Darwin Award became a more likely possibility. Hiking alone is one reason. Should I have encountered a life threatening situation, I would have to figure out how to take care of it myself. That could me falls, badly twisted ankle or knee, bad bear or rattlesnake encounters. Hiking alone can be dangerous.

The greater danger, however, was a result of my time limit. In order to be back in time to go out to lunch with my wife, I had only two hours. This was a problem. I wanted to go back and do the entire original hike we had planned and that was probably 7-8 miles which would not have fit into my two hour window. So, what’s a guy to do?

To save time, I headed straight up the mountain on a service road posted with no hiking and no biking signs. It was incredibly steep and exhausting. I climbed about 1,800 vertical feet in about 30 minutes and needed a few minutes to recover before I could move on. At around the 45 minute mark, I found the anticipated turnaround point for the hike and then quickly descended via the trail to meet make my 2 hour window. It was a speedy descent, including a little running, but I made it. Close enough anyway – 6.22 miles in 2:06 hours.

Once back at the hotel, I realized that I had acted in a much more dangerous way than would have been the case had I been able to hike without the time limit. I climbed an incredibly steep service road where hiking wasn’t allowed. I was rather light-headed and my legs were a bit wobbly while walking near steep drop offs because of the fast ascent. And I hiked much faster than is necessarily safe on the way down because I was trying to meet my two hour window.

So it wasn’t the earlier hike with my wife which was done at a reasonable pace, on established trails, in light rain that was risky. It was my self-imposed 6.2 miles in 2 hours second hike which was more likely to get me into the Darwin Awards.

I entitled this post “Darwin Award by Proxy” which suggests that my wife put me in danger, but that’s not the case. I asked her what she wanted to do and when, but I’m sure there was flexibility. Instead, I took her answer as a strict two hour limit, and then attempted to fit my original objective into the shortened window, rather than modifying my plans or suggesting a later lunch.

So, in reality, I am actually the dangerous one. I don’t like to change my plans, and sometimes that means I make unwise decisions when the constraints tighten. That’s an interesting realization to have at 53 years old. Well, at least I have already passed on my genes if I do end up in the Darwin Awards someday.

Posted in Musings, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Let’s Give Millennials a Break

Posted on September 21, 2016 by tonyj126

During a hike in Utah, a woman walking alone asked my wife and me for directions and we ended up spending about fifteen minutes talking about all kinds of things, including our twenty-something children. Her college educated son works for $14/hour doing the things he loves. He lives in beautiful Park City, Utah, and works for a resort doing golf course work in the summer and snow work in the winter. In his life, there is a fine line between work and recreation and he’s happy.

Her husband works for Fidelity Investments and even at that traditional institution, workplace changes have been made to accommodate the younger workforce. One of the more troubling things for her husband is the change in the office dress code. Now every day is a casual day and the Baby Boomers are having some difficulty accepting the change. I did not say it at the time, but I don’t feel a casual dress code is a big deal.

Let’s think about what that generation has gone through so far. We elders have given them a world which is not in the best of shape. We have also made promises that we have broken, and we have taken actions which make their futures very uncertain. With all that in mind, is it really a bad thing to have jeans in the workplace?

So, what am I talking about? We told them that they had to get a college education and in the process, acquire decades worth of debt. With that college degree, we told them, they would be successful. Then we made very bad financial decisions – with the criminally negligent assistance of financial institutions – and drove the world into the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression. The newly graduated Millennials entered “adulthood” with a huge debt burden, extremely poor job prospects and little opportunity to begin their independent lives.

The economy has improved and the job prospects are better, but that rough start left a lasting impression. This is not a generation that needs a lot of stuff. Many saw their parents lose everything because the house was lost to foreclosure, or the retirement plan was lost to an employer’s bankruptcy. If it wasn’t their parents, it was some other relative or the parents of their friends. These Millennials learned to live without because they had little choice.

What about a recent graduate beginning his or her career today. Assuming the retirement age is raised to 70, the retirement party will be in 2064. Don’t reserve the hall for the party just yet. According to the Bank of England, automation will replace 50% of human jobs in the U.S. and the U.K. in the next 10-20 years. By 2064, that percentage will be much higher. This has the effect of increasing the power of those who own the robots and automation software, and reducing the power of workers who are still employed by those companies. It’s a simple supply and demand situation. With more workers competing for fewer jobs, wages and benefits will decrease.

We can’t stop automation and I am not suggesting that we try. Instead, I worry about the Millennials and how they will be able to adapt to such an uncertain future. Still, they are a resilient bunch and they have learned from our mistakes.

Baby Boomers and Gen Xers were (still are?) driven by consumerism. We bought more, we bought better, and we bought too much. The housing bubble of 2005-2007 was driven by investors’ desire to get a good return from a safe investment. In the beginning, bundled mortgages were a safe investment, but with such high demand for these products, middle and upper management at financial institutions began bundling highly questionable mortgages and calling them high quality. As a result, housing prices soared because anyone could get a mortgage on any property with no income verification. Crazy, huh? That’s my generation for you!

Not only did the Baby Boomers and Gen Xers get these crazy loans, they cashed in their equity by refinancing. And what did they do with that money they got out of their houses? They bought cars, big screen TVs, recreational vehicles, boats, etc. Take a look at the stock performance for most companies that sold consumer products during that period. It certainly paints a picture of our poor financial judgement.

So there are now more Millennials than Baby Boomers, and we elders are waiting for them to take up the consumerism charge, but they have little incentive to do so. One way to think of John Maynard Keynes’ Paradox of Thrift principal is that it is better for the individual to save more and spend less, but it is worse for the economy if everyone does it. The country needs this largest generation to buy stuff to keep the recovery going, but this generation doesn’t buy what it doesn’t need because they have experienced the negative effects of others’ overindulgences.

House and car ownership by Millennials is low and in general, they like to live in a way that has minimal negative impact on the environment. Many in this generation are freelancers or entrepreneurs and can choose where and how to live. Again – not good for the older generation.

So now we older Americans are affected by the actions of the younger generation. Without them buying more stuff, there will be fewer jobs and less money going into Social Security to support our retirements. There will be less money going into Medicare to pay for our doctor and hospital bills. Because only the first $118,500 of wages is subject to Social Security tax, the ever increasing number of “very rich” have no positive impact on the Social Security program, so we need the Millennials.

That’s certainly a switch, isn’t it? After years of “Get off my lawn!” thinking with respect to the younger generation, we now want them to act as irresponsibly as we have. We want them to support our habit, so to speak.

OR… we can change our behavior to support them. Maybe we should behave in a way that gives them hope. Our “Me first” attitudes haven’t given the younger generation the confidence to move forward. Our news streams spend a lot of time telling how bad things are, even when there are positive data to report. If we were to become more philanthropic and equitable, Millennials may begin to feel hopeful. With that hope comes children and a lot of money is spent on children.

So, let’s give Millennials a break and start acting in a way that gives them hope. I believe that is the best way to benefit all generations in this amazingly complicated country.

Posted in Economics, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Lesson From 16th Century Germany

Posted on September 3, 2016 by tonyj126

I’m concerned. I believe that the Donald Trump’s “end of political correctness” messages – crowd pleasers at any campaign stop – are nothing more than permission to separate “us” from “them.” For Trump supporters, “us” generally means white men and women, and “them” means Mexicans (all Hispanics, really), African Americans, Muslims, Native Americans, and others who don’t look or believe as you do. Trump’s message seems clear. To paraphrase, It’s okay to treat “them” differently (and generally worse than you want to be treated).

I have a friend who said something the other day that has me thinking about Münster Germany. He feels the United States needs a hard reset, and that we have been putting off that reset for decades.

Throughout most of human history, those hard resets have been wars, disease and famine. My friend is not advocating for any of those, but we haven’t had a major kill-off since World War II (pardon the crude language when talking about the sanctity of human life). Our social safety nets and the great advances in medical knowledge keep the less fortunate from dying in really large numbers, and the powerful nations of the world have only fought proxy wars against each other for the past 70 years.

Wars in which a large nation fights a small one don’t generate the same scale of death. The combined death toll during the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars is likely between 500,000 and 600,000. The World War II death toll was 50-80 million, and there were many fewer people in the world back then.

So what happened in Münster in the early 16th century? Let’s look at a timeline for Münster and parallels to the United States today.

  1. Münster: A powerful merchant class in northern Germany had dominated trade in the Baltic Sea from the late 13th to the end of the 15th century.

U.S. parallel: Good manufacturing jobs were plentiful and the economy was mostly sound from the end of World War II through the end of the 20th century.

  1. Münster: At the beginning of the 16th century, the emerging Kingdoms of Denmark and Sweden had broken the Baltic trade monopoly and revenues in northern Germany had decreased.

U.S. parallel: The U.S. granted permanent normal trade relations to China in late 2000 which led to a large shift in manufacturing jobs from the U.S. to China and other low wage countries.

  1. Münster: Power struggles developed between the historically powerful, but declining merchant class and the newly valued class of craftsmen and lesser traders whose importance for the economy had steadily grown.

U.S. parallel: Entrepreneurship and technological skills became a more valuable part of the U.S. economy as manufacturing jobs declined.

  1. Münster: For decades, there was the threat of armed conflict between the classes, but the powerful city council always managed to come together and make an agreement that kept the peace.

U.S. parallel: While there was disagreement between conservatives and liberals as to the best way to manage the economy, the legislative and executive branches generally conducted the business of government for the common good.

  1. Münster: The Protestant Reformation reached Münster in 1531 with the arrival of Bernhard Rothmann. The wealthy merchant class and minor aristocrats remained Roman Catholic, while the skilled laborers and craftsmen were persuaded by Rothmann’s Lutheran message.

U.S. parallel: The U.S. housing bubble burst and the Great Recession began at the end of 2007. Federal and state governments struggled to meet the needs of their citizens when job losses skyrocketed and revenues dropped. The recession was caused by risky and irresponsible behavior by banks and homeowners. Strong opinions developed about blame and the best path forward.

  1. Münster: Persecution of the Lutheran faith by the Catholic Archbishop and his followers on the city council had radicalized Rothmann who rejected infant baptism and became an Anabaptist, the most radical religious group of the day. Many of Münster’s plebian classes followed suit.

U.S. parallel: Financial commentator Rick Santelli suggested a Chicago Tea Party in response to President Obama’s proposed mortgage relief plan, and the TEA Party began in early 2009. The other end of the spectrum was claimed by the Occupy Wall Street movement beginning in July 2011. These two extremes pulled politicians from the political center which made compromise difficult.

  1. Münster: By late February 1534, the Anabaptists were firmly in control of Münster and expelled Catholics from the city without allowing them to take their possessions. Moderate Lutherans were also subjected to poor treatment if they did not convert to Anabaptism, and the loyalties of late converts were questioned. The city council still had some moderates, and they pleaded with the Archbishop for help, but the Anabaptists’ power increased.

U.S. parallel: The federal government shut down non-essential operations and furloughed 800,000 workers without pay for three weeks in October 2013 because conservative members of Congress wanted to reduce or eliminate funding for selected programs, and the president did not agree with those plans.

  1. Münster:The Archbishop withdrew to a neighboring town and began the siege of Münster, which as the Prince Bishop, was the city that God wanted him to control for the good of God’s Church. The Anabaptist leaders within the city tell their followers that Münster is the New Jerusalem and that is where the second coming will be.

U.S. parallel: People on the political extremes describe a country under siege by the other side, and a presidential candidate tells his followers that he can make America great again.

  1. Münster: The Anabaptist leaders did horrible things to those who questioned their rule, and the Archbishop’s troops slaughtered the starving women and children who were allowed to leave the city. The city fell to the Archbishop’s troops in late June 1535, and the three surviving Anabaptist leaders were tortured for months, and burned at the stake in January 1536 (which was a much worse fate than I thought it was).

U.S. parallel: To be determined, but it may be the hard reset which my friend believes the country needs. It depends on how far we fall into the “us” versus “them” trap. I hope it’s a happier story than that told in Münster’s history (or Hitler’s legacy, for that matter).

Posted in Economics, Religion, U.S. Politics, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Sometimes It’s Good to be Unremarkable

Posted on August 16, 2016 by tonyj126

This is a post with the words incarcerated, defect, festered, and unremarkable and it’s a happy story for me. That’s because it’s my medical story for the past 2-1/2 weeks and things are good.

In earlier posts I mentioned that I was replacing my father-in-law’s roof. While I had done roofs on two other houses in the past 21 months, working on this one in July was a mistake. I had to battle high heat and humidity, plus constantly changing weather forecasts which made planning difficult. And it rained a lot in July. Because of these difficulties, I sometimes worked by moonlight spreading tarps over the exposed part of the roof and holding them in place with 70 pound bundles of shingles. It was tiring, and at the end of the day I may not have been as careful in how I lifted the bundles.

So, I seem to have given myself a umbilical hernia about 2-1/2 weeks ago. There’s usually a small hole in the abdominal muscle wall behind the belly button left over from when we received our nutrition through the umbilical cord while we were in our mothers’ wombs. I was surprised to discover that the belly button is a fairly common site for hernias, especially in young children. In adults, it means that some fat or fluid gets pushed through that leftover hole, and according to online information, it’s generally not that bad. It can self-repair, perhaps with a little help from massaging and gently pushing the bump back through the belly button.

For me, however, a couple somewhat painful bumps appeared overnight following one of those difficult days on the roof. They were pretty hard and I asked my wife about it. She didn’t seem all that concerned.

Now let me tell you a little about my wife. When she was in medical school, I asked her to look at my painful ear one day and she said, “You have some blood behind your eardrum. Did I tell you about the kid hit by the subway that came in today. His leg came in a separate bag.” Now how can I compete with that? I’ve had a pretty healthy life, but whenever I was concerned about something, my wife always seemed to blow it off as not that important. After this umbilical hernia, however, I realize that she wasn’t blowing me off – she’s just really smart.

I wasn’t very worried about the hernia because of my online research, but once she saw bruising, she hopped into action. After torturing me for 30 minutes with hydrogen peroxide and q-tips, she sent me to the emergency room.

Here’s what happened. While not lifting very carefully at the end of the day, I appeared to have pushed some fat through the small hole behind the belly button without causing any damage to, or enlarging the hole. That means that the fat was in a little pocket of skin on the rim of the belly button, but not connected to a blood supply because the hole closed right back up behind it. That is called an incarcerated hernia and it’s not a good thing.

I thought things would improve over the week I was a camp counselor when I did a lot of walking, but very little lifting, and the pain did get better, but the bumps were still there, although a little smaller. To my uneducated eye, it seemed to be doing what the online research suggested – the hernia was self-healing and the fat was going back through the opening. In reality, the bumps were shrinking because the fat was festering inside (because there was no blood flow) and becoming pus. Oops.

During my first night back with my wife after camp, a new bump and bruising appeared and the two earlier bumps had gotten much smaller. That evening the new bump started oozing pus and my smart wife sent me to the ER. After she tortured me with the peroxide and q-tips, that is.

Well, I had surgery yesterday in which the necrotic fat and tissue was removed and no hernia defect was found. That means that I did not damage the leftover umbilical hole. All good news.

The other good news is that I’m unremarkable. I had an abdominal CT while in the emergency room and the report says, “The liver, spleen, kidneys, pancreas, adrenal glands and gallbladder are unremarkable. Visual loops of bowel are unremarkable.” When it comes to radiographic reports, we all want to be unremarkable. One other good bit of health news: it’s made me smarter. I have done my last roof!

Posted in Musings, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Trump’s Self-Fulfilling Prophesy – Sort Of

Posted on August 15, 2016 by tonyj126

Donald Trump made a bold statement in Altoona, Pennsylvania on Friday. He stated, “The only way we can lose in my opinion — I really mean this — in Pennsylvania, is if cheating goes on.” That may turn out to be true, in a way.

I am not suggesting that there will be actual voter fraud. Despite the rash of laws passed by republican state legislatures that affect voter registration and documentation, there is very little voter fraud. According to Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt, there have been 44 cases of potential voter fraud between 2000-2014 out of more than a billion votes cast, and some of those cases may have been clerical errors. Voter ID laws are designed to suppress participation by groups who typically vote for democrats and really have very little to do with preventing voter fraud.

On Friday, Mr. Trump said that his supporters need to watch the polling places on election day to prevent cheating. What would supervision by untrained, biased voters do? What specifically does Mr. Trump believe would be prevented? I not sure what Mr. Trump envisions, but I suggest republican leaders may undertake a course of action which he could consider cheating, but it can’t be stopped by an army of Trump observers.

Donald Trump has said and done some unpopular things since the Republican National Convention a few weeks ago. He had a running feud with the parents of a fallen heroic army officer, he has made statements which seemed to promote gun violence against his opponent, to suggest women need to change jobs if they are victims of sexual harassment, and to invite Russia to hack Clinton’s emails. He refused to endorse Paul Ryan, apparently in retaliation for Ryan’s reluctance to jump on board the Trump bandwagon.

These were serious mistakes with significant repercussions for the candidate. Trump’s support rose from less than 41% before the Republican National Convention to nearly 46% a week later, while Clinton’s support fell about 1% following the Democratic National Convention. This was a huge opportunity for Trump, but his mistakes squandered that advantage. For the first ten days of August, the support numbers diverged from a statistical tie to an 8% advantage for Clinton – Trump went down 4% and Clinton went up 4%. The effect in battleground states was even more significant, and if things don’t improve soon for Mr. Trump, he does not appear to have a path to victory in November.

And that is the situation which may cause the Republican Party leaders to abandon their candidate. If there is little hope for a Trump victory, those who want to position the GOP for success in future elections will distance themselves from the negative impact of his rhetoric. Trump comes across as racist, anti-Hispanic, anti-Muslim, sexist, extremist and often ignorant. This is not the image with which the Republican Party would like to be identified. If Trump isn’t going to win anyway, the thinking would go, then let’s not hurt ourselves for a generation by sticking with his unpopular views. Well, unpopular with the majority of voters who are not white, middle-aged men.

So what would the Republican leaders do? The easiest thing is to throw support to Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. With strong Republican support and a pervasive distrust of Hilary Clinton in the electorate, there is a chance that Johnson could actually win the election. Probably not, but it could happen.

What might prove more successful is playing the Twelfth Amendment game. If the Republican Party claims Johnson as their own and piles money into the swing states with negative advertising against both Clinton and Trump, it’s possible that no candidate will win the required 270 electoral votes in the presidential election. Or rather, the first presidential election.

According to the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution, the House of Representatives holds an election to choose the next President from the top three popular vote getters should no single candidate receive 270 electoral votes. For that election, each state has one vote and the District of Columbia has none. That means that sparsely populated, highly conservative states like Wyoming and Alaska have the same voting power as much more populated, democratic California and New York. Put another way, one Wyoming voter has the power of sixty-six California voters.

Many Republicans would not be happy with a President Gary Johnson, but they may still think he’s better than a President Trump, and they should be able to block the presidential initiatives that they find disagreeable.

Another option is to orchestrate a major write-in campaign for a popular lawmaker like Paul Ryan. Once again, the goal would be to prevent Trump or Clinton from receiving 270 electoral votes by targeting the swing states and states not won by either major candidate during the primary campaign. It would certainly be a long shot, but the excitement of such a campaign may lead to a high Republican voter turnout which should help the candidates in House, Senate, state and local elections. If the campaign is successful and the House decides on the next president, there’s no question that Ryan would win.

And Donald Trump would consider that cheating. The Republican Party will have actively worked to keep their candidate from winning the election. While this is a perfectly reasonable strategy in this strange, strange political year, Donald Trump would have a right to feel cheated.

In order to ensure that the party won’t take such drastic action, Mr. Trump need only start playing along. He needs to stop alienating so many potential voters based on race, religion and gender. He needs to support the leaders in the Republican Party; he needs to be an asset, not a liability. In short, he can’t be the Trump of the primaries.

Those are definitive statements, and if there’s one thing about this election that seems certain, it’s that old rules don’t apply. Anything can happen, and perhaps the most certain thing is that there will be large surprises to come. Russia will release more damaging material from their hack of Democratic organizations. Republicans in the House will launch a new investigation of Clinton. Trump will say something outrageous which offends a voting demographic (okay, that one was easy).

And, if leaders in the Republican Party are certain that Trump cannot win the presidency, they may “cheat” and work against him so that they will get Hispanic, Muslim and women’s votes in future years. Perhaps Donald Trump shouldn’t have put the idea into their heads.

Posted in U.S. Politics, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Do We Want a Bully as President?

Posted on August 10, 2016 by tonyj126

I’m a camp counselor this week. Actually, I am one of the mentors for the Counselor-in-Training program. We train 16-18 year olds to be wonderful, caring and loving counselors so that their 3rd through 8th grade campers can have one of their best weeks of the year.

During this morning’s workshop, we covered the staff manual and I couldn’t help but think of Mr. Trump when we went over the section on bullying. From the manual:

“Types of bullying: There are three broad categories of bullying.
1. Direct physical bullying e.g. hitting, tripping, and pushing or damaging their property.
2. Direct verbal bullying e.g. Name calling, insults, homophobic or racist remarks, verbal abuse.
3. Indirect bullying – This form of bullying is harder to recognize and often carried out behind the bullied student’s back. It is designed to harm someone’s social reputation and/or cause humiliation. Indirect bullying includes:
– lying and spreading rumors
– playing nasty jokes to embarrass and humiliate
– mimicking
– encouraging others to socially exclude someone
– damaging someone’s social reputation and social acceptance
– cyber-bullying, which involves the use of email, text messages or chat rooms to humiliate and distress.”

I don’t feel I need to present examples of things Donald Trump has said, tweeted, or done which identify him as a bully with respect to these criteria. Many of his supporters will claim that what people call bullying is actually one of the things that they admire most about Mr. Trump – an end to political correctness.

Call it what you will, Donald Trump fits the definition of direct verbal bully and indirect bully. He has also encourages direct physical bullying to the extent that some of his supporters have acted on Trump’s words to physically assault protestors and others who disagree with the candidate. Let’s not forget that he has also stated that he wants to hit certain people for statements they have made.

The fact that some of his supporters will take action on what they believe he is telling them to do is why there was such an uproar over his comments yesterday that hinted “the Second Amendment people” may have a way to stop Hilary Clinton. A potential interpretation is that gun owners who consider the Second Amendment to be the most important issue should shoot Ms. Clinton. He didn’t say that specifically, but that is not the issue. Some of his followers may interpret the statement that way and act on it.

So Donald Trump is a bully – or as some of his supporters prefer to think of it, a crusader against the insidious policy that is political correctness.

Now, do we want a bully for a president? Some of his supporters do, and they want him to bully others on their behalf.

Who? China, for one. They want a President Trump to bully other countries so that the good jobs come back to the United States and they can again work those low-skilled, high paying manufacturing jobs of the 1960’s-1990’s. There are two flaws to this logic.
1. While China and other low wage countries were the likely places for companies to move manufacturing facilities in the early 2000’s because of low wages and barely existent regulation, other than some currency manipulation to keep the costs low, the countries are not to blame. It was the companies who moved the jobs, not the destination countries.
2. Those low-skilled manufacturing jobs don’t really exist anymore. There are plenty of high-skilled jobs available without enough people to fill them, but most of the low skilled jobs have been replaced by technology, both in U.S. manufacturing and in plants abroad.

Conceivably, a bullying president could threaten other countries to raise the value of their currencies, and that may hasten the pace of repatriation of manufacturing facilities, but the new plants in the U.S. will not employ many low-skilled workers. Additionally, the shortage of high-skilled workers means that manufacturing companies will likely petition the government to allow for imported workers under a similar visa program that is used by technology companies to bring programmers to work in the U.S.

So, while a bullying president may be able to increase the rate of manufacturing growth in the U.S., there will be a substantial cost to those who do not possess the skills to work in the new, high-tech facilities.

Costs of higher foreign currency values:
1. Inflation will increase because prices on imported products will be higher,
2. There will be more foreign workers in rural areas where new plants are often built, which may increase racial tension,
3. Reduced regulation could mean more water and air pollution from manufacturing facilities,
4. It would be more expensive for foreign travelers to visit the United States, and consequently, there could be a significant drop in vacation spending from abroad and a loss of low-skilled jobs in the tourist industry,
5. Similarly, housing prices may drop in some locations that are popular for foreign investment (Miami, New York, Hawaii, etc.).

Other potential costs of a bullying president:
1. Much of the international agreements that keep the world safe and secure are accomplished through negotiation. I suspect it would be very difficult to bully countries into international agreements because the bullying itself is a large negative to be overcome if an agreement is to be reached,
2. If the United States is perceived by other countries as a threat because of the bullying language of its president, we may find those countries working together to counter U.S. interests in the world,
3. The camp counselors of the world whose job it is to nip bullying behavior in the bud – the United Nations, World Bank, etc. – will generally rule against the United States in disputes because of the bullying,
4. As a result of what our political leaders will interpret as unfair treatment of the United States, we may pull out of the United Nations and become more and more isolationist, which we would find even more economically damaging because there will likely be high tariffs which will reduce international trade for the U.S.

My vote. I don’t want a bully for a president. I do not feel it would be good for the United States or the world. Also, it’s part of that camp counselor mentality. I just want everyone to get along, and that means stopping bullying before it can cause damage.

Posted in Economics, U.S. Politics, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

“Inside Out” Checks and Happy Occasions

Posted on August 7, 2016 by tonyj126

My wife & I recently got new checks. Previously we had breast cancer awareness checks and “Minions” checks. This time we decided on checks based on the movie “Inside Out” and immediately upon their arrival realized our mistake. The packaging displayed all six versions of the checks. In large, all-caps letters, the checks had the words “ANGER,” “DISGUST,” “SADNESS,” “FEAR,” “JOY” AND “BING BONG.” The first check we had to write was for a wedding gift. These checks didn’t offer many options.

So now we write checks to church which say anger and we write checks to the hair dresser which say disgust. It’s kind of funny, actually. But there are still those happy occasions. We have to ration those Joy checks; we don’t want to confuse the newlyweds.

So last night I woke up with a creative thought. I have to write a graduation card for a high school graduate headed to the University of Michigan later this month. The card I got has an image of bridge on the front. Here’s the message I woke up with during the middle of the night.

“A person crosses many bridges during a lifetime – sometimes alone, sometimes with others – sometimes over turbulent waters, sometimes over calm. You’re stepping onto one of those bridges soon which help define us and shape our lives. It may be a little scary for those first few steps, but I am confident it will be one of your favorite bridges on your life’s journey. Congratulations!”

I like the message and it came to me rather easily other than the missed sleep. Not only that, it allows me to use a “Fear” check for a happy occasion. I like when things work out that way.

Posted in Musings, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Never Mind Nukes – I’m Worried About Drones

Posted on August 4, 2016 by tonyj126

During Hillary Clinton’s nomination acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention last week, she said of Donald Trump, “A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.”

This makes a powerful image – at least for my generation which sees that ubiquitous mushroom cloud at any mention of nuclear weapons. Still, I think the possibility that a President Trump would be able to successfully launch nuclear weapons as a first strike is extremely unlikely. While his statements and actions have been unconventional, bordering on bizarre of late, it is a giant leap to go from talking tough to launching nuclear weapons because you have been insulted by a foreign leader. And even if he gave that command, I believe those professionals in the Armed Forces who would be responsible for executing that order would be more likely than not to refuse to obey.

I am certain that the next president would grant full pardons to the court marshaled military personal following Mr. Trump’s impeachment.

The more likely scenario, I’m afraid, is that President Trump will order the use of armed drones to execute his political enemies within the borders of the United States, probably starting with those in the media whom Trump feels have treated him unfairly.

There are four reasons why this could happen.
1. As president, Mr. Trump would have every right to tour the military’s armed drone command centers and speak with the operators to locate a fervent Trump supporter or two;
2. Fervent Trump supporters seem willing to believe whatever Mr. Trump says, regardless of the facts presented by the media {President Obama’s birth certificate, Muslims celebrating the fall of the World Trade Center towers from New Jersey, “Hilary Clinton invented ISIS with her stupid policies” (ISIS predated Clinton’s term as Secretary of State)};
3. If a President Trump orders the right Trump supporter drone operator to strike a vehicle next to a person he wishes to eliminate, that operator will carry out the order from his Commander and Chief;
4. As president, Trump would claim the attack was an ISIS inspired car bomb and that the media is spreading misinformation – “as they always do” – by claiming otherwise.

I don’t know whether Mr. Trump is capable of killing another person, either in person or remotely. I think all presidents have made decisions which have resulted in the death of others. President Obama has taken action against “enemies” in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya. President George W. Bush ordered the invasion Iraq and Afghanistan, and President Clinton sent troops into the Bosnia and bombing missions in Iraq and Sudan.

Presidents kill people. It’s part of the job. These actions are supposed to be conducted in order to keep America and the rest of the world safe, but it’s up to the Commander and Chief to decide which enemies to target to achieve that goal. Toward that end, the president is advised by experts in the military and intelligence services. The president then makes decisions based on the best information available, and sometimes he (or she) is wrong. President Clinton ordered the destruction of a pharmaceutical plant in North Sudan because of incorrect information that a powerful nerve gas was being produced there.

Donald Trump has stated more than once that he feels his best advisor is himself. He scoffs at “experts” and believes that his “great brain” is all he needs. That worries me. With that kind of attitude, I think it is possible, perhaps likely, that a President Trump will order the execution of a political enemy. You can see the gears turn.
1. Meghan Kelly keeps criticizing him and his policy decisions;
2. His poll numbers are dropping as a result of this criticism;
3. Because his popularity is waning, Congress is less likely to agree to his initiatives;
4. Since Congress won’t enact his programs, the economy is suffering;
5. With a faltering economy, the public is starting to think of him as a poor leader and the value of the Trump brand is lessened;
6. Therefore, Meghan Kelly is harming both the United States and the Trump brand;
7. Meghan Kelly must go (Bonus: other reporters will treat him more favorably out of fear of the consequences).

I am not saying that this is a likely scenario, but I do think that it is possible. Mr. Trump has demonstrated time and again that he takes attacks on his reasoning or character personally, and will strike out quickly and nastily, or wait and deliver a well-timed (and newsworthy) attack. His refusal to endorse Paul Ryan and John McCain fall into the latter category. He said a few months ago that he has never asked for forgiveness. Since forgiveness is not in his nature, it seems obvious to me that he does not forgive others either.

It is that temperament thing that the democrats and their allies keep bringing up. Donald Trump, they say, does not have the temperament to be president. He is too easily baited by statements he finds offensive and he does not forgive indiscretions. That is why Hillary Clinton and others talk about nuclear weapons.

But I am confident the United States will never use nuclear weapons as a first strike, even if the Commander and Chief orders it. Drones, on the other hand, are a real threat during a Trump presidency. Still unlikely, but possible. Maybe now is a good time for military commanders to ensure that drone software will not allow armed operation within the boundaries of the United States. While we’re at it, let’s add Canada, Mexico and our NATO allies to that list as well. Please!!!

Posted in U.S. Politics, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Donald Trump & My Faulty Logic

Posted on July 25, 2016 by tonyj126

I’ve been replacing my father-in-law’s roof — in Michigan — in July. This is not the smartest thing I’ve ever done, but once I commit to something, I tend to follow through. The temperature has been as high as 95°F (35°C) and very humid as shown by low temperatures that have only dropped to 75°F (24°C) by early morning. On the roof, it’s probably about 20°F or about 10°C hotter.

Side Note/Pet Peeve: I really get annoyed when the local radio news person reports the current temperature and includes, “and very humid” every morning. The low temperature of the day will always be close to the dew point and consequently, those little weather station sensors will always report 90+% humidity. That does not mean it’s going to be a humid day. It just means that the temperature is close to the dew point at the coolest part of the day – as always. To know whether it’s going to be a humid day, just look at the low temperature. If it’s in the mid-50s to low 60s° F (13-17°C), then it’s going to be a low humidity day, but if the low temperature is in the upper 60s to mid 70s° F (19-24 C), it’s going to be humid day.

Back to the roof. I started out listening to audio books & podcasts, but I nearly ruined my phone with excessive sweat. It recovered after spending a night in a container of uncooked rice and now it relaxes in the shade while I’m alone with my thoughts. During the really hot and humid days, my thoughts went to dark places and for a few days, I actually considered voting for Donald Trump In November.

It is not that I agree with his policies or prognostications, but rather that I am concerned the United States is desperately in need of a paradigm shift. This idea had a kickstart from one of the podcasts I listened to early in the week – Common Sense with Dan Carlin. I’m afraid I don’t remember which episode, but in it Dan says that empires can end with an attack from outside the empire, or they can end when they crumble from within. Dan speculated that the popularity of Trump and Sanders might be an indicator of that crumbling from within phenomenon.

My wife and I have become big fans of a new show on CBS called Braindead. Spoiler Alert: Although this is explained in the first episode, American’s extreme political views this year are caused by space bugs eating portions of infested people’s brains. While the show is very funny and has great characters, the crumbling from within explanation seems more plausible. Americans have become more politically extreme during – and this is significant – during a time when there is not a war or major external threat to the country.

Not only that, there has been steady economic growth for years and the unemployment rate is near the Federal Reserve’s target rate for raising interest rates. Housing prices have been increasing and sales are strong. People should be feeling more secure, but many Americans want a drastic change to the way things have been going, and they think Donald Trump is the best instrument for that change.

So, if these are all signs of internal rot in the economic and military empire that is the United States, would a dramatic shakeup eventually lead to a happier populace and a more secure future? Maybe. And that is why I briefly considered voting for Mr. Trump.

The humidity has dropped today and the temperature is a bit lower as well. Under these improved conditions, I now see the faulty logic in that consideration. The reason the country is so angry is because they have been told to be angry. After Barack Obama’s victory in the 2008 presidential election, but prior to his inauguration, the republican leaders of the House of Representatives and Senate met to develop a strategy for the first term of the Obama administration. Their plan: block or hinder every Obama initiative so that the electorate would blame him for the dysfunctional government that couldn’t get anything accomplished so he would lose the 2012 election.

Obviously, that goal was not achieved, but the obfuscation became ingrained. Congressional republicans blocked so many legislative initiatives that the Washington Times published “Capital Hill Least Productive Congress Ever: 112th Fought About Everything” and the Fiscal Times contributed “How the 113th Do-Nothing Congress Lived Up to Its Name.” At the end of the first year of the 114th Congress last December, there were several accomplishments largely due to initiatives promoted by the soon-to-leave politics forever, John Boehner. Many of those accomplishments were expensive, but at least they got something done in the end.

And that is why so many Americans have such a low opinion of Congress and why outsiders Trump and Sanders did so well in the primaries. And that is also why I cannot vote for Donald Trump.

To vote for Donald Trump in November would mean rewarding the obstructionists, although most of them would not view a President Trump as a reward. Still, his election would validate the strategy of slowing down the legislative branch to the point where it brings pain and suffering to the American people, or at least those with limited to moderate financial means. I never want to reward people who consider the wellbeing of others a lower priority than their own political careers. There are a lot of people in Washington who seem to do just that.

No, I think that the paradigm shift the U.S. needs should be in the form of a grass roots organization that breaks expectations and causes change through the force of their insistence. And I think that we have the building blocks for such a group from the Sanders and Trump supporters (preferably the non-racist ones, that is). Maybe all they need is a leader to organize and inspire them.

Perhaps the person for that job is Cheri Honkala with the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign. They are organizing a “National Fart-In” in which protestors will be fed canned beans for the night that Hilary Clinton accepts the nomination because, “We thought that this process really stinks.” Now that’s a leader with imagination who can inspire people to take some unusual steps to get their point across.

But that just might be the heat and fatigue talking. I’m writing this on my breaks from stripping off the old roof and it’s gotten hotter.

Posted in Economics, U.S. Politics, Uncategorized | Leave a comment