A Consequential Fortnight

We've had some very consequential times in our country lately and I really haven't been able to integrate them with my perception of our society. Some of it I felt was inevitable so the integration had already been done in my mind but the effect on society as a whole still is not evident.

The Supreme Court made a couple of decisions that will be monumental but not in the ways that people think. The emotions on these issues are what is foremost on people's minds but it is the economic effects that will have the longest duration.

The court decided in a 6-3 decision that the subsidies that the Affordable Care Act makes available to people from states that did not set up their own exchanges were legal according to statute means that the ACA will continue to be available to the nation's citizens and that health care can be construed as a right subject to certain conditions. A 6-3 decision is more meaningful than a 5-4 because it means that there was some consensus over and above what was absolutely necessary. It means that the risk of the decision being overturned are minimal. I think the justices understood that Congress meant the subsidies to work in conjunction with the state exchanges but when the Supreme Court disallowed the mandate to set up state exchanges it removed the main enforcement tool to enforce the mandate. This left the subsidies sort of hanging. It could be that the ACA opponents saw this as a two pronged battle to erase the ACA but their ploy was made ineffective by the court ruling. One is never really sure of what the justices are thinking but it could have been that the ACA is firmly entrenched and there would be a very bad time if it were yanked out from under the American people. Justice Scalia, who is very legalistic as to wording, just couldn't stand it and made some really snide remarks.

But then in a 5-4 ruling the Court decided that denying marriage to same sex couples was a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14^th Amendment. This has set off a great brouhaha that goes against the grain of some who hold the religious position that it is counter to scripture. I think that legally this was a decision that was inevitable but came a bit sooner than I expected. Now it is the law and we will go through the lawsuits to decide exactly who has to perform these rites. I don't think there is any danger of religious entities being forced to comply although civil officers may be required to do so. There could be an exception for personal religiously held belief and this is probably where the lawsuits will arise. There are many who are convinced that this act alone will tip the scales and deny the protection of God from our nation. My thinking is that we passed that point a long time ago and I don't think this will endanger our standing in the Divine Personal Protection subsidy. It will, however, grant legal status for purposes of inheritance and other fiscal matters.

But prior to these governmental rulings there were the murders in Charleston. These didn't involve a police shooting so that element of disagreement was removed and all that was left was tragedy. No denying it. But, in a much more forthright way, the President along with many other influential people has held our respective noses to the grindstone and, once again, questioned the availability of firearms and the racist impulses that seem to be so deeply ingrained in our society. First the guns. Many of my friends disagree with me on this one and that is okay. I own four guns none of which are loaded. I don't hunt although they are hunting weapons. Why do I have them? Because I want to.

Now, I'm not sure that is reason enough but there it is. And that is why, I believe, that most other people want them. They may go on about personal protection but, while that may be true in some cases, I just don't buy that. I think it is much more dangerous to have unknown people packing heat given the irrationality of human response. I have a plan. It is not a new plan and I didn't think it up but it has merit. Let's require that gun owners purchase liability insurance for weapons. Insurance companies are very good at assessing risk and should be able to tell the difference in risk between a 30/30 and a Glock or AR15. We did this with automobiles so that those who, through no fault of their own, suffered insult or injury as a result of improper or irrational use of the automobiles would have some recourse to recover compensation for their having been assaulted. The same should work for weapons. No, it won't immediately remove all guns from the hands of criminals but over time it will reduce the availability of those most murderous weapons. Secondly, the symbols of racism. While as a society we need to be aware of those symbols that reinforce negative stereotypes we need to be aware that those symbols are not the real problem. The real problem is us. It is absolutely imperative that we have leaders, visible examples, who will not flinch in the face of calling out racism. It should be the goal of the nation to reach a more fair and equitable society. In the past couple of years we have seen obvious racial discord result in death and injury and this after some proposed that we had entered a post-racial society having elected an African-American President. (Do you ever wonder why we refer to him as African-American when his Mother was from Kansas and was white)? That in itself points to the old rule that even a drop of African-American blood tainted you enough to justify discrimination. We should return to those pieces of legislation that were enacted to make it difficult and illegal to discriminate and resolve, as a nation, to stamp out what the President called “Our Original Sin.” Governmental entities should not give places of honor to those symbols of hatred but they may have a place for exhibition since they are undeniably a part of our history. One should be able to display most symbols as a personal liberty but that is protected speech. We should not shy from decrying it.

My Take on these issues is this. These are very consequential things and a window of opportunity has been opened for us to take action that will make a difference. If we do not take that opportunity we will see these things again because hatred and evil always surface when we least expect it. More importantly, we will miss a chance to make our nation a more perfect union.

Imperial Trajectory and the Trans Pacific Partnership

Often the dominance of the United States is compared to that of the Roman Empire in a warning that great empires can fall if they stray from their founding principles. People search the annals of the Roman Empire to try to find particular causes for the demise of that far reaching empire. Some blame the lead that was used in their plumbing. Some cite the decay of morality but it is hard for me to give credence to that claim since the morality of that empire consisted of brutal oppression and dictatorships. But some argue that the alleged decay of American morality will lead us down the same path. Whatever the case it has to be recognized that the Roman Empire lasted hundreds of years while the nation of the United States has only been in existence less than 250 years and only 50 or so of those years have seen global dominance by our nation. I think there are probably simpler and more evident explanations for the demise of great empires.

Over the sweep of history the morass of endless war in which we now find ourselves has a duration shorter than many but it is emblematic of the way empires begin to fray at the edges. We are somehow unable to extricate ourselves from debilitating stresses in little countries half way around the world for reasons that are difficult to understand. We used to be able to just say it is all about the oil since our thirst for that oil was so dramatic but now we have developed capacity to become one of the world's largest producers of oil products that self-sufficiency is within our grasp, especially if we take advantage of renewables. So why are we still fighting there? The answer is that we are still fighting there to maintain the American hegemony over the area. If we do not project power there then the Russians or Chinese will. Left to their own devices the multiple tribes of the area would likely revert to boundaries similar to what existed prior to WWI.

But now the hegemonic needs of the United States are more urgent in Eastern Asia and the Pacific Rim countries and our government wants to focus efforts on the “pivot to Asia” but we find it difficult when our attention and resources are being drawn back to an area we would just as soon turn away from if we weren't uneasy about who their new friends would be. And therein lies the problem with empire. Sometimes it just gets too darned big to handle. The problem is that the United States is having too much trouble keeping a grip on friends in the west to deal with developing new relationships in the east.

Rome did this when the empire split into separate parts and the expanse became to great to control by the Roman army through its methods of conquest and brutality. It began to fray at the edges until it collapsed under the weight of the demands of keeping the military in the field to quell resistance. It was once said that the sun never set on the British Empire. The British Empire also used military prowess to hold onto the far flung territories but also introduced a method of enterprise that treated the native populations as tenants on their own property. This allowed the British to fund the military and the quasi-governmental agencies but the desire for self government and global pressures finally reduced the British Empire to not much more than the United Kingdom and even the members of that have occasional independence movements. You may recall that a group of the British possessions in the Americas threw off the yoke of serfdom to assert their independence.

But what was it that kept those empires from maintaining their superiority over their territories? It was simply that the supply lines became too long and too expensive to maintain. The Romans, the British, the Russians and now the United States are finding that maintaining these supply lines and endless military actions are putting too much pressure on the treasury.

The United States was able for a while to maintain these relationships without military presence through the use of trade and by offering an umbrella of protection to countries in which our corporations were interested in doing business but now there are other players. Now we find ourselves having to reinvest in Europe to hold back the bear when we need to invest in Asia because of the threat from the dragon. I don't necessarily mean military threat although it could come to that. I mean the threat of trade from which all empires draw power. The United States has always eschewed the title of “empire” but the similarities are not easy to escape. While we may not be as overtly interested in military conquest we are very interested in the conquest of trade. The truth of the matter is that all conquest is a matter of trade, of financial advantage for domestic business entities.

This whole thing is about the Trans Pacific Partnership, TPP. It is about forging economic alliances with the nations of East Asia and the Pacific Rim that will bind us together in a union that will benefit our domestic and foreign trading partners and discourage military conflict that would be a disadvantage to all concerned. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It is a way for nations to coexist without overt conflict but it does not mean that it benefits all partners in the same way. Just as NAFTA united North America in an embrace of trade so it will be, we hope, for the TPP. The problem is that some people, yes, individual people, get left behind. This is the reason for much of the disagreement over the TPP. We now know that NAFTA cost us millions of jobs and harmed as many families. It may well have been that global market forces would have taken those jobs anyway but there were no provisions for taking care of those people unable to forge a new existence in the time allotted to them. It may be the same with the TPP and that is what some in the United States want to prevent. Some want to prevent undue harm to those whose jobs will leave by offering assistance and by demanding that some of the same worker protections be enforced in the countries of the other parties to the agreement.

The world is changing and I don't think we can stop it. We can only try to make the best of it. We desperately need ask our other western partners to step up to the plate and assume a larger role in keeping their part of the globe safe for democracy. We need our Middle Eastern allies to take more responsibility for their part of the globe. We need to stop the endless drain of lives and treasure to the pursuit of war.

My take is that some see this, others don't.

Preserving what is lost

We’re testing students at expense of actually helping them learn

By Marty Solomon

   Your eyes will roll back in your head. You will be shocked, dismayed and stunned. Because the truth is that in school, standardized test scores are not really very important.    Google’s personnel executive, Laszlo Bock, writes that he receives 2 million job applications annually but hires only a fraction.    He says there is a misunderstanding of what makes people successful. It’s not your work history or your grades. Google wants generalists who are clever and curious, who display resilience and overcome hardships.    So, are our schools preparing kids for success? Or are schools hindering children’s development? Do our schools encourage talent to blossom or do they tamp down and retard the potential for an explosion of creativity?    In 1983, Harvard University professor Howard Gardner taught us that humans possess multiple intelligences. Some people are great at math but not at writing. Others have natural musical ability but can’t get their arms around chemistry.    Gardner told us that all kids cannot learn in the same way, at the same rate, in the same subjects and cannot be tested in the same way. Yet we have foolishly ignored his teachings.    In 2002, the No Child Left Behind law was enacted. Ever since, we have behaved as if all kids learn each subject in the same way, at the same rate and can be tested with the same standardized tests.    How incredibly wrongheaded. But worse, the current high-stakes testing mania shortchanges millions of our children by inhibiting their creative juices.    The opportunity cost of laser-focus on standardized test scores is immeasurable. It doesn’t allow teachers to zoom in on the most salient talents of students because test scores are paramount, above all else, including the child’s total development.    So that leads to the question of what do we really want from our schools? Shouldn’t we want our schools to place a priority on helping all children develop their most important talents and to encourage and guide them in those endeavors?    But today, teachers can’t. A teacher’s job should be to help youngsters explore a wide variety of subjects and sharpen interests in subjects that excite and enthuse them. Yet teachers are not allowed.    It is not life-threatening if some kids receive C’s in math. Maybe they paint impressive pictures or play piano beautifully. Maybe writing skills are mediocre but math ability is superb.    Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. That’s life and we need to stop denying this simple truth. Instead of concentrating on kids’ weaknesses, let’s focus on their strengths.    Journalist Fareed Zakaria’s book, In Defense of a Liberal Education, explains that a broad liberal education can unlock human creativity and prepare students for the real world. It’s learning about Picasso and Warhol, Locke and Descartes, Marx and Smith, the Galapagos, Persia, Beethoven, Brubeck, trigonometry, calculus, Appomattox, the Crusades, Vonnegut, Freud, black holes, the Constitution, the courts, the periodic table, typing and how to fix a leaky faucet.    There is so much to learn, and so little time.    New York Times columnist David Brooks’ book, The Road to Character, describes “eulogy” virtues: kindness, bravery, honesty and faithfulness. Should we also be teaching these?    It is time to stop the enormous diversion of precious time devoted to standardized testing and unchain teachers to create their own individualized exams to determine what’s best for each student.    It is so obvious that when we prize the annual standardized test scores as the overriding, preeminent objective, then nothing else is important. In reality, the whole child is the real treasure.

Difficulty breathing?

How Close do You Live to America's Dirtiest Power Plants? | BillMoyers.com



Would you believe that only three of these are in Kentucky but we are surrounded by others.

Carpe Diem

Assad's cooperation with ISIS could push U.S. into Syria conflict - Middle East - - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News



If this account is true then it could be the opening for a realignment of alliances that would bring down Assad.  It may be possible to forge an effective coalition that would defeat ISIL and Syria.  That would still leave some radical organizations to make peace with but it may be a workable situation.  Interesting article.

Waiting For Hillary

I want to get this out of the way right up front. I think that Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most qualified person in my lifetime to be President of the United States. I also thought that eight years ago. Yes, I know that some of you will be reduced to apoplectic sputtering but I want to talk about that for just a bit.

To me, it has always been apparent that Hillary is the smart one of the Clinton Couple. Bill is the best politician I have ever seen but Hillary is the brains of that outfit. She is not only smart but has experience in the executive branch with special tasks that the First Lady gets to handle and she was not the average First Lady. She is steeped in foreign policy and knows every leader of consequence in the world. She has been Senator from New York, candidate for President, Secretary of State and now candidate once again. She has sat in the seats of power and been influential in and privy to momentous decisions. On some I think she was wrong. On most she was right. There were times she differed with President Obama and it was the President who made the right decision so she is certainly not flawless.

This upcoming campaign is going to be a mudslinging spectacle that will cost more than the budgets of most countries. People don't donate that kind of money without some expectation of getting something in return. Get over it. You've had a chance to enact campaign finance reform and you neglected to do it. Maybe someday we will get our fill of this chicanery. Sooner rather than later I hope. I do not relish the innuendo and outright falsehoods that will be hurled. I am going to try to ignore as much of it as I can with a temperament like mine. I will be happy to engage anyone on the issues but I will scorn character assassination from any quarter. So, just for a good time lets deal with some of the things that are going to be seen and heard as ominous voice overs for the next year and a half.

Benghazi. This topic is so worn that it has holes. Three committees from a Republican controlled House have investigated this topic and found the former Secretary had no part in a cover up, lack of oversight or failure to send help to the site of the tragedy. Now, a fourth one is gearing up to take advantage of the e-mails that are coming to light. We have representatives all over the world who are not accompanied by a Marine detachment. Benghazi is not an embassy, it is a consulate and does not command the same kind of force protection. Significant help could not have been delivered in the time frame of the attack and it was not denied. I know Fox News treats this as some kind of underground conspiracy designed to keep Barack Obama in power and, without saying what, demands that “something” be done. Cue Ollie North and that CIA guy that lied.

Iraq. She was wrong with her vote to attack Iraq. So was almost everyone else but that is no excuse. I realize that I am not the smartest guy in the world so if I can see something obvious then I know people smarter than me can too. In the aftermath of 9/11 it was a political vote. To be sure, evidence was misrepresented and fabricated but it was not too hard to see the truth. However, she has backed off that vote somewhat and spent a term executing President Obama's foreign policy and has, I think, become a bit wiser. I believe she is more hawkish than President Obama and I consider that a negative. Dog the Bounty Hunter sees it as a positive. However, I think her foreign policy would be much more considered than any of her potential opponents. It cannot be ignored that the actions of the United States and its allies in the aftermath of the invasion are what has given rise to ISIS. Actions have consequences.

Domestic Eavesdropping. Crazy as it sounds I am closer to Rand Paul's position than I am to President Obama's. No, it is not a sign of the approaching apocalypse, just my belief that we must accept a certain amount of uncertainty if we are to be a free people. There can be so such thing as absolute security in a democracy and we have willingly surrendered our freedoms on the altar of safety. I anxiously await to hear what candidate Clinton's official position will be on this matter.

Immigration. Or emigration, which is it? People have always moved in large numbers to escape persecution and in search of a better life for them and their families. As long as people are willing to live in a shadow economy it will continue to be so. It has to be recognized that we have absorbed those immigrants, illegal or otherwise, without any serious harm. We have done it throughout our history and it is a part of our heritage. On the plus side, if we have enough of them to pay into Social Security our safety net may survive. Hillary's position is one of acceptance and comprehensive reform of our immigration laws. It seems obvious that is the only way to go. We can't shoot them all or build a moat with alligators as some have suggested. The most effective deterrent against illegal immigration has been an improving economy in Mexico brought on by increased trade with the United States. Again, I'm not the smartest guy around but......................

Abortion and Gay Marriage. Hillary is on record as being for preserving the choice to terminate a pregnancy for the woman and her physician. This is a serious wedge issue and one that is the only issue to many. Her position is to keep abortion safe, legal and rare. The other option is to allow government to tell these women what they can do with their own bodies. It is a tough issue that is colored by emotion and faith. Do what you must on this one. Gay marriage is another wedge issue. These issues can be emotionally moving and can move large numbers of voters. Whether or not you consider homosexuality to be a sin it appears necessary to assure all citizens equal protection under the law. Faith can be your guide but is it proper to force your faith on someone else? Again, do what you must.

Of course, there are a lot of other issues. We must be willing to entertain all sorts of discussion on the issues but we owe it to our country (some would call it a sacred duty) to faithfully examine the issues to inform our vote. It should be our goal to balance the pros and cons and reach a reasoned decision but most of us won't.

My Take? Let me know about your thinking on the issues but spare me the harangues. I have been called quite a few names but I still love to rationally discuss issues. What I have found is that we have much more common ground than we realize.