The Insidious Disease

The Insidious Disease

Over the course of a year I talk to hundreds, if not thousands, of people. It is one of my favorite things about my job that I can stop to take a few minutes to engage people in conversation and get to know something about them. I suppose that over the past decade the most mentioned subject has been the opioid epidemic in which we find ourselves. I believe it is fair to say that, at least over the past few years, every family I speak to has a story to tell of a family member who has fallen into the grip of these drugs. A while back I thought the big drug was going to be methamphetamine but the oxycodone, Oxycontin, fentanyl, heroin group has surged into the lead. The pervasiveness of the drug abuse that we now see are far above any that I have witnessed in my lifetime and I was alive in the 60s. It is no misnomer to call it an epidemic. The despair that I see in the eyes of those who have lost loved ones or who have loved ones in its throes is heartbreaking. Every family.

A while back I was having a Facebook conversation with a friend of mine who pastors in an inner city environment. He is one of the finest men that I know and , with his wife, they make a great team. They would never surrender but over the past few years I have witnessed the struggle they are going through. Remaining unjudgemental after facing this issue and the related crime that accompanies it has been difficult and has taken a toll. The conversation we were having had to do with what agency is going to have to take the lead if we are to combat this addictive crisis. His argument was that churches are in the best position to take the lead and I agree with their unique ability to address the issue. What I said to him was that, even so, churches are unable or unwilling to take up the cross.

Don't take me wrong. There are some churches that are elbow deep in the battle and who are doing good work that is profitable. Celebrate Recovery is a wonderful church sponsored addiction recovery program that is reclaiming lives all over but the efforts by the churches are just not enough. Let's face it. Until this problem comes home to someone and takes on reality most people just want to be insulated from it. Some churches don't want to be associated with those sinful people who are so needy and, to be fair, there are quite a few people who won't attend church with them. Well, that's on them. My position in this discussion was that I agreed that even if churches become healers the problem is too great, too pervasive for them to handle. And, it has to be recognized that addicts are not too keen on being looked down on by the righteous and don't look there.

Government agencies are going to have to take the lead if the numbers are to be met. Why should we have to deal with those miscreants who brought it on themselves? Well, other than the milk of human kindness we have to recognize that each one of them is costing us money in crime, medical expenses and, in many cases, disposing of the remains after they die. Hospital emergency rooms are filled with overdoses costing the taxpayer millions of dollars. Surely we can do a better job of rescuing these people. We will hesitate not an instant to imprison the addicts on any charge we can think up but this does not address the issue and it costs tens of thousands of dollars to house an inmate per year.

What do we do? First we have to take an honest look at the socioeconomic issues that drive addiction. It is not just a character flaw. Just get over that depiction. People know what to do but the problem is funding. Too many politicians make hay over castigating the addict which does absolutely nothing to deal with the issue but makes great stump speeches and 10 second campaign ads. After recognizing the problem we must get the addict off the street but not in prison. Prisons are only schools for criminals. We must get them into treatment facilities but even that is not enough. If an addict gets clean he is still not healed. Without further help the recidivism rate is astronomical. The recovering

addict will have to be housed in a half-way house or some other kind of supervisory method for months. Those months must be used to teach the recovering addict skills he or she is going to need for living without drugs. Without that there is only hopelessness and a return to addiction. Even with all of these things there is a high possibility that the former addict will once again become addicted and have to go through the whole thing again. This is just the way it is. It is an insidious disease.

Here's the problem. It is going to take money and lots of it. It is going to take social workers in numbers large enough to make a difference. And it's going to take a change of attitudes from people who only wish to be rid of the addict. In the long run it will be a big money saver because we will save those medical costs, imprisonment costs and the cost of the accompanying crime. Look at it this way. It will probably cost way less than fighting senseless wars.

Here's My Take on this one. Let's fight the wars at home.

Is it "too late baby, now it's too late" ?

The Beginning is Now

I suspect that what we are seeing now is the beginning.

The U.S. Military is on record as stating that climate change is the biggest threat to our national

security. By avowing this they put themselves squarely in the sights of Congress which promptly forbade them from using any money for research. After all, what you don't know can't hurt you can it? The Navy is acutely aware of what climate change means for their naval bases and Army and Marine units feel the pinch of procuring diesel fuel for their forward bases. The are already sending solar units out with each deployment since the major use of electricity in the field is for air conditioning.

Climate change is affecting the barrier reefs around the world and contributing to a die off of species that depend on the reef for sustenance. Inevitably the result of this travels up the food chain and

creates shortages of the fish that so much of the globe's population depends on. Food sources that once sustained inter-generational families now can't and those who can are forced to move on for work so they can feed the families.

What does this mean? Of what is it the beginning? Much of the news of the past couple of years has been about the migration of Asians and Africans to Europe. Only a small percentage are fleeing the ravages of war. The majority are fleeing their homes because they can no longer sustain life there. Climate change has already made such a difference in these formerly marginally sustainable areas that the tipping point has been reached. When people are hungry or distressed they will eventually seek out a place where their lives can be better.

Our recent election season was dominated by xenophobia and racism toward the migrants that have come from south of our border to try to find a part of the American dream. Most are eager and hard-working people who will be an advantage to our country but more important are the reasons for which they are moving. In the countries from which they come there is little economic opportunity and where that is happening there are often totalitarian governments that are corrupt or a lack of governmental control over safety. In many the economy is based on illegal drug trafficking and if one does not cooperate they are murdered. Guatemala and Nicaragua are destitute countries that

contribute to the illegal migration across our borders. Mexico is troubled by cartels that make it impossible to live a normal life. In England we have seen xenophobia rise too as a motive to exit the European Union. As in the United States victory for the exit was fed by the premise that the migrants are responsible for the loss of low skill jobs that have been lost to other factors. In France the right wing extremists led by Marion LePen have a decent shot at overthrowing the present government using xenophobia as an issue. Austria has just rejected the opportunity to bring a more authoritarian government to power as has Italy. Turkey, long a bulwark against jihadists, is now becoming more authoritarian under Prime Minister Erdogan. Even thought there are other issues that demand attention the appeal to racism and nationalism threatens to undo democratic societies all around the globe. The point here is that these people are on the move because, as one factor, climate change has made their homes impossible to live in.

The loss of subsistence fishing in the area around the South China Sea and Malay peninsula is forcing people off their homes and into cities. In this area alone there are 333 million people under threat of rising sea levels caused by climate change. In China we are seeing a more autocratic leadership that is strengthening the bonds of the ruling Communist Party. China sees a future in which natural resources are more critical and are attempting to secure domination of their future supply chain. With well over a billion people Chinese leaders understand what could happen when a restive populace begins to move. Recently we have seen Russia attempting to regain a foothold in the Middle East not only to assure oil supplies but also to gain access to warm water ports from which to import and export. Right here is the main reason you see confrontation between these superpowers and the United States and it is the main reason the United States can't just withdraw from these areas.

One can deny that climate change is brought on by human activity or not but that does not change the facts on the ground that it is happening. The question is what will we do. Instead of preparation would we prefer altercation? Is war preferable to developing technologies that we already have to provide us with critical energy supplies. If you wonder why authoritarians want to increase the size of the military look no further. These people aren't stupid, they just lack imagination and a commitment to democratic government.

Many are under the mistaken perception that wars are fought over ideology and conquest and that is a mistaken perception. Wars are fought over economic advantages and access to raw materials. The days of Alexander the Great and Charlemagne are gone. Nobility has nothing to do with war. It is a

dollars and cents game and climate change is going to raise the stakes. Whether or not we can whip the Russians or Chinese makes no difference since the outcome is the same. Climate change is not going to be a respecter of nations, democratic, totalitarian or communistic. What climate change will do is eat up more and more of the dollars available to create a more equitable nation and put us and each others throats for mere survival. It has potential to destroy civilization and in the end, possibly bring extinction.

Some say that it is foretold, the end of the ages. My Take is that we better plan as if that is not true.

Schadenfreude

Schadenfreude

enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others

Ah, schadenfreude! How do I love thee, let me count the ways.

Ah, schadenfreude. What say you now residents of the Appalachian coal fields to the reports that it is none other than that ardent defender of King Coal, Senator Mitch McConnell, that is preventing funds from being used to prop up your pensions that are being abandoned by, you guessed it, King Coal. You may recall that it was Hillary Clinton who proposed that a billion dollars be set aside to assist the out of work miners but she made the error of saying that lots of coal miners are going to lose their jobs. Never mind that the phrase was taken out of context. Never mind that it is economic forces that are closing the mines. Never mind that all of the easy coal is gone.

Ah, schadenfreude. Now that the pensions are closing out medical care promised in the miner's contracts where will health care come from? Will it be from the stripped down, more economical system that our Governor Bevin is creating. Will the substitute for the ACA promised but not written be generous to the economically depressed? Will it cover pre-existing conditions in the way that the ACA required? But be joyous because County Clerk Kim Davis will not be required to do her job under the law and issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. Was the vote worth the cost? You decide.

Ah, schadenfreude. All of you denizens of remote areas will likely now be able to get a voucher that will allow you to choose the best school for your children even if it is in Lexington or Louisville. No matter that charter schools will deprive public school systems of funding. You'll be doing your part by giving a superior education to those fortunate ones while your own children limp along without textbooks and technology.

Ah, schadenfreude. The throngs of disquieted voters so anxious to “drain the swamp” and rid

Washington, D.C. of the professional political class can now look forward to one of the most politicized administrations in memory. The news is that Elaine Chao, wife of our vaunted Senator Mitch McConnell, is now nominated to head Transportation. Dare we suppose it is a move to keep the Majority Leader in check, beholden to a Trump administration? Or, how about Mr. Establishment

Add caption

himself, the chair of the Republican National Committee Reince Priebus as Chief of Staff? I suspect that the courting of Mitt Romney is a charade for the fans to see when he is rejected. Each Department is being headed by someone that comes with an agenda so disruptive that chaos is sure to follow. How will you respond when your favorite federal program comes under attack? Did you fall asleep during that part of the lecture?

Ah, schadenfreude. You, the average Joe, the everyday taxpayer who loudly cried out for the CEO who was going to lower the debt and deficit by cutting taxes for the rich (that's starting to sound like an echo) and growing the economy by negotiating all of those jobs back from Mexico, Sri Lanka, China, Vietnam, etc. Tell me again how that is supposed to happen.

Ah, schadenfreude. Those who have been so angry at the vultures on Wall Street, the only class to have survived the Great Recession without harm, will be able to be found sated when the regulations that were put in place to protect those who have a mortgage and who wish to purchase a new vehicle are stripped of their teeth and it's back to business as usual. Won't that be just what the doctor ordered?

Ah, schadenfreude. Not to forget you blue collar workers who have been treated so badly (and yes you have) when those manufacturing jobs return stateside to their former habitat along the Great

Lakes. How great will it be when those factories once again are pushing product but the hiring signs are still not up because the job you used to do is now done by a robot who will work harder, longer, cheaper and who never sleeps or goes on vacation or has babies. But you still have your union to protect you. Oh, never mind. No, you don't.

Ah, schadenfreude. Last but certainly not least are the politicians who allowed this beast to feed at the trough of resentment. You thought you could just throw it a bone and it would happily retreat to its den but it is apparent that you have miscalculated. The beast is now the master and you must either cow before it or join those who have been swept along by the tide. When you write your book you can proclaim your ingeniousness that was displayed when you neglected the nation's business to advance your political fortunes. How fortunate you are, perhaps you will not be made to suffer. Unless, of course, you have a conscience.

My Take is that there will be little pleasure taken from this exercise in self-destruction. The impact of the things that we are now compelled to face will not be limited to those who chose it but will also fall on those who did not choose it. Such is the nature of democracy.

Insanity Redux

Insanity Redux

Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad

Euripides

I don't think Euripides was talking about really ticking people off. He was probably talking about making them insane. In some cases there may not be a lot of difference.

I had my own “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN” moment a day or so prior to the election when I tendered a column with Hillary Clinton as the President-elect. My editor was kind enough to suggest that it might take some reworking. I replied that I didn't think just a reworking would do the trick. Of course, being an opinion writer I have certainly held many opinions since the election but I hope that I have reached a stage of life where wisdom has overtaken youthful exuberance. Don't get me wrong. I would trade it all for another go at youthful exuberance but that's not the way it works so wisdom it is. I am acutely aware that many of you will laugh mirthfully at the idea of me having any wisdom and that my heart is broken because of the realities of the election. I'm going to try to put down a few of my thoughts and feelings and then I will move on.

After last Tuesday I couldn't bring myself to even watch the news because it was too painful to consider Donald Trump as President. After a few days Juanita expressed some concern at my quietude and said “you act like there's been a death in the family.” I told her that is exactly what my feelings were like. That I was mourning the likely death of all of the progress that we had fought so hard to achieve, tiny bits at a time, over the last 50 years of an active, politically aware life. Voting rights under attack not only in the south but in Wisconsin of all places. Civil rights being threatened by white supremacist rhetoric and hateful acts on display using Nazi symbols. Equal rights ignored with Muslims the focus of hate speech and hijabs being pulled off. Alliances built over 75 years given cause for fear of abrogation. The signature program of President Obama, the Affordable Care Act, threatened with instant repeal throwing 21 million people out of access to health care again. Mass deportation of people seeking the American Dream. Greater focus on militarism with more resources going into the war making machine. Promises to bring back coal mining and blue collar jobs, both of which are spurious promises because those jobs do not and cannot exist any longer. Automation has done them in and natural gas has pushed coal out of the market. Then to cap it off, a rejection of the science that supports climate change and a return to reliance on fossil fuels. Then I told her the kicker. I likely won't live long enough to see the return of these advances in our society.

Truthfully, I believe that it won't be long before Social Security and Medicare are under attack leaving the disabled and elderly in the place they were in 1932. These are the stated goals of the President-elect and the people who swept him into office. I don't think for a minute that the millions that voted for him considered the ramifications of their votes. I believe that they saw, correctly I might add, that their government had allowed the people's welfare to decline while more and more power and money rose to the top. Donald Trump promised to bring back the jobs and they said “what the hell” let's give him a shot.

I hope he does well. I hope he is able to proceed with the giant infrastructure programs that he has touted. I don't even care if it was President Obama's proposal and that the Republican Congress that promised to not allow him to do anything can take credit for it. I hope he is able to create middle class jobs by using the same tactics that Presidents Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 used. It bears mentioning that those tax plans and the Great Recession are what generated the multi-trillion dollar debt we now enjoy and that President-elect Trump's plans are projected to create another 10 trillion dollar hole. I hope that's wrong and I live long enough to see those fruits.

I understand the disenchantment with our government but I believe that it was largely caused by the refusal of Congress to work across the aisle to accomplish things our country needs. But what probably bothers me most is knowing that there are that many people that will endure the racist, misogynistic, threatening words of the President-elect and vote for him anyway.

My Take is that the best we can hope for is that he is as faithful to the truth in keeping his promises as he was truthful on the campaign trail. To steal a quote, “better buckle your seat belts, it's going to get a little bumpy.”

rmoore@somerset-kentucky.com

I thought that DT did much better as far as temperament and he actually engaged on policy although with a lack of depth.  His response to the question about accepting the validity of the election was a moment that could hurt him.  HRC was her usual stone cold self, absolutely prepared and able to ward off attacks that could have upset her.  She scored on the question of what she had been doing for the past 30 years compared to Trump.  Overall I don't think DT gained any support and could have lost a bit from the ranks of the disgruntled Republicans.  It is possible that HRC could have gained a little from those who were still undecided assuming there are any of those left.  There was plenty of fodder for DT to hurl at HRC from the recent events but he failed to take advantage of that by using his time to defend his honor.  DTs campaign is in free fall and his only hope of salvaging a possible landslide is to be the biggest and meanest dog on the block.  I expect HRC to go high and let him bark.

Duterte as Trump

Duterte as Trump (Trump as Duterte)

In recent news Donald Trump is reported to be be planning a trip to China taking 400 leaders from the business world with him to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping. He says make money, not war. This after rebuffing President Obama's overtures to strengthen alliances between the Philippines and the United States that were to be a response to Chinese assertion of property rights over the South China Sea. OK. You probably realized that this wasn't making much sense because Donald Trump doesn't have anything to do with the Philippines or China as far as we know. He might. We just don't know. Check the National Enquirer.

Rodrigo Duterte is the President of the Philippines and an avowed hater, well, maybe just a severe disliker, of the United States due to some CIA incident that happened while he was governor of Mindanao. I just noticed that the resemblance to our own Donald Trump was remarkable. Duterte has browbeat his way into the Filipino equivalent of the White House using tactics very much like what Trump has campaigned on. He has launched a campaign of terror against drug users and traffickers with thousands of them reportedly having been killed. In response to criticism he barked that he “didn't give a s**t about human rights which puts him squarely in line with Trump's pronouncements of what law enforcement would look like after his election. Also, he has called President Obama some derogatory names that can get your butt kicked in these parts if used. But, even at that they are short of what Trump's supporters are calling him.

As a part of the pivot toward Asia that President Obama has desired the strengthening of alliances with many of the Pacific Rim countries was central to its accomplishment. Part of the reason is to act as a deterrent to imperialistic aims of the Chinese to assert dominance over the South China Sea which abuts American allies Japan, Korea, The Philippines and Vietnam and some other smaller nations including Taiwan which China regards as a renegade province. If superiority of the seas is accomplished in the South China Sea it leaves all of those countries subject to Chinese domination and military adventurism. Especially Taiwan with which we are treaty bound to render aid. Of course, with Trump as President he would probably insist that the United States get a check before rendering aid.

The Philippine Islands have been central to American operations in the South Pacific since the Spanish-American war rendered them subject to the United States. Even after WWII the Philippines hosted our armed forces with Naval bases and facilities for conducting surveillance flights over China. It has been the aim of the United States to reopen some bases that were closed and to project power to a greater extent in the South China Sea and other waters around Southeast Asia. Duterte has thrown a pipe wrench into those plans but the United States asserts that the people of the Philippines have a long standing relationship with the United States and will not allow that to happen. Duterte thinks otherwise and seeks to form alliances with the elephant in the region by sticking a finger in the eye of the nation that he has a serious dislike for. I know, you thought everyone loved us and wanted to be us but that may not always be true. After all, we did prop up a dictator in the country for decades before he was toppled by a democratic movement and people have a way of not forgetting stuff like that. Just ask the Iranians.

So, here we are in the most developed nation in the world, envied by all and enduring a campaign that has as a major party candidate a person that can be favorably compared to a butt kicking President of what we refer to as a third world country. The only thing keeping us from tumbling into a similar stew is the couple of centuries of adherence to the rule of law and not of men however appealing that might be so some. In less than a month we will begin the peaceful transition of power from one person to another just as we have done dozens of times. We can count on that but it does not have to be true. Words do matter and irresponsible allegations of rigged elections and massive voter fraud do little to preserve that peace and instead encourage violent extremism if the vote doesn't go as desired. That, in and of itself, is enough to disqualify one from any opportunity to wield power in the name of the United States of America. If that were the only fault one could possibly excuse Trump. No. One couldn't. That is enough.

Less than 3 weeks to go. Hang on. We can do it.

Hard Rain

Hard Rain

And it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard, and it's a hard
It's a hard rain's a-gonna fall.

Nobel Prize winner Bob Dylan

I know that I speak for most people when I say that I am weary of this Presidential campaign and anxiously await the remnants to pass.

I am amazed and dismayed at the number of people who have made the campaign of Donald Trump possible. I just was not aware there were that many people who approved of these kinds of actions and statements still around. Oh, our country has always had it's share of nativists (considering the plight of the original native Americans this may be an inaccurate characterization) but they were for the most part aware that the overt expression of their sympathies were unacceptable in most circles. Even the South has come to understand and acknowledge the deplorable nature of the offenses against those whose skin was a different color.

What this campaign has done is to provide a vehicle for those latent prejudices and give cover for them to be expressed publicly under the guise of political expression. They are still deplorable and they represent a step backwards on our march forward to realize what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.” Things that previously would have been a death knell for a political campaign have become acceptable to people who would before have never allowed those words in their houses. They would never have allowed their children to hear them. I have seen interviews on television with political correspondents who say they won't allow their children to view the debates for fear of unacceptable behavior. People who preach the love of Jesus on Sunday preach the hate of exclusion and fear the rest of the week. Aren't we told that Jesus loves us all? How long will it be before we can restore civility of any amount to political discourse?

To be sure, there are actual issues in this campaign. They are numerous but only one candidate is talking about them. Well, three if you consider the few direct policy statements of Mr. Johnson and Ms. Stein. Mr. Trump never proposes policy, he just rails against whomever speaks ill of him. He promises change but fails to say what kind. He says our jobs have fled and says he will begin trade wars to bring them back. The facts do not support that. Yes, jobs have gone overseas but manufacturing is up. The repetitive jobs that used to be done on the assembly line are now done by robots and will not return in any case. Diplomacy has, to a large degree, kept our armed forces from being put in harm's way even if we still engage in foreign wars from which we seem to be unable to extract ourselves. Radical terrorism can't be defeated on the battlefield because it is not a state or country or person. It is an idea and one that we feed by continuing to be at war with people who can say we are enemies of their faith. Mr. Trump says that he will bomb the s**t out of them on national television but aren't we already doing that? His is a campaign of anger unable and unwilling to engage in debates of substance because he doesn't have a clue what he will do if he attains the office of the most powerful person in the world. I ask you to consider what would happen if he orders the military to take some dreadful action and the military realizes the insanity of that order and refuses to obey which surely some would. It would precipitate a constitutional crisis the likes of which we have never seen.

I have watched the career of Hillary Clinton ever since she showed up with Bill in 1991 I suppose. That is 35 years of me and a whole lot of other people paying attention to her every move. Why? Simply because she has done a lot of stuff. Senator from New York for 8 years, candidate for the Presidency in 2008 and she filled the role of Secretary of State when President Obama, who defeated her in the primaries, asked her to commit to that national service. Now she has spent the recent years preparing for another run at the Presidency. Stamina? Are you kidding me? The woman has more stamina than a marathon runner. But as a result of all that national service she has a long record of public performance to examine. I haven't always been pleased with her actions. She is a bit too militaristic to suit me and too chummy with Wall Street. But she is still the most qualified person to stand for the Presidency in my lifetime. I am confident that she will do some things that irritate me, maybe even make me angry. If she does I'll use this space to let you know. Right now there are some issues that need to be settled.

She has a history of being able to work across the aisle to get results. That means she is going to tick some hard core liberals off. Such is the price of compromise and governing. What matters is that she continues the demanding work of staying on course to a more equal and progressive future. In this neck of the woods that is looked upon with disfavor but you might be surprised at how attitudes are changing. We need to reach a balance with Russia and China in order that we can devote our energies to rebuilding our infrastructure. It is critical that we be more aggressive in developing green energy before China or Germany does and then sell it to the world. Climate change is the invisible elephant that has the potential to unsettle governments and societies all over the world and we have already wasted the time that we could have acted without too much pain. The pain is going to come and we must have a population and government ready to deal with it.

I have no illusions that Hillary Clinton will carry Pulaski County or even the state of Kentucky but that is to our detriment. Recent events have clarified the choice. Compare the Republican candidate with any President in your memory and he is not in that class.

My Take is we are less than a month away from a momentous election. One that Mr. Trump is already claiming to be rigged but you know better. You really do.

Think With Your Brain

Have you ever wondered what a candidate's proposal might look like in real life? I know I do. When one or the other says he or she will do something after being elected one must take that with a grain of salt because we don't yet live in a dictatorship. There is a cumbersome process of being debated (or not) in the House of Representatives and the Senate, coming up with some legislation that pleases both houses and then submission to the President for signature (or not).

Donald Trump says he has a secret plan to end the war in Syria (where have we heard that before)? When asked what he would do different from what we are doing he replied that he would bomb the s**t out of them. He has a way with words. Consider that we are already bombing them to death but in a way that minimizes deaths of innocent civilians. To just engage in a campaign of bombing that would reduce Raqaa to rubble would not destroy ISIL because you can't bomb an idea to death. What you can do is increase hatred of the United States to the point that recruitment to ISIL would explode and then what? Would we send in the 101st followed by a hundred thousand boots. Could we even win this war on the border of Russia without it getting out of hand? Seems we just tried that in the neighboring country and should have learned the lesson but, still, some persist in that demonstrably catastrophic thinking.

Hillary Clinton says that she would support those who are fighting against the Assad regime and ISIL. The problem is that most of those fighting Assad are aligned with either Al Nusra or ISIL. Even the cease fire weakly in place right now is dealing with those alliances. As the old Arab saying is quoted, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” What is so hard to understand about that? As with Iraq there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria which is driving refugees to emigrate anywhere that they stand a chance of not being killed. Once there they are vilified until they also begin to hate those in the countries they fled to.

One thing is clear. Unless we are willing to take on the Russians and the Iranians we can't engage in all out war and why would we even want to? Haven't we seen enough trillions of dollars and lives disappear into the maw of Middle Eastern conflict? Finding a path through negotiation is the only path that doesn't drag us down with with all the others. As much as I hate to concede to the dictatorial butcher that leads that country it may be that we have to leave him in power in order to pursue the path that is important to our national security. With any degree of luck maybe we will learn this oft repeated lesson for another 50 years.

Most of us tend to think simply. There's the enemy, go whoop him and come on back. Problem is that we can do that because another will rise in its place just as ISIL grew out of the persecution of the Sunnis in Iraq. The simple, blustery threats and answers are just implausible and will not work.

Turning to the economy. Figures released this week indicate that wages are up, poverty is down and the crises inflicted by the Great Recession are beginning to ease. Tell that to those ex-factory workers in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Or the ex-workers at Fruit of the Loom in Jamestown. There is still plenty of pain to go around. Stocks are way up but for those not invested in the stock market that makes little difference. The question is how do we get money into the hands of the middle class consumer? Donald Trump fires off the same old tired proposals of lower corporate taxation which will create jobs, etc. except that we've tried that multiple times since 1980 and the average worker hasn't had a raise in real income since then. However, lower corporate taxation may work if it is coupled with an elimination of corporate welfare in the form of loopholes. He swears that annual growth will be 3.5% but gives absolutely no indication of how he intends to get there. His proposals were going to create a 10 trillion dollar hole in the budget over the next 10 years so he cut back on some of the tax cuts and now it will only cost 2 trillion dollars. He says he's going to bring those manufacturing jobs back to America but can't tell us how. The days of a high school education being enough to land a good assembly line job are over. Robotics has replaced those monotonous task workers so that even if manufacturing comes back to these shores the jobs won't. Those former workers are obsolete but that does not diminish our responsibility to them. We owe them training for a new economy and support to replace those jobs lost in order to increase market share for our companies. We have failed at that because there are those who refuse to fund those programs. Instead they cling to failed ideology that the free market will mysteriously find the best way. Well, it has and that way does not include assembly line workers.

Hillary Clinton, to her credit, recognizes this and understands that we will need to train present and future workers to work in an economy that will be increasingly technological and service oriented. She understands that the economy has to create industry that can't be duplicated elsewhere such as energy generation and advanced industrial practices. She also understands that what would help more in the now is investment in our crumbling infrastructure which has gone neglected for over 30 years. The jobs there will include a lot of labor jobs for those who choose not to retrain or for those who do not see that advanced education is for them. Millions of jobs could be created almost instantly and the stimulating effect on the economy would be immense.

What are the candidate's proposing? Do their proposals make sense? Are they detailed or they just bluster? To me the answer is clear.

My Take on this one is that you may have to think with your brain on this one. Emotional considerations wont' get the job done.

The Evolutionary Path

Sometimes I feel like I am becoming cynical in my dotage. Fortunately there are still enough pleasant surprises to foil my falling into a cynicism laced miasma. Recently I was chewing the fat (which is maybe my best skill) with a Mennonite gentleman for whom I had done some work. When you do work for a Mennonite you can rest assured that he has already done everything he knows to do and only the hard stuff is left. Anyway, our conversation turned to matters more esoteric and I said to him that I had decided my true calling was to be a philosopher. He looked at me seriously and asked why I thought that and I told him that I thought about things a lot and that it didn't require a degree as far as I knew. He asked me what kind of things I thought about and I told him that my philosophical musings took me far and wide. He nodded sagely and said, “me, too.”

Many of you know that my musings often take a political tack. I don't think of them as overtly political but more of a social consciousness nature. Being of a certain philosophical mindset those dissonant thoughts often coalesce into a form that is misunderstood by many and ridiculed by quite a few too.

My entire life I have believed that humans are innately capable of being rational people and if one's arguments are cogent and persuasive enough that one's mind could be changed. I have begun to call that premise into question. I have encountered quite a number of people who refuse to accept rationality and instead cling to a notion and seem incapable of being swayed. When I present a premise or argument it is as if I have said nothing and when pressed for facts to support their premise they seem to be able to offer either nothing or something easily refuted. The percentage of minds I have been able to change is so small as to be infinitesimal. Now I know that you may say that I always think I am right and that is absolutely true. But I also believe that I am capable of changing my mind when faced with irrefutable facts that demand a different position.

There has been a lot written about the human mind and how our minds reach conclusions that are strongly held. Much of it is attributed to an ancient inclination to tribalism which was at one time an evolutionary survival trait. We banded together to increase our safety and to repel others who would endanger us. We are unaware of it usually but we still retain many of those traits it being that we simply have not had enough time to begin to lose those traits. The evolution of inherent traits can often take much longer than we have had time to change. Given that argument, and it seems reasonable, our notion of free will and our ability to make rational choices in self governance can be called into question. I suspect that in time our inclination to tribalism will wane and we will become evolutionarily more equipped to tasks that involve making decisions beyond those that affect us directly and which may require us to view benefits of a society as a whole.

I am faced with this dilemma in our current political discourse. To me one position is logical and supported by facts and the competing argument is ruled by emotion. It is never as simple as that but it seems that many are unable to bring cognition to bear and will reject any attempt to query them about their references.   Often only by asserting the falsity of the other. My lifelong assumption of innate rationality seems to be in error and if it is then what are we to make of our lauded ability to decide our own paths? Is it simply evidence of an evolutionary path that will eventually lead us either to a better existence or return us to a prior state? An evolutionary dead end so to speak.

Often I speculate on the FOUNDERS. I place that word in all caps to emphasize the reverence in which we hold them. They were mighty thinkers, products of the relatively new period of enlightenment but it should be remembered that much of their discourse took place in taverns over copious quantities of ale and that is fertile soil for grandiose thoughts. However, they led us to revolution which we celebrate as the throwing off the yoke of King George but which was in many cases just rattling over philosophy. It is estimated that at the beginning of the Revolutionary War only about a third of the people really wanted to separate from Great Britain. Most thought things were pretty good if the Brits would just let us ply our trade as we wished and have a little self governance. We all know how that turned out and the grand experiment in self governance began. No matter how we gussy it up it still comes down to opinions strongly held whether valid or not. We have made decent choices as often as not and I suspect it is the moribund state of bureaucracy that keeps the wheels from flying off. Self governance seems to be guided by the law of averages that allows us to be right as often as not. How I wish there existed a means of debating these great questions in order to winnow out the chaff and bring revelation to light but we have yet to develop the political will to do it.

My Take is that it takes great perseverance to pursue the path of vision and not succumb to the comfort of tribalism. What are your thoughts on this matter?

Party Politics

Debbie Wasserman Shultz.

There is lots of furor right now over the behavior of the current Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Shultz. From what I can tell it's the people who supported Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination that are the most offended. Bernie has been alleging unequal treatment by the committee for quite some time and it appears he was right. It comes as no surprise to me now and I found it a credible accusation then given that Clinton and Wasserman Shultz are friends. I don't know if it was direct discrimination but I'm sure there was at least a passive preference by the DNC for Hillary Clinton. The DNC is supposed to equally support all Democratic candidates without preference but there is a little more to the imbroglio than that.

Bernie is a registered Independent who caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate. Why does he do this? Why doesn't he just go it alone? The reason is that there is advantage in allies, in having numbers of people who will help you further your goals. Bernie declared as a Democrat and was allowed to campaign as a Democrat by the DNC. The DNC did not have to allow this but it did. Bernie was permitted to participate in the debates as a Democrat and to seek delegates as a Democrat. Why didn't he just do it as an Independent? Because it would have been impossible to have participated as a major candidate that way. He chose to forego that route and be governed by DNC rules which he found to be somewhat stifling.

Now, unfair though it may be, there were those in the DNC who did not see Bernie as a true Democrat. He had not placed himself on the line for Democratic causes and Democratic candidates. Most of the time he was not even a Democrat so it is easy to understand why a person charged with furthering the aims of the Democratic Party may not be so obliging. On the other hand, Hillary has a long history of supporting Democratic causes and candidates and has raised gobs of money for the party. When one looks at the issue in this light the picture becomes a bit clearer. Debbie Wasserman Shultz's aim is to put a Democrat in the White House and a Democrat that is clearly defined as a Democrat. Her assessment was that Bernie could not win and Hillary could.

So, what did the DNC do that created disadvantage for the Bernie Brigade? Things like scheduling debates, publicity and maybe even pressure to drop out. But Bernie has run a remarkable campaign that has energized young voters and new voters and has managed to raise millions of dollars from largely small contributions. It was the kind of campaign that we like to think is still possible and the Bernie Brigade feels cheated. Well, they were. Maybe not cheated out of the nomination because he was trounced in the South and lost some other very significant contests but perhaps cheated out of some deserved dignity and respect.

But the real issue here is not that Bernie was disrespected and cheated but, rather, the state of party politics in the USA these days. Political parties came about quite early in the history of the republic. John Adams was notoriously against them but Jefferson and others saw the advantage of banding together to increase power to nominate. The lust for power and the advantages of having allies led to political parties and we have had them ever since. For the most part it has been a contest between two parties whatever they may have been called unlike our cousins across the sea and to the north who use an parliamentary system in which many parties can flourish and compromises are made to bring about a majority. I don't see that as any better than ours and perhaps more disruptive. Parties have worked fairly well. Until recently the leaders of the parties were able to enforce adherence to party objectives and legislation but with the death of earmarks and the rise of instant communication the means of discipline and the surety of being discovered have had a profound influence.

Not being able to reward compliant members with earmarks has freed the legislators to seek reward in another way and that way has been by massive lobbying forces that define a legislative preference and fund it with unseen cash. Those who will not align themselves with the lobbyists suddenly find themselves the subjects of negative campaigns and a lack of money with which to mount a campaign.

It seems that the bugaboo is the money that corrupts the campaigning and legislative processes. Without those influences the legislators and campaigners would have to actually plead for the approval of the voters which, ideally, is the way it is supposed to work. The parties can be seen to facilitate legislation for without them there would be endless debate and a great din of voices. The parties allow for the movement of legislation when there may be enough support that it has a chance of succeeding. But these processes have also been corrupted by House and Senate rules of self governance which may prevent debate and amendments. The so called Hastert rule which forbids the GOP from bringing a vote on any issue without a majority of that caucus is a stumbling block that prevents non-partisan agreement. Whoever in control of the Senate controls what comes up for debate and what does not. Harry Reid was notorious for that and the GOP now won't allow debate to confirm a Supreme Court nomination. The rules must be changed.

My Take is that Debbie Wasserman Shultz is simply the face of a more divisive problem. The cancer of campaign funding and the archaic rules of the House and Senate. Change these and the problem goes away.

Tragedy and Confusion

The killings, whatever name you call them by, in St. Paul, Baton Rouge and Dallas are horrendous. The overload of the killings occurring on successive days boggled the mind and made it very difficult to express oneself without allowing prejudices to play a part. If you will look and examine each incident you will see that the relevant issues are few and they are the same issues that we have been struggling with for several years now.

Firstly look at “Black Lives Matter.” The name does not suggest that only black lives matter but that they matter as much as others. The incidence of police assaults and killing of African-Americans is statistically much higher than with Caucasians. The assertion that there is a different standard of treatment for African-Americans seems to be obvious. This proven fact is the central point of conflict in our recent violence. We have seen African-Americans stopped, manhandled and killed. Even when the person is guilty of a crime the level of violence used to subdue the suspect is over the top. In many cases it seems clear that a deescalation of violent maneuvers was possible and the choice was made to use force and even when force has been used it has culminated in deadly force. In some cases it appears that deadly force was applied when there was no actual threat.

It has to be made clear that police are the protectors of the people and guardians of a civilized society. They should be part of that society and not enemies of it. The people should be able to look on them with respect and appreciation and most, by far, do just that. But the police are thrust into situations that causes them to act in a fraction of a second and make the right decision. Is that decision influenced by a miscalculation of racial threat? It seems to be just that.

In the use of deadly force the police are held to a standard that seems ridiculously low. In most jurisdictions it is only necessary that the officer genuinely fear for his life. In Cleveland, St. Paul, Baton Rouge, Baltimore and other cities it appears disingenuous to claim that standard was a reality. But the perception of fear by the officer seems to be the linchpin. The bar should be higher than that. It is a rare occasion that a police officer has been held to have responded illegally. Yes, it's a job fraught with danger. Yes, decisions must be made in a split second. But those decisions must be right. If the police are perceived by the people as using one standard for Caucasians and another for African-Americans then the relationship between the police and the people falls apart.

The shootings of the police officers in Dallas weren't caused by Black Lives Matter except as it existed in the mind of this one African-American ex-soldier. In his mind, however deranged it was, it was time to take the battle to the streets. Black Lives Matter has been a largely non-violent movement focused on gaining equality of treatment under the law. What we saw in Dallas was murder but in the mind of the murderer it was revolution against the oppressive white society. What we see with the Black Lives Matter movement is revolution also but one that expresses non-violence.

So, the goal of the Black Lives Matter movement has been clouded by the actions of a black man in Dallas. What he did was no service to the movement, rather it has harmed it by inciting more hate of the African-American community. They are not to blame. In Dallas the police surrendered their lives to protect those participating in the Black Lives Matter march and that is as it should be. They gave their blood and lives to protect the people. They deserve great honor but it must not cause us to be lax in our pursuit of justice for all.

If we can put away our spite and dangerous rhetoric long enough it is critical that we, as a people, discuss and determine what kind of force we are going to accept to keep the peace and protect the people. Angry voices and racial bias must be put aside in an effort to come up with some usable and enforceable standards for proper use of police force. The inequality of the application of force must not be allowed to continue to exist. This is not a battle between conservatives and liberals, law enforcement and crime or cops and people. It is a matter of public justice and equality for all. It is serious business and we must deal with it without the usual partisan clownishness that we so often see.

It bears mentioning that the weapon used was not an assault type weapon as we currently think of them. It did hold 10 rounds and it would be better if the limit was 5. But we have to recognize that without that gun those people are still alive. All of them. But, in addition to this there is the matter of using a robot to deliver a bomb. No matter how you color it this was the use of a drone to kill an American citizen on American soil. How long before some agency flies a little helicopter in the window to kill someone? Lots of people say we must have guns in order to be able to revolt against an oppressive government. My Take is this. This is what revolution looks like.

 No Jail for Hillary

The Hillary Haters have had a tough couple of years. The outcome of eight (count 'em) investigations by various committees have cleared her of any culpability in the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others. Now comes the investigation by the FBI of the issue of her using a private server to handle her emails and it also finds that there is no evidence of anything warranting prosecution. If Social Media is any indication the Democrats won't have to worry about Trump winning the election in November. By then most Republicans with any passion will have died from heart attacks or dehydration from all the frothing at the mouth.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (rep) S.C.

There is no point in trying to use rationale and reasoning to point out the factors that led to these decisions. The Hillary Haters are not interested in rationale, they will be satisfied with nothing short of blood. The GOP allowed the fringe elements to provide the passion for their party under the false assumption that they could be controlled. They had no idea that there were so many of them until they started losing their own jobs. According to Donald Trump they ain't seen nothing yet. Those dastardly Republicans who have not become part of his fawning posse are targeted and have no chance at being reelected due to their reticence according to his edict.

There have been interviews done and articles written explaining how the presumption of innocence and the pesky thing about proof bear on the decisions made by those who are charged with that task. It is not enough just to take Rush Limbaugh at his word (why would anyone do that) or to believe that Sean Hannity is anyone even approaching a reputable source. Allegations don't do the trick no matter how many times you say them.

FBI Director Comey

Director Comey, who was an Assistant Attorney General under President Bush 43 proved to me that he is not beholden to any political power when he refused to be bullied by Presidential Counselor Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card into signing off of the legal justification for acts of torture committed under President Bush's administration. Only a man with a righteous sense of justice could face down that kind of pressure. It is to his commendation that President Obama appointed him Director of the FBI at a time when uncommon ability was required and he has acquitted himself honorably. I have disagreed with some of his statements but never his reasoned judgment. Now, because he once again did the honorable thing, he is called before Congress like a schoolboy to take a whipping and he took it with honor maintaining his composure and confidence. Legislators who once covered him with praise now accuse him of succumbing to the mysterious, magical power of the Clintons and soiling his pristine reputa

tion. The spectacle is nauseating to watch and a poor example to the world of what our political system is capable of. And now it seems that everyone on Social Media is an expert in investigations along with being a Constitutional scholar.

No, it will do no good to try to reason with these people. They are already aswoon over that protector of political incorrectness and stalwart defender of American borders who can say the most outrageous things and only those in the GOP who have failed to follow (as of yet) are even slightly distressed. Most of the rest realize that it would take something incomprehensible to deny Hillary Clinton the White House this time. The things most likely to be incomprehensible are more outrageous (the word is used so much now it loses significance) utterances for the mouth of Donald Trump. Most recently he was caught praising Saddam Hussein for being good at killing his own people. Perhaps people should be a little uneasy with having a President with those proclivities.

It is going to be a long, ugly summer. At the conventions it is expected that the Democrats will see protest from those Bernie supporters and they have some valid points to make. Bernie is doing a great job of withholding his blessing until he has squeezed every bit of value from it. The Republicans still have rumors floating about of a “Dump Trump” movement. It is scandalously tempting but if it happens it will fracture the GOP so badly that it may take 3 or 4 election cycles to restore it. Some are saying that this is the death of the GOP but I doubt that.

Hillary Clinton

Look, Ms. Clinton is far from perfect. Problem is that she has lived for forty years in the public eye and she has gathered up legions of haters. She has a lengthy record to peruse and anyone who cares can make an educated guess at what she would do as President. She has some things in her past I am uneasy with and I hope she has learned a lot from President Obama about restraint in using military power. Her opponent has very little to study of his public record and what can be studied is not what should be considered to be qualities for a President. He has made no policy statements to contradict anything that Ms. Clinton has said other than to call people names and act like the child you always thought needed a good spanking. He is outlandish.

My Take? Ms. Clinton has pulled some boners but the choice is clear.

Brexit v. Clinton-Trump

The recent unbelievable and irrational vote in Great Britain to leave the European Union should be a warning shot across the bow of the Clinton campaign for the Presidency of the United States. There are significant differences between the two countries that will ameliorate a direct comparison but there are enough similarities to warrant a cautionary outlook.

It appears that the vote in Britain is the result of a large turnout, over 70% of the electorate voted, with the older generations voting predominantly to leave while the younger portion of the electorate voted to remain in the union. It is just that they did not turn out in sufficient numbers to win although it seems that the vote could have gone the other way had they done so.

The correlation between the Brexit vote and our Presidential vote is not a direct one but rather one that can somewhat accurately gauge the sentiment of much of the electorate. I don't think that I have ever seen an electorate so riled up and disgusted with the inability of government to get things done. That frustration is expressed in different ways and in favor of different solutions and candidates but the root cause can be traced to a common source. For over 30 years now the middle class has been under attack from what seems to be all directions. It is a complex set of equations that have led us to the point that both of our political parties are claiming the system is rigged to favor the wealthy and statistics support that. The richest 1% of the population controls over 80% of the wealth in this country and they have convinced many that it is the result of government regulation. They have convinced people that anyone can realistically aspire to achieve great wealth and many of those people resist regulation designed to return a portion of that wealth to them.

Great Britain and much of the rest of the world is no different. The richest 62 people in the world control more wealth than the entire remainder of the world. You may say, “well, they worked for it” and that is most certainly not the truth. They have attained great wealth by using their wealth to convince legislators and others to pass favorable legislation to ensure more profits and the people know it. Voters in both major parties are upset that the representatives that they elect pay them no heed when it comes to voting for legislation that has the opportunity to make lives better. Even though the disaffected from both parties are disgusted they see the solutions to their problems differently. Indeed, they see the causes for those problems differently which gives rise to the virulent nature of the campaigns.

Those who identify as conservatives see immigration as a major issue. They love it when Trump calls people names and threatens to deport them all. When he stokes the fires of nativism they see our culture as being under attack from all comers. When there is an attack by terrorists anyplace in the world they see red that we still allow Muslims to enter our country even though we are forbidden to consider religion as a discriminating factor.

Those who identify as liberal see the wealth gap and the presence of great sums of corporate money as a cancerous influence on our democracy that results in favorable treatment for the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and those who would aspire to that classification. They see greater government regulation as an answer and a return to higher taxation of the wealthy as a means to begin to restore infrastructure and create jobs for the people.

It is uncommon for there to be such anxiety and furor among the people and yet see so wide a disparity in the range of solutions. In the past it was simple to identify an issue and candidates were obliged to define policy solutions to address those issues. In these days the system for political campaigns has been turned topsy-turvy and we, as a people, have not figured out how to deal with it. The people have expressed their displeasure but their representatives choose to ignore them confident that they can push the correct buttons to achieve reelection. They perceive, correctly, that as long as they can keep a public persona that appeals to their electorate they are free to do whatever they wish as legislators or even nothing at all. Rather than being good at one's job the defining criteria for reelection has become more one of public relations.

No one, including me expected Donald Trump to be in the elevated position that he is but, believe it or not, here he is. Just about everyone expected Hillary Clinton to be in the position that she is despite a strong and spirited run by Bernie Sanders which revealed the underlying anger of the Democratic Party.

So, here we are, barely more than four months from electing a new President, and the electorate is in turmoil. We certainly can't expect most media outlets to be useful in helping us to make decisions since media is also in the game of public perception. Turmoil and conflict are the lifeblood of their ratings and service to the republic, the reason they were granted such extraordinary protection by our Constitution, cannot be expected.

So, where does that leave us? My Take is that we are left in a position to try and understand issues that are complicated and internationally important. A job that we, as individuals, are poorly suited for. It will be incumbent upon us to be reflective and uncommonly sensible, something that we are not particularly known for. Anything else and we will look like Great Britain but exponentially worse.

Birds and the Human Condition

My wife, who is an inveterate worrier, remarked to me this morning how the life of birds is so simple. I think she may have been comparing her worries to that of the birds feasting at my bird feeders. Anyway, I responded that, yes, all they had to worry about was food and procreation. It seems like an ideal life but I remind you that if anyone you knew did the same you might not have flattering things to say about them. So, I took the opportunity to philosophize a bit and set off on a discourse on how we, humans, were once as the birds, seeking only food, shelter and procreation. Then as we began to find ways to feed ourselves more than abundantly our brains became free to engage in more far reaching concepts such as tool making which made our lives even easier freeing up more brain space for more esoteric endeavors such as art.

Now, I told her, we were at a critical juncture because we had a choice. Either keep life simple or move on into the brave new world. Sometimes I'm not sure we made the right decision and maybe should have taken the road the chimpanzees did but we didn't know then what we know now and so off to the adventure we went. What happened was that we found that by living in communities we could share the work load and live life large. What could go wrong? Right?

But now we had a small group of people with pretty basic needs but someone decides that it is way easier to allow someone else to do the work and just take his stuff away from him. He decides that about procreation also creating ill feelings among the people in the group who really didn't like that person taking their stuff and sneaking around when they were out hunting and foraging.

That is when a more advanced person came up with the idea that we should have a set of rules that told us what we could and could not do and if anyone broke the rules then the rest of the people would make him wish he hadn't. Pretty simple, right? What could go wrong?

Then they had to decide who would decide when the rules were broken and what was to be done about it. So, they had a choice to make. Now, remember, this is way before democracy so the strongest guy and some buddies decided they would be the right ones to do this. The rest of the people were kind of OK with that until some of the strongest guy's buddies decided they should get a larger share of the booty and, by the way, a larger share of the booty, also.

This is about where we find ourselves today. Oh, we've accumulated more stuff and ways to get stuff. We have lifted this ancient compulsion to a fine art. We've created more and more cultural groups etc. that have their own sets of rules and we are still searching for the one ring to rule them all. I mean, one set of rules that everyone can agree on so we'll stop trying to take away the other group's stuff.

So, I told my wife, here we are with our big brains and lots of rules that philosophers figured out by starting with the natural man (who was like the birds) who just took what he needed to survive and working their way up to our complex societies and all kinds of art, some of which most people even understood. Along the way the different philosophers thought about the different ways people could try to make rules and decide who is obeying and who is not. We now call this governing but I think that may be a charitable assessment.

Some of the philosophers called themselves libertarians since they thought that people should be free to gain whatever they could and not have to share it with others. This is probably the closest to pure humanism of any of the prevalent philosophies today.

Others called themselves socialists and thought that the very best of humanity could be only achieved by appealing to our higher calling and sharing all things equally. Well, sort of, because a lot of the time the strong guy and his buddies still thought they deserved more and the lazy people really couldn't see much point in working hard.

Some were capitalists who thought sort of like the libertarians but they could see how it didn't look good to have people begging for bread and dying in the streets so they felt like they could kick in a little to keep themselves from feeling too guilty.

So, then the rule makers (we can call them governors or some such thing) thought maybe we could take some ideas from one group and some from another and create something that didn't seem so stark and brutal. The philosophers thought long and hard on that one and came up with all sorts of ideas. Kingdoms, Religious Orders, Oligarchy and so on but for some the idea called democracy seemed like a good idea. This way the people could decide who would make the rules and who would enforce them and everyone would be happy.

I looked over and my wife's eyes had glazed over and she had this look on her face like WILL HE EVER SHUT UP? I agreed with her that the birds that we feed at our feeders do indeed have it made.

My Take is that sometimes you have to gauge your audience when choosing to pontificate.

You Have Got To Be Kidding Me

With the endorsement by Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, the third man in line to the presidency, of Donald Trump to be the nominee of the Republican Party for President of the United States the charade is complete. Just last week Senator Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader, declared that Trump is deserving of the nomination since he has obviously gone out and got the most votes. He then said that he would support the Trump candidacy.

The startling acceptance of Donald Trump as the candidate of one of the two major political parties in the United States speaks loudly to the bankruptcy of ideas in the Republican Party. To think that in this tremendously complicated and interconnected world the irrational blurbs that come from this man can stand in for policy statements reveals the intention of the Republican Party to do whatever shameless thing it may take to win the White House. It is unworthy of the long history of the Grand Old Party.

Beginning with the Tea Party, which the GOP handlers allowed to speak on the big stage with more rational people, the groundwork was laid for those who prefer to grind democracy to a halt rather than seek ways forward with other elected officials. The acceptance of those heedless stone throwers then created a favorable climate for the neo-fascist element to crawl out of the woodwork and the combination of those forces have propelled Donald Trump to the nomination. It strains the imagination to think that there are that many people who think that he makes even a reasonable approximation of one who is suited for the position of “most powerful man in the world” which would not be out of place with the “most powerful ego in the world.”

From his promise to build a wall on the border and make Mexico pay for it to his profound ignorance in stating that it is good for the United States to be unpredictable there have been dozens of incendiary statements that surely have the rest of the world wondering what in the world is going on in the United States. I am reminded of a statement by Zbigniew Brzezinski replying to Joe Scarborough where he says “your ignorance of the subject is so profound it is embarrassing.” Yes, it is embarrassing for the United States to be portrayed as imbecilic but it is, in a more profound sense, frightening. To think that a man who has not uttered one coherent proposal on domestic policy or foreign policy other than to proclaim that he will be the greatest can seek, with some hope of success, to rise to the office of President of the United States reveals the lack of sophistication of those who seek to govern themselves.

The leaders of the Republican Party are not ignorant men and women. I believe that they are fully aware of the beast that lays before them but are incapable of surrendering power to deny that beast the victory that will effectively change forever what the GOP is. It is an unfortunate and demented tale of the lust for power and the hubris to think there is yet some hope of taming the beast.

Donald Trump has intimated that he would not be against the idea of the use of nuclear weapons in the battle against ISIL. I suspect there are quite a few of our fellow citizens who are also of this mind. What if the President orders the use of these weapons to wipe Raqaa off the map? Should the generals obey him or should they refuse to act on the orders of the Commander in Chief? Not only would this be a military crisis but it would be a Constitutional crisis because, effectively, it could lead to a coup. In the long and distinguished history of our Republic such a prospect has never been considered. The very thought of having Donald Trump commanding our armed forces is anathema to thoughtful people. On the economic front he has made statements that he would not be opposed to a trade war to make American goods more competitive in the world. The idea that we want to be competitive economically is not in dispute the the heavy handed way in which he deals is not the way that cooperative economies survive and prosper.

The Republican Party has long insisted that its platform consists of a fiscally prudent and constrained path but now seems quite accepting of this brandishing of power to subjugate economies that we have asked to look to the United States for an example of how to live in the world. It is time for the leaders of the GOP to risk their jobs and reclaim their party.

The goodwill of the world toward the United States of America has not come from our willingness to bludgeon others into complying with our will but, rather, by the largess we have been willing to show to those less fortunate. It is due to the protection offered by the United States to prevent other aggressive countries from encroaching on those unable to defend themselves. We have not always been perfect but we have been the best available. Would we abandon that and encourage our allies to seek other friends? This is the future we face.

My Take is that it is mind boggling that our country is facing such a contrived crisis at a time when we are, without a doubt, the most powerful country in the world. How could one of the two major political parties come to a point where the lust for power exceeds the welfare of the nation?