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?

Don Moss for the GOP

Don Moss for the GOP 





We have a State Senate race coming up that is more important to us than many realize.  We can vote for someone who will link us to the representation we have had for the past four years or we can choose someone who will take us in a different direction.

As most of you know or have figured out by now I am a member of the Democratic Party so my vote will not make much difference but I will cast it anyway.  What I would like to do is urge my Republican friends to cast their votes for Don Moss.  Don's Dad was an official in the GOP in this district and Don knows most of the ins and outs.  He is a successful business man and serves on the Board of Lake Cumberland Regional Hospital.

These days all Republicans are not made equal.  There are those who have taken off on the radical, reactionary trend of the Tea Party and the Trumpites and then there are those who are more like the Republican Party that was possible to work with and reach compromise.  Those of us who are Democrats may not be real excited about not being able to elect someone we think of as progressive but those are the circumstance in which we find ourselves.

Chris Girdler has been a disaster for our district sponsoring bills to eliminate coal mine inspections and to create advantages for business interests over people interests.  He has been a vocal opponent of the city fuel pumps that have reduced the mad fluctuation of fuel pricing.  I believe that Michael Keck would continue on the same path and that is bad for Somerset and Pulaski County.  I believe that Don Moss presents the best choice to represent the Republican Party.

Don is a lifelong Somerset resident and has operated the State Farm Insurance Company here for years and knows the issues facing our district.  I strongly urge my Republican friends to vote for Don Moss.

Who Pays For It

Who Pays For It

Sometimes government is sheer lunacy. Some may say idiocy and it is tempting to agree with that characterization but that is non-productive. Sometimes, when I look at what passes for decision making in the various arms of government I ask myself if those whom we elect have ever been exposed to governmental theory or philosophies of government. Now, I realize that there are many who will ridicule me for bringing this up since, in their eyes, it is just plain common sense and anyone should be able to see it. As I have often said, sometimes what we need is some uncommon sense and that is in short supply and often drowned out when articulated.

The Pulaski County Magistrates are exploring closing the detention center (that is what the jail is politely called these days), perhaps to make it sound like it is not a place where we confine people against their will to protect our society from their harmful influences. And that is exactly what we are doing, or should be doing, with our jails although they have become as much debtor's prisons and profitable enterprises as anything else.

The Magistrates are upset that it costs money to run a jail and that some people who are not inmates are unhappy with the way they are being treated. As the Jailer said, it is an inherently dangerous job so prospective employees should not be surprised when they find themselves in undesirable situations. That being said it is also up to the Jailer to use practices that minimize the threat when working with the inmates and safety always costs money. The Jailer's salary is set by constitutional authority and he gets paid whether or not there is a single prisoner inhabiting the building. Some Jailers in this state are doing just that.

It seems that most of the Magistrate's concerns are that detention center employees are complaining about working conditions at the jail and they are complaining to them. Magistrates are geared toward dealing with complaints, preferably without offending a prospective voter so it is difficult for them to look at the issues dispassionately. However, I would suggest that if the Fiscal Court finds these issues difficult to deal with they could ask for an audit from the state auditor who, as Somerset found out, would be only too willing to comply. It being that the respective governments are from the same political party may be beneficial.

Jailer-David Moss

But, here's the deal. Jails, detention centers, Sheriff's departments, City Police and all other agencies that detain offenders are acting at the will and direction of the public they serve. Supposedly they are doing that to keep those offenders from acting in harmful ways toward those societies but is that strictly true? If the society being protected wants this kind of law enforcement then shouldn't the taxpayer pay for it? The problem is that society does not want to pay for it. As a result all sorts of court fees, fines and judgments are assessed and the Jailer is expected, unrealistically, to operate his facility with those resources and to do it in a way that society will not be offended or the inmate will not be treated inhumanely. What this does is places the fiscal burden of running these facilities, the purpose of which is to protect society, squarely on those who are in many cases the least able to afford it. We might as well face it. If you are flush with money you most likely will not become a resident of the Pulaski County Detention Center. Then when those destitute people can't pay those fines, etc. they are declared in contempt of court and jailed which is a fine end run around the proscription of debtor's prisons. Some prisoners at least are assessed fees for being graciously housed against their wills and then held in contempt when they can't come up with the money they couldn't make while they were in jail. In addition, the state pays a per diem for each prisoner held so there is an corrosive incentive to putting more people in jail. This is no surprise nor is it happening only in Pulaski County. This is one of the things that the investigative committee found in Ferguson, Missouri after the riots there. The practice is endemic to our country.

So, if a society demands that offenders be housed in jail for whatever offenses the public demands then who should foot the bill? Well, it is the taxpayer who insisted they be put there and it is the taxpayer who should pay. If the taxpayer does not want to pay that much money then the answer is simple. Don't put that many in jail. This is not rocket science. Someone has to pay the piper.

Kentucky jails more people than another other state in the union. If Kentucky were a nation it would rank 7^th in the world in incarceration of its citizens. It is estimated that from 70% to 80% of those inmates are there for offenses related to drugs. Some serious and some for simple possession or sale of small amounts. People who represent no imminent threat to the citizenry. But we do not need to just ignore them. We need to do the counseling and rehabilitation necessary to free them from addiction and diminish their burden on the treasury. Yes, I know there will be failures but doing this will result in a smaller bill to the taxpayer and, hopefully, a productive citizen for our society.

So, here's My Take. STOP PUTTING SO DANGED MANY PEOPLE IN JAIL. If we are going to put people in jail then we have to pay for it because it is something that we demanded. If you demand that someone come do something for you do you expect to get it for free? And, Magistrates, you have the responsibility for taking care of the county's business and you should do it without being so concerned with re-election. If a constituent complains then either take care of it if the complaint is just or educate the constituent as to the points of the issue. Quite a few issues here in Pulaski County could be dealt with by doing this.

Truth or Consequences

From time to time I like to go to lunch alone and leisurely eat stuff I'm not supposed to eat and read the news. Sometimes I will run into an acquaintance and we will pass a few minutes with some pleasantries. Sometimes I will run into an acquaintance who is aware that I write opinion columns and who takes the opportunity to sound off about how insanely misguided I am and who will run through every catchphrase about the liberal media, godless Hollywood, the Muslim horde, the mark of the beast and how our currency is going to collapse requiring said mark if one wishes to survive. Of course, this is also justification for survival training, arms and ammo caching and keeping an eye on the misanthropes in D.C. who are all selling us down the river. Now that the President has been to Cuba we're back to the Red Menace and did you know that the President took 32 people with him to Cuba and it cost us billions of dollars? I found out, too late of course, that if one attempts to refute these arguments with facts (those pesky things) then the conversation gets louder than a stump preacher on Easter. In addition it is inevitable that there will be a reference to scripture that commands us to allow people who won't (or don't) work to starve. Then comes a constitutional reference to some part of that document but for some reason he or she will not have a reference to all of the court cases and amendments that have defined that document. Everyone the scholar.

One of the things that I have a problem with concerning the (liberal, except for Fox) media is that they seem to think that they should treat ignorance with the same respect as logic, truth and reason. I am aware that my characterization of that will no doubt generate some controversy but it will not alter the fact. Why isn't media asking for proof of outrageous statements or allegations. Why do we allow misstated facts to occupy the same space as truth? We are all, indeed, entitled to Freedom of Speech and the right to express our opinions but we are not entitled to our own facts. Facts are absolute and a just defense against lies and accusations. Why is media not doing more to establish what the facts are and showing the darkness of the lies? It is simplicity itself that ignorance does not deserve the same space as truth and fact.

If only truth and fact were all that is required to combat ignorance and tamp it back into the hole that it crept out of we would be all right. But we also have to deal with those who demand the public's attention to ignite the fires of tribal hatred to fan the flames of ignorance and that is the deadly enemy of the Republic. Even if all people have the right to free expression is there some right that we give it equal consideration?

A person that I encountered on one of my pleasant retreats was making sure that I knew of every insolent thing that he disagreed with and told me that until we killed a few hundred thousand Muslims we would never be safe from the Jihad. I told him that we had already easily killed that many but I was informed that they were not killed the right way. I didn't delve into what would be the right way because, frankly, I was still hoping to get back to my lunch which was by now becoming more difficult to eat and keep down. I was told of how the Koran was an evil book and that Islam is a murderous religion. That ISIL is the real Islam and that all the others are apostate and set to be decapitated. I reminded him of how our Judaic heritage was not devoid of mass murder and pillaging but that did not seem to be of any consequence.

So, I have known this person for some time and know that he professes Christianity but I was left there wondering where the Christ is in all of this. How does a faith whose leader and founder professes such tenets as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount inform such a world view? When that source says that His kingdom is not of this world how does that factor in? Personally, I am a Separation of Church and State guy. To my way of thinking the two are not compatible. So, when I am talking about politics my opinion is informed by my faith but my faith bears no supremacy in matters of government. I believe that the First Amendment meant Freedom of Religion and that it lacks reason to insist that the writers were all Christians and just didn't think of it. I don't believe that it is incumbent upon the United States to defend Israel no matter what that country does just so we can avoid the curse attributed to scripture. I don't believe that when when Jesus returns that the New Jerusalem is going to be in St. Louis. As a matter of fact I don't believe that those things should have any bearing on the conduct of the government of the United States of America any more than they did on the government of Rome. Different ballpark. I am quite content to defend Freedom of Religion and be free to practice mine.

So, why are we compelled to give equal treatment to ignorance and fact, to truth and lies, to love and hatred, to peace and violence? One of our political parties is mired in the morass left from allowing fear, hatred and violence to be used for political advantage. It is not right. Opinion can vary but truth and facts do not.

My Take is that I am under no illusion that this missive will change any minds. What I would hope is that where there is stridency there will be peace, that where there is disagreement truth will prevail and that people will do their darnedest to treat each other with love and respect and that hatred and ignorance be tamped back into the pit from whence it came.

Who Represents the People?

Who Represents the People?

How proud we must be here in Somerset of our state senator Chris Girdler. He is a real man of the people. This is said tongue in cheek because if there is a single thing that he has done that benefits the people over the interests of business I am unaware of it. Rarely will you find a representative of the people who is more ideologically inimical to anything that prevents businesses from maximizing profits.

During the last session of the legislature he sponsored a bill that would prevent any governmental entity from engaging in private enterprise. This was in response to the City of Somerset making it's gas pumps open to the public in the face of wildly fluctuating gasoline prices at the pump. It was speculated that distributors were arbitrarily raising prices by up to 30 cents per gallon over the prices of our neighboring communities. The cause was subject to some disagreement and local distributors resisted appearing before local councils to explain the reasoning for such increases but it is difficult to refute the fact that the actions by the city have resulted in a much less volatile market for consumers. The bill failed to gain traction last year in the face of strenuous domestic disagreement but is receiving a more favorable reception after the previous election. The City of Somerset is appropriately concerned since it engages in a wide network of selling natural gas from its proprietary sources. This bill was said to be narrowly written in order to not infringe on the natural gas business of the City but City Government is concerned that it opens the door to later attacks on this enterprise. It is concerned that this bill will encroach upon that source of city income and expose it's citizens to the vagaries of the private market. In addition, the low rates that the city is able to generate are a potent boon for the attraction of industry to the area.

This session Senator Girdler has been especially busy taking care of business with Senate Bill 297 which will relieve the state agency responsible for inspecting mines of its obligations leaving the onus entirely upon federal inspectors. Not only does this remove a layer of safety precautions from the hazards of mining but it abdicates the state's rights and responsibilities to govern its own affairs. I suppose the conservative value of state's rights is only applicable when it suits ones proclivities. The state agencies have far more power to be responsive and demand accountability than does the federal agency.

In a gift to the travel and tourism industry, according to their own evaluation but not confirmed by any other independent agent, Senate Bill 50, again sponsored by our Senator Girdler, would allow school districts to change the starting date for classes to a later date. The districts will not be required to have a scheduled number of classroom days but will have to have the required number of classroom hours per year. The is to be done by allowing the schools to change the length of the school day. This being done because the evaluation of the Travel and Tourism Commission says that Kentucky is losing over $400 million by starting school too early. It does not go without notice that the district that Senator Girdler represents includes several marinas and various accommodations that are directly related to the very commission that issued the study report and, to my knowledge, there has been no other authoritative study done examining this issue. It seems that it has not been that long ago that we were actually discussing going to a year round schedule in order to make up for the shortfall of educational levels compared to other countries. In addition, with the loss of coal jobs over the last decade, re-employment of those out of work miners and employment of new workers will demand a higher skill and educational level. Once again the future is bargained off in favor of present gain.

Senator Girdler has removed himself from the constraints of having to seek re-election by declining to do so. Freed from such encumbrance he can push his (and others) agenda without fear of voter backlash. But, not to fear, there is a candidate now standing for the soon to be vacated position who is politically and ideologically prepared to pick up where Senator Girdler leaves off.

My Take is that the people should take a good look at what the candidates want to do about actual issues that they may have to deal with.  Good advice for any time.