Update from the Sunland
No.875
8.10.18 – 14.10.18
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
All of this grumbling about impeaching Associate Justice Kavanaugh is wrong, wrong, and even more wrong. Our flawed system of vetting for confirmation did the best it could given the representatives We, the People, elected to the Senate. If the process disturbed you, disgusted you, offended you, then make sure you vote in the coming election (four weeks away) and every subsequent election, and stop—please stop—suggesting that impeachment proceedings should be opened against Kavanaugh, or the BIC for that matter (until sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of “high crimes and misdemeanors” have been placed before the People). Talk of impeachment is not helpful to healing the wounds that are depleting and weakening us.
Then, to add insult to injury, the BIC stands up at a White House ceremonial swearing in and proclaimed that Kavanaugh was “proven innocent” in his usual carnival barker, snake-oil sales pitch. Hey, oh great orange one, NO! Kavanaugh was not and has not been proven innocent. He was confirmed despite the uncertainties, despite the doubts about his young adult conduct in high school and college. Innocence or guilt can only be established in a court of law with strict rules of evidence. None of that was done in his disgraceful hearing. Based on what I heard and read, I concluded that it was more likely than not that he did those things in his younger days, which to me disqualified him from the job because of the doubt. If I was hiring an employee and I had that doubt, I would not hire the person. This job assessment was no different. He was neither proven guilty nor innocent, so to the BIC, please stop with your despicable “truthful hyperbole.”
A friend and frequent contributor sent along the following article.
“The Electoral College Has Been Divisive Since Day One – It has always had the potential for chaos—one that hasn’t been tapped…yet”
by Jennifer Nalewicki
smithsonian.com
Published: November 21, 2016 | Updated: December 7, 2016
The article instigated a thread of messages that may be of interest to other readers. I began:
As I read Nalewick’s words, I think she has done an excellent job of capturing the essence of the history. There is no debate that the Electoral College was a negotiated compromise among the Founders / Framers to gain support for the Union beyond the Confederation. There were many reasons that the Electoral College was an imperfect process, then and remains so now. A number of states have already taken steps to circumvent the Electoral College by abdicating their influence as a state. If a sufficient number of states abdicate in like manner, the Electoral College will be rendered moot without a constitutional amendment. If that is the choice of states, then I’m good with it. I would rather see a constitutional amendment rather than a circumvention abdication, but a constitutional amendment in the current tribal environment is unlikely, verging upon impossible.
By my count, FWIW, 12 of 50 states have passed and signed into law such popular vote actions. Those 12 states have 172 electoral votes, or 64% of the total needed to render the Electoral College moot. Until sufficient states pass such laws to exceed 235 electoral votes, the system is the system and needs to be used to gain the representation we seek. As I understand things, 11 additional states have passed such legislation in at least one chamber of the state legislatures. If all 11 of those states passed laws in this movement, they would add 89 electoral votes, for a total of 261—more than enough to accomplish their objective. Abdication is a rightful choice. We shall see.
Round two:
“I'd rather follow the examples of the more advanced world and treat political subdivisions as subdivisions rather than independent powers, but we clearly disagree on that one. History has value, but the value of semi-autonomous parts of a nation has not demonstrated itself that I can recall. That just leads to internal division.”
My response to round two:
I’m not sure what you mean by “independent powers” in this context. I think you may be referring to state’s rights, but that assumption is not clear. And, what do you mean by “semi-autonomous parts of a nation”? Who is semi-autonomous? Our internal divisions go far deeper than gerrymandered districts or state borders. I call those divisions tribalism, which is not demonstrably different from religious parochialism. My group is better, more right, more worthy, whatever than your group. As long as we continue to think in tribal terms, and cannot find a way to disagree respectfully and carry on a vigorous public debate with respect, these divisions will continue to corrode the foundation of this Grand Republic.
Round three:
"The U.S. States are not independent powers, but some of them want that. The concept of nullification lingers on in parts of our nation, and that would make each State an independent power. Similar notions lie under much of Tea Party politics. You are too versed in early U.S. history to miss my reference to semi-autonomous parts of a nation. The Federalists secured the cooperation of the plantation states by giving them more autonomy and more national government representation than is the case anywhere else in the advanced world. ‘States rights’ doesn't even make sense anywhere else. That approach costs those of us in more populated areas the strength of our votes and costs the nation part of its unity. The Constitution states its first purpose as ‘to form a more perfect Union.’ Having defeated slavery, we have eliminated the purpose of the Electoral College and some other provisions of the Constitution.
“In order to form a more perfect union, we need to institute a ‘one voter, one vote’ policy. As we are seeing today, a faction has found it easier to mislead some of the people by using the Electoral College than by fooling a majority of the voters. The Founders' additional concept of elite leaders (electors) making the final decisions is not only undemocratic in itself, but it has also been used to undercut democracy in general.”
My response to round three:
Wow! Now, those are some interesting thoughts and opinions. I had to reread them several times to ensure adequate comprehension.
Round two:
“I'd rather follow the examples of the more advanced world and treat political subdivisions as subdivisions rather than independent powers, but we clearly disagree on that one. History has value, but the value of semi-autonomous parts of a nation has not demonstrated itself that I can recall. That just leads to internal division.”
My response to round two:
I’m not sure what you mean by “independent powers” in this context. I think you may be referring to state’s rights, but that assumption is not clear. And, what do you mean by “semi-autonomous parts of a nation”? Who is semi-autonomous? Our internal divisions go far deeper than gerrymandered districts or state borders. I call those divisions tribalism, which is not demonstrably different from religious parochialism. My group is better, more right, more worthy, whatever than your group. As long as we continue to think in tribal terms, and cannot find a way to disagree respectfully and carry on a vigorous public debate with respect, these divisions will continue to corrode the foundation of this Grand Republic.
Round three:
"The U.S. States are not independent powers, but some of them want that. The concept of nullification lingers on in parts of our nation, and that would make each State an independent power. Similar notions lie under much of Tea Party politics. You are too versed in early U.S. history to miss my reference to semi-autonomous parts of a nation. The Federalists secured the cooperation of the plantation states by giving them more autonomy and more national government representation than is the case anywhere else in the advanced world. ‘States rights’ doesn't even make sense anywhere else. That approach costs those of us in more populated areas the strength of our votes and costs the nation part of its unity. The Constitution states its first purpose as ‘to form a more perfect Union.’ Having defeated slavery, we have eliminated the purpose of the Electoral College and some other provisions of the Constitution.
“In order to form a more perfect union, we need to institute a ‘one voter, one vote’ policy. As we are seeing today, a faction has found it easier to mislead some of the people by using the Electoral College than by fooling a majority of the voters. The Founders' additional concept of elite leaders (electors) making the final decisions is not only undemocratic in itself, but it has also been used to undercut democracy in general.”
My response to round three:
Wow! Now, those are some interesting thoughts and opinions. I had to reread them several times to ensure adequate comprehension.
Yes, there is no debate that the Electoral College along with Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 were established to achieve ratification of the Constitution. The latter was rendered moot by the 13th Amendment and reinforced by the 14th Amendment. The compromise to achieve support for the Union was not the only reason for the Electoral College.
Oh, I’m quite aware of the nullification process, especially as embodied in the Nullification Crisis of 1833. I did not equate your semi-autonomous comment to the nullification process. With your explanation, I agree; also, as you noted, there are those even today who seek nullification. I am not nor never have been an advocate for nullification in any form for any reason.
As I read your words, is it your belief and contention that states have no purpose or value to the Union, and are irrelevant? Are they simple sub-divisions of the federal government?
We have focused so much of our political intercourse on the Electoral College, as if that is the only issue. When you stand back from the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and even the Declaration, we can see many provisions and attempts to dampen the influence of the simple majority. There are many reasons for that avoidance of simple majority rule. Many of those reasons remain valid to this very day.
We see and bear witness to the consequences of eliminating the checks on simple majority rule in the recent Supreme Court nomination confirmation process. The super-majority forced the Executive and the Senate to negotiate, cooperate and compromise to achieve a solution. Today, without those checks, simple majority rule has enabled and amplified tribalism. Historically, I see far more collegiality (respect for the opposition) in Parliament than I do in Congress. Eliminating the Electoral College, as we appear to be in the de facto process of doing with the National Popular Vote Movement is yet one more reinforcement of tribalism at the expense of negotiation and compromise.
I do see at least one positive element to the notion of eliminating the Electoral College by constitutional amendment . . . seriously reducing the political and Press attention on Iowa and New Hampshire.
We have never been a pure democracy. We have always been a representative democracy. I see no justifiable reason to abandon the form of governance that has sustained us for 230 years.
Round four:
“The nature of the U.S. States, unlike any other nations’ subdivisions, arose from our specific colonial history. What is the benefit in the 21st Century either to the nation as a whole or to the individual people and families living here of the States continuing to have special powers beyond the usual administrative functions?
“Simple majority rule has not enabled and amplified what you call tribalism. (I call it oligarchy.) We do not have a simple majority rule and we never did. Without the Electoral College, neither W. Bush nor Trump would have won the Presidency. The Senators who confirmed Kavanaugh do not represent a simple majority of the people. The House of Representatives' map is so gerrymandered that simple majority rule does not occur there either, at least at present. Ultimately, ‘respect for the opposition’ is not realistic in a two-party system that is geared to conflict. The collegiality that you see in other nations, if it’s authentic, results from the necessity of collaboration in a multi-party system. No single party there has a simple majority; they have to work with at least one other party to attain that much support. They do.
“The Founders were the upper middle class of their day, as you probably know. Think about that. I understand that the Founders saw the ordinary people of their time as not having enough education and insight to make wise decisions. They also had to cope with many of their class wanting specifically to preserve their power over slaves and labor. Conditions around education have changed, and everyone other than the upper class understands by now that insight every class and group has insights. Other than supporting civil rights for everyone, what valid reasons remain for a non-majority rule?
“I repeat: we are not a representative democracy. I am not suggesting we abandon the form of government we use. I am suggesting we evolve it to better meet the goals stated in the Preamble to the Constitution:
“‘We, the People, of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’
“We can better fulfill those high ideals if we abandon most of the compromises that were necessary to meet the demands of the slaveholders and the capitalists of a prior age.”
My response to round four:
I suspect you may be overlooking important functions of state legislatures and state courts, e.g. most criminal laws are state jurisdictional and enforced. Among many related pearls of wisdom, in his dissenting opinion in the case of New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann [285 U.S. 262 (1932)] [836], Associate Justice Brandeis referred to states as the laboratories of democracy. For many reasons, I am quite reticent to eliminate state functions. I know you are still searching for the means to eliminate the Electoral College; eliminating states is not an option, IMHO.
Round four:
“The nature of the U.S. States, unlike any other nations’ subdivisions, arose from our specific colonial history. What is the benefit in the 21st Century either to the nation as a whole or to the individual people and families living here of the States continuing to have special powers beyond the usual administrative functions?
“Simple majority rule has not enabled and amplified what you call tribalism. (I call it oligarchy.) We do not have a simple majority rule and we never did. Without the Electoral College, neither W. Bush nor Trump would have won the Presidency. The Senators who confirmed Kavanaugh do not represent a simple majority of the people. The House of Representatives' map is so gerrymandered that simple majority rule does not occur there either, at least at present. Ultimately, ‘respect for the opposition’ is not realistic in a two-party system that is geared to conflict. The collegiality that you see in other nations, if it’s authentic, results from the necessity of collaboration in a multi-party system. No single party there has a simple majority; they have to work with at least one other party to attain that much support. They do.
“The Founders were the upper middle class of their day, as you probably know. Think about that. I understand that the Founders saw the ordinary people of their time as not having enough education and insight to make wise decisions. They also had to cope with many of their class wanting specifically to preserve their power over slaves and labor. Conditions around education have changed, and everyone other than the upper class understands by now that insight every class and group has insights. Other than supporting civil rights for everyone, what valid reasons remain for a non-majority rule?
“I repeat: we are not a representative democracy. I am not suggesting we abandon the form of government we use. I am suggesting we evolve it to better meet the goals stated in the Preamble to the Constitution:
“‘We, the People, of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’
“We can better fulfill those high ideals if we abandon most of the compromises that were necessary to meet the demands of the slaveholders and the capitalists of a prior age.”
My response to round four:
I suspect you may be overlooking important functions of state legislatures and state courts, e.g. most criminal laws are state jurisdictional and enforced. Among many related pearls of wisdom, in his dissenting opinion in the case of New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann [285 U.S. 262 (1932)] [836], Associate Justice Brandeis referred to states as the laboratories of democracy. For many reasons, I am quite reticent to eliminate state functions. I know you are still searching for the means to eliminate the Electoral College; eliminating states is not an option, IMHO.
I respect your opinion, although I agree in part and disagree in part.
“Other than supporting civil rights for everyone, what valid reasons remain for a non-majority rule?” My oh my, that is a rather cynical view, it seems to me. You apparently embrace simple majority rule. I do not. There are various other ways to protect minority rights . . . super-majority representative democracy is not the only way. However, without some semblance of protections, it will become easier to descend into survival of the fittest, which we are closer to today. I do not want to see that day. Many states have simple majorities voting for dramatic changes in the social fabric, not least of which have been applied to the non-heterosexual segment of our population the moral-projectionists have long targeted, or the invasion of a woman’s body that is a principle objective of that activist minority.
Yes, they were, although in their day, I think they were upper class, if we ignore the upper-tier Crown employees. They were rightfully concerned about voting by citizens who could not read, could not evaluate the candidates and issues, and could not make an informed vote. Ignorance is a fertile breeding ground for fear mongering and propaganda. They did the best they could to address their concerns and deal with the solidification of the Union.
I am not sure why you claim we are not a representative democracy. If not, then what is our form of government from your perspective?
Accommodation of slaveholders in the South was not the only objective the Founders sought in constructing our system of governance. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Hurricane Michael made landfall at Mexico Beach, Florida, at 12:15 CDT (17:15 UTC) on Wednesday, October 10, not far from Tyndall Air Force Base. The storm had maximum sustained winds of 155 mph (250 km/h) at landfall—the third strongest storm to hit the continental United States.
Hurricane Michael made landfall at Mexico Beach, Florida, at 12:15 CDT (17:15 UTC) on Wednesday, October 10, not far from Tyndall Air Force Base. The storm had maximum sustained winds of 155 mph (250 km/h) at landfall—the third strongest storm to hit the continental United States.
First and foremost, our hearts and prayers go out to the survivors, everyone affected, and the associated families and friends. The destruction at Mexico Beach is incredible and horrific.
At the more mundane level, I will quibble with the politicians, Press and others who state that Hurricane Michael is the worst storm to hit the Florida Panhandle. Without debate, Michael was a surprisingly strong storm that offered little warning. The scientists recorded the minimum barometric pressure in Michael at 27.14 inches, placing it just ahead of Katrina at 27.17 inches and Andrew at 27.23 inches, and behind the 1935 Florida hurricane at 26.35 inches and Camille at 26.84 inches—pressure being a measure of strength. I went through Hurricane Camille at a friend’s family beach house in Ft. Walton Beach. Camille’s landfall was recorded as Pass Christian, Mississippi, 157 miles west of Ft. Walton Beach; we still felt with the powerful force of Hurricane Camille. This is not to diminish the significance the storm or the damage wrought by the storm; it is more like an annoyance—the wrong aircraft sound effects in a movie.
The other nitpicky thing comes from the graphic images of the beach dwellings, so many and by my crude estimate were obliterated . . . nothing left but the concrete slab and rubble. Then, you see several houses and other buildings that appear virtually untouched. From my perspective, the local building codes allowed homes to be built as cheaply as possible and without regard to the location. Mexico Beach is in a hurricane prone zone, and most of the dwellings were not built to withstand hurricane force winds, rain and storm surge. The worst part, by not requiring properly built structures, the rubble from the destruction of those building became lethal projectiles, injuring others and doing serious damage to neighboring structures. Since I’m on a roll, why don’t hurricane prone areas put their power, cable and other utility lines underground where they are protected from the wind.
On Thursday, the Soyuz MS10 launch system failed minutes after launching from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, sending the two astronauts (1 Russian, 1 American) into a ballistic re-entry mode. The problem appeared to come during the separation of the 1st and 2nd stage boosters, and after the escape tower separation. The crew landed safely 250 miles downrange. An investigation commission was quickly formed and activated to determine the cause(s) and corrective action, if any. The crew was en route to the International Space Station (ISS). We do not see these events every day, but when they do occur, they are a reminder that human space flight is not without risk.
I ran across this article and frankly was gobsmacked by the title. I had to read more. The content was worse than the title.
On Thursday, the Soyuz MS10 launch system failed minutes after launching from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, sending the two astronauts (1 Russian, 1 American) into a ballistic re-entry mode. The problem appeared to come during the separation of the 1st and 2nd stage boosters, and after the escape tower separation. The crew landed safely 250 miles downrange. An investigation commission was quickly formed and activated to determine the cause(s) and corrective action, if any. The crew was en route to the International Space Station (ISS). We do not see these events every day, but when they do occur, they are a reminder that human space flight is not without risk.
I ran across this article and frankly was gobsmacked by the title. I had to read more. The content was worse than the title.
“Trump supporters on #MeToo: ‘Women should button their blouses, cross their legs, and quit acting like they want something’”
by Elise Solé
Yahoo Lifestyle
circa 15:00 EDT, Friday, 12.Oct.2018
We have long known, witnessed and endured the Trumpian misogyny, sexism, and racism. His grotesque view of human beings, who do not bow down to worship him or at least lather him with praise of his greatness, has contaminated the society of this Grand Republic, and far worse he has enabled and encouraged the more ghastly segments of our society. These people have always existed, but they largely kept quiet, as they knew they were outside the boundaries of normalcy in a civilized society. The statements made by American citizens reflected in this article are not isolated or unique. This is precisely the remnants of paternalism and the Doctrine of Coverture that treat women as possessions—property under the guise of faux-respect. The attitudes expressed in this article are contemptible and must be condemned. Every woman, regardless of her chosen profession, attire or any other metric, deserves respect and safety from sexual harassment, assault or violation. The people quoted in the article deserve condemnation, not women who exercise their freedom of choice. And, the BIC is the worst of the bunch.
Comments and contributions from Update no.874:
Comment to the Blog:
“The investigation into Judge Kavanaugh’s personal history was severely limited in time and scope. It doesn’t mean anything. Senator Collins’ speech is a disgrace to her and motivates her opposition. Let us remember that if the House changes hands in November, impeachment is available. Justice Thomas would probably be an easier target than Justice Kavanaugh, but either or both would change the situation.
“At this point, the United States cannot claim to be a representative republic in any of its three branches. Trump was elected by a minority of voters, and all voters comprised about half of the electorate. Thanks to the Electoral College, the Senators who approved Kavanaugh’s selection to the Supreme Court represent less than half of all Americans. We’re done with that ‘democracy’ thing for now. The week’s more important news (more tax cuts for the wealthy, environmental regulation rollbacks, direct refusal to address climate change, etc.) supports that.
“The Democratic Party, as an entity, must bear some of the responsibility for this mess. They (and their funding sources) have campaigned for too many years on the negative claim that they’re not as evil as the Republicans. They’re not, but independent and progressive voters stay home in droves because nobody offers them something positive to vote for. In the absence of voter intervention, this situation will continue so long as politics is guided by corporate funds and a few of the very wealthy. We have a reasonable chance of at least a partial intervention in the upcoming midterm election. Many of the Democratic House and down-ballot candidates came through the primary system without the support of the Democratic National Committee, and they mostly campaigned by offering voters concrete programs and policies. If they can overcome the management of their own party, they have a reasonable chance to defeat the scary nonsense that is the foundation of Republican political success (also corporate funded).
“Nobody ought to be surprised that most of Trump’s wealth (if he still has it) was inherited. He’s obviously and aggressively ignorant. That doesn’t make for business success. Because we have no access to his tax returns or other financial information, we can’t be sure he didn’t lose most of that money.
“Unemployment is low because so many employers don’t raise wages to attract workers. (Yawns) Like the man some of them support, they want to keep the money for themselves.”
My response to the Blog:
The Republicans have been single-minded, focused and relentless in their 45-year pursuit of a conservative Judiciary . . . from their recalcitrance in forcing the Democrat majority leader to abandon the historic super-majority for court confirmations, to the Republican majority leader’s unilateral, unconstitutional stonewalling of the president’s constitutional right to appoint replacement justices, and now the Senate’s disgusting effort producing mounds of paper with the misinformation of transparency and thoroughness. The Senate’s vetting process was not about the truth or rigor; it was only about achieving confirmation by the most expeditious means.
Comments and contributions from Update no.874:
Comment to the Blog:
“The investigation into Judge Kavanaugh’s personal history was severely limited in time and scope. It doesn’t mean anything. Senator Collins’ speech is a disgrace to her and motivates her opposition. Let us remember that if the House changes hands in November, impeachment is available. Justice Thomas would probably be an easier target than Justice Kavanaugh, but either or both would change the situation.
“At this point, the United States cannot claim to be a representative republic in any of its three branches. Trump was elected by a minority of voters, and all voters comprised about half of the electorate. Thanks to the Electoral College, the Senators who approved Kavanaugh’s selection to the Supreme Court represent less than half of all Americans. We’re done with that ‘democracy’ thing for now. The week’s more important news (more tax cuts for the wealthy, environmental regulation rollbacks, direct refusal to address climate change, etc.) supports that.
“The Democratic Party, as an entity, must bear some of the responsibility for this mess. They (and their funding sources) have campaigned for too many years on the negative claim that they’re not as evil as the Republicans. They’re not, but independent and progressive voters stay home in droves because nobody offers them something positive to vote for. In the absence of voter intervention, this situation will continue so long as politics is guided by corporate funds and a few of the very wealthy. We have a reasonable chance of at least a partial intervention in the upcoming midterm election. Many of the Democratic House and down-ballot candidates came through the primary system without the support of the Democratic National Committee, and they mostly campaigned by offering voters concrete programs and policies. If they can overcome the management of their own party, they have a reasonable chance to defeat the scary nonsense that is the foundation of Republican political success (also corporate funded).
“Nobody ought to be surprised that most of Trump’s wealth (if he still has it) was inherited. He’s obviously and aggressively ignorant. That doesn’t make for business success. Because we have no access to his tax returns or other financial information, we can’t be sure he didn’t lose most of that money.
“Unemployment is low because so many employers don’t raise wages to attract workers. (Yawns) Like the man some of them support, they want to keep the money for themselves.”
My response to the Blog:
The Republicans have been single-minded, focused and relentless in their 45-year pursuit of a conservative Judiciary . . . from their recalcitrance in forcing the Democrat majority leader to abandon the historic super-majority for court confirmations, to the Republican majority leader’s unilateral, unconstitutional stonewalling of the president’s constitutional right to appoint replacement justices, and now the Senate’s disgusting effort producing mounds of paper with the misinformation of transparency and thoroughness. The Senate’s vetting process was not about the truth or rigor; it was only about achieving confirmation by the most expeditious means.
I am not a fan of impeachment; it is the choice of last resort, quite akin to war.
The whole Kavanaugh debacle is exactly what happens when citizens believe they do not need to vote.
Re: “the United States cannot claim to be a representative republic in any of its three branches.” Respectfully, I will strongly disagree with you. The government we have is the government that voters chose. When nearly 50% of eligible voters actually cast a ballot in any given election, we cannot blame those voters who take the time to research the candidates and mark their ballot choices. We, the People, elected these representatives by our votes and our apathy. We have allowed a minority in this Grand Republic to use the system to further their objectives. As long as the majority allows that minority domination through gerrymandering, voter suppression, dark money, social media tampering by foreign operators and states, et al., by their complacency and indifference, then we have to find a way to endure the abuses and insults that will inevitably come with that minority domination. Re: “the Senators who approved Kavanaugh’s selection to the Supreme Court represent less than half of all Americans.” Yes, substantially less, more like 25% of American citizens; but, we allow that minority to dominate state legislatures and Congress. We have only ourselves to blame. If there is a message in all this, we must take on evangelical fervor to stimulate our fellow citizens to vote. We have the democracy we voted for.
Now, before we jump back into the Electoral College debate, again, that is our system. It has been the same system for 230 years. Republicans use the system; Democrats do not. This is the result.
Further now, the Supreme Court is far more likely to take on a moral projectionist bent than it has in generations, and in that I truly fear for a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy.
Re: “The Democratic Party, as an entity, must bear some of the responsibility for this mess.” Oh hell yes! They have chosen not to use the system to achieve their objectives. Yes, the Democrats must bear considerable responsibility for the situation we are in. You are quite correct. In Arizona, we see graphic evidence on our television screen every bloody night in the Sinema-McSally senate race to replace Jeff Flake, and the Garcia-Ducey gubernatorial race. The Republican advertisements have been universally negative chants of false fear mongering. At least Sinema has so far tried to take the high road and not stooped to BIC-like rants as McSally and her supporters have used. The Republicans do not seem to see any benefit in positive campaigning; they only use attack, attack, attack, damn the torpedoes.
Staying home is NOT an option, IMHO. That is exactly what Republicans seek by a myriad of techniques. Our task as voters is to choose the best candidates on the ballot. Abstention gives the minority exactly what they seek, since their believers do vote. No, abstention is NOT an option. I do agree with you on a better than average choices for this election, at least in Arizona, but I must say, I am disappointed in Garcia.
From my perspective, I think you are missing the essence of the BIC. He is the consummate snake-oil salesman. By definition, he has no interest in the truth, in reality, in history, in precedent, or even in the law. He is ONLY interested in and thus totally focused upon selling his worthless snake-oil to his believers who eagerly consume his shtick.
I’m not sure I appreciate your reasoning regarding employment and wages. Usually when unemployment is low, people migrate to jobs with higher compensation. Low unemployment and rising wages, which is what the recent data indicate, suggest we are approaching full employment, which to me means we need more workers.
. . . Round two:
“You espouse a moral position on people's duty to vote. The problem with that is that people have the option to not vote. Political marketers convince their clients that negative campaigns win, and they're not wrong in a statistical sense. The problem, of course, is that candidate quality declines in an environment that focuses on the other side. People will not vote without some motivation and a worthy candidate. The Republicans were able to motivate their voters in 2016 via their fears of immigrants, people of other races, etc. The Democrats offered the corrupt centrist Hillary Clinton. Like it or not, not enough people voted for her to overcome the effect of the Electoral College. A majority of those voting did, but that didn't get her elected. Whether you and I criticize the non-voters doesn’t change anything.
“The more lucrative jobs, if they exist, require skills not available to those at the bottom of the food chain. Employers have minimum-wage jobs go begging because they don't respond to the market forces that politicians say should cause them to raise wages. That's a reality that politicians and their tame economists don't care to recognize. Low-wage people work two and three jobs apiece just to live at survival level, so unemployment is low (not counting discouraged workers, of course). Going to college to improve their situation has become a risky and expensive exercise. Many, including me, can never repay the student loans they received in recent times. When I first went to school in the early 90s, grants covered my entire school expenses. Those days are over.”
. . . my response to round two:
Yes, absolutely! Freedom of choice is an essential of any free society. My only point was, I see voting as a citizen’s duty to the country, much like defending the nation when threatened. No one, and especially me, is suggesting taking roll at our assigned polling stations, i.e., requiring a citizen to vote.
. . . Round two:
“You espouse a moral position on people's duty to vote. The problem with that is that people have the option to not vote. Political marketers convince their clients that negative campaigns win, and they're not wrong in a statistical sense. The problem, of course, is that candidate quality declines in an environment that focuses on the other side. People will not vote without some motivation and a worthy candidate. The Republicans were able to motivate their voters in 2016 via their fears of immigrants, people of other races, etc. The Democrats offered the corrupt centrist Hillary Clinton. Like it or not, not enough people voted for her to overcome the effect of the Electoral College. A majority of those voting did, but that didn't get her elected. Whether you and I criticize the non-voters doesn’t change anything.
“The more lucrative jobs, if they exist, require skills not available to those at the bottom of the food chain. Employers have minimum-wage jobs go begging because they don't respond to the market forces that politicians say should cause them to raise wages. That's a reality that politicians and their tame economists don't care to recognize. Low-wage people work two and three jobs apiece just to live at survival level, so unemployment is low (not counting discouraged workers, of course). Going to college to improve their situation has become a risky and expensive exercise. Many, including me, can never repay the student loans they received in recent times. When I first went to school in the early 90s, grants covered my entire school expenses. Those days are over.”
. . . my response to round two:
Yes, absolutely! Freedom of choice is an essential of any free society. My only point was, I see voting as a citizen’s duty to the country, much like defending the nation when threatened. No one, and especially me, is suggesting taking roll at our assigned polling stations, i.e., requiring a citizen to vote.
Negative campaigning tends to win because far too many voters are easy prey to fear and do not do the research to look beyond the destructive advertisements. I still rail against them. To me, it is one major reason not to vote for any candidate who uses negative campaigning.
Yes, my whining about citizens not voting will not change a thing, unless my words encourage just one person to influence a friend or family member to vote for the first time or when they typically do not vote. If we collectively continue to do what we have always done, we will continue to get what we have always gotten.
I do agree the wages and skills are directly related, and should be. There are many ways of acquiring skills to improve wage potential. The issue of college loans is a serious matter. All of our children are dealing with those loans. I wish I had some magic elixir like the BIC’s highly potent snake-oil to help every citizen achieve their dreams without debt, but the elixir, like the BIC’s snake-oil, is a myth. There are other collateral elements in this discussion. Survival level does not include smart phones, automobiles, televisions, or any other amenities of modern life. You want those things, you have to work for them. Motivation and ambition are important, if not vital, stimulants. I call it the lottery-syndrome, i.e., how many people would work if they did not need the money? I have considerable empathy for anyone who is struggling that is not common among fiscal conservatives. I do not want anyone to suffer. We should help those who help themselves, but living la dolce vita is not a universal right; we all need to work for it. Conversely, we must accept that some people choose to live as natives in the jungle, or flipping burgers; that is their choice entirely.
. . . Round three:
“Yes, negative campaigning does tend to win elections. That's not the point. My point is that it also depresses turnout. I sit in front of my TV and computer too much, and if I believed the political advertising (and talking head shows, news segments, Internet marketing, etc.), no candidate is worthy of my vote. We have races for Governor, U.S. Senate, and a hotly contested U.S. House seat here. I see a great deal of political marketing. Many political ads don't even mention the candidate they support. They say horrendous things about the person they oppose. No candidate looks worthy of a vote, so why bother? Today is the first day of early voting in the midterm here in Ohio, and I will ride transit about an hour and a half each way to cast my ballot. Most of the potential voters no longer see the point of that.
“According to Economics 101, as propounded by politicians, the smaller supply of available workers should bring rising wages in a given job. That’s not happening, as I was pointing out prior to the digression.
“No, there are not many ways of improving one's skills to improve wages, particularly for those older than about 25. Check around. All of the solutions that seem so easy to those not attempting them cost money and take time that people cannot spare because they have to work so many hours for survival.
“An Internet connection is a necessity nowadays if one expects to function, and those smartphones are typically poor people's only Internet connection. I'm an exception because I make a very high priority of having home Internet. Plenty of jobs no longer have paper applications (including Dollar General, where I have worked) and many other ordinary tasks are difficult or impossible for the unconnected. Also, many of my college classes (skill improvement) took place entirely online.
“Outside of a few cities, an automobile is also a necessity for people who hold ordinary jobs and have families. I live without a car in Columbus, Ohio, and I know what is realistic. It's possible (if difficult) to reach many (not all) fixed-location jobs via transit, but having a child in daycare or school is different. Even ordinary grocery shopping and errand-running become nearly impossible for workers without the mobility and time savings of independent transportation. I was even required to have an independent vehicle for my job as a shift leader at Dollar General.”
. . . my response to round three:
You are, of course, quite correct. Negative campaigning wears people down in so many ways, especially if we are not inclined to look beyond them. Voter suppression is just as effective for a mobilized minority; their believers vote, suppressing the vote boost their electoral influence.
. . . Round three:
“Yes, negative campaigning does tend to win elections. That's not the point. My point is that it also depresses turnout. I sit in front of my TV and computer too much, and if I believed the political advertising (and talking head shows, news segments, Internet marketing, etc.), no candidate is worthy of my vote. We have races for Governor, U.S. Senate, and a hotly contested U.S. House seat here. I see a great deal of political marketing. Many political ads don't even mention the candidate they support. They say horrendous things about the person they oppose. No candidate looks worthy of a vote, so why bother? Today is the first day of early voting in the midterm here in Ohio, and I will ride transit about an hour and a half each way to cast my ballot. Most of the potential voters no longer see the point of that.
“According to Economics 101, as propounded by politicians, the smaller supply of available workers should bring rising wages in a given job. That’s not happening, as I was pointing out prior to the digression.
“No, there are not many ways of improving one's skills to improve wages, particularly for those older than about 25. Check around. All of the solutions that seem so easy to those not attempting them cost money and take time that people cannot spare because they have to work so many hours for survival.
“An Internet connection is a necessity nowadays if one expects to function, and those smartphones are typically poor people's only Internet connection. I'm an exception because I make a very high priority of having home Internet. Plenty of jobs no longer have paper applications (including Dollar General, where I have worked) and many other ordinary tasks are difficult or impossible for the unconnected. Also, many of my college classes (skill improvement) took place entirely online.
“Outside of a few cities, an automobile is also a necessity for people who hold ordinary jobs and have families. I live without a car in Columbus, Ohio, and I know what is realistic. It's possible (if difficult) to reach many (not all) fixed-location jobs via transit, but having a child in daycare or school is different. Even ordinary grocery shopping and errand-running become nearly impossible for workers without the mobility and time savings of independent transportation. I was even required to have an independent vehicle for my job as a shift leader at Dollar General.”
. . . my response to round three:
You are, of course, quite correct. Negative campaigning wears people down in so many ways, especially if we are not inclined to look beyond them. Voter suppression is just as effective for a mobilized minority; their believers vote, suppressing the vote boost their electoral influence.
Bless you for the extraordinary effort you must go to for voting. Have you considered voting by mail? Fortunately, my polling station is only a mile away.
Oh, I am quite aware of the simpleton economics foisted upon us by so-called conservatives. Life is rarely that simple. Employment is not that simple either. I tend to cite the common metrics because they are the common measures.
Thank you so much for your observations. Life is a struggle. You are testament to how citizens can overcome their poverty. Where there is a will there is a way. This is not to say that we should not help those who need help and are trying to help themselves. But, there must be a balance . . . at least until we achieve a tomorrow envisioned in the 3rd book of my Anod series novels. The difficulty for all of us is finding that balance.
. . . Round four:
“It is quite possible for me to vote by mail, but I doubt I ever will. Between not really trusting election officials here after the 2004 elections and the personal satisfaction of casting my vote in person, I'll vote in person. However, my precinct has been moved beyond walking distance from any bus line, and the weather in November here is ‘anything,’ so I'm not waiting. I don't see myself as special; my life has always involved considerable effort.
“I have not ‘overcome’ my poverty, at least not this round. I am disabled and living on SSI. What I have done is to use my background to adapt to it. That's quite another thing. If I were to become able to work, I would face the same obstacles as others, except that I am a single person. That helps with the transportation issue to a degree, but I would still have to find work on a good bus line during the hours the buses run and deal with all the grocery and errand trips. Given the prices of vehicles, the cost of insurance and the much higher maintenance prices, I probably could not get a car as I have done before, so that's an ongoing issue. Others also remain. Get the point?”
. . . my response to round four:
I can relate. I am embarrassed to admit that I did not know absentee ballots were not counted unless the vote is close. I used absentee ballots virtually my entire active duty service time in the military, so I literally have no idea if my vote was counted; it may not matter to the outcome, but I want my vote counted. From that point, I have committed myself to physical voting at my designated precinct polling station. Good point about the weather and the logistics of voting on Election Day. We don’t have that worry so much here is Arizona. I do not know about Ohio law, but here in Arizona, early voting uses the same ballot and process as Election Day and are counted the same.
. . . Round four:
“It is quite possible for me to vote by mail, but I doubt I ever will. Between not really trusting election officials here after the 2004 elections and the personal satisfaction of casting my vote in person, I'll vote in person. However, my precinct has been moved beyond walking distance from any bus line, and the weather in November here is ‘anything,’ so I'm not waiting. I don't see myself as special; my life has always involved considerable effort.
“I have not ‘overcome’ my poverty, at least not this round. I am disabled and living on SSI. What I have done is to use my background to adapt to it. That's quite another thing. If I were to become able to work, I would face the same obstacles as others, except that I am a single person. That helps with the transportation issue to a degree, but I would still have to find work on a good bus line during the hours the buses run and deal with all the grocery and errand trips. Given the prices of vehicles, the cost of insurance and the much higher maintenance prices, I probably could not get a car as I have done before, so that's an ongoing issue. Others also remain. Get the point?”
. . . my response to round four:
I can relate. I am embarrassed to admit that I did not know absentee ballots were not counted unless the vote is close. I used absentee ballots virtually my entire active duty service time in the military, so I literally have no idea if my vote was counted; it may not matter to the outcome, but I want my vote counted. From that point, I have committed myself to physical voting at my designated precinct polling station. Good point about the weather and the logistics of voting on Election Day. We don’t have that worry so much here is Arizona. I do not know about Ohio law, but here in Arizona, early voting uses the same ballot and process as Election Day and are counted the same.
Yes, I get the point. Further, every case is different. There is no question or debate that living at poverty-level subsistence is not easy. I do not make light of those difficulties. I have never lived those conditions, but I do understand. Yet, we cannot ignore the abusers. We must guard against dependency. The government should be the safety net, not the perpetual teat.
. . . Round five:
“In the context of ‘abuse’ or ‘dependency’ on any form of welfare, I don't really believe in laziness at that level. Why? Beyond my observation of many others in poverty, I know from my own current disability and from prior times in my adult life that idleness is essentially boring. We all need an outlet for our energy, even those like me who don't have enough energy reliably enough to hold a job of any sort. That's a real problem for any capable person. A person's inability to work may not be obvious and may have causes that don't qualify for income under the rules, but there's always a reason for people not working. Abuse of the system is a fear of the ‘other’ that has little to no basis in reality.”
. . . my response to round five:
Are you suggesting that you are representative of all citizens living at the poverty level? There are no abusers?
. . . Round five:
“In the context of ‘abuse’ or ‘dependency’ on any form of welfare, I don't really believe in laziness at that level. Why? Beyond my observation of many others in poverty, I know from my own current disability and from prior times in my adult life that idleness is essentially boring. We all need an outlet for our energy, even those like me who don't have enough energy reliably enough to hold a job of any sort. That's a real problem for any capable person. A person's inability to work may not be obvious and may have causes that don't qualify for income under the rules, but there's always a reason for people not working. Abuse of the system is a fear of the ‘other’ that has little to no basis in reality.”
. . . my response to round five:
Are you suggesting that you are representative of all citizens living at the poverty level? There are no abusers?
Just a footnote FYI: my notional, so-called, lottery syndrome suggests that the significant majority (in my opinion, 95% of people) would not work if they had sufficient wealth to sustain their lives, i.e., they won the lottery. There is another fraction who work because they truly enjoy the effort and product. If accurate, there is an inherent inducement for perpetual dependency . . . sustenance is largely alleviated, and the individual can do whatever they want to do. The government is boosting an individual up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. It is also the cancer of communism, and to an extend socialism, dependency saps ambition or motivation to achieve. Communism is an attractive ideology, i.e., we are all equal and should share equally in collective productivity. Unfortunately, we have never seen equal application. I’ll stop here.
Certainly, the fear factor you illuminate is real. I see far too many wealthy people who could not care less for the less fortunate, quite akin to Marie Antoinette—“Let them eat cake.” Far too many people see poverty in terms of “not my problem.” We can only persist in trying to find the means to assist those who seek to help themselves.
. . . Round six:
“I am ‘approximately’ representative of poor people. There is no truly typical/stereotypical person in any given group. College degrees are less unusual than most outsiders believe, and some post-high-school education is very common. The bulk of all poor people want jobs, and most of the able-bodied poor have them. They just don’t pay enough to make a living. (Hence, you as a taxpayer subsidize McDonald’s and many other corporations.) On top of that, the people who control social-assistance funds make it another job to obtain and maintain assistance. Even then, much of it is limited in the time people can receive it.
“The assumption I keep reading and hearing is that poor people don’t want to work. That is the part that’s untrue. I don’t know anyone, and never have, who would intentionally give up working full time to obtain the $750 per month that I get on SSI Disability. That’s a dumb trade-off in many ways beyond the money.
“However, there are of course ‘abusers.’ At this financial level, those who can do so sometimes do some kind of work to bring in unreported cash. I’m not sure what the percentage of those is, but if it feeds their kids and pays rent, I’m for it. (I don’t know anyone who has a full-time job or anything close to it doing that. It’s just not do-able or worth the effort to get assistance funds they’re not eligible for.) I cannot imagine how those with families live on the amount of money I do, and I’m more skilled at it than most people. I don’t see poor people wasting nearly the money that those who have more do. Never. The poor don’t have it. SNAP benefits only cover food and often not enough of that. Some of the people I hear and read imagine that all of us live in subsidized housing, but there’s not much of that available. I have never had my rent subsidized. The waiting list for Section 8 here in Columbus is two years for disabled people and essentially forever for everyone else except the elderly, many of whom are not poor. The allegation that abusers who could be working exist is true only in an absolute sense. The level of abuse is low and the income from the various forms of assistance is far lower than most of the critics could actually live on even for a few months. The only important exception I’m aware of is that people with too much income to be eligible (that is, non-poor people) sometimes commit fraud to add benefits to their regular income. That’s not really poor people’s action though, and I doubt it’s very common.
“Your ‘lottery syndrome’ idea is not supported by those who have actually won that kind of money. There’s a TV show or two about that. (Lottery Changed My Life comes to mind.) Most of the big winners take a nice vacation, then do different work and/or charitable endeavors, but few indeed just quit working. Why would they? That would bore them to death.
“That ‘inherent inducement for perpetual dependency’ is a fiction propounded by people wanting to reduce funding. Other than the disabled, few stay on assistance longer than a few years. If nothing else, the agencies administering the programs make them unpleasant enough that nobody wants to keep dealing with the nonsense. Maslow’s hierarchy has nothing to do with it when there are better (and easier) ways of meeting each level of needs. Besides, nobody gets very far up that pyramid based on assistance. There are plenty of reasons for generational poverty where it exists, but that is not one.”
. . . my response to round six:
Now, you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing—generalizing. I believe I have never even suggested that poor people don’t want to work. I only said, regrettably, we must deal with the abusers, and as you note, there are abusers. I will also say, there are abusers among the middle and upper class as well—people who do not need, or more appropriately, they do not deserve State support, but they know how to work the system, and the system allows it.
. . . Round six:
“I am ‘approximately’ representative of poor people. There is no truly typical/stereotypical person in any given group. College degrees are less unusual than most outsiders believe, and some post-high-school education is very common. The bulk of all poor people want jobs, and most of the able-bodied poor have them. They just don’t pay enough to make a living. (Hence, you as a taxpayer subsidize McDonald’s and many other corporations.) On top of that, the people who control social-assistance funds make it another job to obtain and maintain assistance. Even then, much of it is limited in the time people can receive it.
“The assumption I keep reading and hearing is that poor people don’t want to work. That is the part that’s untrue. I don’t know anyone, and never have, who would intentionally give up working full time to obtain the $750 per month that I get on SSI Disability. That’s a dumb trade-off in many ways beyond the money.
“However, there are of course ‘abusers.’ At this financial level, those who can do so sometimes do some kind of work to bring in unreported cash. I’m not sure what the percentage of those is, but if it feeds their kids and pays rent, I’m for it. (I don’t know anyone who has a full-time job or anything close to it doing that. It’s just not do-able or worth the effort to get assistance funds they’re not eligible for.) I cannot imagine how those with families live on the amount of money I do, and I’m more skilled at it than most people. I don’t see poor people wasting nearly the money that those who have more do. Never. The poor don’t have it. SNAP benefits only cover food and often not enough of that. Some of the people I hear and read imagine that all of us live in subsidized housing, but there’s not much of that available. I have never had my rent subsidized. The waiting list for Section 8 here in Columbus is two years for disabled people and essentially forever for everyone else except the elderly, many of whom are not poor. The allegation that abusers who could be working exist is true only in an absolute sense. The level of abuse is low and the income from the various forms of assistance is far lower than most of the critics could actually live on even for a few months. The only important exception I’m aware of is that people with too much income to be eligible (that is, non-poor people) sometimes commit fraud to add benefits to their regular income. That’s not really poor people’s action though, and I doubt it’s very common.
“Your ‘lottery syndrome’ idea is not supported by those who have actually won that kind of money. There’s a TV show or two about that. (Lottery Changed My Life comes to mind.) Most of the big winners take a nice vacation, then do different work and/or charitable endeavors, but few indeed just quit working. Why would they? That would bore them to death.
“That ‘inherent inducement for perpetual dependency’ is a fiction propounded by people wanting to reduce funding. Other than the disabled, few stay on assistance longer than a few years. If nothing else, the agencies administering the programs make them unpleasant enough that nobody wants to keep dealing with the nonsense. Maslow’s hierarchy has nothing to do with it when there are better (and easier) ways of meeting each level of needs. Besides, nobody gets very far up that pyramid based on assistance. There are plenty of reasons for generational poverty where it exists, but that is not one.”
. . . my response to round six:
Now, you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing—generalizing. I believe I have never even suggested that poor people don’t want to work. I only said, regrettably, we must deal with the abusers, and as you note, there are abusers. I will also say, there are abusers among the middle and upper class as well—people who do not need, or more appropriately, they do not deserve State support, but they know how to work the system, and the system allows it.
Perhaps we have a definition issue in this arena. I define work as labor for remuneration. The dictionary offers numerous definitions (or uses). In our context, the dictionary defines work as simply the labor. I often refer to my writing as work, but then again, I do not write for money. So, to me, charitable endeavors are not work; they may well be a passion, an interest, whatever, but they are doing what they are doing because they want to do it, not because they have to earn a living. That was my point. Artists are often in the category of passion and not compensation. My hypothesis is certainly fodder for debate. My only suggestion: read the book when it is published.
We shall respectfully disagree. I know too many citizens personally who have succumbed to perpetual dependency . . . quite like addiction from my perspective. I cannot and will not disclose details in that I have no desire to offend the addicts. They are what they are. They are living their lives as they wish, or at least as well as they can. While I choose not to confront or condemn the addict, I think that reality deserves illumination.
. . . Round seven:
“You mention in passing the subject of addiction. That is a much more fertile field for discussion of abuse, although I'll note that addiction (including alcohol addiction) is a defined and described disease that causes many to become unable to work. That is the main reason I mentioned disabilities that do not qualify for assistance at some point in our discussion.”
. . . my response to round seven:
First, I said like addiction, not is addiction. I was reflecting upon the behavior, not the disease.
. . . Round seven:
“You mention in passing the subject of addiction. That is a much more fertile field for discussion of abuse, although I'll note that addiction (including alcohol addiction) is a defined and described disease that causes many to become unable to work. That is the main reason I mentioned disabilities that do not qualify for assistance at some point in our discussion.”
. . . my response to round seven:
First, I said like addiction, not is addiction. I was reflecting upon the behavior, not the disease.
Thank you for noting that some disabilities do not qualify for State assistance. That is a matter of law and can be changed.
Where I do go a bit ballistic is claims of disability (that do qualify) and the individuals conduct does not correspond, e.g., back injury, and then playing basketball with the boys or lifting 50 lb. bags of potting soil. He may well have a back injury, but his conduct does not validate or even support the disability. The more difficult affliction as the unseeable, e.g., headaches, fibromyalgia, mental illness, et cetera.
BTW, just a distant FYI, the “lottery syndrome” I use in a novel is related and in the context of a fictional solution, id est quid pro quo, reconciliation of sustenance without labor (by my definition).
This is indeed a fertile ground for public debate—relevant and applicable.
. . . Round eight:
"Oh, I see now. I didn't pick up any hint of the idea of false health claims in your initial writing. Those more often occur in a Workers' Compensation context and claimants are less often poor than the general population simply because many of the poor don't work. I doubt you can show any significant false claims of disability in an SSI or Social Security Disability context. Those claims are closely examined and address permanent conditions. TANF and that kind of assistance are not intended for disabilities of either kind.”
. . . my response to round eight:
I cannot argue with your assessment. However, I will state that at least two of the cases I know personally are in the unseeable, intangible category. I am not convinced, but my evidence to the contrary is circumstantial at best. ‘Nuf said.
. . . Round nine:
“We began this discussion by talking about poverty. Are the people you know poor? (Also, you wouldn't know my disability to look at me unless I happened to be falling asleep at some unexpected time. I have other issues, but that's the one my disability is based on.)”
. . . Round eight:
"Oh, I see now. I didn't pick up any hint of the idea of false health claims in your initial writing. Those more often occur in a Workers' Compensation context and claimants are less often poor than the general population simply because many of the poor don't work. I doubt you can show any significant false claims of disability in an SSI or Social Security Disability context. Those claims are closely examined and address permanent conditions. TANF and that kind of assistance are not intended for disabilities of either kind.”
. . . my response to round eight:
I cannot argue with your assessment. However, I will state that at least two of the cases I know personally are in the unseeable, intangible category. I am not convinced, but my evidence to the contrary is circumstantial at best. ‘Nuf said.
. . . Round nine:
“We began this discussion by talking about poverty. Are the people you know poor? (Also, you wouldn't know my disability to look at me unless I happened to be falling asleep at some unexpected time. I have other issues, but that's the one my disability is based on.)”
. . . my response to round nine:
Point taken! No, neither is poor.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Point taken! No, neither is poor.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
Cap :-)
2 comments:
I will not let pass your claim that Kavanaugh was confirmed by "the representatives We, the People, elected to the Senate.” Nope. So long as people from Nebraska and Alaska have more powerful votes than people from New York, California, and Florida, I’m not letting you get away with that one. I and a majority of voters will not take the blame for Grassley and his crew.
That more people don’t vote is a result of neither party offering worthwhile platforms or candidates. Their sponsors would rather they indulge in negative campaigning so that they don’t have to offer worthwhile commitments. (We had this discussion last week.) My conscience will not let me stay home, but I certainly understand why others do. The Green Party in the region of Bavaria, Germany, shows us a fresh example of victory through turnout. They have made important gains by offering a positive and liberal message in a region previously controlled by conservative politicians including Angela Merkel.
I will leave the decisions up to the many Constitutional lawyers in Congress, but I suspect we already have evidence to bring those impeachments. (The standard of proof is “whatever Senators vote for.”) Republicans control Congress right now, so we’re not seeing action there, but evidence abounds. The plea for civility comes loudest from corrupt centrists who do not want to fight for American ideals.
In regard to our lengthy discussion on majority rule from last week, I never said states have no functions. Most of the world allows provinces to address local conditions to whatever level serves the national interests. I’ll just repeat the topic of the discussion: the Electoral College and the structure of Congress give some states’ voters more power than others’ for no good reason.
Your understanding of the “survival of the fittest” concept backfires. What do you think is happening now? Neither Trump nor W. Bush was elected by a simple majority, nor do the national vote totals determine which party controls either branch of Congress. We live in an oligarchy, not a representative republic. That potential is as embedded in our national design as it was in Ancient Greece.
Calvin,
Your choice entirely.
You are a far better man than me. I do not understand and I am not so forgiving. Our duty, responsibility and obligation as citizens of this Grand Republic is to vote. I certainly laud your perspective in that a positive, committed message is inspiring and encouraging. However, we must see beyond the negatives to find the positives, especially when those positives are difficult to find.
Well, I guess that is what I am . . . a “corrupt centrist.” I truly believe civility within a vigorour public debate is essential; it is another way of saying we must respect each other as we disagree and seek mutually acceptable solutions to the problems before us. Yep, I will accept that label, although I do not agree with it. Despite all our flaws, mistakes, failures and missteps, I believe in this Grand Republic and the principles that have bound us together for generations . . . for nearly 400 years. I also believe we will be a stronger nation for the trauma we must currently endure.
I do not disagree with you. Yes, there is imbalance in our electoral and governance systems . . . by design. I see the wisdom in that design. It has served us well for 230 of those 400 years. The tribalism that has consumed us for the last few decades has accentuated the peculiarities of those principles. The minority that won the 2016 election is not even close to a majority in headcount, and yet, because almost a majority of citizens failed to vote that minority controls the reins of power. This is not the minority’s fault; this is the majority’s fault—the majority that allowed that activist minority to use the system we have. As long as the majority of citizens fail to perform their duty several times a year or at least biannually, then we will always get what we’ve always got.
We shall respectfully disagree. We do NOT live in an oligarchy. Certainly, Citizens United has brought us a few steps closer to that oligarchy, but the money men are not the puppet masters. They have no power, if we look beyond the money.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment