Protest, being indignant, or being stupid?...

 Last night President Trump addressed the nation in a speech. Several minutes into it, his speech was interrupted by a congressman from Texas, Al Green. Trump, stated owing to a significant margin of voters said he had a mandate to deliver promises made to the voters. Al Green stood and boisterously shouted, "You don't have a mandate!" He was warned by the Speaker of the House to cease the interruption, nevertheless he continued the babble and was ordered to be removed from the chamber by the Sargent-at-Arms. And he was. Today, he was duly censured by the House of Representatives. As he should have been. 

Throughout Trumps' speech the Democrats' side of the chamber remained seated, stoically ignoring any enthusiasm. Even when items were mentioned that were positive steps for everyone, economically, politically, what have you, they remained seated and motionless. On one occasion, Trump recognized a 13 year old boy suffering from life-threatening cancer his entire life, who aspired to a career in law enforcement. The director of the Secret Service presented the young man with honorary credentials as an agent of the Secret Service.  Myself, as I would think to most Americans, this was a heart-wrenching moment, devoid of political bent. To die-hard democrats it was a politicization of something. I'm not sure of what, nor do I think democrats know of what, either. For this, they did not stand or applaud. Disgusting, despicable, and appalling. 

To Al Green, and the rest of the democrats, trying to shame you is pointless. You dont care and everyone knows you dont care. Trump could cure every cancer patient on the planet and you'd still hate him. He could snap his fingers and inflation would be 1%, you'd still hate him. He could make a dozen eggs cost 98 cents, and you'd still hate  him. We have a framework of government that encourages debate and consensus. But we seem to have reached a point that one side wants to talk yet refuses to listen. One side hates the other no matter what they say or do. One side is on a sinking boat and seems intent on blaming the other side for the boat sinking instead of saving themselves. 

To say it's an historic low point is an understatement. To say it's sad and pathetic is accurate. As I have said in previous posts leadership is critical. It's necessary. Even when one party has effective leadership and is making progress, if the other party is going down with the Titanic, we're all getting wet. We're all on the same boat. Some have the sense to get in the life boats instead of running around the decks of a sinking boat panicking... Come on, democrats, get it together...

#alGreen #trumpspeech  #pasrtisanpolitics  #trumpspeech

Trumps' Tariffs.Let's have a look...

Tonight is Trumps’ first speech in his second term. It’s not a State of the Union speech as he has only been in office two months. He has a couple of topics on which discussion is  widely anticipated, such as tariffs and immigration. But, Trump being Trump will bang his gong on just about everything he has touched. 

I have mixed feelings about his tariff philosophy, in general I dont expect it to be the miracle cure he touts it to be. Sometimes, actually often times I’m not sure Trump understands a lot of things. Through all the bluff and blunder he convinces a lot of people that he knows a lot more than he really does. Even though he concedes that there will be ‘a little pain’ initially with the tariffs, I think he is greatly underestimating the pain. He won’t feel it, but an awful lot of Americans will. On the other hand there is much potential and rationale for tariffs. America has long been taken advantage of by our trading partners. There is little doubt about that. For instance, China dumping cheap goods here for decades, including infrastructure critical goods such as steel. Forcing American suppliers to lower prices to the point of being nonprofitable. Which of course eliminates American jobs. So there are some very deserving targets for tariffs that should have been placed long ago. As for for tariffs across the board, I dont think so. Consider housing costs in the US right now. Slapping tariffs on Canadian lumber imports will only add to the costs of housing pushing them even further into the unaffordable range. Inflation is bad, unaffordable housing is terrible. During your campaign you touted ‘common sense’ Donald. Use it. 

I also agree that Trump is pushing the envelope on invoking legislative authority in the executive branch. There is a fine line here that is being stomped on. Our constitution is clear on maintaining separation of power. The power to enact laws rests purely with the legislative branch. Though allowances have been made which enable the president to enact laws on an emergency basis. These executive orders enacting the tariffs are possible through a law passed by Congress called the IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act). If not for IEEPA, tariffs could only be imposed by Congress. Are these tariffs necessary as an emergency action? That would be a difficult position to defend. Congress could override these executive orders, but at the risk of defying the president... At present it would be hard to find volunteers for that.

We are putting both executive and legislative power in one persons’ hands by allowing this. In the long run it could be beneficial for the country. Or, it may not. If the latter turns out to be the case, is Congress willing to take the bull by the horns, and take this specified legislative power away from the president? This is precisely what our framers feared, too much power in one persons’ hands. Checks and balances and separation of power...

#tariffs  #trumptariffs #executiveoverreach #constitutionalcrisis

The Oval Office Fiasco, Who's Fault was it?...

 Last Friday in the Oval Office, there was a televised meeting with Trump, Vance and Zelenskyy with the obvious presumption that there was going to be a 'deal' made. Trump prides himself on making deals. Thinks he's the best dealmaker in the history of the world. If you don't believe him, just ask him. This was purported to be a deal that would end the Ukraine-Russia war. In exchange for rights to rare-earth minerals in Ukraine, the US would get an agreement from Russia to end the war of aggression. The Ukrainian borders would not revert to pre-2022. The white elephant in the room, though it wasn't white at all from Zelenskyy's perspective, was security guarantees from the US. On this, Zelenskyy was insistent, his rationale being that Putin cant be trusted to honor a truce. The whole world knows this, why dont you Mr. President? JD Vance kept harping on how ungrateful Zelenskyy was, "You should be thanking the president." He actually has, JD. Many times. Sit down and shutup. 

The president then admonishes Zelenskyy by stating "You're messing with World War III." If what he was suggesting was that by obtaining security guarantees from the US and were Russia to renege on any truce and continue the invasion forcing the US to engage, then yes, World War III would be a definite possibility. Two nuclear superpowers, face to face. Do we really have that much skin in the game at this point? No. Should we? No. Who should? Europe. Continued aggression would bring Russia to another countrys' doorstep. Should the world assume that once Ukraine was part of Russia's domain they would be content to call it a day? Sure. And if you believe that I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona for you. 

So, who was out of line in the Oval Office on Friday? Trump was. By having some conversations with Putin and believing that they had some sort of 'bond' and believing that Putin would honor his word, Trump is entering the same Lala-land that Biden is hosting. Trump has a bevy of really smart people advising him, has the cat got their tongues? Shooting the shit with Putin and actually believing he will honor critically important obligations is akin to believing Kamala Harris would have been a great president. What evidence is there to support this? None. Not one iota, shred, speck, nothing. Go back as far as you wish, there is nothing. Russia is aligned with such rogues as Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, China, North Korea, Hamas, the world's premier bad actors. I really want to believe that Trump knows this and is simply 'playing along'. You know, keeping his cards close to his chest. If that's not the case, we're in big trouble. 

#trump. #jdvance  #putin  #ovalofficefiasco  #worldwarIII  #diplomacy

The Original Americans

I recently had an occasion to go with my wife to a tribal meeting of the Choctaw Indians in Houston. My wife is a 'card-carrying' tribal member. The tribal chief and his entourage tour every couple of years to major cities and areas where there are a large number of tribal members outside of the reservation. The main speaker was none other than the chief himself, Chief Gary Batton. The story of the Choctaws is especially interesting, as was their presentation last night. The role that American Indians play in modern society isn't well-known by most people. I have been researching the tribe for several years as I am currently writing a novel and many of the characters in the book are based on real-life people who were indeed real Choctaw Indians. The tribal meeting I attended gave me a little more first-hand insight into the people and their culture. 

First, a little history of the Choctaws. The Choctaw Nation is the third-largest Indian Nation in the United States. There are over 225,000 tribal members. They were the first tribe over the Trail of Tears from their original homeland in what is now Mississippi and Alabama to Indian Territory in southeast Oklahoma. Today, Choctaw people are enrolled in four federally recognized tribes; The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians in Louisiana, and the Yowani Choctaws enrolled under the Confederacy of the Caddo Nation. Choctaw descendants are also members of state-recognized tribes. One Choctaw origin story relates to pre-historic times when the Choctaw people lived in areas near or around what is now the Yucatan Peninsula. Technological advances (DNA)  have provided insights into the origins of indigenous peoples of North and South America that were completely unknown until the past couple of decades. 

The Choctaw Reservation refers to the land designated as the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma which is a federally recognized Native American reservation primarily located in southeastern Oklahoma, where the Choctaw tribe resides. The Choctaw Nation functions as a sovereign entity within the United States. The reservation is in fact a self-governing sovereign nation. Tribal sovereignty is the right and ability to govern themselves as a people. The Choctaws have been exercising sovereignty since the 1830's. Choctaw Nation has a tribal government including executive, legislative and judicial branches.  Through treaties established with the US as early as 1786, they are guaranteed certain rights and responsibilities to their land and their people.  Tribal members living within the boundaries of the reservation are subject to the laws and constitution of the Choctaw Nation. Yes, they actually have their own constitution. Any ruling of the judicial courts of the Choctaw Nation cannot be overruled by any court, including federal courts, in the United States with but one exception, The United States Supreme Court. They are not even subject to being overruled by federal district courts that have been interfering with the executive agenda of the President of the United States that we have been seeing recently. 

Choctaw culture has historical roots going back to the 16th century. The very rich culture of the Choctaws is expressed through rich traditions of song, dance, dress, beading, pottery, basketry, and stickball. It is so wonderful to experience how the Choctaw people maintain their ancient traditions in their personal and daily lives. The Choctaws sense of community and enterprise is a paradigm rarely seen in modern society. One of the greatest acts of caring, compassion and empathy occurred in 1847 when the Choctaws, who had only recently suffered the travesty of the Trail of Tears to what is now Oklahoma, took up donations of about $5,000 to support the Irish during the Potato Famine. The Choctaws' donation was sent to the town of Midleton in County Cork, south of Dublin. Many years later, the people of Midleton learned the aid had come from a people who were themselves re-establishing their society and government after a long an painful migration. In 2018 Ireland's prime minister visited Choctaw Nation's headquarters to thank the Choctaws and establish continuing scholarships for Choctaw students to study in Ireland. It is a deeply meaningful relationship that still exists today and likely will forever. 

More than 90 years ago, 19 young Choctaw soldiers, who were not yet even American citizens, made a significant difference in the outcome of World War I. Through using their native language for communications on the battlefronts to confuse the enemy, the Germans were left clueless to Allied forces messages. After World War I, in 1924, Congress granted citizenship to all Native Americans in part because of native enlistment during World War I. 

I am currently wrapping up work on my second novel which is set in Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. Though it is fiction, it is set in a real location and based on real people, the Choctaws. From my research and experience, America and the world could learn a lot by looking to the nation within a nation. 

#choctawindians. #chatha  #originalamericans   #trailoftears   #nativeamericans  #historicalthriller   #novelintheworks

May God Bless Paul Simon.

 Paul Simon's self-titled solo album was released in January 1972, the same year I graduated from high school. During my college years, with fond memories I recall listening to Paul Simon's music. During the preceding ten years, Simon and Garfunkel was a staple, not only for high schoolers but for people of all ages. "Sounds of Silence", "Mrs. Robinson", "The Boxer", songs that are instantly recognizable, even some fifty odd years later. Their final album, as a duo, "Bridge over Troubled Water" in 1970 is among the best selling albums of all time. Paul Simon has been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame twice, and is the recipient of 16 Grammy Awards, three for album of the year. Two of his works, "Sounds of Silence" and "Graceland" were inducted into the National Recording Registry for their cultural significance and in 2007 the Library of Congress voted him the inaugural winner of the Gershwin Prize for Popular Song. 

There are many great musical artists that have produced iconic works appreciated and enjoyed the world over. But few have produced works that became a part of the culture of their time. Paul Simon is undoubtedly one of those artists. In 2018, Simon announced that he was retiring from touring. In a social media post, he wrote, "I feel the travel and time away from my wife and family takes a toll that detracts from the joy of playing, adding "it feels a little unsettling, a touch exhilarating, and something of a relief." In May 2023, Simon revealed that most of the hearing in his left ear was gone. Now 83 years old, he is returning to the stage for a special tour, called "A Quiet Celebration Tour." He will be performing in intimate venues where the acoustics are optimal in consideration of the hearing loss he has incurred over the last few years. "A Quiet Celebration Tour" will kickoff in New Orleans on April 4 and travel throughout North America, in addition to performances in Canada. The tour will conclude in Seattle in August. 

"Quite suddenly I lost most of the hearing in my left ear, and nobody has an explanation for it. So everything became more difficult. My reaction was frustration and annoyance; not quite anger yet, because I thought it would pass, it would repair itself." It hasn't repaired itself, nor will it. I, personally have lost most of the hearing in both my ears. Yes, it is definitely annoying. Along with a lot more emotions. It hurts, because you know your life will never be the same. You can no longer engagen with others the way you once did. At the time Simon was experiencing hearing loss he was also recovering from a bout of Covid. "Boy, have I been beaten up these last couple of years," he says.

I hear you, Paul, no pun intended. I started losing my hearing about fifteen years ago. As it started to become obvious, my first feeling was denial. This can't be happening, it can't be real. It happens gradually, in the beginning it seems innocuous. At some point, reality becomes very difficult to deny. It was real. It was very hard. All the beautiful things you were used to hearing in life suddenly were difficult to hear or they simply weren't there anymore. It becomes a constant struggle. Simple conversations, the nuances of music... I also succumbed to the ravage of Covid. I spent two weeks in an emergency room, surviving by the skin of my teeth. To say it gives a new perspective on appreciating life is an understatement. 

Not in quite the same way, but music was a huge part of my life as well. I was in the high school band, I was a drummer, and music became an underpinning of my life. It provided the distraction, the support, the inspiration to be happy. And it worked for me. Probably, just like it did for you. 

Losing your hearing doesn't get any better. If anything it only gets worse. If anything, you're lucky this travesty waited until the age of  80 to strike. For me it began much earlier.  Life forces us to make allowances, to compensate, though living without hearing, or limited hearing is especially difficult. Hearing aids help for many, but it's not the same as having your hearing, It'll never be the same again. We just have to do the best we can with what we have. Deciding to do your "A Quiet Celebration Tour" is a testament to your resilience. You were given a wonderful gift that we are so very grateful that you shared with us. And despite the circumstances that life has thrown your way, you're still sharing. Thanks Paul... All the best to you, and Godspeed.

#PaulSimon. #AQuietCelebrationTour. #AmericanMusic. #RockandRoll. #Losingyourhearing

The Green Light Law.

 During the Biden administration New York enacted a law called "The Green Light Law" which allows undocumented aliens to apply for driver's licenses without providing a Social Security number. The US Attorney General has recently announced that the DOJ is suing New York over immigration enforcement. The Green Light law bars state authorities from sharing Department of Motor Vehicles information like addresses, vehicle registrations, and ID photos with federal authorities. The Green Light Law also requires New York's DMV Commissioner to tip off any illegal alien when a federal immigration agency had requested his or her information. Kind of smells like the same stench coming from the leaks concerning upcoming ICE raids... The only difference being this is a New York law. Sounds like something from a cheap novel, but it's not. It's real. 

This violates, according to the DOJ suit, the constitution's Supremacy clause. The supremacy clause says "The constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state notwithstanding. The core message of the Supremacy Clause is the Constitution and federal laws take priority over any conflicting rules of state law. 

If the issue of federal judges issuing rulings and injections overruling  executive orders, of which there have many of late, continues, which it will, the matter will surely go to the Supreme Court. The Supremacy Clause appears to be the kryptonite that will shut this ridiculous white noise down. As it should be. There are other states with similar measures which interfere with and obstruct the work of cleaning up the illegal immigration issues and deporting illegal immigrants with criminal records. With a ruling for the Supreme Court that communities to these recalcitrant rogue states that your state laws are all fine and good, but the Supremacy Clause renders them irrelevant. So stand down, or face the consequences...

#supremacyclause. #greenlightlaw.  #trump. #supremecourt. #politico

A Constitutional Crisis?...

 Are we having a constitutional crisis in the US? Yes, as a matter of fact we are. It's in the incipient stages and there's more to come. Much more. The experts are weighing in and the opinions as usual, are divided. I love experts, except when they're wrong, and they often are. 

Since Trump took office about three weeks ago, democrats have been running around like chickens in a barnyard clucking "constitutional crisis, constitutional crisis...". I'm not exactly sure what they think Trump is doing that is a constitutional crisis (I don't think they're sure either...) but I'm willing to bet that as usual, it's whatever he's doing is somehow a constitutional crisis. Cutting off funding to advance DEI in Serbia's workplaces and business communities, a DEI musical in Ireland?... A transgender opera in Columbia, a transgender comic book in Peru, LGBT activism in Guatemala?... A $6 million agreement to fund tourism in Egypt? And as you might expect, this is but the tip of the old iceberg. How about let's just call a spade a spade, the American taxpayer has been embezzled and played for a fool by the liberals for far too long. It seems now, cutting off funding for this bullshit is a constitutional crisis. 

What I've described above is not a constitutional crisis by any stretch. All that is simply the democrats disabusing themselves of common sense. If we expect that to stop then we are guilty of the same. But we do have one (a real honest-to-goodness constitutional crisis) popping its head above the horizon like the morning sun. It consists of filing lawsuits for injunctions to halt executive orders in federal district courts (invariably in solidly liberal districts). For whatever reason it has come to bear, legally or not, that federal district judges have the authority to tell the President what he can and cant do and whom he can appoint to do certain tasks. The President was elected by the people, federal district court judges weren't elected by anyone. Yet presumably they can impose, even force their opinion and will on an elected US president? Why don't we simply move all these little Napoleon-complex addled bastards into the White House and not bother with electing a president? Does anyone else smell the stench of the continuation of lawfare? 

This particular 'constitutional crisis' was kicked off by Letitia James (remember her?...) and 16 other attorney generals of blue states in an attempt to stop Elon Musk's DOGE from reviewing whom the government pays. The injunction put in place by Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York issued the order without even letting the defendants respond. So much for the liberals cackling the virtue of being held to the rule of law. The true purpose of the lawsuit is to prevent DOGE from informing the president, the Treasury Secretary, and the voters about who receives the public's money as a result of executive agency decisions. There are indeed resounding constitutional issues with hiding from the president and the voters where government agencies are spending taxpayer money. 

All this begs the question, how and if the executive branch is bound to submit to the decisions of these lower courts. This is not the first time this issue has arisen in history. However, no president has ever directly challenged the obedience of the executive branch to the courts. The notion that courts can order literally anything on whatever basis they might fabricate and the two elected branches have no recourse is a monumental problem. Something equal to the severity of the issue when Commander Jack Swigert on Apollo 13 said to ground control in 1970, "Houston, we have a problem here...".  Arguably, the executive branch would be derelict of duty in allowing executive powers to be simply taken over by a rogue and biased district judge. Attempting to usurp the president's power by merely inquiring what the executive departments are doing is preposterous and absurd. Indeed, to order the president to cease and desist executive action and even to immediately destroy evidence as Judge Engelmayer did... sounds tantamount to subversion to me... Yes, this is a constitutional crisis and the court needs to step in. But so far, it has been the wrong court. 

#constitutionalcrisis. #DOGE. #JudgeEngelmayer. #districtcourtjudges

Federal Judges and the President...

 Now that the President is in office and his Cabinet in place for the most part, he has begun the work of delivering on his campaign promises. He is clearly making an earnest effort to do what he said he was going to do. What he said he was going to do is the reason he won the election, in profound ways, I might add. But, as was to be expected, in a bipartisan system of government there is going to be those who are opposed to practically any executive action. You know, as Mark Twain once said, "You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time." That's all fine and good, and as it should be. It's why it's called democracy, while allowing for debate the majority rules. Winning an election doesn't give the president free rein to any type of autocracy. Another wonder of a constitutional democracy, checks and balances and separation of powers. 

However, I think the framework of the system of checks and balances has gotten a little out of whack, with the whimsical, partisan input of federal judges when they personally (and I mean that word literally...) take offense to a particular executive action. Let's take the U.S. Agency of International Development (USAID) controversy as an example. This is a case of executive control over government priorities and spending. There is an element of constitutional interpretation involved that goes back to John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson and has been affirmed in Supreme Court jurisprudence as practically unconditional. There are a few exceptions, such as the power of Congress to declare war, the power of the Senate to ratify treaties, and the requirement of Senate consent before diplomats may take their posts. There are numerous cases where congress may compel the president to operate bureaucracies and spend public funds but in general, foreign affairs is not one of them. USAID was established by president Kennedy in 1961. The original charter of USAID was quite progressive in nature, very well-meaning but also very vague, and in the long term very short on American interests. 

Last Friday, Judge Carl Nichols of the Federal District Court in Washington DC, temporarily paused Trump's directives placing about 2,700 USAID employees on administrative leave and evacuating them from their host countries on an expedited basis. The objections were raised by employee unions. Nichols rejected the union's objections to stopping new spending after being informed that the administration was not blocking spending for obligations already in progress. Judge Nichol's concern was whether there would be irreparable harm resulting from the abrupt manner in which employees have been cut off from USAID information systems and directed to evacuate. It is not the role of any judge to rule on potential illegalities. 

FULL STOP. This is clearly, even to the most casual observer, well into the realm of foreign diplomacy. A US Federal District Court judge has no damn business issuing orders, of any type to a US president on any matters that involve foreign diplomacy. This role was relegated to Congress and having a law degree is not required to comprehend that. Federal judges who take it upon themselves to inject their (almost always) liberal bias into executive action should also take it upon themselves to stop trying to usurp the role of the United States Congress. I can assure you the framers of our constitution did not intend for small-minded, biased judges to force their opinions on the executive branch. 

Judge Nichols and Judge Engelmeyer, stick to your dockets and leave governing the country to those we, the American peopled elected to do so. Had we wanted you to make these decisions we would have elected you to the office of president. We did not do that. 

#USAID.  #Trump.  #JudgeCarlNichols  #JudgeEngelmeyer

Senate Democrats. Jerks, Idiots, or both?...

When I started this blog almost fifteen years ago, I was determined to discuss important topics with a tone of objectivity, intellectualism, and rationality. I still am. But, there are some topics, and a few individuals that really stir my passions and as we say in America 'get my goat'. It's really difficult to restrain my self from saying what I really want to say at times. One such topic has come up that I want to talk about. I'll do my best to stick to my goals of civility but please bear in mind my only real boundaries are my first amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. 

Today, Senate Democrats decided to 'take a stand' against President Trump's nominee for Director of the FBI. Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats moved to delay a procedural requirement in the confirmation of Kash Patel as FBI Director. They took advantage of committee rules to delay the confirmation vote for a week. According to Senator Dick Durbin, "The appointment of the head of the FBI is one of the most serious that the Senate Judiciary Committee should consider. We decided 50 years ago to de-politicize the FBI by giving ten year tenures to those who headed up the FBI to transcend any single president." 

I'm a bit surprised that this level of hypocrisy didn't spark an alert from the Earthquake Notification Service that the San Andreas Fault shifted about a foot today. "We" decided 50 years ago to de-politicize the FBI? Who in the hell exactly is "we", Dick? And where exactly have you been for the past four years, Dick? Where were you when the FBI was directed to conduct operation 'Crossfire Hurricane'? You know, the one that alleged that Trump's 2016 campaign colluded with Russia. Where were you when the FBI was directed to pressure social media platforms to censor stories concerning Hunter Biden's laptop? Where were you when FBI field offices were circulating a memo tagging traditional Catholics as domestic terrorists? Where were you when Attorney General Merrick Garland gave the directive to target parents at school board meetings who voiced discontent with certain policies? One more, if I may. Where were you when the FBI was directed to raid Mar-a-Lago to bolster Jack Smith's lunatic 'classified documents case'? I suppose it doesn't really matter where you were when all the above happened, but wherever it was you sure as hell weren't paying any damn attention to what was going on. "We decided 50 years ago...". What an arrogant and stupid thing to say. 50 years ago you were a pimple-faced illiterate barely-out-of-college kid probably wasting someone's scholarship money. Your colossal gall won't get much attention unfortunately because such is what we have come to expect from Democrats of late. Kind of like the 'New Norm'. You obviously didn't get the memo from November 5, 2024 Dickie. The New Norm is no more. America is tired of the Democrat's New Norm. Like DEI, it's gone. As you should be, as well...

#dickdurbin.  #kashpatel.  #fbidirectorconfirmation. #dumbdemocrats

The Tragic DC Air Crash, a Little History...

 The crash that occurred last night between an American Airlines regional jet and a military Blackhawk helicopter that claimed 67 lives was extraordinarily horrendous. Unthinkable. The cause, of course, yet to be determined. The president and his co-leaders wasted no time in beginning the investigations into the possible causes with the intent to do whatever needed to be done to ensure such never happened again. 'Never' might be a little optimistic but they're doing all that can be done. Trump, as he is so inclined to do threw in a cup of criticism of policies of the last administration regarding hiring policies, specifically structured around the tenets of DEI. I'm not implying that the criticism wasn't well-deserved, but there is a time and a place for everything. 

Something interesting I happened to read that I believe is worth noting. A number of years ago, the Obama administration summarily rejected 1000 candidates from the Collegiate Training Initative Program. This was a program designed to provide a pathway to a career in air traffic control and to ensure the future ATC's had the skills and knowledge to perform the job. These 1,000 candidates studied, took the exams and passed with flying colors. The administration's excuse was that the pool of applicants weren't diverse enough. Instead of hiring candidates with the most competency, individuals were elevated for hiring consideration based on their race. They were no longer considered for the position of air traffic controller based on their skin color. Which happened to be white in many cases. 

Trump has recently sign an executive order prioritizing safety over diversity, equity and inclusion. This EO included the deletion of DEI from the operations of the FAA. ATC's will be hired on the basis of merit and merit alone. Skin color will not be a factor. It also requires that the FAA administrator to review the past performance and performance standards of all FAA employees in critical safety positions and make clear that any individual who fails to demonstrate adequate capability is replaced by someone who can and will ensure American's flight safety and efficiency. If you're a proponent and believer in DEI, now might be a good time to keep your mouth shut...

It's not Really Inflation, It's Just a Hangover...

 I don't think any normal, rational person thinks of themself as stupid. Sure, we all do stupid things at times and realize that we have done so. But rarely, if ever, do we think of ourselves as 'stupid'. I mean, stupid is foolish, senseless, a slow-witted doofus, on a continuous basis. No one thinks of themselves in this way, it's just human nature. Even if one is indeed, stupid. There are a multitude of factors that can account for being stupid, such as lack of education, culture, environment, influences early in life, genetics, and so on. However, there is another explanation for stupid. One that I think most have not thought of. Biases, prejudices, intolerances, narrow-mindedness, bigotry, inability to be objective, enmity for whatever reason. These 'states of mind', though state of mind tends to be ephemeral and these conditions tend to be somewhat permanent, often form the framework of a person's thinking and behavior. And the thinking and behavior that comes from these characteristics isn't usually objective and rational. And, more often than not it enters the realm of foolish and senseless, hence, stupid. 

Let me give an example. A president, at a time that a pandemic disease was spreading around the globe, shuttering businesses, schools, and institutions, causing millions to lose their jobs and livelihoods decides to begin to disburse funds to individuals and businesses to help them endure unprecedented hardships. Government funds, checks in the mail to enable them to weather the storm. Not just billions but trillions. I mean, who doesn't like getting a check in the mail, especially if it's 'free money'. Prop up the masses until times are better. Fair enough. 

Here's another. It's no secret that millions are struggling with student loan debt and have been for years. Part of the American Dream is to go to college and prepare oneself to get a good paying white collar job. After a few years, since you now have that good paying job you pay back the student loan. The crash-landing called reality was not everyone got a good paying job. Degrees, even advanced degrees in philosophy, don't often lead to high paying jobs. In fact, they often don't even lead to a job at all. So this overly compassionate president decrees that this burdensome student loan debt shall be forgiven. Erased from the books, like it never happened. So in many cases very expensive educations suddenly became 'free'. Hundreds of billions of dollars given away for free. What could possibly be more altruistic and magnanimous than forgiving debts, and giving money to people who had lost their jobs. It's exactly what one would expect from a great leader, right? Right?

Life is not that simple and easy, except for the simple-minded. We've all heard it and we all know it, nothing is free. There is no free lunch. And when the government is involved, absolutely nothing is free. A stark fact is the government does not generate income. It cannot generate wealth of any kind. It is incapable of producing anything of value. It collects taxes and fees from the working populace and distributes that money in myriad places. If the government gives out 'free money', it's not actually free, it's coming from another source. And 99 times out of 100 that 'source is the American taxpayer. Now here's the really bad news, when the government spends large sums of money for whatever reason it has a negative effect on the economy in the form of inflation. AKA, rapidly rising prices for goods and services. The government is in effect flooding the economy with dollars which has the effect or reducing the value of the dollar, causing inflation. 

All that presidential magnanimity came at a price. Kind of like a drunken binge. It seemed to be so much fun at the time but the next day was hell-to pay. I'm doubting that many would argue that one of the definitions of inflation is 'hell-to-pay'. So, back to the original premise, was that president, compassionate, prescient and forward thinking? Or perhaps foolish and short-sighted, maybe even self-serving. Were the stimulus checks and forgiven loans really good for the people and the country, or was it all just a forbearance to the pain of the present situation? Hangovers are hell...