15 Yards for Piling On

        In a gratuitous  swipe at the outgoing POTUS, a recent letter to the local "news" paper  attempts to  minimize and/or refute Obama  accomplishments. The list is long and wrong.

        It cites what he calls  Our military  being "In worse shape than before Pearl Harbor."  The US military, as real military leaders will attest, is strong today. Technology has made less into more as we reshape the force to meet challenges that are uniquely  different from those of WWII. A battleship navy like the USN of WWII would be  almost immediately littering the seabed due to modern submarine technology. Less is more if less can kick ass.

        "Obamacare" is a complete disaster? That is only true to the extent that all US private healthcare (which is what the ACA is) is a disaster. Don't like price increases? Blame Big Pharma, not the President. All private health care plans  have seen increased premiums, and private insurers have been more than willing to lay said increases at the feet of the ACA. Of course the other side of the story is that people with conditions which, in the absence of healthcare coverage would go untreated are now able to get medical care. So it really comes down to what we think a society should do for all its citizens, not just the ones who own hotels. Moreover, this statement is risible coming from a person (the author of the letter) on Medicare , ergo having zero interface with the ACA.

        Benghazi "lying" largest scandal in history? How about Reagan ignoring the House report of 1983 on Embassy security, warning of serious security issues, followed after several  months of neglect by another attack which featured the filmed torture death of the station chief? Seven months later it happened again, Reagan explaining away failure to enhance embassy security by analogizing it to "Delays in redoing a kitchen!" The cost of the delays runs to over 200 deaths!  Biggest scandal?  How about the My Lai massacre? How about Watergate? How about  Iran Contra, Teapot Dome, or The Keating Five? Or more to the point, how about Republican partisan posturing and the expenditure of more time and effort than Watergate, the JFK shooting and Pearl Harbor hearings combined in an attempt to smear a prospective Democratic candidate?  

  

      Obama "caused more debt than..."  Obama inherited a Bush budget (2009) with a record deficit. We were in the grip of the worst economic collapse since 1929 (not Bush's fault). Of course it's easy to snipe from the sidelines when one has no burden of proof to show that they could do it better. Remember TARP was a Bush project.  This really comes from the same racist place as "Obama wants to give 'stuff' to people who don't deserve it"

        Having traveled extensively overseas, I can say with certainty that the only thing in recent years which has "made the US a laughingstock " other than the entire Kardashian family, is the recent election. I have yet to meet any person of another nationality who dislikes Obama and  has any positive regard for Donald Trump.  Most casual conversations over the  Month of May, 2016  in France, Portugal,  Spain and Morocco eventually turned to questions from the local involving Trump and was he really as crazy as he seems. Earlier acquaintances from the UK, where Trump is almost universally loathed, echoed this thread.

The writer ended by opining that with the help of God and Donald Trump, things would hopefully soon be right as rain.   Invoking God and Trump in the same sentence should be  offensive to any person of faith. 

Everything is Obama's fault - not!

A contributor of a discussion group which, loosely, is more liberal than conservative in makeup, inserted a fairly lengthy diatribe yesterday, citing his status as an engineer, which apparently gives him enhanced insight into matters political(?)

        The gist of said rant was that all the increases in the federal deficit, all the increases in number of food stamp recipients, all the numbers of citizens collecting Social Security disability. in fact all the giving of "stuff' to "people too lazy to work" is directly and, in his opinion personally attributable to the former POTUS. These are patently false, as the President has nothing to do with them. The extension of unemployment to 99 weeks at Obama's request during the worst of the Great Recession is the sole increase which can be plaid at his feet. The writer also lays responsibility for the rise if ISIS at the feet of Clinton/Obama. We've seen this before, and as in previous instances, this writer felt the need to make what remains one of the more telling and outrageous claims floated by this cadre of malcontents.  He stated "Obama  divided America."  I'll deal with that last, because it contains the most telling clues to the psyche of these malcontents.

        But, first things first. Attributing the rise of  ISIS to anyone other than Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld is a fool's errand and said allegation is the most easily dispatched.  Dick Cheney, then SecDef, warned Bush 41 that going to Baghdad (after sweeping victory in Desert Storm) would be a tragic mistake because then we'd "Be responsible for Iraq." At the time many Americans couldn't grasp why the US withdrew, but Cheney's advice was good counsel. Jump ahead 10 years, and , Cheney, now VP to Bush 43, has had a change of heart. We all know the rest of the sickening story. Of course Barack Obama took office and complied with Bush's commitment to withdraw troops from Iraq by 2011. We know the rest - except that we really don't if what I have just delineated is the extent of your knowledge of the subject.

        In early 2003, Jay Garner, a retired General, and the person initially appointed to oversee the post war rebuilding of Iraq, began by reaching out to former military and police senior and mid level officers as two things were apparent. First, there was no deep abiding love or loyalty to the now deposed Saddam or to his Ba'ath Party.  Secondarily, these were capable administrators and leaders who could be invaluable in rebuilding a stable civilian structure of government in Iraq. Garner's efforts to be inclusive in the forming of a new core of capable administrators were received by Cheney and even more especially, Donald Rumsfeld, with scorn. Garner's removal in May 2003 and his replacement by Rumsfeld yes man, Paul Bremer, is the trigger for the ascent if ISIS if any single event can be said to have been so. There are generally considered, at least by rational unbiased observers, to have been three significant factors involved.

        First: Not providing enough troops to maintain order, which led to the absence of martial law after the country was conquered. The Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) was established on 20 January 2003 by the United States government two months before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It was intended to act as a caretaker administration in Iraq until the creation of a democratically-elected civilian government. ORHA had identified at least twenty crucial government buildings and cultural sites in Bagdad, but none of the locations were protected; only the oil ministry was guarded. With no police force or national army to maintain order, ministries and buildings were looted.  

        Among those pillaged were Iraqi museums, containing priceless artifacts from some of the earliest human civilizations, which sent not so subtle signals to the average Iraqi that  American forces did not intend to maintain law and order. Eventually, this became  an organized destruction of Baghdad. The destruction of libraries and records, in combination with the "De-Ba'athification", (removing from authority any former Ba'ath party members) had virtually eliminated  the bureaucracy that existed prior to the U.S. invasion. ORHA staff reported that they had to start from scratch to rebuild the government infrastructure. Rumsfeld initially dismissed the widespread looting as no worse than rioting in a major American city and archival footage of General Eric Shinseki stating his belief of the required troop numbers reveals his awareness of the lack of troops (and Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush lack of concern.)

        Second: Bremer's first official executive order implementing "De-Ba'athification" in the early stages of the occupation, as he considered members disloyal. Saddam Hussein's ruling Ba'ath Party had counted as  members a huge majority of Iraq's governmental employees, including educational officials and some teachers, as it was not possible to attain such positions unless one had membership. By order of the CPA, these skilled and often apolitical individuals were banned from holding any positions in Iraq's new government.

        Bremer's second official executive order disbanded  all of Iraq's military entities, which went against Garner's proposal and the advice of the U.S. military and made 500,000 young men unemployed. The U.S. Army had wanted the Iraqi troops retained, as they knew the locals and could maintain order, but Bremer ( and more correctly, Rumsfeld, 6,000 miles away) refused as he felt that they could be disloyal. Former Iraqi soldiers, now unemployed and essentially unemployable, many with extended families to support, then decided that their best chance for a future was to join a militia force. Arms depots were available for pillaging by anyone who wanted weapons and explosives, so the former Iraqi soldiers converged on the military stockpiles. The U.S. knew about the location of weapon caches, but said that it lacked the troops to secure them; ironically, these arms would later be used against the Americans and new Iraqi government forces.

        These three mistakes are, inarguably, the primary causes of the rapid deterioration of occupied Iraq into chaos, as the collapse of the government bureaucracy and army resulted in a lack of authority and order. It was the Islamic fundamentalists that moved to fill this void, so their ranks swelled with many disillusioned Iraqi people. All happened on Bush 43's watch and at the behest of his underlings.  

        And finally, "Obama divided America."  No, he didn't. One can comb every speech, candid remark, and action of  President Barack Obama and find no example of "divisive"  language other than perhaps the general sense that we as a society should be cohesive, unified, and care for one another, which is actually the precise opposite. So where does this sentiment come from? It's hardly original with "the engineer" as we've heard it on Faux News and elsewhere in the "alternative  facts" dimension.

        The sad truth is that America was already divided. Blaming Barack Obama is rather like a kleptomaniac blaming a merchant for stocking attractive merchandise.  Those of us who lived through the Civil Rights movement  and had hopes for a more racially cohesive America were rudely disappointed by  an incredible array of attempts to vilify Barack Obama well before he ever took office. Unlike the current POTUS, this was not for overt actions or public displays of bad behavior, because there were none. He was attacked for an association with a pastor, not a Russian Oligarch. His birthplace was challenged, and a slew of other groundless and invented fallacies thrown at him. The real reason, however has zero to do with anything other than his racial background. America was, and is still divided over the issue of race. Barack Obama was elected as Chief Executive of an already divided America. His election simply spurred the character flaws of the haters to a more visible level. 

         Instructions from both House and Senate Republican leaders to their rank and file support this, as both stated that any and all Obama proposals would be met with unified resistance. A realistic review of such proposals, by the way,  will reveal that essentially none of them involve "free stuff for persons too lazy to work."  Didn't happen. It's a lie.  It's telling that within the past week, the media whore in the nutcracker jacket answered a question re:  size of inaugural crowds with a diatribe against the previous administration  including words to the effect that "20 million Americans lost their health care."  More irrelevant and incorrect than this statement would be impossible. Factually, after implementation of the ACA, about 16 million MORE Americans were insured. Conway's statements are, sadly, typical.     

        As I have previously opined, race hatred based on bias and preconception is a learned trait, and sadly, among many Americans, still fostered at home. It is, in my opinion, a national emotional disability which renders the objective evaluation of social actions and activities almost impossible. It also is a two way street. Proportionally to the population, there are probably as many of the White, Black and Brown populations  in America who are distrustful of the other.  I avoid using "race" there, because race is "human," everything else is cosmetic. It's when we treat each other as if it's not so, that we come to difficulties It's difficult not to angered be when one sees vastly divergent sentences handed down  for identical crimes, with the only differentiating factor being race, or social status.

        In 1963, John Kennedy said,  "Difficulties over segregation and discrimination exist in every city, in every state of the union.... Nor is this a partisan issue. In a time of domestic crisis, men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics. This is not even a legal or legislative issue alone. .... law alone cannot make men see right. We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the Scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.”

        As eloquently, JFK said something in a foreign policy speech which is equally applicable to the racial split in America today:  "Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal." He was addressing issues with Russia, but the implications are universal.

Barack Obama understands this. This sums up what has to have been an exasperating 8 years: "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Mix all these individual issues with a liberal dose of the emotional disability of bigotry and bias and you get...the author of the rant I referred to in the first sentence. 

No Self Doubt Here

At first blush, considering  the blatant nature of  the ongoing  indications of a massive veracity problem within the Trump administration, especially his personal staffers, one might consider that soon, even his most ardent supporters would "get it."  "It" being the fact that the man simply cannot tolerate anything said or done which contradicts his self image as the people's beloved hero who can do no wrong.  There were numerous pre-White house examples of this ego distortion - the comparison of his "sacrifice' in building a business empire with the death of a son in the military, his claims of respect for women, his equation of attending a military prep school with actual service, and the list is endless.

       Now ensconced in power, the compulsion remains unabated. The curiosity is that his true believers, even when presented with his almost constant exaggeration and absolute untruth, will most likely find themselves unable to come to grips with their internal conflicts, if any, and recant their position and/or withdraw their support. These same persons are, of course , among the core of those who attacked the previous POTUS, his family and everything connected with him, equally unable to differentiate reality from bias induced fiction.

        The underlying reasons for this inability to grasp an alternate reality to that imagined previously is not new, and not limited to the current political situation. This one has just blossomed  more publically and sooner than even feared. We have had Presidents lie before. Bill Clintons' "That explanation is no longer operative" is an amusing version of "alternate facts." Richard Nixon's "I misspoke myself" during the heat of Watergate was equally and as transparently  close as Nixon was able to come to, "I lied." As a friend has pointed out, both were lying under duress to avoid confronting career threatening issues; Trump, and his aides, however seem to do it for self aggrandizement.

        In our recent national history, this inability of a group to critically think and reverse a position, once adopted ,  has caused great damage to many innocents. I am referring to the last two undeclared  wars  in which the USA got involved based on flawed decisions and the inability to rethink bad decisions.

       John Kerry's 2004 Presidential campaign  showed an example of how this inability to critically challenge one's preconceptions  can effect public policy in ways not always obvious.  Kerry was hurt by a group calling themselves the "Swift Boaters" who floated unsubstantiated claims  regarding his Vietnam service. It is my belief that had Kerry remained in the Navy and come home as a war supporter, there would have been no Swift boaters. However, he didn't. Disgusted with the war, and convinced that we were fighting an ill advised war in a poor cause, John Kerry resigned his commission, came home, rejected his military decorations and became an anti war activist, and by doing so, earning  the  enmity of those who served like him but were unable (or unwilling)  to  not come to grips with the  moral contradictions involved.  

       The history of  the Vietnam conflict is rife with turning points not taken. Eisenhower refused to allow the free elections mandated by a 1954 Geneva Conference  simply because he realized, (and said so, later) that communist, HO Chi Minh, would win with about 80% of the votes.

        So why not let it happen?  McCarthyism and the "Red threat", still fresh in the minds of many, would have induced a ground swell of popular anger from those who, like some Trump supporters, have no geopolitical perception. Most Americans at the time regarded all Communist leaders as Josef Stalin or Mao in a different shirt and we were constantly being told what  bad guys they were. A critically thought out and wisely considered course reversal by Ike would have been unthinkable to many, even though Ho was, first and foremost, a nationalist whose country had been dominated by China for over a thousand years, and for whom Ho had no love.     

       As a result, we supported a succession of incredibly corrupt South Vietnamese governments. Enter John Kennedy, who understood the difficulty of any real "win" under such circumstances. Kennedy had made it clear to staffers that in his second term, job one would be to get out of Vietnam. Lee Harvey Oswald's intervention put Lyndon Johnson in charge. LBJ, had relatively little love for JFK (or his brother)  and loathed the fact that after the Cuban Missile crisis of October, 1962,  Kennedy was seen by many as a hard liner against Communism.

  

        Accordingly, LBJ decided that his monument would be "winning" in Vietnam. And so it began, escalation, with troop strengths of upwards of half a million in country. Many American men went into the Army as draftees and served what they believed was the "mission" of the nation as they had been told. 58,000 plus American citizens paid the ultimate price  in a war which, although it had become obvious could not be won, those in charge could not make themselves abandon, no matter how reasonable such action would have been. 

       `For many of these men, swift boat crews among them,  admission that they had been hoodwinked into a war that should have been avoided was seen as a denigration of what was, for many, grave personal sacrifice. So, when someone who was there, and could  critically evaluate what happened  says, "We shouldn't have been there and while we were  we did some bad things,"  it was impossible for many, like today's Trump supporters, to reverse judgment and admit error. This is complicated by the sense of having supported a fatally flawed cause regardless of the personal valor involved.  Ultimately, one of the primary architects of LBJ's escalation, SecDef  Robert McNamara, acknowledged to the New York Times that "He had  concluded well before leaving the Pentagon that the war was futile, but he did not share that insight with the public until late in life. In 1995, he took a stand against his own conduct of the war,  (a superb documentary entitled 'The Fog of War") confessing that  it was 'wrong, terribly wrong.'" In return, he faced a "firestorm of scorn" at that time from those, who like the swift boaters were unable to openly face truth.

       In like manner, neither Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld will ever have the strength of character to admit their egregious errors in judgment  in pushing for US involvement in the Mid East using a malleable President as their patsy. Even in the face of what we now know, Rumsfeld,  particularly supports the efforts to send young Americans to fight and die on foreign soil in a questionable cause.

       So, in summary, I guess that  would be unreasonable to believe  those slavishly devout "Trump, right or wrong, my Trump"  persons are capable of  admitting  to errors in judgment, when those in government who are well educated and informed have demonstrated the same inability on occasion.   

An Amazing Coincidence

        I had hoped I could relax a bit  before getting back on the horse, but, nooo, the new POTUS wouldn't have that,  so here goes.

        The trouble with most populist rhetoric is that it is much like a healthy, verdant  lawn with the grass a bit too high. All seems lush, green and attractive until you step in the dog shit. From this opener I could go into an analysis of the inaugural address, which contained more than a fair ration of such dung, but my purpose here is not that. George Will, a devout Republican has already deconstructed the rambling string of epithets and specious ramblings better than ever I could.  I am as much, or more, concerned with the changes already apparent on the White House web site, beginning with  the absence of any Climate Change mention or policy whatsoever.

        Equally perplexing and more well hidden in obfuscatory language is the possibility of two major perversions of power. The first is Trump's antipathy to the Clean Water Act. Apparently we really don't need to insure an unpolluted water supply. Likewise the plans to scrap current EPA standards  limiting coal fired power plant stack gasses, prime sources of carcinogens.  After adjusting for age, sex, race, median household income, and residence, a recent study indicates that there were  11%, 15%, and 17% increases in estimated rates of hospitalization for asthma, ARI, and COPD, respectively, among individuals over age  10  living in the same  ZIP code as a coal-fired power plant. There is zero similar correlation for Nuclear power plants!

        Not only carcinogens but wait, there's more! According to a recent Scientific American study: "Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radioactivity than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy."  The annual exposure to persons with otherwise identical factors is 3 times greater for a person living 50 miles from a coal fired plant than 50 miles from a nuclear power plan. So yeah, Donny, screw that nasty old EPA regulatory shit so more Kentuckians can die from black lung.

        But let's go on to my real topic today, public lands. Trump and various sycophant Westerners rant and rail about "Public" lands as if they had been stolen from the previous "owners,"  and from a social science aspect, they're correct. However, the owners I mean are Native Americans who really didn't believe land could be owned. In reality, "Public Land" means the entire public of the USA , all of us, not some bucolic tax scofflaw like Cliven Bundy. It is telling that even Sean Hannity had to abandon his efforts to confer sainthood  upon this semi literate frontier shitheel and his useless clan. Bundy whined, almost daily during his week of fame, of his "Constitutional" rights to use our (public, remember?)  land to graze his cattle without regard for whatever damage they might do by recreating Dust Bowl like overgrazing conditions.

         If Bundy and friends truly  understood either the Federal constitution or that of his home state of Nevada, and if they had any sense of introspection, they should be mortified. To begin, the Nevada constitution contains these words: ....That the people inhabiting said territory (Nevada) do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States."  Even Cliven Bundy should grasp that this means the land was never the property of anyone in his state if it wasn't so in 1864. Oops! Having become the sole proprietors of this land, the people via their elected representatives in Congress have managed it ever since. Far from being burdensome to the states as some westerners have falsely claimed, the BLM is funded by people like Bundy who agree  to lease some of it for a specifies time at a specified price for grazing (or logging, or whatever). Relative to buying cattle food or raising fodder crops , like dairy and beef farmers all over most of America do, government leases are a bargain, that is unless like Bundy, you think it ought to be free.

       But wait, that's just the first part of the dilemma and by no means the worst. Trump has segued from :"Give the land back to the people" which actually means "Take it from most of us in favor of a few who never owned it," into "Open it for petroleum and other exploration." This unfortunately means a lot of ecologically sensitive regions are in danger. this specific mentions vastly  increased use of fracking!

        Now the big finish: Remember , this is public land, so if oil or mineral wealth is found on it, it belongs to the whole nation, right? Of course not.  It will simply transfer even more economic power and undeserved riches to the large petroleum corporations which will undoubtedly get these franchises to explore the subsurface. If we were desperate for fossil fuels this might make more (never a lot of) sense, but adjusted for the cost of living, as manifested in the historic Consumer Price Index, a fair measurement, right now gasoline costs almost exactly the  same as it did in 1956. It must be noted that this has been accomplished without public land giveaways or scrapping EPA regulations.  So, now we have a SecState nominee who was the CEO of Exxon. Wow, how's that for coincidence?

Emotional cripples, part deux

So I finish the crossword and Suduku and boot up this desktop. After e-mail, the first thing I check is Facebook. A former student had posted words to the effect that although he didn't vote for Trump as President, he  realizes that he is POTUS and he said essentially: "I will start you off with the assumption that you will do your best and I'll give you a preliminary grade of A, what happens to that depends on your performance."

        What appalled me were the immediate comments from others, mostly older,  (I checked) to the effect that "Trump couldn't do much worse", "the bar is already low", etc. Then I realized that my 24 year old friend was able to do something of which  these jerks were incapable - he is able to judge a person, even if he dislikes them, by their actions, not by preconceived bias.

        I was saddened by statements of the emotional cripples who commented negatively, because I realized that they never, ever, would be capable of such critical evaluation because they are blinded, probably since early childhood, when race enters the arena. I don't use the term "cripples" lightly.  When one is incapable of assessing people and situations as they are rather than as one's bias makes them feel they should be, that person is socially and emotionally handicapped. When the only positive regard a white person can hold for a person of color is if they help them win a sports bet, that person is emotionally and socially crippled. There is no other word which fits. When they get angry when someone points it out rather than self evaluate (they can't) they are emotionally lame.

        It was thus as soon as Barack Obama was elected. He had not even been sworn in as President, yet in the eyes of these poor critics, he was already a failure. Already the snide comments re: his family were out there. Nothing he could have done  in office would change that for them. This was echoed by the GOP leadership's orders (public record!)  to the rank and file to oppose every single initiative of the Obama administration .

        What differentiates this from the Trump candidacy is that Mr. Trump, in fact, has done and said any number of grossly inappropriate and quasi legal things and has foreign affiliations which are actually pretty scary, yet his sycophants ignore it because they apparently  think he possesses  a time machine. Oh yeah, and he's white (orange, actually).  Don't forget TV personality, too.   

        When Trump ignores the water carriers of his support group, and he will, they will probably, like abused dogs, accept the abuse because they have been made to feel they deserve it. When some of 15 or 20 million Americans lose their health insurance and the accompanying coverage for pre-existing conditions, they will somehow accept it as the natural order of things. If the GOP actually dismantled the Affordable Care Act and replaced it with something similar, it will all be to Trump's credit in their minds. For far too many Americans, by actual survey, those who hated "Obamacare" thought the Affordable Care Act was just fine. As Ron White sometimes opines, "You can't fix stupid."  

        So, yeah, old white hate mongers,  pile on the outgoing Chief Executive, he certainly doesn't deserve it but sadly, he's used to it. The truth is that persons who rate presidents, actually understand geopolitics and foreign policy, and don't sift  their opinions through the dual filters of racism and Evangelical superstition, will almost surely place Barack Obama in the top third of  US Presidents. Let's hope Trump is less like Warren G. Harding than he seems to be.   

He's Just an Excitable Boy

        I noted with a bit of surprise the other day that the next occupant of the old Obama place in downtown  DC  shot off his mouth yet again without seeming to consider the lunacy of his actions. OK, OK, not really surprised by that , it's a daily event, but surprised at the topic and the ignorance demonstrated by his apparent lack of  understanding of the subject. I missed the question ( or bird fart, or nervous tic) which precipitated it; but it was in general aimed at German luxury automobile importers. The statement was a threat to "Slap 'em with a 60% Port Tax." Now for a bit of (didn't you know I would) education re: terminology.

        A "port tax" is that line item on your cruise ship statement or which is shown elsewhere when you purchase a ticket which is paid by the cruise line to the government of the nation in which the port is located. Essentially every nation charges them, and it adds a bit to the cost of your cruise. Local taxing authorities may also, in some cases add a small millage rate which remains in the port city and may be used for maintenance of facilities and in some cases even directed to other uses,  such as schools. However, in the context Trump used the term, it doesn't mean port tax,  a point I doubt he knew at the time he used the term. What Trump called a port tax is really a tariff, which is a general tax on imports.

        A port tax is paid, usually by the shipping company, as a sort of fee for service. A tariff is paid by an importer as a percentage of the value of the imported product. So is there a current tariff on import cars? Yes, Virginia there is, but it sure as hell isn't 60% ! The standard tariff for importing cars to the U.S. is 2.5 percent of their value. In simple terms, tariffs are taxes. They're paid to governments by the businesses that import and export products and are factored into the prices we pay. This isn't a port tax.  Knowing the company der Trump keeps, I can hardly wait to see the chill caused by the threatened "Port Tax" on the Mercedes which cost $80K with another $2k in tariff, retailing to the buyer at somewhere in the neighborhood of $85,000 (dealer's profit, fees, prep, all the usual car dealer bullshit). If someone allows the orange doughboy  to do what he threatened, make that price  more like $135,000.

       I know, I know, who gives a shit if rich cats pay more for their car? I do and here's why. Tariffs  are a slippery slope, and historically, have been the cause of wars and trade conflicts worldwide. Tariffs on a specified country's industrial products as exports almost always generate retaliatory actions by the country being taxed, since all nations want to keep the rich happy.

        In case you think me an alarmist, let me propose several  scenarios, none of which are all that far from the realm of possibility:

        First: Say the US actually imposes much  higher tariffs on import vehicles. Some percentage of buyers will eschew that VW or Audi or Mercedes, Volvo, SAAB, or Jag and buy American. Good, right? Yeah, right up to the point where the imports are so non-competitive that US manufacturers raise their own prices. Why? Because they can, since tariffs have priced imports higher. The average US car buyer would see his car cost more. 

          Second: What action might we see from the countries which have been slapped with these new higher tariffs? Why of course, just as they have since the 1550s, they'll retaliate with higher tariffs on American products which they import.  The impact of this could be (would be)  lower sales and US manufacturers, already struggling to gain foreign markets in most sectors, would suffer. Either wages would drop, or jobs would be lost.

        Third, and probably beyond the present comprehension  of Trump, but please, please, not his advisors, assuming they can get him to actually listen: In the era when worldwide trade was largely the domain of northern European nations, wars were fought over who could export what to where and how much would the tariffs be. Wars were fought and Africa and parts of Asia were partitioned over this issue. Wars were fought over who would get to control diamonds, gold, tea, opium, etc. In the modern, these issues are not as pressing, as most of the world has rejected imperialism.

         As true as that is, consider this: at the end of WWII the US was self sufficient in steel and iron ore and production. Pittsburgh was booming and US automakers were fabrication cars from US made parts. Neither statement is applicable now. The same is true of aluminum, as Australia, China, New Guinea and Brazil are the world leaders, with OZ alone producing 1/3 of the world's supply. "Make America Great Again" to many who voted Trump, means (to them, at least), an economy like they remember from the '50s. Ain't gonna happen. Can't happen.  

        Additionally, and even scarier, the rare earths needed for micro-processors and other advanced electronics are primarily  concentrated in 2 countries - China and Brazil. U.S. manufacturers are now more than 40 percent dependent on imports of many commodity and rare earth metals. For example, import reliance on gallium is at 94 percent, cobalt and titanium 81 percent, chromium 56 percent, silicon 44 percent and nickel 43 percent. These minerals are critical for defense and energy technologies and many high-tech consumer products. Rare earth minerals, such as neodymium, samarium and dysprosium  are crucial in the manufacture of jet fighter engines, and  many other high-tech applications — computers, cell phones and flat-panel televisions, for example. Additionally, they are essential to petroleum refining, automotive catalytic converters, wind turbines and electric vehicles. The Chinese demonstrated in 2007 that cutting off some of these materials can have a chilling effect on the economy of the target county. In that case it was just targeted at one specific US petroleum refiner and barely missed triggering a fuel shortage nationwide. Don't like globalization? Then you better find Marty McFly, Doc Brown, and a Delorean.

        Implementing tariffs on Chinese imports (what isn't?) would have the effect of reducing the profits of the Chinese manufacturer, who would almost surely increase the price to recoup. Who pays in the end?  American consumers, especially those Walmart shoppers  who love those cheap, Chinese door busters. Goodbye cheap TVs.  Even if the result was more products made in the US, prices would still be higher. Of course to keep those new US made products affordable, wages would most probably remain stagnant.

        In summary, the principal victims of a rash "revenge tariff" such as Trump threatened would be those of us about whom he cares little anyway, and trust me, the One Percenters don't shop Walmart or drive Chevies!

Another Day, another Moronic Meme

      I regret that I am unable to find the offensive graphic, but it went something like this: It showed a candid photo of the POTUS smiling and then in two columns laid out some economic data which,  at a glance, seemed to show that the Obama presidency has had seriously negative result for the economy and it concluded with some rather snotty remark such as, "Thanks, Obama."  Now, as Mark Twain famously said, "There are three types of lies - lies, damned lies and statistics."  This meme was comprised of the latter two types, and don't ya wanna know how and why? Frankly I don't give a shit, because I'm gonna tell you anyway.  

        The first rule of cheating with data is to choose points for comparison which are most advantageous to your argument. The meme in question was a prime example of this kind of numerical chicanery. It chose economic stats from 2008 as the beginning of the Obama administration, and alleged that the ending point was the present, although some of the data used was from as far back as 2013. Factually, the economic picture from Jan.  2008 to Jan.  2009 includes the precipitous economic decline triggered by the housing bubble collapse. Since President Obama was inaugurated in mid January, 2009, any "starting point should be within that year, not 2008. Additionally, the events of 2008 extended what is now being referred to as the "Great Recession." well into the 2013 range.

       At this point, in fairness, it must be noted that no responsible economist would blame Bush 43 for the bubble collapse, as there  were many more, and more involved, culprits, including many of both parties in Congress who steadfastly refused responsible oversight or regulation of financial markets. Blaming the President, any president, for an economic collapse triggered by Wall Street speculation in financial instruments not even understood by most commercial banks'  CEOS is a fool's errand. This is not to say it doesn't happen. Another similar but unrelated example would be the ludicrous 2012 comments by Newt Gingrich that if  Obama were re-elected the price of gasoline would hit $10. Diametrically opposite were the promises of Michele Bachmann, who as candidate, (briefly, mercifully) actually said if she were President, gas would be $1 per gallon. Both reflect pandering to the ignorance of the electorate, which, as recent pathetic events have shown, can  sometimes  be fruitful.

       Having said that, let's briefly discuss "debt" and "deficit", since many Americans are in the dark and confuse them as identities, which they are not. Rather than reinvent a cogent presentation, here's a good one from today's  New York Times:  "The federal deficit tells you how much more money the government spent in a single year than it received in revenue. During the recession, for example, the deficit spiked because the government received less tax revenue as incomes dropped at the same time it was spending more money for things like unemployment benefits and stimulus programs to revive the economy. Since the end of the recession (2013-ish), the size of the yearly deficit has been declining. The national debt, on the other hand, is the cumulative amount of money that the federal government has borrowed to make up for all those deficits in previous years. Even if the size of the federal deficit, or “shortfall,” shrinks from one year to the next, the total national debt will still increase because the government is still borrowing money (just not as much as it did the year before). The government could even have a budget surplus one year — where it takes in more money than it spends — but still have a sizable national debt that has built up over time.

        Since Bush 43 is cited in the offending meme as the "good example" it must be noted that he inherited a budget surplus from his predecessor, Democrat, Bill Clinton. He forthwith pissed it and thousands of American lives away on a war in Iraq, at the end of which he adopted "reconstruction" policies which are generally considered the spark that set fire to ISIS.  Many of you know this, but I'm laying the groundwork for some actually valid statistics, and I hope some who read this will be better enabled to understand my point.

        So, let's take accurate data points for economic sampling. That would be Jan. 2001, Jan.2009, and Jan 2017. The span from 01-to 09  should (does) reflect what Bush started with and what he ended up with as well as what Obama started with. Again, for fairness, neither recession, debt, deficit or recovery are the sole purview of  POTUS, nor is he even the major factor, especially with a recalcitrant Congress, which both had to some extent, Bush a Democratic Senate, Obama a Republican House. Again. in reality, the House controls the nation's purse strings, not the POTUS or anyone else. So the objective will be to compare where Bush started, where he ended (what he handed off to Obama) and where we are now again, total disclosure, 2016 data is incomplete for some indicators so 2015 is used. For simplicity assume the year is as of Jan 15

                              2001        2009       2016        Obama change

Unemployment       4%         10.1%      5%          5.1% decrease

GDP growth           .5%         3%           2.85%           flat

DJIA                   15,002       8,030        19,950    248% increase

Deficit as % of GDP:

1998-2001- actual surplus, no deficit!

2004, 2005 - large deficits due to war in Iraq

2009- massive recession, housing bubble burst, TARP approved (by Bush), unemployment extended to 99weeks (by Obama) large deficits to feed people, provide shelter, unemployment.

2014 - deficit returns to below the statistical average since 1965, and is actually lower than 7 of the 8 Reagan years! CBO projects below average remainder of the decade.

         Now, some perspective. Reagan had 7 above average deficit budgets with no war or recession; Obama had only 4 large above average deficits in eight years after a huge recession. The largest deficit ever since the Great Depression was the Bush budget of 2009!  

         This doesn't even cover the millions now insured under the ACA.  So maybe we ought to look at fact before we smear the President with the toughest economy since Hoover and Roosevelt, although, it should be remembered that Roosevelt was also slandered by the Far Right Neanderthals, as was his wife. And he was Caucasian! It is worthy of note as well, that what ended the Great Depression was really WWII, not government action which was a bit effective but well short of recovery and involved large  deficits. So there. You're bored but I feel better.

Polar opposites, both Wrong!

        A recent article in The Guardian, is entitled "Pity the sad legacy of  Barack Obama." I was a bit puzzled by this from the Guardian until I read the byline: Dr. Cornel West. Dr. West is one of two black men with the surname West who reside at the poles of the political spectrum, Cornel being a Democratic Socialist and the other the un -court martialed murderer, Allen West, a radical Republican.

        A reading of the piece reveals all the things we've heard time after time from Dr. West - that being that Obama didn't, all by himself, initiate a full scale social revolution in America. He criticizes Obama's support of the police in those instances where they were randomly victimized by assassins. He bemoans the identification of bottle throwing looters as thugs, when in fact that's what their actions at the time showed them to be. He complains that drone strikes in Syria sometimes hit civilians, a tragic and lamentable occurrence, but hardly specifically or even generally the President's fault either. Finally, he apparently believes that President Obama is solely to blame for not just single handedly instituting single payer National Health Care. Even making that claim aloud shows just how out of touch Cornel West is with the scope of the issue and how laws are made.

        On the other hand he whines that "we" whomever in the hell that was, begged him (Obama) to bail out Main Street, but he bailed out Wall Street. I'm not sure what bailing out Main Street would look like, but I have to feel that extending unemployment benefits in the face of harsh criticism from Paul Ryan et al, from 26 weeks to 99 weeks was a part of such a bailout. It is also worth remembering that the TARP had already been signed into law by Bush 43.

        Cornel West even makes a hero of Chelsea Manning,  who is being relatively well treated considering her near treasonous activities regarding willful compromise of material which he (then, now "she")  had sworn to protect. It is not necessary to agree with the scope of Government's actions regarding domestic surveillance (I don't) or attempts to gut ISIS (I do) to analyze the activities of the Mannings and Snowdens as criminal (I do).   West complains about  Anwar al-Awlaki's "extrajudicial murder by drone" because he had never had a trial or indictment for his acknowledged terrorist activities, or  his incitement of others to kill Americans.  It begs pointing out that Moammar Kaddafi had neither when Reagan ordered the bombing of his home, killing not him, but several of his family.

        Perhaps most amazing about all this is that on the other end of the spectrum, Black pundits  such as Allen West, Michelle Malkin, and Dr. Thomas Sowell  (as well as a slew of racists masquerading as Congressmen) were slamming the President's same actions for exactly the opposite reason. It seems a brother just can't catch a break, huh?

        Lost in all this is the apparent shared belief of both lunatic fringes  that somehow this President was capable of doing all the things Cornell West loves (and the others hate)  with a Congress who swore to obstruct his every action from the day of his inauguration.  Dr. Cornel West says, "Poor people and working people have not been the focus of the Obama administration. That for me is not just a disappointment but a kind of betrayal." Dr. Sowell, on the other hand seems to feel that only Republicans can fix  the same problems.

         It's confusing, that is,  until you process that neither Dr. Sowell or Dr. West has ever actually worked  outside academia since garnering their doctorates.  Dr. Sowell has just announced his retirement from being an op-ed writer for various conservative media outlets and Dr. West has been teaching somewhere almost continuously since he left Harvard 15 years ago after a well reported "disagreement" with that University, which has apparently just recently agreed to take him back. Neither has ever earned a paycheck outside of the university setting (oops, my bad, West did have brief  cameo appearances in both Matrix movies, sorry).  

         Meanwhile, Dr. West apparently believes that a snap of the POTUS' fingers can institute Socialism nationwide while Dr. Sowell believes the opposite, that POTUS has tried to do just that, another ludicrous suggestion..  The lack of true understanding of our problems demonstrated by these two polar opposites, at least in what they write for popular consumption, is staggering. 

       Many of our most pressing social issues can only be solved from the ground up. An institutionalized  sense of "why try" as seen in many inner city situations is crippling. Conversely, the idea , seemingly too widely pervasive in some courtrooms, that rich White boys deserve a break for the same crimes for which a poor person of color  goes away, amplifies that sense of frustration.  Our body of laws is sufficient to properly govern, encourage and protect the body politic and its children, but only if applies fairly and consistently without regard to race or social stature.  Toleration of racism in any form and from any source is deleterious to this end, and is a bit evident in not only the president elect's choices, but in the writings of both Drs. West and Sowell.    

Just Have to Say it

        There was a veritable landslide of comments, positive and negative,  emanating from a post I shared on FaceBook from Breitbart which showed a photo of President Obama being awarded the distinguished Civilian Public Service medal by the Secretary of Defense,  Ash Carter. The gist of the Breitbart  commentary was that the President had awarded himself the medal, and, of course went on to pile on the negative comments as to every single aspect of the man. In truth, only the Secretary of defense can authorize or confer the medal in question, and previous recipients include some lesser known individuals as well as George W. Bush, Steven Spielberg, and Bill Clinton. Of course there was no hue and cry about those awards.

        Many of the comments were offensive, and what was just as disconcerting was that those making them either refused to believe the facts surrounding the award or simply morphed into some other loathsome diatribe aimed at POTUS. In  fairness, some responses from the Left were also very personal in nature, aimed not at the issue, but at the  responders of the Right.

        I was curious about who the haters were and what their backgrounds were, so I looked at several of their FB pages.  One simply listed her location as "Potfarm," which was revelatory to me, another listed his education as "studied nuthin." This latter assertion was well borne out by his writing, trust me. In general all; these negative responses had several common features.

        First:  All are very  angry people. Although they have had zero interaction with the President, they are angry at him. They apparently aren't upset by policy or programs, but by a slew of vaguely general attributes such as "lyin', Mislim(sic), Commie, stealin', " and other assorted general insults.

        Second, few seem to have much education, or at least, so their attempts at writing would suggest. Many actually wrote strings of defamatory statements with no structure at all.

        Third, apparently these folks believe that every single thing they dislike about society today is the direct result of something POTUS did.

        Finally, they believe that only the media sources they use are telling the truth, even though the Brietbart item is a classic example of "Fake News"

        I have written all the above to say this: If you believe that a person's worth is tied to either a surplus or deficiency of melanin in their skin, you are a damaged human being. It is obvious from the general tenor of the vast majority of negative comments that those  respondents are bigots, and their comments racially motivated. One heinous example: a photo of Idi Amin with a chest full of medals and the comment, "obviously it's in his blood." To me, obviously, it's in the soul of this despicable writer. I would dare to opine  that this man is equally ill at ease with women's issues and LGBT concerns.

        I feel a sincere sense of sadness when I reflect on people who are damaged in this fashion. In the battle of nature vs. nurture, apparently nurture won in these cases. No child is born racist, and many of these folks are probably victims of their own parents. Again, being candid, this is just as true of Black racism as White racism. Both are crippling diseases, both are learned at home, primarily, and both are hard to shed as adults. We can readily identify the hard core, those who join the Klan, or those who see all police as the enemy. 

         It's harder to distinguish those raised in a more "genteel" racial/social bias  setting. Back in the day, these were the first to protest that "some of my best friends  are (Black, Jews, Hispanic, Gay, etc, etc.)." These folks may be in truth, the most dangerous, because, like say, Trey Gowdy, they oppose extending the Voting Rights Act of 1964's provisions because "they're not needed any more" when the truth is far simpler. There are far too many upper middle class Caucasians who are just as biased as the bitter respondents cited above, but their racism is at once more subtle and more dangerous because of that fact. These are people who sit on juries allegedly unbiased in matters of race, social standing or gender issues, but in truth, are not even close to that. Again, this cuts both ways, as the O.J. Simpson trial showed.

       Racism, and Social bias, black and white are  the great American diseases, and sadly,  have become more and more furthered by the other great American disease, fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity.  When coupled with inbred bias, formalized bias, which flies directly in the face of the teachings of the person for whom the faith is named, is a powerful and, sadly, effective, tool. The hatred streaming from organizations like Westboro Baptist Church is exemplary.  The KKK as well, prides itself on its "Christian" foundation while persecuting minorities of every stripe.  

        This next four years is going to challenge all of us who believe ourselves to be people of good will and balanced social attitude, to stand , be counted and refute the hatred. This means reaching out to all people and never hiding your feelings to "go along to get along."  

        That's about it, I just had to put it down in print.  

Saturday Morning Musings 1/07/17

        Ok, I'm just about over the morning paper's "Saturday Stumper" and it's snotty clues. Today's gems included: "silver mining data" (answer - "Nate") and "line used on stage" (answer- "rein")  Really? the English language is colorful and varied sufficiently to create difficult crosswords without all the cutesy-pooh bullshit. There. All better now.

        One measure of the desperation of some churches to keep relevant or at least, draw a crowd, can perhaps best be determined by examining their postings (adverts, really) in the Saturday paper. One advertises the vocalist, a local pop singer, as the principal draw. Another proudly proclaims, "Prophecy Convention." My favorite is still the "after service Spaghetti Dinner."  why not just go to Olive Garden and spare yourself the lecture?  

      Meanwhile, Billy Graham, in his column (his name, he doesn't write it, he's too busy counting his money)  begs "Let Jesus Forgive Your Sins."  As I have been led to believe by most shamans , if Jesus, as they perceive him wants to do something, he doesn't need your permission.    

        As we continue our sad and nausea inducing spiral down to the day of Trump's inauguration, I can't help but wonder just how long those poor schlubs who were snookered by the bluster and bravado will linger in denial before they finally realize the new emperor is naked. What is even more troubling is the apparent sense of empowerment the US House seems to feel as they propose such drivel as curtailing the independent House ethics  investigative body or firing government employees at will for, oh, I don't know....not being supportive of Republican initiatives?

        One thing that may well backfire, however is the beginnings of resistance to dismantling  the Affordable Care Act, as working class persons are beginning to realize that perhaps having medical insurance is a good thing and the guys they voted for don't really give a shit. Exemplary is the plight of coal miners, a vast majority of whom voted Trump, who are now close to being forced to deal with reality rather than bluster. 

        One  Kentucky miner,  explained it succinctly:  “I voted for Trump,” said Neil Yonts, a miner for 35 years. But, he added, “ It may be a mistake” after being diagnosed with black lung disease and learning about the ACA ("Obamacare") protections, which may soon disappear. “When they eliminate the Obamacare they may just eliminate all the black lung program,” he said. “It may all be gone. Don’t matter how many years you got.” 
         Prior to the ACA, preexisting conditions such as "Pneumoconiosis" (see why they just call it Black Lung?) were uninsurable at any cost. If the ACA goes away, an entire segment of American workers could and almost assuredly, will, revert to penury and unattainable medical care. It should be noted that Black Lung  is a well identified and frequently fatal  condition of which  miners (aka victims) and  mine operators (aka friends of Trump, who in most  cases live nowhere near the mines they own) have known for well over 65 years.  23,000 persons died from it last year, and disturbingly, surface (strip) miners are now considered just as much at risk as sub surface miners.

       In a related event which I can only describe as weird, bordering on downright odd, Senator (even saying it leaves a bad taste)  Ted Cruz along with Florida Congressman Ron de Santis has actually co-sponsored a bill proposing term limits for Congress. De Santis ran on a platform which included term limits, so that's no surprise, but in Cruz' case it might be more of an excuse for him not to run again and be embarrassed .

        In what is generally a dismal prognosis for the next legislative session (the 115th Congress) we should  hold fast to one potential lifeline, and that is that the US Senate has 21 female members (still too few, based on population) of which 16 are Democrats and 5 are Republicans. All it takes if for two Republican Senators to say, "enough," to control any legislation from Ryan and his cluster f**k of goons in the House. Let's hope the mommy in each of them truly cares for her children. 

Run! Godzilla's coming!

SEABORNE FUKUSHIMA RADIATION PLUME HIT WEST COAST, CORPORATE MEDIA REPORTED IT DANGEROUSLY

http://www.globalpossibilities.org/seaborne-fukushima-radiation-plume-hit-west-coast-corporate-media-reported-it-dangerously/

        

      The original article contains some first rate fear mongering based on the assumed ignorance of the audience. Pandering to and causing unrealistic consternation among the uninformed certainly isn't new, but it is, nonetheless, definitely irresponsible. 
      The isotope in question is Cs 134, which like Rubidium and Iodine is a fission product. Wow, sounds dangerous, huh? And if you ingested a significant  amount it could be. The issue here is twofold. First the relatively short (2 year) half life of Cs 134 (which does decay by relatively high energy Beta particle emission) and the fact that its decay product, Barium 134, is stable, means that after about ten years (5 half lives, assumed to be threshold for "none left") , assuming no additional releases from Fukushima, there will be no more Cs 134. More important, however, is that the effort required to detect ANY Ba 134 has been hampered by the fact that levels have been so low that only the most sophisticated detection equipment can even measure it. Canadian studies found levels of Ba 134 of 1000 times less than the allowable standards for drinking water.

        The "journalist" speaking of material "throwing off " radiation is, statistically, correct, although obviously unschooled as the mangled quotes attributed to him in the article clearly indicate. 1 event COULD damage DNA and cause a mutation in a cell. So, if that's your concern, here is some really scary shit: Consuming Salmon which had Cs 134 in their flesh in a detectable amount at the highest level anyone, fear mongers included, has even suggested, might, if you ate a lot of it, cause while body radiation exposure of at the most around .5 millirem (mr) annually. That's half of a millirem. Remember this when you read the rest of this. Usually we measure exposure with dosimeters, but none in existence would measure this miniscule amount (remember this is over a year). So what can you do to limit your exposure?

        For starters, don't breathe or eat anything, because your annual exposure from the radon in air and assorted radioactive materials on food totals around 240 mr. That's correct, 480 times as much as the Salmon's potential! If you smoke as little as half a pack per day (and if you do you are terminally stupid)  add another 18 mr annually from the radium in tobacco. Now here's the kicker: If you don't eat, smoke or drink and live at sea level, cosmic radiation still zaps you another 15 mr. Worse, if you love that Colorado Rocky Mountain high, consider that the dose rate from Cosmic radiation in Denver is 75 mr, yep, 5 times as great as sea level due to the lesser amount of attenuation from the atmosphere. Or you could retreat to a Lamasery in Bhutan at 15,000 feet and really suck up the millirem.

        Of course all this sounds scary, but the national guidelines for lifetime radiation exposure are based on the formula:  Allowable lifetime exposure (in REM, [ 1 R = 1000 mr, duh])  = 5(n-18) where n is your age, not to exceed 5 R annually. So my 50 year old friends, you could already have absorbed 170 Rem and not have exceeded any recognized dosage limit. Of course if you really want to bump it up get a spinal x-ray (600 mr) and live dangerously. Even scarier, as we are becoming increasingly aware, you were probably born with genetic markers for a number of cancers which may or may not develop, but which have zero to do with external sources. like the man sad, "We can't outrun our DNA." 

        In summary, the average American is calculated (by those who actually know and do the math) to receive an exposure from all sources of about 600 mr annually. Consider the possible maximum .5 mr annually assuming your salmon sucked up a shit load of Cs134, and then ask yourself if it's really worth losing sleep over.  The preceding public service announcement has been brought to you by someone (me) with actual training and 26 years' experience in the field. Enjoy the rest of your day  (if you can, Bwahaaahaahaa!)