Who's to Blame?

It is hard to blame the presidential candidates for their current predicament. The blame lies belongs to the Obama. Obama came to office on the backs of feckless liberal whites trying to assuage some primeval guilt. This is understandable, as the Democrat Party is the party of slavery. It’s not that they have that in their platform anymore but they still stand for enslavement. Not to some rich plantation owner but to a swaddling government that wants to control every aspect of our lives, from what we eat, what we drive, to the very air we breathe.

Clinton and Trump are the byproducts of the last eight years; of an administration that could do and would do anything push the socialist Obama agenda. It is easy to blame Obama’s “Fly over America” attitude of the majority of the country and it citizens for Trump. Obama’s arrogance and look-down-his-nose attitude toward working class America and those Americans that weren’t part of his nouveau chic phony elites, led to millions of Americans, tired of being ignored to turn to Trump; much as millions of gimme-crats turned to Obama with is promise of free stuff. The sentiment, misplaced or not, of working class America is that the rich get richer (Obama included) the poor get everything free and Trump pandered to that and won support among large swaths of heartland America. The republicans completely missed the demographics of Trump’s support. Most, the leftist media and old guard Republican believed that Trump’s support originated with uneducated Republicans. But his simply isn’t true. In fact Trump’s support with Republican across the spectrum has and remains low. His primary support has come from working class Democrats, Independents, and Undecideds. Americans that are tired of the elitist attitude that is currently in vogue in DC. They really don’t give a damn about mainstream social issues. They are generally okay with abortion (and so is Trump) and gay marriage (and so is Trump) and don’t seem those issues as hot-button issues. What they most care about are their families and their lively hoods, which have been in decline for 40 year and has only accelerated under Obama. Working class wages have been stagnant for 40 years while they have accelerated for the upper class elites like Obama.  

Clinton, on the other hand, is just left over wreckage from Obama’s failed term in office. That she has found sufficient following to displace Sanders, another populist with a similar message to Trump’s (even the bombast) but with a more blatant socialist twist. Clinton is just another in a long line of government criminals that includes Holder, Lynch, and Obama himself. That she is even the presumptive candidate speaks volumes about an electorate that ranted and raved about all of the criminal wrong doing by the Bush administration and yet has the audacity to pick Clinton as their candidate. She preaches the liturgy of Wall Street (giving speeches to Wall Street Executive groups at a quarter million or more a pop) and promises to protect that control of the banks and investment houses control on government, just as Obama did.

I am still flummoxed as to why Sanders didn’t get the nod. There is no evidence of any serious skeletons in his closet and he certainly isn’t part of the elite ruling class of which Clinton and Obama are members in good standing, thus my use of the phrase feckless electorate. Clinton is the very type of person that Sanders has railed against during his campaign, a bought and paid for Wall Street lackey. Now Sanders has thrown his support behind Clinton, claiming to have gotten his way on some of his most cherished campaign agenda items. Needless to say a great many of his constituent of young college students and college educated young feel betrayed by Sanders’ hypocrisy.

Many of the mainstream conservative Republicans have been abandoning the party ship. George Will being one of the more prominent and though I am not prominent I too have abandoned the ship. It has become a party not much to the right of Obama’s party and lacks the vigor that younger conservative want to see. Younger conservatives are also less wrapped around the axel of the social issues that seem to continually plague the older, yet no-so conservative, conservatives. The party platform has too many planks that no longer resonate with young voters and I must say minority voters, though my experience is that Republicans are more open to African Americans and Hispanics. We believe in true diversity not just in skin color but also in thought. Sadly, though the old guard of the party goes out of its way to portray a different face. The party clings to outmoded social policies, like its stance against abortion. Yes, it is very bad law a right created out of a vacuum (the notion that a right to privacy means a right to destroy life flies in the face of true reason and right and wrong) but it is here and probably will be for a long time to come and as such is it not better to have it be safely performed than not? Gay rights are another social dinosaur of the old party. Gay people are just people why should they be treated differently? All of the religious palaver doesn’t change the fact that they are Gay not by choice but by birth. There is no evidence of the “gay” perversion that seems to haunt the zealot republicans. Studies show that the best parents that children can have is a mom and a dad of the correct sex, but in our modern society that is a rare combination and there are millions of children that need parents and Gay couple make great loving parents and children suffer no harm from it.

Trump bellows, “Make America Great Again,” but then wanders off on some tangent unrelated to the message. Clinton cackles and talks in tongues, “I ain’t no ways tired,” and regurgitates 60 years of liberal dogma. Neither, as Obama before them, seems to actually know what America really needs. I am not sure I do either but I do know that it does not need a National Socialist or a Criminal Socialist. I am voting Libertarian this year.

Interesting Socioeconomic Indicators

I first saw a graph like this during a talk I was watching on YouTube by the political scientist Robert Putnam from Harvard University. It is a graph of several economic and social indicators for the 20^th and early 21^st centuries. I decided to reproduce the chart so I went out and located the various data sets in databases on the web and from papers by Putnam and others and then I plotted the data. My addition to the graph is the National Debt as a percentage of GDP. So this graph shows the trends in Income Equality (which is just the % of wealth held by the top 1% plotted upside down); Generosity (charitable giving as a % of income); Social Capital (Measure of community involvement through membership in organizations like PTA, Elks, Lions club etc); Union Membership and finally the National Debt (as % of GDP). Some of the data I could find in databases online, Income Equality, Union Membership, Debt, but the other two, the social indicators I digitized from papers by Putnam and others. The data are all in percentages and have been scaled to show the trends and not the absolutes. The first thing that should be noticed right away is that from roughly the early 1950 to around the mid to late 1970,s early 1980s there was this 20-30 year period when the country shows a lot of unity as a nation. For example, wealth equality was very high. Oh, there were rich people (but maybe only 1 or 2 so called billionaires). Charitable giving was high, Social Capital, and Union Membership were all in unison and high and the National debt as a percentage of our GDP was on the decline. This was the post war era and there was a real sense of community. But then things began to change starting in the mid to late 70s – the era of the Carter Malaise. I marked 1987 because that marks a sharp drop in wealth inequality possibly triggered by the Reagan tax cuts, which saw massive upward movement in all wealth brackets but especially the upper brackets and just for fun I tossed onto the graph a relative plot (scaled to the maximum) the number of billionaires since 1970 (There is sparse data for the years before 1987 but in 1970s there was really only 1 – J. Paul Getty). The number of billionaires track, well as one would expect the decline in Income equality (it really should be called wealth inequality but I am following Putnam here). The number also follows, again as would be expected, major economic trends – note the decline in the number during the housing market downturn.

People can take away from this graph any number of things. One can also chose to speculate on the why the trends are the way they are; I have my own opinions. The graph indicates well major historic events – WWI, The Great Depression, WWII and a little the Korean War. It is hard to dispute though this relatively stable era from about 1950 to the mid-to-late 1970s. In the mid-60s President Johnson Inaugurated the Great Society and declared war on Poverty and Vietnam and that marked the beginning of the rapid rise of the Welfare State and the beginning of a war that would mire us in Southeast Asia for 10 years. Both events were a great dividing period in American society. It was probably the first time in our history where wealth became a truly blatant divider – if you were well off you could go to college and get the college deferment – thus buying your way out of service and this wasn’t just for the conservatives it was across the political spectrum. The beginning of the 70s see marked down turns in Social Capital, Charitable giving and even, interestingly Union Membership. Putnam had other data that I haven’t found yet, on Political Consensus; in the 1960s there were not a lot of ideological differences between the two parties. For example, today Kennedy would be seen as a conservative Republican. Even Johnson, despite his social engineering proclivities was a strong pro-American that was truly concerned about the plight of the poor and of minorities. The beginning of the decline of Income Equality lags by another 5 or 10 years the downturns in the social trends. The 1980s marked the rise of oil wealth (Remember the show Dallas, popular in the 1980s). The 1980s were also significant because that is when Personal Computers arrived on the scene – Hooray Bill Gates – the beginning of the Technology rich. Also, with the arrival of Ronald Reagan to the White House we saw the first real cut in income taxes since Kennedy nearly 20 years earlier. Finally people started keeping more of their money – and especially those that could make a lot of money – Oil Tycoons and the Bill Gates’s. It was probably about that time that having a college education began to have real value, especially in the technology areas. Oil companies were hiring college students with BS in physics, chemistry and engineering at high wages to go out and work in the fields looking for new deposits of oil. If you were a New Mexico Tech graduate in the late 70s early 80s with a degree in physics – got to work for Schlumberger hunting for oil.

I was growing up in the 60s and 70s and I remember when we lived in Portland Oregon. We were poor living on state assistance. My dad was never around. Across the street lived a family, the Nunn’s, a Father, a mother, and two children. The father had a solid job. They were buying their home and he had a boat that he would take me and his son out on to fish on the Willamette River. Economic differences were not important. We were all just kids in the community.

Another general comment on the graph and one that indicates why I am not a supporter of my own party the ObamaRepublican or the Obamacrats, is the fact that all indicators, social and economic have gone south and remained south during the current administration and all back to those following Reagan. The improvements seen after the 70's represent not changes for the good in our socioeconomic circumstances but big upheavals in our economy - the dot-com bubble burst, the globe-comm bubble burst, the housing-bubble burst. Other economic changes, like sequestration have had huge effects. People applauded that but small businesses and middle-class professionals suffered as the big Aerospace companies pulled back their small business and consulting contracts, which put millions of professionals out of work - and me, almost - I worked the last few years at more than full time for less than full time pay to contribute to my family. The real fact of the matter is, the government in all of its stupid and ignorant ways is the LARGEST by far, determiner of socioeconomic fate of Americans - by FAR since probably Wilson, wielding his new found government wealth via the income tax - but certainly under FDR if found wings that have had long term negative impact on society as a whole.

I know that people today like to downplay the significance of social changes but the fact is they are important. I don't support the conservative view of traditional marriage as between a man and a woman because I support anything that brings two people together that love each other and especially if they are raising a child and providing love and support. The graph shows that charitable giving began declining in the late 1960s and early 1970s - well, DUH, so began the rise of the Welfare State. This isn't a to say that that state wasn't important, it was - my family benefited from it and I am grateful for it, but it should have been just a hand up - not a hand-out. Today we argue about minimum wages and the benefits of raising them but we don't argue why so many people become so dependent on a minimum wage job as a career. Those that should be working the minimum wage jobs shouldn't need to rely on it as their livelihood - they should be the kids getting their first jobs and learning jobs skills.

Why the decline in union membership during the same time frame as the other declines. Union jobs provide(d) high paying jobs, many, if not most, skilled jobs. Well, about that same time frame Unions become less about the workers and more about themselves - as all bureaucracies tend to do. It is sad to see the Union upper leaders making 7-figure salaries and the workers making 5-figure salaries - no one seems to mention that one when complaining about CEO salaries.

Another thing to notice from the chart is that during the first term of the Bush administration there were some positive trends. 9/11 United the country and Bush's tax cuts stimulated the economy, but then Iraq kicked in; the loosening of lending requirements by the democrat congress kicked in (the stimulus for the housing market crash) and then all hell broke loose - and under the Obama the rich keep getting richer. Obamacare was a huge tax increase on the lower middle class and working poor.

Reports from Inauguration 2013

The US Park Service, commenting on this weekend's inaugural events said, "This is the largest flock of sheep ever seen at an the Obama event." They estimated that at least 3 million of the bleating creatures were in DC to see their leader. Reporters attending the event said, “The bleating from the flock was so loud that it drowned out the braying from the Obama,” and this, despite the state-of-art sound system being used. One reporter also noted that, “I had not seen so much crap since attending an Occupy Wall Street event. “There was so much dung everywhere that one could hardly take a step without stepping in a steaming pile," he further noted. Piles were especially large in areas where Democrat Congress People and Senators congregated. Another observer commented that the lectern from which the Obama brayed was, "especially piled deep." Fashion pundits attending the event stated that the important fashion accessory for this year’s inauguration is the hip waders!

Moving Along

It has been several months since my last post. Many things have been going in my life since March, my growing relationship with my lady, Lynda, my broken leg, which happened in August and the subsequent surgery to put a metal plate into my leg and now the recovery, which seems to be taking forever, but has really been all that long given the severity of the injury. Anyway, it is time to start once again blogging.

I am going to continue posting my political screeds under Gordian’s Rants, but since my views on politics now have mellowed – the usual frustration with the garbage we have to choose from for a replacement for the garbage currently in the White House – I also plan to start adding posts to my other blog – Gordian’s Brain. These posts will be more philosophical, artistic and intellectual – if such is possible. There are a lot of other things that I like to write about besides politics.

Ignorant Americans

The recent earthquake in Japan, which caused extensive damage to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility on the northeast shore of Japan, has pointed to a serious problem here in America. No, it is not a problem with our Nuclear power facilities. It is instead a far more serious problem - Ignorance. Americans are some of the most ignorant people in the world. In general the average American almost totally lacks real understanding of most issues that face this country and the world. Most Americans get their information from an even more ignorant source, the news media; a case of the blind leading the blind. Whenever the average American hears the word Nuclear or Radiation (or heaven forbid the two words together in one sentence) there is an almost immediate negative response. It is response based not on any fact but on ignorance, akin to the fear of darkness. Yes, the disaster at the Japanese Nuclear facility is significant and will have a long term impact on Japan, its people, its economy, and its nuclear industry. But to immediately to jump to the wild ass conclusion, fuel by the Obama and the media, that Americans are (or may be) at risk to exposure to radiation from Japan is just plain irresponsible.

The systems used to monitor radiation levels are so sensitive that they can detect levels far below that which is considered a minor health risk and as such they have no trouble detecting the minuscule amounts of radiation that has reached this country from Japan - it was inevitable. The news media, rather than just saying - No Health Risk To Americans from Japanese Nuclear Disaster, they instead say, Increased Radiation Levels Detected on West Coast from Japanese Nuclear Disaster, and one has to read the entire article to find out that the increased radiation levels are far below what the Government considers are minimal risk. In the mean time the average American has run to their local pharmacy and bought up all of the Iodine pills they can, not realizing that radioactive iodine is just one component of a stew of potential radiation risks, that if actually a significant health risk would not be mitigated by talking iodine.

The true threat to America from the Japanese disaster will not come in the form of increased exposure to harmful levels of radiation but from the anti-nuclear groups, which fuel the nuclear hysteria. From almost the second that the nuclear disaster began the news media speaking on behalf of the anti-nuke groups began attacking America's nuclear industry. Even congress people have started calling for a moratorium on further nuclear power plants - none have been built since the late '70s. All of this uproar is a result of mass ignorance and is not based on one shred of scientific evidence.

This country lacks a comprehensive energy policy based on sound scientific and economic principles. The Obama, as the current head of state is often blamed for our poor energy status, and well he should be, given that his proposed policy is juvenile and based on ignorance of our country's energy needs, production capabilities, and technologies; windmills and solar cells does not an energy policy make. But, the Obama is not alone in this regard, every president starting with Carter has miss managed America's energy policy. America needs nuclear energy. Even if battery technology advances far enough to make the electric car more viable (and cheaper) it will still need a source of electricity to charge the batter cells. The electricity has to come from somewhere. Right now most of it comes from coal and natural gas fired power plants. Simple arithmetic shows that the amount of wind turbines or solar cells needed to equal the output of current nuclear power facilities is staggering and will immediately result in the NIMBY response from even the most ardent Green Energy supporters.

When it comes to serious issues facing America, it is time for Americans to educate themselves. The first step is to stop listening to the news - all news from the State Run Media and Fox. When it comes to real issues they are all Bad - yes, with a capital "B." It is time for an informed America.

Freedom from the TSA Grope??

I suppose that the best thing to come out of the Nuclear mess in Japan is that we may be exempt from ever having to go through the TSA Whole Body scanners. The press said they were safe, but now given that we are about to parish from the gihugic cloud of radiation coming our way from Japan, they, the press, will probably be changing their minds about the Porno-Scanners. Actually, I doubt that, given that TSA GOOD, Nuclear Power BAD.

Far-Reaching Catastrophe | Nate Beeler's 'Toons | Washington Examiner

Far-Reaching Catastrophe | Nate Beeler's 'Toons | Washington Examiner

How's my hair-piece thinks Biden!

Danial Henninger on the WSJ Opinion Page: A Presidency to Nowhere.

Down the Memory Hole

Washington Examiner: Financial crisis panel issues useless report.

Unserious

Peggy Noonan's column on the Wall Street Journal pages mirrors exactly my view of TOTUS' State of the Obama Address. The country needs leadership not empty platitudes.

the Obamacare lies

Michael Tanner: Obamacare: An Unacquired Taste

"For example: Starting today, parents will be able to keep their children on their insurance plans until age 26. Democrats imply that that extended coverage is free. But, in reality, the Department of Health and Human Services estimates that it will cost an estimated $3,380 a year per child. And since employers are balking at picking up the added cost, the parents themselves will have to pay more if they want to continue their children’s coverage"

The NEWS we had to search for elsewhere

Dana Loesch: The 10 Most Underreported Stories for 2010

And this additional story from Power Line.

Economic Realities

A couple of predictions for the economy over the next two years - both of which will have a potential impact on the Obama Republicans:

1) The expiration of the Bush tax cuts will lead to an immediate, but temporary influx of new cash to the government and a decline in private capital. This will be followed within a year with an increase in unemployment as privates small businesses lay off employees. The deficit will not go down because government spending will most likely increase - the Obama Republicans are probably not going to do anything about the Obamacare.

2) What little funding increase cuts the Obama Republicans do push through, right now a measly $100 billion, could lead to a decline in the economy because so much of it is now dependent on government spending - a la FDR.

The fact is, the government does NOT need more money to function, it needs to cut spending and not just increases in spending, but the baseline - whole programs and agencies need to be cut from the federal budget. By revoking completely and not replacing it with Republican Care - Trillions of dollars can be saved, but it doesn't decrease our current spending levels.

The sad fact is that none of the programs proposed by the Obamacrats or the Obama Republicans does anything to help the middle class. The majority of the Obama economy has been about wealth redistribution - from the middle class to the welfare class. The top 1% - the small percentage that are really wealthy - are relatively immune to the Obama's shenanigans, they have their wealth and new money doesn't change that much so you could take a few extra bucks out of their paychecks to help pay for government. But since the majority of the 1% are small business and not zillionairs then you do risk increasing unemployment in both the welfare class and the middle class.

No economic policy should be about keeping individuals happy where they are - the intent is for people to strive to move up the economic ladder and not stay where they are. By not taxing the welfare class the government provides no incentive to move up. By increasing taxes on the middle class and upper middle class then they become trapped, unable to move up, and in many cases they move downward as the upper class hold more and more of the country's wealth.

We could always go back to the pre-Reagan taxes for the upper income brackets (top 1%) - 70+% tax rates. This won't change their wealth much - not talking about small businesses which make up most of the upper 1% - as they have their money. It will, though, create an effective permanent barrier to upward movement from middle class to upper middle class to wealthy. It will also effectively stop the upward movement of the welfare class to the middle class.

The apparent stagnation in the welfare class has nothing to do with the current tax structure but everything to do with the government's continued policy of aiding and abetting poverty. Poverty is not caused by rich people, especially in a country like ours where everyone has the opportunity to succeed.

the Hubris of Government

"Every single great idea that has marked the 21st century, the 20th century and the 19th century has required government vision and government incentive."

- Joe Biden, Oct. 26

This is the type of hubris that has led to the continued decline of American preeminence around the world. The notion that without government we as a people, as a nation would be nothing is the central cause for poverty, immorality and nearly every other malady that has plagued this once great nation. The Founders of this nation understood that a central government was indeed a necessity but they saw that government as being limited in scope and power. No one can name a single great idea of the last 3 centuries that required the government. I will not say that government has not been important to bringing some of those ideas to fruition - after all having access to a nearly infinite pile of cash can and does go a long way. Had it not been for government Bell Labs would still be pumping out great ideas and GM would not be producing one of the 21st Century's biggest technology failures - the Volt. Biden and the Obama are Socialists, socialists of the worst kind - almost evil in their ignorance of reality.

The idea for the Atomic Bomb did not originate from some government paid science wonk, no it grew in the minds of brilliant scientists from the academic worlds of Europe and America before the massive insinuation of government funding. The Bomb itself is the product of a zealous government - there is a difference. One of the things that disturbed me most about working at Los Alamos was here was the collection of some of the country's smartest scientists gathered to work on the National Security Problems that troubled our nation and yet too many of them were engaged not in research vital to our security but in pet projects funded by American Tax Dollars. These are scientists being paid salaries and having access to the finest state-of-the art equipment in the world doing research for publication in scientific journals with absolutely no relevance to National Security - if only a University professor had it so good - no responsibility for classes and students and struggling for tenure. I do not attack the notion of Science for Science's sake but I do have a problem with its funding with Tax Dollars at government institution that have a responsibility to the nation as a whole and not to the individual scientist. If government must fund science and they should, then I would like to see tens of thousands of National Laboratory scientists competing for university jobs and an increase in NSF funding with a huge decrease in DOE funding.

the Obama picked a Nobel Prize winning physicist to head up the Department of Energy Dr. Steven Chu, a brilliant scientist. Surely his appointment to Secretary of DOE is a signal that a brilliant career was sacrificed for ideology - a socialist ideology at that. Dr. Chu is one of those scientists among many that I know and know of that made a choice that I do not understand. For some reason truly brilliant people are drawn to the nonsense notion of a Utopian world - the kind of world that an the Obama type espouses. There appears to be no correlation between intellectual ability and leadership - the Obama is a prime example - a man with supposed intellectual capacity but absolutely no clue on how to lead. The left attacked George Bush but he was a leader, by every definition of the word and only near the end of his stint in office did we see the chinks in his armor and only then because he strayed from his principles.

Real Hope for this Country

Wishful hoping (my fingers, toes and eyes are crossed): Deathly Midterms.

No Mandate

the Obama came into office believing that he had a mandate to "Change" America. In fact he had no such thing. What he considered a mandate was (while a significant percentage of the voting population at that time) made up of two groups, 1) socialist lefties suffering the side effects of liberal white guilt and for whom money was not an issue (ie rich Hollywood types) and 2) what Andrew Wilkow has dubbed, the "Zero Liability Voter." The first group is a small minority of America and as such their vote could hardly be considered a mandate. The second group really should not even be allowed to vote in the first place. They are the population that either pay no income tax, and the majority get a return (earned income credits) that offset their payroll taxes. So, they are essentially voting more benefits to themselves without the liability of having to pay for those benefits. This is the group of people that the Founding Fathers did not want to vote because they have not stake in the outcome. So, where is the mandate? Take away the welfare class and you are left with a tiny minority of voters for whom a few extra bucks out of their pocket in the form of increased taxes is really not a big deal. They create few jobs (exceptions being the Gates and Buffets) and in fact like the welfare class really have no stake in this country. The rest of us, the ones that are stuck paying for the Obama's largesse have a great deal at stake and as such represent the true mandate.

Don't Blame Me, I Didn't Vote for Me!

I screwed up, so I blame the voters.

Cal Thomas: GOP 'pledge' is a test of Republican character | Washington Examiner

Cal Thomas is one of those columnists that you always read or listen to when he talks. While you may not always agree - he has the credibility to demand respect of his opinions.

Cal Thomas: GOP 'pledge' is a test of Republican character | Washington Examiner

"Republicans should make weaning them from dependence on government a patriotic duty and the essence of liberty. Focus on those who have overcome poverty and let them serve as examples of what others can do.

Let's talk about individuals demonstrating more responsibility for their lives and ensuring their own retirement, with Social Security returning to the insurance program it was originally designed to be: a safety net, not a hammock"

Science and the Search for Truth

Harold Kroto, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry 1996: Treat science right and it could help save the world.

Before you come unhinged at his subtle attack on the Texas school board for including religion in texts books (by the way he is right about this), this piece is aimed just as much to the Obama and his ignorant gang as it is at the Rush Limbaughs and Mike Church's. Science and Religion are not the same thing and neither are the mutually exclusive but they don't mix well. Both are about seeking the truth and if you openly accept both you will find that there is no conflict - both require that you drop all pretensions about what you think you know and accept what you don't.

Temporary Halt in Using Murdered Babies for Stem Cell Research

Not really that opposed to stem cell research but finally a Judge that stands up and says that there is no such thing as "settled" law when it is an executive order trying to circumvent a Congressional Law. NYT: U.S. Judge Rules Against Obama’s Stem Cell Policy.