Trump's Rules

I love NCIS.  It occurs to me that if Trump was Gibbs he would have rules to follow:

Trump Rule #1. If evidence indicates something negative about me, attack the source.

Trump Rule #2: If evidence indicates something negative about me declare the evidence "fake."

Trump Rule #3: If evidence indicates something negative about me claim a conspiracy is afoot.

Trump Rule #4: If evidence indicates something negative about me offer other fabricated evidence. Lie.

Trump Rule #5: Fire anyone who does not support Rules 1 to 4.

Trump Rule #6: Hire anyone who is a family member.

Trump Rule #7: In areas of total lack of knowledge claim extraordinary expertise.

Trump Rule #8: Demand loyalty, right or wrong, good or bad, truth or lies.

Trump Rule #9: Offend allies and praise dictators.

Trump Rule #10: Objectify women.  Make inappropriate remarks to women perceived as either attractive or unattractive.

Trump Rule #11:  Determine the potential value of a person’s contribution by that person’s wealth, not knowledge, experience, training or philosophy.

Trump Rule #12:  To be happy dictate, discriminate, accumulate, isolate, fornicate.

Trump Rule #13: Claim Christianity but pray there really is no God.

(additional thoughts as of 7/26/17)

Trump Rule #14:  It is OK to discriminate against all humans who lack the characteristics I was born with:  Anglo, male, heterosexual.  I was born with these characteristics because I am so smart.

Trump Rule #15:  It is OK to talk about myself and my issues and my view of the world everywhere I go because everyone wants to know. My thoughts are the best thoughts.

Why is National Health Care so Difficult for Republicans?

I will confess that watching the Republicans struggle with repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act has been one of the most amusing political events I have ever observed.  It is not that Republicans are stupid.  Nor is it that these events are without serious consequence.  It is that they are attempting to accomplish something that is totally outside their nature to accomplish.  Hence the twists and turns, and dead ends, and wringing of hands, and overall angst about the notion of a Republican Health Care Plan.  Such a plan is the equivalent of a Hulk School of Charm or of a James Bond Monogamy Seminar or an Elon Musk Improved Internal Combustion Engine.  Such efforts are just the antithesis of their nature, so any and all efforts are just, well, funny.  The very phrase, Republican Health Care Plan or a Trump Health Care Plan is so oxymoronic that I giggle and squirm and miss George Carlin very much.

Republicans do not believe that the government should provide anything to our citizens much beyond military protection.  They do not believe in regulating business for the purpose of worker safety, they do not believe in monitoring our environment to eliminate hazards and long-term negative impact, they do not believe in monitoring our food and water for safe consumption, they do not believe in earned governmental benefits like Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid.  They do not believe in food subsidies for the hungry.  They do not believe in public education for the masses.  They do not believe in government providing anything other than the fertile ground on which money can be made.  So to task a group with this mindset to design and develop a national health care plan that may actually help many of our citizens is an impossible task for them.  They cannot do it without hurting someone because they do not believe they can or should help anyone.

It was oh so easy to attack the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as they called it.  It was a boondoggle, a government giveaway, an organizational disaster, harmful to the wealthy insurance companies and more limiting for the very wealthy medical practitioners and hospitals; something that never should have happened, etc., etc.  It was oh so easy to promise to repeal this act and replace it with something better.  But now that they have won control of the Executive and Legislative branches of our government and have set their sights on controlling the Judicial branch, they are flat stuck.  How in the world could folks with this belief system ever develop a program that will help those who need it the most?  So we hear crazy talk like cut food stamps to fund health care, cut social security or Medicare or Medicaid to fund health care, etc.  In other words, they only way they can imagine providing a service or a safety net for American citizens is to take away another service or safety net.  If they can do so and have a net sum zero game, maybe they can convince the most conservative among us that they have fulfilled their campaign promise.

And I roll and giggle.

Give it up guys and gals.  You are not capable of accomplishing your commitment.  You can develop a plan that hurts everyone, and especially hurts those who need support the most, but it is impossible for you to conceive of universal health care for the citizens of the United States.  The best you could do is hire a bunch of Democrats to write the plan for you and then get behind it.  Oh yeah, we tried that once and you did not get behind it.  No worries, your own health care will be provided for you and you will not suffer from your inability to provide such a service to others.  You are safe for now.

Brand New Freedoms in the USA!

We celebrate our Declaration of Independence today and take special note of the freedoms we enjoy.  It occurs to me we have freedoms to celebrate this year we have not had in years, or ever.  Here is my list of brand spanking new freedoms in the land of the free and the home of the brave:

The freedom to judge any race or ethnicity publicly and in a pejorative way.  For the longest time we shunned bigots.  We shunned those who would describe a person from any racial or ethnic group in a stereotypical prejudicial way.  No more!  Now, led by the President himself we can make snide remarks about Hispanics, Mexican-Americans, Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians, Chinese, Saudi Arabians, etc.  So feel free to blast a religious or racial group based on your limited understanding and not be shunned by others.

The freedom to openly practice misogyny.  For the longest time we have shunned those people who looked down on women, who treated them as second-class citizens, or as mere sex objects.  Now, led by the President himself we can make all kinds of snide remarks about women and suffer no ill consequences from enlightened men or radicalized women.  We can make references to their looks, their sex appeal, their menstrual cycle, etc.  We can even joke about grabbing their genitals.  Now that every woman who supports Trump evidently is in favor of having her genitals grabbed men are much more free to treat women in ways that has never been allowed before! 

The freedom to openly criticize people with a sexual identity or sexual preference different than straight forward heterosexuality.  For the longest we have been working to treat human beings as human beings regardless of their sexual orientations.  Now, led by the President himself, we can ignore those people, deny them simply civil liberties such as adopting kids and getting married and suffer no negative consequences.  Not since Biblical times has such freedom to persecute ever been more supported by a governing body.

Companies and corporations have many more freedoms today as well.

Companies and corporate heroes can now use their own bigotry as a source of criteria for employment.  If a company opposes the existence of homosexual people or homosexual couples they can be denied employment.  Likely any company can deny employment now to women and other minorities as well.

Companies and corporate heroes can now give money without limit to political candidates they support.  And since conservative candidates are supported more by large companies than liberal candidates, conservatives have been elected in increasing numbers thanks to the unfettered gifts of wealthy conservatives.  Now this is a freedom with real benefits.  I give away millions to someone who supports the above freedoms, because they now have more money than the other candidates they win, and now the law reflects my new freedoms!  So cool.

Companies and corporations now can construct, produce and operate anything they want to without worrying about the impact to land, air, water or other living things.  What a great freedom!  We can put more people to work destroying the planet than ever before and pretend like we are not destroying the planet while maintaining our addiction to fossil fuels.  This new freedom must have come straight from the mind of God.

No, there is another new freedom that is much more likely to have come straight from the mind of God:  Companies and corporations may give any amount of money they want to a religious organization and receive tax deductions for such gifts.  Those religious organizations can now give those dollars to any candidate they choose or to support any cause they choose.  Best of all, the religious groups do not have to pay taxes themselves!  Churches remain tax exempt while funding political candidates, endorsing political candidates and aligning with certain causes.  Truly the ability for the wealthy to launder money through he church as tax exempt, allow the church to spend such money as they choose and allow the church to remain tax exempt is a new freedom inspired by all that Jesus taught.

So there you have it.  The new American freedoms we have not had before nor have we been able to celebrate before.  God Bless the USA!  Happy Fourth of July!

In Support of Maher and Griffin

I am a fan of Bill Maher and Kathy Griffin.  They are exceptionally bright showpeople, full of biting wit and often outlandish comments and behavior.  Their politics and their sense of humor may not appeal to you and that is, of course, OK.  But in the genre of funny critics of our current state few rank as high and perform as well as Kathy and Bill. 

So, I do not get the big deal over their so-called faux pas.  Did anyone really think that Kathy Griffin was actually holding the severed head of Donald Trump?  I don’t think so.  Was the gesture tasteless?  Yes.  Was it offensive to Trumpettes?  Yes.  Is it classic Griffin pushing the boundaries of humor?  Yes.  But, it was a joke, people. 

Does anyone think Bill Maher is a bigot?  I don’t think so.  His response to a Kansas senator who invited him to come to Kansas and work in the fields was, in my opinion, a funny comeback to a classic conservative remark.  This white senator implied generations of racial discrimination on American farms.  Maher’s response was quick and pointed.  In attacking that kind of thinking he amplified the point by pointing out that he was not field slave.  He was a house slave.  He used the lexicon of the Civil War.  Yes, a white man used the “N” word, but his retort was so on target, so quick that I stand amazed by the man’s mind.  He was not attacking Blacks, he was defending them.  Was his comment offensive to some?  Yes.  Was it classic Maher using shock words to wake us up to the reality behind our assumptions?  Yes.  Was he pushing the boundaries of humor?  Yes.  But, it was a joke, people.  

I am reminded of the terror attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris, January 2015, where Muslim extremists killed twelve people at a satirical magazine because they posted cartoons depicting Mohammed in ways they did not like.  We called such attacks terrorism.  We stood up for free press.  We honored the victims for pushing the boundaries.   We were horrified that a group would seek to harm people because they did not like the way their perspective was reflected in the media. 

So now, we want to punish Griffin and Maher for insulting the sensitivities of others?  Come on.  Supporting free speech means supporting all those examples whether we agree with them or not, whether we are offended by them or not.  Leave Kathy and Bill alone.  If you do not like them, don’t listen to them.  Otherwise, worry more about the people on our planet who cannot take a joke.

Trump is a Loser

One of our President’s favorite pejorative terms is “loser.”  He has used that term to describe journalists, POW’s, people who pay taxes, media outlets, terrorists, public schools, protestors, the judicial branch, judges, etc.  Every time I hear him call someone or some group losers I hear him saying “You’re Fired” from the days of his reality TV show.  It is as though he is empowered as judge and jury, and I for one am glad he will not be standing at the pearly gates when I arrive.  But the real question is, if these folks are losers, what game are they playing?

President Trump has made two very candid remarks that I find incredibly revealing.  First, he said that health care is really complicated and he did not know that.  Secondly, he said that being President was much harder than he thought it would be.  Both remarks, and many others, lead me to believe that Trump has yet to start playing the game that is before him.

Trump plays Monopoly.  The US and the world play chess.  Trump keeps making decisions and statements as though he is amassing property, is the boss, can tell people what to do, and can bankrupt anyone once he is in control.  He believes he is in control.  The real problem is the world and the US don’t play monopoly at the policy level.  They play chess.  Each move is strategic and each move looks way down the road to consequences both for our nation and the planet.  While Trump plays Monopoly he is losing the chess game.  Yes, Trump is a loser once we agree on the game we are playing. 

Trump has no idea how to play chess.  His background, his history, his areas of expertise are in no way suited to play chess.  He plays Monopoly where bold acquisitions and decisions pay off and not only is control the ultimate goal, but winning is the accumulation of great wealth and the demise of one’s competitors.  One can enter a game of Monopoly with one central strategy:  get property and get rich.  Chess is very different.  Chess is a game of thought, planning and expertise.  None of those are Trump qualities.  Yes, there is a winner in each chess game, but to win one must respect the opponent and his or her strengths, weaknesses, and strategies.  To enter a chess game with a predetermined strategy and not have the ability to adjust as circumstances change, as science changes, as alliances change, as other players develop improved skills, is to enter a chess game and lose.  Trump senses, I believe, that the game he finds going on around him is not his game.  It does not play by his rules.  It does not align with his proclivities.  It is a game based on wisdom and experience.  Trump has no experience and virtually no wisdom.  Monopoly does not require a lot of wisdom or experience.  Roll the dice.

Trump’s most recent moves continue to imply he is not capable of making the shift to chess.  He wants to pound the competition.  His move to establish a War Room to take on those nasty media types who keep challenging him is a classic competitive move.  A chess player would seek to discover what the media wants, how to woo them, how to be transparent, how to make them allies.  Not Trump.  He continues to use the term “fake news” for any reporting he does not like.  Oh so sad.  Meanwhile, Trump thinks he hit a home run on his first international trip.  No one outside this country agrees.  The world is shaking its collective head trying to figure this guy out.  All they have to do is learn to play monopoly and they will understand him.

Trump values wealth and those who acquire wealth.  He sees the rest of us, the non-wealthy, as losers.  Health care is about protecting the winners.  The budget is about protecting the winners.  Tax proposals are about protecting the winners.  Environmental issues are about protecting the winners.  If you are a winner, you are good.  There is not a moral theme running through any of his proposals.  Do we have a responsibility to improve our climate?  Do we have a responsibility to support the needy?  Do we have an obligation to those who suffer and are persecuted internationally?  On and on, those are not considerations when one plays Monopoly. 

I fervently hope Trump learns to play chess.  I hope he learns that wisdom and expertise and the long view and the moral view are more important than protecting winners. I hope that those who have supported Trump realize that in his game he considers many of his supporters as losers as well, and is proposing policies that will severely hurt the middle class, the working class, and the poor in our nation. 

But I see very little evidence that he is learning.  He is more determined than ever to play Monopoly on the chess board.  And though many may have thought that the cure for our problems was to change the game and voted for Trump, it should be more and more clear that if we want to be world leaders, have a growing economy, employ more people, and put policies and programs in place that improve the lives of not only Americans but the rest of the world we have got to play chess.  Trump already has the lowest approval rating of any President in history, and abroad he is a source of fear, concern and laughter.  I am sure he writes all that off because those who do not support him are losers and that he believes he is winning. 

But Trump is a loser because he is not playing the right game and does not know how to do so.  His victories will be our nation’s defeat.  Then way too late we will realize what a loser he is.

Conservative?

Do you tend to blame poor people for being poor?

Do you tend to resent subsidies to poor people for food and shelter?

Do you secretly wish everyone in America was an Anglo?

Do you believe males should be able to limit the ability of females to make decisions about their bodies?

Do you want to see your particular religious beliefs enacted into law?

Do you believe we are a Christian nation rather than a nation of religious freedom and tolerance?

Do you believe that private sector, marketplace competition should be the model for public services like schools, police, prisons, armed forces, etc.?

Do you believe improving the likelihood of private sector, corporate profit is in the best interest of our nation and most likely will create the highest standard of living for the most people?

Do you believe that those who pursue increased income are likely to consistently make decisions that are ethical and protect the common good?

Do you believe we must highly regulate public education to ensure that students learn content more than critical thinking and problem solving?

Do you believe that leaving health care in the hands of the profit motivated insurance, medical and pharmaceutical industries is in the best interest of the overall health care of US citizens?

Do you believe that those who pursue a life of service to others in education, nursing, child protective services, etc., are somehow losers compared to those who pursue maximizing their income?

Do you believe in local control, even if local control is discriminatory?

Do you believe that promoting athletics in public schools will have a more positive impact on students long term than promoting academics and the arts?

Do you believe privately held companies should be allowed to discriminate based on the religious beliefs of the owner or CEO?

Do you believe that there should not be a limit on the amount of money corporations and wealthy individuals contribute to political campaigns?

Do you believe that what is good for business is good for the USA?

Do you believe that the regulations monitoring and ensuring the safety of our water, our food, our atmosphere and the safety of our work place should be eliminated as it creates too great a burden on producers?

Do you believe that there is one dominant US culture and everyone who lives here or comes here should subscribe to that culture in ways that include such attributes as religion, dress, art, and language?

Do you believe the most important part of the federal budget should be defense spending?

Do you believe that a basis of our foreign policy should be to avoid interactions with other nations and alliances as much as possible?

Do you believe that a basis of our foreign policy should include our ability to tell other sovereign nations what to do and how to behave?

Do you believe the widening gap between the wealthy and the middle and lower class is not an issue?

Do you believe that the right to own a firearm supersedes the right to public safety and protection of the common good?

Do you believe the protection of the fossil fuel industry is more important than our global climate?

Do you believe that the right to peaceably assemble should only apply to protesters whose position is aligned with your position?

Do you believe that we should limit the rights of anyone who does not subscribe to fierce patriotism, Christianity, and other conservative attributes?

Do you make over $365,000 per year?

Do you believe Jesus is a conservative?

No.  But if yes, then you are a conservative.  

Choice and Charter Schools are Inefficient and Immoral

Here we go again, or perhaps I should say we are still going.  Public school choice.  The most irrational, illogical, immoral notion to come along in a long time is not only still with us, it has advanced to the level of presidential support and secretary of education support.  These emperors are naked and someone must grab the American public and wake them up.  “Choice” sounds so democratic, so American.  But in the context of schools it is worse than inefficient.  Choice and charter schools are immoral.

Let’s talk about the word choice.  We use it as a basis for our consumerism.  People buy stuff, and as long as there is choice there are market forces to keep production going and prices low.  I stand in the grocery store on the cereal aisle and I have choices.  Lots and lots of choices.  That is a good thing.  I need gas for my car and I have choice, well some, and that is a good thing.  I want a soft drink other than water and I have lots of choices.  Such market choice drives free enterprise.  The theory is it improves the quality of production and regulates price.  Though I am somewhat a skeptic of that notion, let’s just say for now (but not always) that the theory is sound and that it works in the private sector.  (I will simply ask the obvious question:  if choice is so fundamental to the notion of free enterprise then why do producers continue to merge in an effort to eliminate such choice?)

Applying the same notion to the public sector, however, is absolutely ridiculous.  It may sound “American” but it is not.  What are public sector services?  Law enforcement, fire fighters, drinking water, testing the water we drink, sewage treatment, streets, highways, forest rangers, public libraries, public museums, and public schools.  Each of these entities and a host of others provide services to citizens funded by tax dollars.  We all pay in, and the service is there if we need it or want it.  No one ever argues that when you dial 9-1-1 you should have choice.  You just want someone to come quickly.  No one ever argues that they will not travel our highways because there is no choice:  all roads are built by one government or another.  No one argues that when they flush they should have choices regarding where it goes.  Clearly, when providing the same service to a given population having a single server makes great sense.  It is efficient.  It can be monitored.  In such a case, “choice” becomes ludicrous and inefficient.  In fact it would be stupid.  Why would we run an additional set of water lines, sewer lines, police forces, fire fighters, libraries, highways, etc., etc?  Makes no sense.  It would be very inefficient to provide choice in the areas of tax-supported public services.

Public schools are the same.  Buildings are built with tax dollars to house the number of kids in a given geographical area.  If only 1,000 kids live in a given area then buildings will be built to house those kids, the courses they will take and the teachers to teach those courses.  There is no need to duplicate that construction.  That would be wasteful and inefficient.  There would be no need to hire a second team of teachers to teach these children.  That would be redundant and inefficient.  In fact, if money was taken from the existing school buildings and teachers to fund the duplicate school buildings and teachers that would not only be inefficient.  It would be immoral.  And that is exactly what charter schools do. 

Everywhere there is a charter school there is a public school system that has existed all along.  The public schools already had the buildings and staff to teach the kids that live in that area.  Once the charter came in they were superimposed over the public school and had to create duplicate facilities and faculties.  Education is expensive enough, but if one begins to duplicate it everywhere it will become ridiculous. Kids leave the public schools to attend the charter school.  When they do so, they take their per-pupil funding with them.  The public school loses tax revenue.  The charter school gets tax revenue.  They both serve kids in the same geographic location.  Does that sound like good business to you?  Of course not. 

But it gets even worse.  Public school employees are paid a salary that is posted on their website.  Public school employees are governed by a local Board of Trustees who hold public meetings, post the budget, propose a tax rate, etc.  Charter schools do not do any of that.  They are governed privately.  One may not even know when their board meets, much less what is on the agenda.  Administrators in charter schools make much more money than public school administrators.  The reason is the charter is not required by law to offer many of the courses required of the public schools, transparency as required of public schools, and/or accountability as required of public schools.  All the while they get the same funding as the public school. 

There is a false notion that private sector characteristics would improve public services.  At the heart of that false notion is the notion of competition and choice.  Neither notion makes sense in public schools.  In fact, such notions are immoral as far as I am concerned.  Let’s say that as a teacher I develop a strategy that dramatically improves the success of students with learning disabilities.  In a competitive world I would patent such a notion and become the sole provider requiring entities to pay me to use my strategy.  That would be immoral in education because if there is a way to help students with special needs and we refrain from sharing so that a teacher earns a profit we are acting in unethical ways.  To withhold successful strategies for kids is immoral.  In fact what really happens is that the teacher who develops such a strategy writes about it, conducts staff development on it, presents it at professional conferences, etc.  We share!  Why do we share?  Because to keep anything secret in the effort to improve the success of kids becomes immoral.  It harms kids.  By definition, if kids are intentionally harmed such action is abusive and immoral.  The core argument of charter schools is that the developers of such schools should be paid tax dollars that deprive the vast majority of students served by public schools.  Reduce the funding of public schools and the likely success of students declines.  Reducing public school funding so that charter school developers can make money is, therefore, immoral.  It hurts kids.

Even worse is the fact that study after study demonstrates that charter schools are not more effective than public schools, and when we account for demographics, public schools are better.  Why in the world would we cut the funding of the vast majority of pupils so that private sector operators can make a profit off tax payer dollars and by doing so they duplicate efforts, create massive inefficiencies, perform at or below the public schools, and harm public school students?  That is immoral and it must stop.

In fact, to measure the efficacy of charter schools we should not look at just charter school students.  If this is a program to help in the education of children then we must look at the results for all children, not just those in charter schools.  These results are clear in a number of ways.  Schools that spend the most money per pupil have the most success.  Redirecting per-pupil funding from public schools to private sector operators is therefore harmful to public school students.  The creation of charter schools provides for entrepreneurs to grow wealthy on tax dollars while harming public school students.  In no other area of public service do we argue that entrepreneurs should have the right to receive tax dollars to duplicate services that lowers the outcomes desired of the public service.  An elected official proposing such a notion would have little chance of getting elected.  And yet somehow we have been sold snake oil that says choice in public education is a good thing.  It is not.  It is not a good thing for kids.  It is not a good thing for education.  It is inefficient.  It exists solely to enrich entrepreneurs.

Stop supporting charter schools.  Stop supporting politicians who support charter schools and choice.  Tell our new Secretary of Education Betsy De Voss that she made her billions on charter schools and that makes her income immoral because she got rich by taking money away from public school students.  Tell the Texas Legislature that increasing the number of charter schools is the promotion of inefficiency and unethical educational practices. 

Until we see charter schools for what they really are, we will continue to fall for the notion that choice in public service is a good thing.  It is not.  It is inefficient and immoral.