How could this happen?

Any school kid has seen pictures like this of pre-WWII Germany where hundreds of thousands of ordinary Germans flocked to get even a glimps of Adolf Hitler as he promised to pull them out of the hard times they were in.  

"How could this happen?  Didn't they see Hitler for the hateful madman he was?"  

Well, no, not really.  Hitler inflamed even the slightest prejudices most people had and convinced them better times were ahead if only they would trust him.  Prejudices against Jews of course, and the mentally and physically handicapped, and Slavs, and pretty much everyone who had it better than they did, too. 

"Times were simpler then, and people were just very naive.  That could never happen today.  We're much better educated and too sophisticated to fall for anything like that."

Really?  Have you not seen FOX News, or MSNBC, or read Breitbart or Huff Post or any number of other slanted sources of information?  We all have our prejudices, and there is one group or another out there looking for you, hoping to turn you into one of their disciples.  IMO we're even MORE susceptible today of falling into the camp of one evil group or another than Germans were back in the 1930's.

Examples?  President Trump has his "base", those who refuse to believe anything at all negative about him.  Any evidence of a tainted election victory is just sour grapes, "flip-flopping" on issues is just his way of keeping his opponents off balance, etc.  They have tasted his brand of Kool Aid and apparently loved it.  They aren't going back.

Then you have the anti-Trumpsters who can find absolutely nothing good to say about the President.  Everything he says is dismissed out of hand.  THEY are always right, and HE is always wrong.  More Kool Aid consumed.  They aren't going back.

Antisemitism is still with us.  Racial tensions are flaring...White Supremacists, Antifa...Charlottsville was NOT spontaneous.  Protestants still view Catholics warily.  My generation looks unfavorably at today's kids and their dress, music, attitudes, etc.  Gay/straight, Believers/atheists, stand or take a knee...the issues, and ardent followers of each, are almost endless.  And however they might believe, they are unlikely to ever go back.  Some believe those who own guns are just a bunch of knuckle-dragging, Tea Party bubbas.  Umm...I own guns, and I am ANYTHING but a knuckle-dragging, Tea Party bubba.  Ewww!  *Oops, even I have prejudices*

My point is, we are NOT too sophisticated to fall prey to being radicalized.  If you think you're too smart to fall for such shenanigans, they're probably already reeling you in.  Apparently we haven't learned the old lesson of history repeating itself.  I hope this ends better than last time.

S

What's this button do?

North Korea tried Saturday to launch a ballistic missile, and just like their last test attempt, it also failed.  Crashed and burned big time, it did.  The question now is WHY?  Was it simply a case of inferior engineering, or something else?  Sunday the former British Foreign Secretary suggested it was likely that a US cyber-attack was responsible for the North Korean missile's spectacular failure. 

We've heard for years now about other countries successful hacks / cyber attacks on American commercial and public interests.  Through all this I've been wondering, "What are we capable of doing to them?"  Of course, barring a security leak, we'll never know for sure.  But if science is truly on the cusp of being able to disable enormously expensive weapons systems with cyber commands from a dark, secure room somewhere, this could be a world "balance-of-power" game changer.

This potential new form of dominant warfare has far-ranging implications.  For many decades there have been only two true superpowers, the USSR / Russia and the US, with the US generally believed to have a considerable edge.  "Superpower" being defined as quantities and qualities of missiles, warheads, aircraft, submarines, tanks, etc.  Only a select few advanced countries could get into our very exclusive club.  

Now, with a relatively small financial investment, many smaller countries could soon find themselves in the Cyber Big Leagues.  Surely tiny Israel is there right now, joining the US, Russia, and China in the top tier.  Other potential members might include N Korea, S Korea, Japan, India, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, and a few others you wouldn't think of as likely superstars.  

Can you imagine the challenges to traditional spheres of influence where former minor league players can demand and win concessions from today's superpowers?  Where most of today's massive aircraft carrier battle groups and nuclear-tipped missiles are made redundant?  Where warfare will be (even) more about electronic / digital measures and countermeasures than about the actual hardware?  Will today's heavyweights be able to gracefully and willingly share power?

For those who are today willing to appease the Tea Party's thirst for tax cuts at all costs, please think twice.  Cutting funding in the wrong places, such as in education, especially in the nerdy fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, would likely come back to haunt us in the not-too-distant future.  It's time to double-down on funding our future.  Cyber-nerds sitting at computer keyboards may not be as sexy as a fleet of stealth bombers, but they will likely someday be far more important to our national security.

Chew on that thought for a while.

S

Wha...what? Flying pigs?...Icicles in Hell?...

Stubborn as hell and it never forgets.

Do you understand what's happening with this on again / off again healthcare bill about to come to a vote in Congress?  I think I have it figured out.  Here's my take:

The Red State congressional parasites have promised their constituents a Trillion Dollar tax cut, cause, you know, their folks need more $$$.  The first step to doing that is to trash ObamaCare.

The Blue State congressional parasites have promised their constituents more healthcare benefits with ideally even bigger subsidies.  They don't care what it costs because their constituents by-and-large won't be the ones paying for it.

Right now ALL House of Representatives Democrats (the Blues) will vote "no" because it cuts too deep, and many Republican Tea Party-types (the Reds) will vote "no" because it doesn't cut deeply enough.  Talk about strange bedfellows!  The bill is expected to fail.  But if by some miracle it passes, what then?

Then it's on to the Senate, where it's even less likely to pass, for the same reasons mentioned above.  The Republicans want their tax cut, dammit!  There are yachts that need buying!  They don't care who they have to whack to get it.  The Democrats just want their blank check.  Stalemate.

So what if the few moderate Democrats along with the few moderate Republicans sat down together and agreed to strengthen the good points of the ACA, aka ObamaCare, toss out the parts of the ACA that smell, and try to keep the expenses fairly neutral....no blank check for the Dems, and no 1% welfare check for the GOP?  The fringes of both parties could just go to their respective corners and throw their little tantrums.

And to get President Trump to sign it, they can call it "DonnieJohnCare".  He'll love it!  He'll think it's FANTASTIC, just TERRIFIC!  What do ya think?

S

Go do WHAT to myself? HOW DARE YOU!

So the Tea Party wants a new healthcare plan, and they seem to be pinning their entire case on allowing insurance companies to do business across state lines.  Right now, to my knowledge, each state has its own Dept. of Insurance that regulates the companies doing business there.  Fifty states, 50 Departments of Insurance.  

It's common for one or two health insurers in each state to control 50, 60, even 80% of the market.  The GOPers (Gophers?  *snicker*) think removing the state-to-state barrier will open up the market to much more competition, bringing rates down.  What I want to know is, why didn't we do this years ago?  Who is opposed to more competition?  Oops....I think I just answered my own question.  I can only think of two groups who would object:  The various State Departments of Insurance, and the insurance companies.  

Bureaucrats by definition like bureaucracy.  They just loooove to have more forms, more rules, more audits, and more papers to shuffle from "in" to "out".  It's their job security.  And the Chairman at each State Dept. of Insurance sees his department as his personal fiefdom.  The more people he's over, the larger his department, the more prestige he enjoys, and the larger the salary he can justify asking for.  There's obstacle #1.

And the health insurers no doubt just loooove it when they can have a HUGE market share in a state.  They can say "jump", and the doctors, hospitals, etc have no choice but to answer, "how high?"  When the insurers hold all the cards, they can control the game.  They can decide what is and isn't covered, how much they will pay for each procedure, etc, and the doctors and hospitals have little choice but to fall in line.  There's obstacle #2.

So if it's a good idea, why must we associate this increased "open market" ONLY with the new Tea Party/Ryan/Trump plan?  Why couldn't it apply to a new, improved ACA 2.0, or ScottCare, or whatever?  Why can't the Democrats and Republicans band together (for once) and just slap the ever-lovin' crap out of the (state insurance) bureaucrats and the insurance companies?  The bureaucrats can clean out their desks and go home, and the insurance companies can be told,  "NO MORE!  This is how it's gonna be from now on.  Y'all get lean, learn the definition of "customer service", and never forget....YOU work for US!  We have choices!"

Is there anyone else who has a motive to keep the system we have now?  Am I missing anything?

Like I've always said....no one has a monopoly on good ideas.  Open the market to more competition and let's see what happens, even if the Tea Party/Ryan/Trump plan dies en route.

S

Healthcare in America....where are we headed?

Yesterday a friend of mine, who is in the healthcare field, asked on her Facebook page what should be done regarding the "repeal / replace" controversy now raging.  She and her other healthcare professional friends agreed some form of coverage for everyone is absolutely necessary, while her more "conservative" friends said "no way". 

First, a personal disclaimer.  I'm covered by Medicare, which has worked great for me, and my wife, who is now once again a full-time college student, has a group plan offered through her university.  And after her college days, as a last resort, she is a disabled veteran and has VA care available to her.  In short, I have nothing personally to gain or lose in this debate.

The argument I heard from the conservative "Tea Party-types" was that they resented being told they MUST buy insurance, and would be perfectly happy if it would just go back like it was pre-ACA / Obamacare.  My strong suspicion is that they have secure (for now) jobs and enjoy employer-provided insurance, or are older and are covered by Medicare.  Both see ACA as just a giant wealth transfer from them, the relatively affluent, to the poor.  There's no upside to them if there is a replacement plan.  They would prefer repeal, period.

Those in the healthcare field almost universally say they see the desperation every day on the faces of people who can't afford insurance or the ER medical care they've been billed for and are absolutely begging for their charges to be forgiven by the hospitals and doctors.

My observation is this:  The Tea Party-types know in general terms that poor people can't afford healthcare for themselves or their families, but they don't actually know any of them.  They just can't relate.  I can.  During my 40+ year career in homebuilding I saw on a daily basis plumbers, electricians, painters, roofers, etc who I'm certain didn't have health insurance.  

They may work 40 hours one week, and just 30 the next.  If the economy tanks, they may have no work for weeks at a time.  They're always on the brink of desperation.  They work hard....they certainly aren't slackers. They don't get a yearly two-week paid vacation, or have a 401K, or health insurance.  That's just the nature of the construction industry.  Are we just gonna kick people like them to the curb?

In the old days you worked 40 years for your company and retired with a gold watch.  Today if you have seniority, which probably came with yearly pay raises for decades, you're now at the TOP of the pink-slip list.  You're good as gone, to be replaced by a 25-year-old with a MBA who will work for 40% less than you're making.  And if you're 58 and find yourself with more and more ailments, and you're suddenly unemployed, how are you going to afford health insurance?  Who wants to insure you?

I know plenty of people who are / have been in that very position.  A secure job today is no guarantee of a secure job tomorrow.  Remember that!

"Oh", the Tea Party-types say, "they won't be able to deny you because of a pre-existing condition."  Isn't this a classic example of having your cake and eating it too?  They abhor the ACA, yet want to cherry pick the parts they want to keep....without paying for it.   Sorry, but life doesn't work like that.  "You'll still get a [smaller] subsidy" they say.  Again, they're UNEMPLOYED!  They have no income!  A [smaller] subsidy is worthless to them....it's like being promised a BIG piece of NO pie.

I laugh incredulously when they say they'll expand Health Savings Accounts that people can use to pay for their health insurance and deductibles. They just don't get it!  Lower income people don't have the luxury of putting a few hundred dollars a month into a HSA.  They're living hand-to-mouth as it is.  It's like Marie Antoinette telling her hungry French subjects "Let them eat cake."

The Tea Party-types ask how fair is it for them to pay into an insurance scheme that benefits someone else?  So let me ask, why should residents in West Texas pay higher homeowner insurance rates to make up for their fellow-Texans who have suffered hurricane damage on the Gulf Coast?  Why should I pay for an interstate highway in Ohio when I've never even been to Ohio?  Why should I pay school taxes now that my youngest daughter is 35 years old?  Because it's for the public good, that's why. 

If we average the cost of healthcare across all age groups around the country, the young will indeed pay more now than they could have before the ACA, but they'll make it up later in life when they'll need healthcare and get a sweet price break.  That's how a "risk pool" (insurance) works, and there's nothing more free-market than insurance.  

Yes, I hear those who point out that insurance is optional, but not buying in means no benefits.  Are they going to be the gatekeeper at the hospital door that turns away the hysterical mother with no insurance cradling her deathly ill child?  And if the mandate stays that requires hospitals to care for anyone who walks in, whether they can pay or not, how much longer will it be before marginally funded hospitals start closing? 

I don't know how this will ultimately play out, but times have changed, and we must change, too.  We need to find a way to provide healthcare for all our citizens.  They can't give healthcare away, I understand, but anointing some to enjoy the American "good life" while condemning others to always being on the outside looking in is not what America should be about.  America should not have a caste system.

Not everyone can have an enviable IQ, be well educated, have a secure, high-paying job with benefits, and just skip merrily through life.  If they could, who would be left to change our oil, or build our houses, or maintain our sewer systems?  *any volunteers?* 

It won't be easy, and it won't be cheap, but we will be a stronger, more internationally competitive country if we're healthy and working smart.  We MUST find a way to care for our own. 

S

Let's put some lipstick on this pig....

For years now we've heard about how our enemies were eating the USA alive via cyber-warfare.  They (N Korea, China, Iran, Russia, Russia, Russia) have been relentless in getting into every nook and cranny where we might hide our intellectual jewels.  They long ago mastered corporate espionage, stealing plans for everything we design and make.  And now they've hacked into our CIA, revealing our most sensitive national security secrets.  They say the most recent WikiLeaks information dump dwarfs anything Edward Snowden ever thought about handing over to the bad guys.

Throughout all this I've wondered, "So what are WE doing to THEM?  Surely we're not gonna just sit still while they bend us over?  Please tell me our nerds are better than their nerds."

Our nerds are better than their nerds.  

Our nerds long ago figured out how to hack into every TV, tablet, cell phone, hearing aid, picture frame, Viagra bottle, and toaster in the world.  Our spooks can listen in on every two-bit terrorist in the sandbox as he whispers sweet nothings into his camel's ear.  The night shift at CIA HQ probably makes prank phone calls to the Kremlin and makes it look like it's coming from Kim Jong Fatty Fat Fat's little pink princess phone on his nightstand.  Yes, we're THAT good!

Now the bad guys have figured out how to get into our secret stuff.  Scary, but at least I now know we have nerds that can go toe-to-toe with anyone, anywhere, anytime.   Game on!  More lipstick?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Republican's new health care plan, whatever they care to call it, has already crashed and burned.  They're just putting on a show to make it look like they're at least trying.  Besides Speaker Ryan and Donnie John Trump, virtually no one else wants to be seen anywhere near it.

The Tea Party says it doesn't cut deep enough, that there are still too many poor swine getting gubment freebees.  The Liberals say they aren't about to turn poor people away from getting life-saving healthcare they otherwise can't afford.  Libertarians say "no" to any further "entitlements".  The American  Medical Association and various hospital groups are against it because they say poor people will lose their insurance and will all show up in emergency rooms again demanding to be seen for free.  The Old Folks...er...AARP says its members can't afford premiums 5-times as expensive as the younguns, on and on.

The only ones who like it are the US Chamber of Commerce, because their members will save a buttload, and those making over $200,000 a year who will save an even bigger buttload.

Even lipstick isn't going to sell this wagon load of shit manure.

D....O....A

S

Circle the wagons, boys!

It isn't exactly "Breaking News" when I say that people get really touchy when you talk about getting into their wallets.  "It's MINE, I WORKED for it, you CAN'T have it!"  And this, IMO, is why our government today is so dysfunctional and our people are so upset.  One economic class feels they're paying for benefits that another economic class is receiving, and to be honest, it's largely true.  (Their elected political manipulators see this perpetual standoff as their job security.)

TAXES.  Just saying the word gets most people's blood pressure up.  The average middle class guy feels he's working 100 mph to pay for day care, to put braces on his kids teeth, to somehow pay another semester's tuition for his oldest to stay in college, to pay the deductibles and co-pays on his heath insurance, or if he's an "independent contractor", to pay for his family's health insurance that might cost more than his house payment, etc.  It's a struggle for sure.

Meanwhile, in his mind, another economic class gets free child care, food stamps, rent subsidies, college grants (that require no payback), free medical care (via Medicaid) and even a free cell phone, all paid for by HIM!  And then when you interject race into the equation, it really gets nasty!  To the average middle class taxpayer (statistically likely to be white) the average beneficiary of our social safety net is black or brown, and now includes immigrants, too, hence the animosity.  Facts to the contrary be damned!  He simply can't fathom his economic situation deteriorating to the point he might need some of those services himself some day.  These are benefits (he thinks) he'll never receive.

This is where he thinks his taxes are going.

At the other extreme, while he vaguely knows about the massive government subsidies going to the private sector ($37B to Big Oil, $270B to Big Pharma, $18B to Big Ag, $83B to Wall Street, etc) he can't put a face with a $$$$ to know who to direct his anger at.  (I know, I know, a preposition at the end.  Shoot me.  ;) 

This is why the idea of a tax increase to balance the budget, for example, is a non-starter.  "MORE money to give to those bums? Oh HELL no!"  

In their minds they, personally, aren't getting anything for their tax dollars (hello!...national defense, highways, etc?), with the exception of Medicare and Social Security.  Ahhh....don't you love it when a Tea Party supporter holds his sign up high that says "NO SOCIALISM IN AMERICA!!", then says, "but don't mess with my Medicare or Social Security."  *dude, those programs are the epitome of socialism!*  

As long as people don't feel like they are themselves getting anything for their tax dollars, they're going to resist.  Call them anything you want....selfish, greedy, uncompassionate....when you get into people's wallets, the battle lines will be drawn.  Let's just hope the rest of the world stays more f__ked up than us so they'll run over here with their $$$$ and finance our debt.

Just my thoughts. 

S

New math

We seem to have become a "math challenged" society.  I saw it many times during my 40+ years as a custom homebuilder.  A client would come to me and say they had a hard budget of $    X     .  After learning what they wanted in terms of their amenities, I would advise them they should expect approx    Y    square feet in order to stay within budget.

Then we would all sit down with the architect and they would tell him to cap the footage at    Y    feet, and that they were willing to accept smaller secondary bedrooms, say 100 square feet each...."so make them 12 feet x 12 feet."

That's pretty much how our government has worked for decades.  A succession of congresses and presidents have wanted more than they could pay for.  That's how we got our $19,000,000,000,000 deficit.  We got away with it because no matter how badly we f__ked things up here in America, we were still less f__ked up than the rest of the world.  Smart money "over there" would invest their money here (read:  finance our deficit) because we were still considered a safe, stable country.  It was  all relative.

Tomorrow Prez Trump is going to give Congress his new budget outline.  He's said he was going to dramatically boost defense spending and infrastructure improvement, while not touching Social Security or Medicare.  Oh, and he wants a BIG tax cut, too.  I'm sure the Tea Party is sweating bullets right now!  Their whole reason for being is to cut spending and the deficit, and here a fellow Republican is proposing an increase in both.

"Not to worry" they'll say.  "We're going to increase income by growing the economy by 4% (thereby increasing tax revenues) and by cutting 'waste, fraud, and inefficiency'".

Have you ever heard a competent financial adviser say, "Sure, go ahead and buy that big new vacation house.  You're bound to get a substantial raise any day now.  I hope." And hasn't every president since Calvin Coolidge promised to save money by cutting waste, fraud, and inefficiency?  *still waiting*

The truth is, there are too many powerful constituencies (read: voters, special interests, and campaign contributors) who would scream bloody murder if Congress cut anything that affected them, and if there's anything every congressman loves it's happy voters and campaign contributors, so....

What will eventually happen is there will be, out of absolute dire necessity, a substantial tax increase on the wealthy.  "But how is that fair", the rich will ask?  My answer:  It isn't, but it's sorta like the answer John Dillinger gave when asked why he robbed banks:  "Because that's where the money is."

Fact.

S

I did NOT see this coming!

I won't lie to you and say I haven't been expecting eventual trouble.  I have.  Maybe even a classic "revolution" some day.  It's just that my vision of a revolution was of crowds in the streets with torches, tossing Molotov cocktails, driving corrupt leaders to hastily board their fast jets and make a dash for whoever will give them political asylum, just like in the movies.  I expected it to abruptly just boil over, like a giant volcanic eruption.

Turns out we've likely been watching one for the past decade or so.  Think about it: Republicans were traditionally the party of the upper class, while the Democrats represented the working class.  

But by 2016 the establishment, exemplified by Wall Street, was hoping for a Democratic presidential victory, while the working class gave up on their former benefactors and elected a very un-Republican Donald Trump.  WTH just happened?

Even the 74-year-old self-described socialist Bernie Sanders came within a whisker of pulling off a miraculous upset.  The natives are restless!

A decade ago the right-wing Tea Party was born.  Their unofficial motto seemed (to me at least) to be, "I've got mine, F__K YOU!"

.

With today's nationwide (worldwide?) Women's March, some say we're seeing the jelling of a new, left-wing Tea Party. 

Judging by the size of today's crowds, I wonder how many sitting Congressmen / Senators will decide to retire in 2018  and "spend more time with their families"?  *Start the car....START THE CAR!*  The mood is getting pretty nasty, folks.  Let's hope we can defuse it with signs and ballots vs bullets and fire bombs.

If we can, there might just be a silver lining to this growing mess.  *fingers crossed*

S

Quick! Lock the door....the Muslims are coming!

Question....what do the United Kingdom Independence Party, the National Front in France, the Alternative For Germany, the Party For Freedom in The Netherlands, the Danish Peoples Party, the Progress Party of Norway, the Sweden Democrats, the Freedom Party of Austria, the Finns Party of Finland, the Congress Of The New Right in Poland, and even the Republican Party in the United States all have in common?

Answer....they all make anti-immigration a central policy.  I'm not going to suggest they're right, or they're wrong, but just that they're powerful and they have a message that is gaining strength.

Yesterday the United Kingdom voted to divorce themselves from the European Union.  Much of the reason for that was simply that they felt the European Union was not working for them, that they would be better of without having to get approval from Brussels (the EU HQ) to conduct much of their everyday business.  It's called "Euro-skepticism".  

But a good deal of the impetus to opt-out was due to their increasing unease with the new wave of Muslim refugees entering their country daily.  The other national movements mentioned above are also looking to slam the door on their open borders, too.

In Europe Muslim immigrants are not generally integrated into mainstream society.  They are strictly segregated, practically speaking if not by any actual government edict.  Too often the natives don't mix well with their new neighbors.  Suspicion is rampant and tensions are high.  Reports of violence committed by Muslim youths is just fuel on the fire, even though, as is usually the case, the majority are peacefully just trying to get by.  And with every act of radical Islamic terror, the division grows wider.

Things are a bit better, for the time being, here in the US.  America's 3.3 million Muslim residents are fairly well integrated, but say they're feeling eyes on them from every direction, while the natives see an Islamic terrorist behind almost every rock.  Enter first the Tea Party, and now Donald Trump.  With President Obama proposing to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees into the US, Trump is riding high in the polls with his promise to "Keep 'em out". 

I think it's safe to say that Muslims generally don't play well with others....Sunni's fight Shia, Saudi's fight Yemenis, Iranians fight pretty much everyone, etc.  In fairness Muslims can say the West started this latest wave of unrest (let's not go back and re-fight the Crusades, OK?) by getting involved in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere, trying to foist on them our "dastardly, un-Islamic democracy".  That in effect just stirred the ant pile, sending those inside scurrying in every direction looking for safety.  I think it fair to say our efforts to "nation build" have been a flop.

As I see it we're just different peoples with different cultures that are hard for the other to get their heads around.  I don't see the wedge between us getting anything but wider in the near future.  It just seems like we're caught up in a vicious circle. 

What do you think?  Do you think we'll just walk wide of each other for decades to come, or will it deteriorate into something more violent?  With the head start Europe has on us regarding anti-immigrant nationalism, how nasty will it get there, and will we be far behind?   In all honesty, with the paranoia that exists today, I'm concerned that things could get out of hand very easily.  It's easy to escalate things, but quite difficult to de-escalate tensions once they build.

Remember a couple years ago when two Islamic terrorists were intercepted and killed by a Garland, TX policeman as they were trying to shoot up a Mohammad cartoon contest?  The Garland PD never released the name of the officer, and it was only at the trial of an accomplice in Phoenix that the officer's name came out.  Now the Garland PD is having to provide him special protection.  That's how toxic its become.

As Walter Cronkite used to say, "And that's the way it is."

S

We want it all, but we just don't want to pay for it. It's called "denial".

Does the Tea Party....oops, I mean the "Freedom Party"....know how to say anything besides "cut taxes"?  That's their mantra....CUT TAXES!  I'm tired of hearing them say it because they obviously haven't thought things all the way through.  I'm all for cutting taxes if....IF....all of our essential services have been properly funded, but they HAVEN'T been. (Of course the term "essential services" is open to interpretation.)

Here's an example:  our crumbling roads and bridges.  Pres. Eisenhower proposed the Interstate Highway System back in the 1950's, and by the 1970's much of it was in place, and interstate commerce has since benefited greatly.  

Without a top-notch transportation infrastructure Walmart, Costco, Home Depot and all the other big retailers couldn't economically stock their shelves, and the Amazon phenomenon might not have been possible, either.  Yes, even high tech internet businesses ultimately rely on good 'ol asphalt and concrete roads to deliver their goods.  But by all accounts our roads and bridges are in dire need of maintenance and/or replacement, and the money isn't there to do either.

CUT TAXES!

At one time our air our traffic control system and our airports were the envy of the world.  That's no longer true.  We still have a few world-class airports, but most are fairly decrepit, and our air traffic control system is *I should whisper this to avoid panic* on the precipice of being downright dangerous!

CUT TAXES!

We don't fund our schools properly.  Local school boards are loath to propose tax increases....that's a sure-fire way to get voted out of office.  Instead they postpone maintenance and new school construction, preferring instead to just bring in cheap, energy inefficient portable buildings.  Teachers almost universally have to spend money from their own pockets to buy classroom supplies their districts won't provide, and local PTA's must have carnivals and bake sales to help their schools make ends meet.  That's shameful!

CUT TAXES!

I'm a big proponent of police "body cams".  Our police are under attack, both literally and figuratively, and they're often accused of being heavy handed.  Sometimes they are, but sometimes they are just accused of being too rough when they are in fact justified.  Body cameras would go a long way to establishing the truth, but most police departments will tell you they can't afford to buy them.  Wouldn't this be a good use of taxpayer money?  The Tea Party might nod their collective heads "yes", but they never seem to be willing to cough up the cash.  

"CUT TAXES!" is all they know how to say.

Much of our needed additional funding can no doubt be paid for by eliminating "waste, fraud, and inefficiency", another popular phrase that all politicians talk about, but never seem to deliver on.  (That's another topic I will write about later.)

For now, please spare me the bullshit of preaching "tax cuts".  Let's talk about that when we have our house in order, and right now we aren't even close.

S

Do as I say, not as I do

Surely there must be a special place in hell for those who hold up a Bible in one hand, quote Scripture, and then proceed to rip people off.  Christians seem to be especially susceptible to the theatrics the TV-evangelist-types use to gain our trust.

Here's a little tip....don't just listen to what they say, but WATCH WHAT THEY DO.

I mean, how could anyone doubt the sincerity of someone who quotes the Bible?

Surely they wouldn't lie to us, right? 
*love the tears, Tammy*

Which brings us to....

Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz

Texas Senator Ted Cruz is running a hell-of-a-race (pun intended) to become the next President of the United States.  I've watched him rise up (pun intended) as a political creature and take him very seriously.  He's extremely smart, cunning, ruthless, focused, a champion debater, and a master of theatrics.  Half truths spew out of his mouth.

He is the son of a Cuban immigrant who has become in some quarters a prominent Christian evangelist, and he lets us know about it every chance he can. 

Cruz has studied the Tea Party from its inception, has identified their hot buttons, and has used them brilliantly as his vehicle to power.  Of all the original Tea Party candidates, he's the last one standing.  His road map to the White House was to sweep the deep South, rich with evangelicals, and ride that momentum onward and upward.  (They saw right through him, however, causing a major hiccup to his plans. Oops!  Desperate times now call for desperate measures.)

I've watched Ted Cruz for a few years now and found that his sleazy actions don't match his pious words. When he ran for the Senate he won by picking off...slandering...one opponent after another, his final victim being the sitting Lt. Governor of Texas.  When caught red-handed he will launch into typical politician double-speak, praising God all the while.  A politician lying is pretty much a non-event these days...we almost expect it, actually...but most don't masquerade behind a Bible, quoting Scripture the whole time.

Case in point:  Several months ago on the day of the Iowa caucus the Cruz campaign spread the rumor that Dr. Ben Carson was dropping out, and asked his supporters to switch their support to Cruz.  Later, of course, Cruz said it was just a boo-boo by one of his staffers and apologized.  Trouble is, by all accounts Cruz is a micro-manager.  No detail gets past him.  

He also sent out a very official looking mailer, so official looking the Iowa Secretary of State had to publicly declare it was NOT from his office, pointing out by name on a precinct-by-precinct basis (which means it was meticulously planned) who had a poor voting record.  To make amends, Cruz shamed many of them into caucusing for him.  Were these dirty tricks enough to give him his slim Iowa victory?  We'll never know.

And now there are only three...Trump, Cruz, and Kasich.  It's crunch time, winner take all, and I look for Cruz to dig ever deeper into his bag of dirty tricks.  No lie will be too outlandish, no slander will be too wrong.  

With most candidates you know exactly what you're getting.  When they turn out to be crooks, we barely even give it a yawn.  Not so with Ted Cruz.  He is NOT what he professes to be.  Watch him.  Don't "TrustTed".  He's dangerous.

S