Donald Trump: A Clear and Present Danger

 

GOP Strategist Steve Schmidt

As a former Republican, and current independent, it saddens/angers/frustrates me that anyone with an IQ over 80 and an Internet connection could still vote, or consider voting, for Donald Trump. This is not about parties, politics or policy, this is about what type of person should serve as President of the United States, preserving the American experiment and staying true to our Founding Fathers who put their faith in representative democracy. I cannot stress this enough, Donald Trump is a clear and present danger to the United States and the world.

I guess if Donald Trump's:

• Admission to sexual assault (corroborated by 15+ women and pending lawsuit pertaining to raping two under-aged girls);
• Blatant and confirmed racism (his DOJ settlements in the 1970s, Central Park 5, questioning the professionalism of a sitting judge due to his race, calling for a ban of an entire religion from entering the United States, father was arrested at a KKK rally, consistent retweets white nationalists);
• Mentor, Roy Cohn, was the right-hand of Senator Joseph McCarthy who presided over the ugliest 20th century moment of American politics;  
• Open threats of revenge against his political rivals;
• Lack of any public service experience (the only major nominee ever to have none);
• Well documented lack of intellectual curiosity;
• Consistently proven lack of general knowledge about nearly everything about government, the military and presidency;
• Lack of respect for military families and those who serve(d) while dodging military service multiple times;
• Unregulated fascist and authoritarian rhetoric and open admiration for despots and dictators;
• Admission to not paying income taxes and other tax evasion schemes;
• Unprecedented unwillingness to release his tax returns; 
• Multiple bankruptcies;
• Proven charitable fraud;
• Seeming business fraud for which he will be in court this month facing racketeering charges;
• Proven history of not paying contractors or his bills;
• affinity to KKK and Nazi members openly endorsing him;
• Questioning of the United States electoral process and inciting illegal electioneering practices;
• Complete disrespect, even disdain,for freedom of the press;
• Openly and brazenly personally profiteering off his political campaign;
• Dubious international business ties;
• Blatant trade and international manufacturing hypocrisy;
• Lack of understanding or knowledge around foreign policy;
• Lack of respect for American allies and international institutions which have held the peace for 70 years;
• Advisors and campaign staff’s uncomfortably close ties to Russia; 
• Willingness to use and allow proliferation of nuclear weapons;

then his potentially being co-opted by the Russians will not change your vote.

Let me be very clear, I think a vote for Donald Trump spits in the face of our Founding Fathers as his "rigged election" proclamations have incited a potential armed revolt by his supporters if he loses. Any person who is not ignorant of, or intellectually incapable of understanding, Trump’s faults needs to take both a U.S. history and world history class as any educated person can see who and what Trump is and represents. I am not alone; thousands of leading Republican, intelligence, military, legal, economic, academic, international, etc. leaders have voiced their strong concern and unmitigated opposition to a Donald Trump presidency. All but 8 newspapers (out of HUNDREDS) have either endorsed Hillary Clinton (225) or wrote strong condemnations of Donald Trump (60). That includes numerous ultra-conservative and non-partisan newspapers, which either have never/rarely endorsed a candidate or never endorsed a Democrat. It is not because there is a conspiracy against Trump or a collective effort to keep politics as usual, it is because he is by far the worst candidate to ever run for president of the United States. He is completely, utterly, wholly unqualified for the job.

This effort may be futile, but I have to implore any person considering voting for Donald Trump to please reconsider. I understand your frustration with the political system. I understand your concerns about Hillary Clinton. I understand things need to change but Donald Trump is not our savior, he is a conman dressed up as a demagogue who provides no real solutions, nor tangible paths to success. 

I'll end with this, if you are considering voting for the Libertarian ticket, Donald Trump or have serious concerns about Hillary Clinton, Governor Bill Weld, the Libertarian vice presidential candidate, has something to say to you:

 Libertarian VP Candidate Gov. Bill Weld

'Win-win' NFL Stadium, Potential Lose-lose for Nevada Residents, Legislators

 

I seriously feel sorry for the legislators making their way to Carson City next Monday to rubber-stamp an insanely suspect NFL stadium deal. Nevada's most powerful, special interest elite have lined up to push through what amounts to be the biggest corporate welfare program ever introduced in Nevada history (aside from mining, but that is another issue). Make no mistake, this deal is done, cooked fully, is being placed on a golden plate, and, by the end of next week, will be served to Sands Corp., the Raiders, the NFL and Majestic Realty.

I love that the group behind the stadium calls itself the "Win Win Nevada Coalition" but there is no doubt this is a lose-lose for Nevada Legislators (and possibly for Nevada residents). If they fight it, they will lose their seats due to a lack of institutional (gaming, etc.) support. If they support it, the voters are going to smack them down at the polls. Nearly every person I ask the question (business leaders, individuals, etc.) think the structure of the deal (as it stands and will probably be approved) is not good, if not criminal, for Nevada. It is as if you are a destitute family of four which needs to find a way to pay for essentials, like food, for the next 20 years but Dad decides to do an impulse purchase and take out a massive loan to buy PSLs, season tickets and luxury box access to a professional football team knowing full well that money would be far better spent on other, non-luxury items, to keep his family afloat. Maybe Dad can rent out the seats to prop up the family but the risk completely outweighs the benefits, especially when the team may go belly-up and the family, including the kids, has to find a way to pay back the loan on the seats without games to watch.

I REALLY hope this works for Las Vegas and Nevada as a whole but I have serious concerns the process has been rushed and the ramifications of the deal not well vetted. I have yet to hear a cogent, rational argument with realistic numbers to sway my opinion on the need for Nevada to front the money for the most expensive NFL stadium ever built. But that's the point, my opinion means nothing on this issue and the powers that be made sure you, me and every other Nevada resident has little-to-no say in this process. The amount of risk Nevada is taking on is unprecedented (both for the state and in the history of sports stadiums) and when we rank near the bottom of every, single social statistic in the country, I think we need to really think twice about buying what can amount to be an albatross before we address REAL needs we have in this state. Hey, Las Vegas, are we so desperate to be considered a "real city" that we are willing to sell our souls, and our children's souls? If you are not familiar with the specifics of the proposal, I recommend you become familiar as it isn't as simple and risk-averse as many would like you to think. 

 

Oh by the way, Governor Sandoval has also asked state agencies to find $300 million to cut due to a budget deficit . . . you seriously can't make this stuff up.

On the eve of Thanksgiving and Paris . . .

On the eve of Thanksgiving,  I am very thankful. How couldn't I be? I hit the human lottery. I have three smart, engaging children with absolutely no health or mental issues (that I know of). I have a gorgeous, loving wife that is insanely supportive of my thoughts, actions and direction. I have healthy parents who remain committed to each other and healthy, thoughtful siblings who are supportive of me. I have lived in a time, in a country and in an economy that can only be considered the best in human history. I was born of a race and gender, in said country, time and economy, which has been given (or taken) every advantage. I have lived in a time where energy is extremely cheap and the climate has been very stable. I have lived in a time and place where nearly each passing day technology has made it easier for me to live. I have never had to be concerned with food, water, shelter or money, in any real way. That, as you can agree, is hitting the human lottery.

But for all that I am thankful for, I possess a pang of terrible guilt. As I know, for all my luck, it is me, and those who have lived in my country for the previous two generation, who has been living, and continues to live, at the expense of future generations. I buy whatever I want, when ever I want. I eat whatever I want, whenever I want. I drink whatever I want, whenever I want. I travel to wherever I want, whenever I want, all without a care in the world. But this is not sustainable, in fact, if you think about it, it is downright criminal. The currency used to purchase the ease in my life today is compounding interest for future generations to pay off - we are all stealing from the future. This can be said financially, but more importantly environmentally. I didn't create the world I live in, but it is very much my responsibility to change it, as doing anything less makes me complicit in this unprecedented theft.

Three years ago I decided to make a significant life change. I was released from my bondage (physically, mentally, intellectually and financially) from the powers that be and I made a conscious decision to set my life on a more compelling, productive path. My intention was to only do "good" work for "good" people and for "good" causes. For the most part, I have accomplished this but not to the extent I hoped or even had the opportunity to achieve.

That same hope that enveloped me three years ago fills me now as world leaders begin to converge on Paris for COP21 to negotiate saving the world from itself.

As an American, shame envelops my being. I know it is my country that is most at fault for our current climate crisis and I know that my country has been one of the least willing to make the necessary sacrifices to ensure climate security. I know that I haven't done enough in my own life to make the changes I wish upon others but understand that it will take more than my voice and action to make these changes. And that again makes me thankful, there are many more people like me working to undo the unintended wrongs of our past.

But most of all, I know we can do it. Humanity is capable of so much, both terrible and wonderful. I hope we chose to be wonderful in Paris and begin repaying the debt of which we have burdened future generations.

It's Okay to be Smart!

I admit that I am not a huge YouTube user beyond watching the latest Imagine Dragons video but I came across a GREAT channel provided by PBS Digital Studios. It is called "It's Okay to be Smart" and it has short, science-specific informative documentaries on various topics from why some people are left handed to why do people still deny climate science.  If you have a few minutes, it is well worth the time to watch. Videos last between 5 and 12 minutes.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!!!

But what about the children . . .

Yeah, what about the children? Well my 7 and 4 year old saw it and the older one asked me, "Why are those two guys kissing?"

My response?

"Because they are happy he got drafted. It's a huge accomplishment for him."

His response?

"Oh. Can we play zombies now?"

America, if you don't make a big deal out of it, it won't be a big deal. The last thing I want to impress upon my sons is that it was weird or strange. Why? Because if by some chance any of my children are gay, they aren't programmed to feel weird about it. I think it is far more damaging to plant the seed of hate or doubt in early childhood than exposing them to a real, raw, emotional moment (not to mention historic) . . . but maybe that's just me.

Thinking vs Believing: Climate Change

Carl Sagan once wrote, "I don't want to believe. I want to know." The first time I read this quote I smiled. It so eloquently described my outlook on life:  Use knowledge, rather than belief, to interpret the world around me.

I've never really grappled with spirituality or religion. I've always been very reasonable, not in the diplomatic sense but in the pondering sense. I use logic, critical thinking and rational thought to come to most of my conclusions. Certainly, I am wrong about a great number of things, not because I blindly "believe" in them, but because either I am uneducated of the facts or unable to rationally process the information before me. There is a huge difference between "I believe" and "I think" when it comes to processing information and knowledge.

This has always been my issue with religion (not spirituality). Even at a very young age, it didn't make sense to me. I felt as if I was stupid, as if I hadn't figured something out that everyone else had. I thought there was evidence everyone else found and processed which continued to elude me. The concept of blind faith made absolutely no sense to me. I have always thought it obvious that all religion is a social construct rather than a divine institution. A means to control thought and communities. That may be a cynical interpretation, but I think it is pretty accurate seeing that most religions do not allow for freedom of thought and demands strict adherence to dogmatic "of-this-earth" hierarchy. This does not mean that religion is evil. In fact, it can be a great normalizer of a community and means to assimilate large populations. It can be used to help people. It can bring people closer together. Unfortunately, throughout history, religion has also been the primary reason for war, genocide and human rights tragedies. When two people "believe" in two different things, it can result in a very bad day for everyone, especially if there is a social construct helping to promote one belief over another.

Some religious people try to point to science (as well as environmentalism) and say it is a religion within itself. I would have to agree that throughout scientific history, those within the discipline have been nearly as dogmatic about their "beliefs" as a religious person. But the difference between a person of science and a person of religion is the concept of fact and how fact can be interpreted as truth. Once a person of science is provided facts and proven wrong, they have a moral and intellectual obligation to evolve their thinking. A religious person does not have this ability, nor luxury. They signed up for a specific explanation of everything, facts and truth be damned.

Many religious people think all scientists are atheists. Any scientist that is an atheist is a pretty bad scientist. Atheism is as much a religion and has proportionally as many zealots as evangelical Christianity. In science, any possibility (however small) must be considered until it is proven either correct or incorrect. How, in good conscious, can any scientist categorically dismiss the existence of something that has not been proven not to exist? Take it one step further, if theoretical physics is to be considered, infinite universes with infinite possibilities would almost demand that any religious thought ever considered is correct somewhere in the multiverse. Does that mean that Jesus was an actual person and the son of god? Maybe and maybe not but you cannot discount it until it is proven one way or the other, which it hasn't. To be fair, most scientists and atheists subscribe to a particular principle of logic . . . all things being equal, the simplest explanation usually proves to be the correct one; through Occam's Razor, the burden of proof is on religion.

This is where climate change is an issue. Many deniers/skeptics (I use both because some are deniers while others are misinformed skeptics) point to climate change scientists and say they are dogmatic about their "belief." Scientists do not believe in human-caused climate change, they think it is happening. They take evidence, study the evidence and provide critically thought-out, rational conclusions. They have studied the issue and the scientific community is nearly certain (97 percent of all peer-reviewed papers support human-caused climate change) it is happening and humans are the primary cause. Is it 100 percent? No, but very damn close. The world has observed ice masses retreating in nearly every corner, from the Americas, Asia, Europe to the poles with 90 percent of all ice masses in retreat. I concede, as do climatologists, climate modeling is an inexact science. Projections versus reality may vary. Sometimes there is educated guessing in science and the climate is an object of nearly infinite complexity which necessitates educated guessing. Do scientists all agree how fast it will happen or what the specific effects may be? No, but they agree that it is happening and, at the very least, human activity (CO2 emissions) is a part of the cause.

Deniers/skeptics will say a number of things: The science isn't settled, there is a climate change cabal running the world of science, this is an UN conspiracy to take over the world, there is no evidence of warming the past 15 years (proven to be untrue and completely taken out of context), in the 1970s the majority of scientists predicted global cooling (again, untrue), it's a natural cycle of the sun . . . and on and on. Most concerning are the vast majority of these one-liners can be debunked with a quick Google search. But that is the problem, human-caused climate change denial has more to do with belief than thought. It also has a lot more to do with fear than hope.

Do I "believe" in human-caused climate change? No, but I sure as hell think it is happening and humans are a big contributor. I find it hard to argue with well educated experts presenting a very well studied and though-out argument. If a climate scientist proves human-caused climate change to be incorrect, I'll be the first one to say the facts change the dynamic of the reality but the probability of that is quite small. Continuing with that thought, I think any credible science that does not support prevailing scientific thought should be reviewed and tested by peers until it is either confirmed or proven incorrect. But the consequences of denying human-caused climate change severely outweigh the consequences of trying to curb carbon output and address humanity's increasing affect on the environment. There is just too much risk in believing the science is wrong when a rational argument has been accepted by most experts in the field. Working toward a carbon neutral world is not a bad thing and I don't understand why anyone (aside from people working for the oil, gas and coal industries) would disagree. I don't think you need to destroy the economy to pursue a more sustainable world but we will need to make very tough choices in the near future. Deniers don't want to face reality, they don't want to take responsibility, they don't want to accept we can't keep doing what we have been doing the past century. It is time to grow up and make the tough decisions. My hope is that we will and listen to the facts and science and pursue appropriate, logical measures to curb the problem. My fear is that we will continue to kick the can to the next generation when it will be too late (if it isn't already).

The Evolved Thinking of an A-hole

In light of yesterday's SCOTUS decision (and the state-by-state equality fight that still wages), I thought it might be timely to write a post about an anecdote I've told in private conversations a number of times . . .

The Summer after my freshman year at NEVADA I was exposed to “gay America” up close and personal for the first time. A group of friends and I went to Red Rock National Conservation Area to do what we did so often in our youth, trade jabs, climb rocks and get a sunburn. Among my friends, I was considered the most “conservative” and outspoken of the group. I had voted for Bush 41 our senior year (one of the few in my class old enough to vote for president) and had defended some relatively conservative perspectives in personal and public conversations (one of which was supporting the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository). Well this day in particular will be burned in my memory for the rest of my life and it wasn't due to happiness, but because of shame.

The entire day a close friend of mine (he who shall not be named but a great person and very accepting and nice guy nonetheless) and I exchanged gay slurs, epithets and the like (much like most straight young men did and still do) for our own entertainment. We were in rare form. It was easily the most aggressive I'd ever been with homophobic rhetoric. We thought we were funny. We thought others thought we were funny. Boy o' boy, were we not funny.

That night, my best friend Holly (an incoming sophomore at Wellesley College at the time),  confronted me about my behavior. In my mind, it was all in good fun but apparently one person, in particular, was more than offended, he was scared. Apparently, everyone but me and my homophobic rhetorical partner in crime knew that our friend Clif had come out of the closet the preceding fall semester while matriculating at MIT. I was mortified. Not because he was gay, but because my brazen, insulting sense of humor had done something I had never intended. It actually offended someone (someone with more courage than I'll ever possess) and it wasn't taken for what it really was, my attempt at lighthearted, albeit terrible, humor.

I replayed the entire Red Rock debacle back and forth in my head within seconds. With each replay, I became increasingly sick to my stomach. Clif was (and still is) one of the nicest guys I've ever met and one of the smartest people I have had the pleasure of knowing. But, in an afternoon, I had completely demeaned an important aspect of who he was purely for my own entertainment. This was not who I thought I was, it was not who I wanted to be.

I asked Holly why Clif hadn't come out to me before that day. She said he had assumed one of our other friends had delivered the news and he felt I was so conservative that I'd never accept him. Real, gut wrenching mortification set in . . . apparently my words and actions that day confirmed his fear. As loose as I was (am) with my insults, I never intend them to hurt anyone. I used stupid insulting humor because I felt everyone needed to laugh at themselves. In turn, I readily invited ridicule about who/what I represented . . . I wanted give/take participation. Most my friends saw through my bullshit for what it was but this was different. This wasn't passing fun. This was hurtful. It was more than juvenile, it was socially criminal. Time to grow up.

I quickly gathered my thoughts and gave him a call that very moment with Holly sitting by my side. I explained I had no idea he had come out. I explained his sexuality had nothing to do with my commentary. I explained that his friendship could never be severed because of his sexuality. I apologized profusely for my words, behavior, insensitivity. I was hoping there was some way he would recognize I was not a person of hate but an idiot with a bad sense of humor. He seemed okay but I still felt pangs of guilt for the ferocity of my actions earlier that day. . . I was getting off too easy. I offered to pick him up for a pool party the next day and said I'd like to talk in person, one-on-one. He agreed.

I picked him up at his house. As he exited the front door, I noticed he was wearing a gay pride shirt . . . "Now THAT is how you react to a person like me!" I smiled. We talked. It was a good talk, an honest talk. I was self deprecating. He was nervous. It was surprisingly easy. I think he recognized I wasn't a bigot, I was just an asshole that needed serious sensitivity training. I had always been an asshole that needed serious sensitivity training, still am.

I tell this story because I think everyone deserves the opportunity to evolve their thinking (including Paula Deen). Realize words (albeit unintended) can hurt. Words and actions are powerful and should reflect who you are and what you think not be a stupid tool for hurtful humor even if it is intended to be anything but hurtful.

I was lucky, I got off easy . . . far too easy for my offense.

Since that time, I renounced my affiliation with the Republican party (resigning from the Clark County Central Committee over the issue of defining legal marriage as being between a man and a woman) as well as media trained the local Human Rights Campaign chapter. Would I have become a straight ally (I really don't like that term, by the way) if I hadn't been such a jerk in my youth? I'd like to think so but you never know. It takes moments of self reflection to shape a life and as ashamed as I am about that one day in the Summer of 1994, I am glad it happened. Hopefully my friend Clif can forgive me for my ignorance and insensitivity (if he hasn't already). If he can or has, the prolonged shame was worth it. 

This moment in time will stay with me till I die. It is a reminder that we each need to work harder to become better, more accepting people. More informed and educated people. It helped define what I think is supremely American: the ability to adapt and evolve one's thinking, continually striving to create a "more perfect union." I can't imagine a more perfect union than two consenting adults demonstrating their love for each other through marriage, no matter their gender, race or preference. 

At risk of sounding trite and corny, the world needs more acceptance and love not confrontation and hate. I struggle each day to understand, live and emulate that realization.

"Revelation" and Snowden

This past week's "revelation" that normal, everyday citizens of the United States are being spied on by the US intelligence community, and the outrage that has followed, I find a bit amusing. Anyone that has had the time, or fortitude, to read the Patriot Act, as well as understand the snooping possibilities of the Internet and communications world, was not at all shocked to "learn" the government is aggressively pursuing information showing where you are, what you are interested in and what you are doing. Law enforcement has ALWAYS tried to track people (legally and illegally). They are suspicious of everyone and everyone is guilty until proven innocent in their eyes (just observe a cop when you are pulled over, he holds on to that gun until he's convinced you are not a threat or a criminal). The FBI used(s) illegal wiretaps all the time to get dirt on people. What is scary is that ability is now legal and it isn't targeted just at interesting people and suspected criminals (think Hoover) . . . technology has made it possible to track EVERYONE. A law enforcement official's dream. That dream was realized when the Patriot Act passed all those years ago under the veil of so much warranted and unwarranted fear. Of all the legislation that has passed the past 20 years two actions could be considered a clear and present danger to the American public: The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the passage of the Patriot Act.

I'm not sure what I think of Snowden . . . my "mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore" self loves what he did and, on its face, seems like a selfless brave act. My "why have rules if no one follows them" self hates that someone so insignificant (sorry!) working for a private company not only had access but the ability to leak/whistle-blow what seems to be very detailed, serious and classified information. I have a hard time thinking it's treason seeing that the Patriot Act gave a lot of powers to the state and anyone paying attention knew full well that EVERYTHING was being or was going to be monitored. What concerns me most is private industry being more than willing to provide the government access to their information. According to SCOTUS, corporations are people too . . . I thought they'd stand up to protect their civil rights . . . oh well. 


In the end, it kinda' makes you want to walk away from your life, scream at the top of your lungs, unplug and dropout . . . much like a certain hero/traitor sitting in Hong Kong. At least Snowden isn't Ted Kaczynski, he used a much different method to get attention for his concern of technology, government and the future of the human condition.

BTW -  The irony is not lost on me: I give these companies and the government information on me daily, willingly through Facebook and this blog - I'm sure this post is being filed in a FBI/CIA/NSA database keeping track of my "questionable" ramblings.

A Heck of a son

I generally make it a point not to pick on kids, teenagers or young adults. Even with my beloved NEVADA football team, I rarely blame the players (kids) for what is happening on the field, but rather focus on coaches and officials. With that said, I have to say something about Joey Heck, son of U.S. Representative Joe Heck (R-NV). His twitter feed might be one of the most racist, homophobic, misogynistic and mean spirited I've seen in a while and it is the feed of a sitting congressman's 16 year old son.

Buzzfeed reported the story yesterday. The feed is still active (as of 1:16 pm 6/14/13) with all the posts still present, none of which, from what I can tell, have been deleted. Read through it, it will give you a pretty interesting look into the mind of Joey (last post in early May which must have been when the crap began to hit the fan). How the hell is it still up?  Where are Rep. Heck's communications people? Crazy.

I also don't generally pick on parents for what their teenage son or daughter does due to the fact I don't have one (yet), and once the child has a mind of their own there is very little you can do to micromanage their lives. I also have thought the children and family of politicians are to be off limits as it is not fair to bring them into the muck of politics when it was not their choice in the first place. With that said, the regular homosexual slurs, racist epithets, and degrading remarks about women in such a public forum gives a pretty interesting look at what I have to believe are the family values of the Heck household. I say this because I have a 6 year old son and he doesn't see race or gender which leads me to assume racism, sexism and bullying are learned traits. I could be wrong, but that is my experience. Add to that the statement sent out but Rep. Heck on the issue:

“I am extremely disappointed in my son’s use of the offensive and inappropriate language on twitter: that type of language has never been permitted in our home.

“I apologize to everyone he may have offended. My son also apologizes for his insensitive behavior. My wife and I have addressed this family matter directly with him and he has learned from it.” 

Note it wasn't the subject matter or intentions he apologizes for but the language used and if you were offended . . . makes you wonder what Congressman Heck thinks behind closed doors. Insensitive behavior? Insensitive behavior is speaking ill of a friend's dead grandmother, not calling women "sluts," calling the president the "N" word or using gay slurs in a very public forum . . . He may have gotten this from his friends but the child is the product of a very public figure. That should be a concern of those able to vote for Rep. Heck.

Lastly, I ask what has the child "learned," as the statement so deliberately mentions? I suspect he has learned that his congressman dad will ignore him up until he becomes an embarrassment. That it is okay to have these thoughts and ideas in your head, just as long as you don't say them in public.

To be fair, maybe the response was written in haste. Maybe the family has placed him in sensitivity therapy, anger management classes or some other ideological deprogramming situation, but I suspect that is not the case. For his sake, I hope Joey does learn from this and grows up to be a good, productive person, but he has a LONG way to go.

To Release or Not to Release, That is the Question . . .

www.odwyerpr.com

To release, or not to release, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles . . .

Governor Romney is playing a dangerous game with his tax returns, especially when he is playing fast and loose around his dealings at Bain Capital. When you have leaders of your own political persuasion chastising you, you have a big problem.

www.newscorpse.com

I'm a pretty simple voter.  I look at the person first, issues second and rarely care if they have a "D", "R", "L" or any other letter(s) next to their name. In defining a candidate, I want transparency and as much truth as possible. Governor Romney has yet to be transparent or truthful.  He has hidden the specifics of his "plan" for the country (energy, environment, transportation, healthcare, job creation,immigration, etc.) in hopes no one will notice he hasn't said anything concrete until after he is president. What is even more alarming is that he has been on both sides of virtually every issue over the span of his political career.  I don't know who I would be voting for, and during this election cycle, he hasn't helped me learn any more about who he is or what he would do as president. That may change as they go into the convention and the Fall campaign, but he seems to be a very cagy person that doesn't handle legitimate criticism or scrutiny very well.

ABC

I agree with conservative columnist George Will when he said that it was a simple exercise of political calculus, the Romney campaign thinks that scrutiny of the returns will be worse than not releasing them at all. (Hell, Romney said it himself in an interview over this past weekend!) Take that one step further: Romney has something serious to hide. We all know he's rich, we all know he has a lot of money offshore, we all know that he "only pays what is legally required, not a dollar more."  The "he's a rich guy, with rich guy money management practices" has already been revealed, what else must be reflected in the returns that makes steadfast in not follow in his father's example by releasing more than a decade worth of returns? He had to know that this is ALWAYS an issue when you run for president (or congress for that matter!).

But what sucks for voters is great for bloggers!!! Without facts the blogosphere gets to play the most fun game of all: speculation!!!!

Possible reasons he isn't releasing his tax returns:
     1. He broke the law.
     2. He had years in which he paid zero (or very little) income or
         capital gain taxes through creative accounting and loopholes.
     3. He outsourced his tax return preparation.
     4. He drew a paycheck from Bain Capital beyond 2002.
     5. He profited from companies that have interests not in line
         with the American government.
    6. His returns or so complicated that it would take a division of an
        accounting firm to actually conduct the release.

My bet?  #2.  It would be hard for him to weather the storm of criticism if a person worth hundreds of millions of dollars paid less than a school teacher in taxes all the while trying to sell the American public he is worthy the title of President of the United States. I always find it weird that people think avoiding paying taxes is patriotic, I've always felt the exact opposite and I suspect a lot of people on both sides of the political spectrum who don't live among the super rich might feel the same way.

MADMagazine.com

Oil: Our greatest diservice to our children and grandchildren

In July, 2006, I was happily laying next to my new wife soaking in some honeymoon sun at a small resort on the Pacific Ocean in Zihuatanejo, Mexico. I had brought a bag full of books including Under the Banner of Heaven, A Brief History of Nearly Everything, All the Presidents Men and an energy policy book with an obnoxious yellow and red alarmist cover by the name of The Long Emergency.

Rarely does a policy book do more than just provide me with anything more than interesting facts for cocktail party banter but I had a visceral response of fear, dread and horror while reading the yellow book by James Howard Kunstler. Stephen King has nothing on Kunstler. The book outlines what "peak oil" does and will mean for western civilization. If you are not familiar with the concept of peak oil, it is a theory introduced  in the 1950s by Shell Oil geoscientist Marion King Hubbert suggesting we were quickly heading toward a peak in oil production.  The basic concept is this: there is only a finite amount of extractable oil on the planet, the peak of which is when production begins to decline. What made his claims all that more startling is that he accurately projected when the United States would hit peak oil (1970) which silenced a lot of his critics.

Consider the past three generations of Americans have only known a world with cheap oil. Think of a world without and that is what Kunstler outlines in his book.

Not to be too dramatic, but there has not been a day since reading The Long Emergency where I haven't thought about it. Kunstler's account is that powerful and scary. The reason why? Every (and I mean every) aspect of modern life is based on access to cheap oil. The food you eat, the clothes you wear, the car you drive, all the plastic products you consume, the plane you fly, the electricity you use, the job you have . . . EVERYTHING! Even all renewable energy is dependent on cheap oil - you can't make large scale power plants without heavy machinery which cannot be operated on batteries (which, by the way, are dependent on oil for their production) . . . get the picture? Oil is also the most perfect energy resource to ever be found. It has an insanely high energy yield, is easily transportable and is relatively stable at room temperature.  There is nothing else like it on the planet (or any other known planet, for that matter).

America isn't just addicted to oil, our society and economy cannot exist without it. China, India, Brazil, etc. are all huge population centers trying to industrialize just as we did the past 150 years but in an expedited timeline. Who are we to tell them they can't? What makes this even more scary is reviewing population levels when the industrial revolution began in the late 1800s. There were a little more than 1 billion people people on the planet (it took thousands of years to get to 1 billion people) in the 1800s, today there are more than 6.5 billion (it took less than 150 to grow the world population 6.5 times because of oil).

The remaining oil will be consumed at a much more ferocious pace as before; there a more people and more demand. Affordable oil will be a footnote in a book before we know it. What will take its place is widespread famine, resource military conflicts and a dramatic scaling back of population. Many population scientists say that the planet without fossil fuels could sustain about 1.5/2 billion people, that's 4.5/5 billion less than are alive today.  A population purge is not a probability, it is a certainty.

And if you are thinking we will just replace it . . . think again. Inform yourself and you'll quickly realize there is no replacement, not even a blend of solutions helps because all of our solutions depend on cheap, infinite oil and fossil fuels. It is a simple equation, how much money and energy is used to extract a resource of energy.  Most of the "green" solutions use more energy in producing the end product (corn ethanol is a perfect example of this - my personal thought is algae ethanol is probably the only viable gasoline substitute).

What scares me most is that I haven't changed many of my habits, nor have I made any effort to acclimate to a world without cheap oil. I am not prepared, nor are my children for what will very likely happen sometime in my lifetime: the end of cheap oil. The prudent thing would be to find a skill, move to a relatively rural area and learn how to survive in a manner not seen in America for 150 years . . . either that or become Amish.

A guilt has set in about how we are wasting what might be the most important substance the planet has (aside from water). My fear is that future generations will be made to pay for our sin of gluttony with unimaginable pain. Conservatives speak of burdening future generations with debt, but this may be the biggest debt of all. We've created an unsustainable standard of living and we need to face the facts that it will end, when is a matter of debate but it will happen must sooner than any of us are willing to accept.

Okay, I recognize that I've become a bit alarmist but even if the oil industry is correct and peak oil isn't on the immediate horizon, it will happen sooner than later, it is only a matter of time. I can imagine 40 years from our grandchildren will look back at the at the late 20th and early 21st century shaking their heads thinking, "They wasted it, they wasted it all."

If you don't have time to read The Long Emergency, watch "A Crude Awakening" from 2006 or "Collapse" which outline the issues surrounding with the end of oil. They are alarmist but keep in mind, this isn't just a bunch of conspiracy theory hacks spewing fear, these are energy experts and oil company execs . . .

"The Corporation" Documentary

I recently watched a documentary by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott named "The Corporation" which is a lengthy, but interesting look at the origins and evolution of the "great" American institution, the corporation. Even for the most ardent capitalist, "The Corporation" provides a fair but unforgiving view of what (or who depending on if you think a corporation is a person or not) we, as a society, have allowed so much power. It makes you wonder when the American public will wake-up and realize that we no longer are ruling ourselves but we are allowing institutions or "persons" with no moral belief, social accountability or standing to decide what is best for us.

I highly recommend conservatives, independents and liberals to take time, find it on Netflix and watch the documentary with an open mind. I'd bet a dollar that your view of the world will change (if only a little).

Obama at his finest . . .

Now this is Presidential! I think all Presidents should do this on a regular basis before a television audience with the opposition in both houses of congress. What I think is remarkable is that President Obama, in all his speeches and Q&As, seems to be a rational, straightforward and believable person. He seems like the only one that gets it at times and that's why people in general like him and at the end of the day trust that he has the public interest at heart.

I completely agree with him that the congressional Republicans have painted themselves into a corner with the way they have portrayed him . . . they've made their base fear him. This has made it nearly impossible to work through any issues and get anything accomplished through bipartisan agreement. How can you make a deal with the devil when you've been telling your constituents he's evil and will eat their souls? Any agreement with him make Republicans politically vulnerable. I also agree with him that Republicans, although not in power, won't meet Democrats half-way on any issue. His example of the Recovery Act is a perfect example. Republicans would have supported 30-50% of the package but because they didn't agree with 80% of it there was no way they would support it. Here's the problem Republicans are not in the majority, they don't get 100% of their way and they don't set the agenda.

Lastly, where were all these wonderful ideas to reform healthcare when Republicans were in power? They complain now that the bill was a bad idea and Democrats won't listen to them . . . why didn't they fix healthcare with their brilliant ideas they presented today 6 years ago? They had their chance to reform healthcare and they decided to do nothing. Just sayin' . . .

Supreme Court - Experts Weighing In

On "Bill Moyers Journal" two legal professors talk about the recent Supreme Court decision . . . which you all know I think is one of the worst examples of activism from the bench. It is worth watching . . .

One year down, one STOU to reflect upon

Meant to post this on Wednesday . . .

First let me start by saying that I think President Obama did about as well as he could have in his first State of the Union address. It is easy for most of us to forget what he was walking into when he took office a little over a year ago and I'm glad he reminded the nation. Not as a "feel sorry for me" reflection but as a "damn, we could be in far worse shape than we are" realization. Now is the real test: can he get congress to develop a real, bipartisan jobs bill. I think he can because both parties need a victory going into November and if Republicans stand in the way of job creation they are at risk of losing independents when they go to the polls.

For the first time since I've been watching the STOU, I didn't hear a boo, hiss or cat-call. Sure Republicans grumbled but they stood quite a few times as well. But what is most important to remember is that Obama wasn't speaking to Republicans or Democrats, he was speaking to independents. He extended the olive branch on key issues like energy, tax cuts and deficit reduction. He made a pretty good (yet unsubstanitated and speculative) case that the recovery act/stimulus bill, TARP and spending bill kept the economy from collapsing further (earlier in the day Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson even said that without that help we probably would have seen 25 percent unemployment). I tend to believe that even though Obama didn't achieve everything he set out to do, his first year was pretty much a success because we are relatively economically stable and safe.

I liked that he took both parties to task on the way they do business, he's said this before in many speeches but tonight it really resonated. He demonized the Washington culture and how both parties approach policy. The mood of the country, most notably independents, is that collectively everyone is sick of solutions being scuttled by partisanship. He put the ball back into the Republican court on such things as healthcare reform (which might actually look something like it should have from the beginning), 21st century energy solutions, bank reform and consumer credit reform. He illustrated that partisianship may very well place us at a distinct disadvantage with China, Germany and India. He is dead-on right that the rest of the world is moving forward with infrastructure, green energy and job solutions while we wallow in our own quagmire of destructive politics. He also challenged Republicans to provide real solutions to the problems facing all Americans rather than just criticize the solutions presented to them. Tax cuts are not always the only answer.

But most important, he layed out shortterm and longterm job creation plans. Like I said, this will be a make-it, break-it issue for both parties this election year and whomever seems to be an obstacle will lose.

He highlighted healthcare reform and even made fun of himself in the process, but was lacking on what it will look like. I would have liked a better outline of his plans moving forward but he has a little time.

I do have to say is that the Republicans need to find someone dynamic to give the response. Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell looks like a Republican . . . almost like a robot. I want to see some personality from the Republicans and they've missed the last two times on these responses.

Massachusetts Decision - Now We Can Focus On Jobs and Infrastructure

For all who feel the Democrats’ defeat in Massachusetts earlier this week was the beginning of the end of healthcare reform, I say that it actually was a good thing for the country.

Even though I think healthcare reform is more than necessary, I think the way the president and congress were going about doing it was arrogant and quite honestly stupid. Democrats got that “we-have-the-power” bug and thought (rightly-so) that their window for broad healthcare reform was quickly shutting (hello November 2010) so they decided to try and do everything in one big bill. THIS IS NEVER A GOOD IDEA. I voted for President Obama because I thought he got it. He seemed deliberate and thoughtful in his approaches and if he would have been true to my perception he would have provided a plan, not supported a congress-written bill, to improve healthcare. Good comprehensive plans take time to develop and implement, they can be amended as issues and challenges arise. They also allow you to fund them over time rather than give the American public sticker shock. The Mass decision allows congress (Dems and Reps) and the president to develop a 4, 8 and 12 year healthcare reform roadmap. Pushing through a bill that no one knows will work and few really understand is a bad idea.

In any case, what the Mass decision does do is get Obama and the congress focused on what this country needs: JOBS!!! This has been my major criticism (mentioned in a past post) of this administration (that and the half-hearted Afgan strategy – fish or cut bait – but that is for another post). This country has a legitimate need to improve its infrastructure and a deep recession is the best excuse to get government money to work for the people by providing jobs, need for materials, increased manufacturing and materials shipping. We can help every contractor, construction worker, cement company, construction equipment company, trucking company and construction related manufacturing company by just addressing a legitimate need that has been ignored for the better part of 40 years. That will jump-start the economy and a renewed need for professional services, get banks back on track to lend to small and medium businesses and address a terrible looming problem facing every corner of America.

My fear now is that addressing the infrastructure issue is a near impossibility as the first stimulus package cost us nearly $800 million addressing things like unemployment benefits, electronic medical records, updating government buildings with energy efficiency technologies and barely anything ($8 billion) for updating the country’s rail system. These things didn’t seem to create too many jobs in a short period of time and the jobs it will create are those which require a high degree of training or education. The highly trained and educated aren't the people out of work. We need to develop jobs that are easy to get, relatively easy to perform and have a ready made work force.

But it is my opinion the American appetite to spend more money on “Stimulus Round Two” or job creation is nearly absent. The only trick in the book is to reduce the payroll tax and incentivize companies to hire. This is a quick stop-gap and nothing more. The omnibus spending bill passed earlier this year had some infrastructure included but it was not nearly enough to address the country's growing infrastructure problem and stimulate wide-spread job creation. A comprehensive infrastructure jobs bill with a clear vision and identity is essential to a quick and sustained recovery.

I just hope Obama gets it. I hope he and this congress can get over their hubris and understand that good solutions draw from all interested parties and there are good ideas lurking on the right that they shoudl consider. Myopic ideologues could very well make Obama a one-term president.

January 21, 2010 - THE DAY AMERICAN DEMOCRACY DIED

Today's U.S. Supreme Court 5-4 decision to allow corporations unrestricted political campaign spending could very well be a date in which history lists as the day American democracy died. I hate to be that dramatic but it is the truth. American politics is already dramatically influenced by corporate money. Certain politicians (both parties) are beholden to their corporate bankrollers but there are limitations to how much they can spend toward their favorite candidate. Today that all changed. Corporations will own everything from your local school board to the presidency . . . no poltical position or policy decision in the United States will be safe. Corporate and soon union spending will determine who wins every single election and every law written and every appointed judge (including the U.S. Supreme Court). Frankly, this scares the hell out of me. The the past 100 years of campaign finance reform was to avoid this very issue.

Think of it this way. Any banking reforms this congress and president pass are not long for this world. It will take no more than two election cycles to repeal all reforms due to banks and the financial industry campaign spending. Any healthcare reforms will suffer the same fate. All housing and lending reforms will be non-existant. And you think private corporations and contractors have a strangle hold on foreign policy, just wait.

There is no question this helps the Republicans but I honestly don't care which party it helps or hurts - this decision goes far beyond party politics, this decision strikes at the heart of American idealism. Your vote should mean something. Public office is not a career, it is a public service. Candidates should represent what they think, not what their funders tell them to think. This decision eliminates what little idealism may have been present in the political process.

I hope there is a fix-it the president and congress can figure out but I just don't see how they can do something quick enough before the damage is done.

In anycase, although I think him a wingnut as bad as Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann gives a good alarmist view on what this might mean to all of us, essentially killing freedom of speech in the name of protecting freedom of speech.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy