Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

The Thinker

Dear Pope Francis: you are half the way there

Presumably Pope Francis is now back in Rome and settling in after a whirlwind tour of Cuba and the United States. He’s a pope who is hard to dislike, perhaps because he comes out of the Jesuits. For a pope he is also suspiciously pragmatic.

He was not shy expressing his opinions while in the United States. Mostly they gave Republicans heartburn as he preached to them on subjects they did not want to hear: that poor people had equal rights, that income inequality had to be addressed and that global climate change was a serious problem. He spoke passionately of the refugee crisis affecting mostly Europe and asked America to do its part compassionately. He complained that corporations were not working in the interests of the people as a whole.

Democrats did not wholly escape his preaching. He spoke passionately about the family, but his idea of a family looked a lot like June and Ward Cleaver’s and seemed to exclude marriage for same sex couples. Still, overall it was refreshing to hear messages from a pontiff that were truthful and people-centric. Francis is a catholic in the apostolic and universal sense of the word. He even acknowledged that those who do not believe in God could be good people simply by acting as good people.

It’s not enough to make me return to the Catholic Church. It’s a lost cause in my case, as I don’t believe Jesus was God, and I don’t believe in miracles, saints and most of the peculiar beliefs of Catholics. I’m too left-brained. But his words as well as his actions (like having dinner with homeless people and riding in the back of a Fiat instead of a limousine) convinced me he is a much different pope, beloved as few will be, and acting in the spirit of Jesus. Pope John Paul II was much loved and is even on his way to sainthood, but Pope Francis’ appeal extends significantly beyond the Catholic faithful to much of the world at large.

I really tuned into his message on climate change. He introduced a small ray of hope into a problem that looks gloomy at best and catastrophic to humans and most species on the planet at worst. Perhaps some of his grounding on the matter came from outside the church. Before becoming a priest, Francis worked as a chemist. He earned the rough equivalent of an associate of science degree in chemistry in Argentina. Francis understands enough about chemistry to know that when you introduce too much carbon dioxide into an atmosphere, with no other changes to the system then temperatures will increase and it will affect most living species. He sees the obvious costs of our industrialization and acknowledges that the earth is finite and we cannot continue to exploit the earth’s resources so unintelligently.

What he did not acknowledge was that population growth is a major driver of climate change. Without an end to population growth and probably a long-term effort to reduce the earth’s population, climate change cannot be reversed. Humans drive almost all climate change because we all put demands on the earth simply to survive. The problem is much worse in industrialized societies because with increased standards of living we want more stuff, and this consumption also feeds climate change.

It’s not enough to practice “natural family planning” as a population control solution. The Catholic Church advocates refraining from intercourse during a wife’s fertile period and abstinence as the only non-sinful ways to limit family size. The rhythm method of course is chancy at best, which leaves abstinence as the only foolproof and sinless methods of birth control for devout Catholics. It makes it virtually impossible to be both a devout Catholic and an environmentalist. If you are familiar with Catholic theology then you know that using birth control pills, IUDs and prophylactics are sinful.

If Francis truly wants to take a concrete action to address climate change then simply giving Catholics permission to use these and similar forms of birth control would be a huge step forward. Of course in many parts of the world, people are too poor to afford birth control, so also stridently arguing that governments should make birth control universally available for free to all citizens is as necessary as giving birth control devices church sanction. Among the many benefits will be a reduction in abortions. Children never conceived cannot be aborted.

China’s somewhat loosened one child per family policy was effective at limiting its population growth, but at a horrendous cost. It meant forced abortions mostly of females and arguably wreaked a lot of psychological damage. It’s not hard to envision a time when climate change becomes so pressing that something like this becomes policy in most countries. While it may be necessary to do this simply to survive as a species, such policies would be the opposite of humane.

This doesn’t have to happen. With over a billion adherents, if the Catholic Church were to change its policies on birth control then it would do a huge amount in the medium term to limit population growth and subsequent climate change. It would be a humane step forward. Francis has the power to do this today.

I am not a praying man by nature, but I pray that Pope Francis will see the light on this and very soon. Our future, and the perpetuity of the Catholic Church may depend on it.

The Thinker

2016 Republican Presidential Debate #2

I skipped the first of these interminable Republican presidential debates because I simply couldn’t stomach it. I did watch the second debate last night with some misgivings, mostly because like everyone else I wanted to see if Donald Trump would get his comeuppance. Still, I have limits and yesterday’s was two hours worth. I kind of felt sorry for them forced to stand there for three hours with Reagan’s Air Force One as a backdrop. I know my bladder wouldn’t hold out for three hours and I’m betting most of the men on the stage have enlarged prostates too. I’m betting they were wearing Adult Depends.

Trump did not exactly did get his comeuppance but he was sort of neutered because the moderators wouldn’t allow him to yammer on and hog the stage like he did during the first debate. This was good because it gave other candidates a chance to talk about issues instead of personalities. With the exceptions of John Kasich and Ben Carson though the rest seemed shopworn, irritating at worst and uninteresting at best. Carson was clearly going for the nice guy angle, which helped contrast him not only with The Donald but everyone else except Kasich. Granted that Carson’s actual policies are just as wacky as the others’ are, and are in some cases even wackier. Kasich was the sole moderate on the stage, although even Ronald Reagan would not have recognized him as a moderate Republican. Kasich at least sounded reasonable and pragmatic, as did Carson at times simply because he wouldn’t raise his voice or criticize any of his fellow candidates. That doesn’t seem to be what Republican voters want in a nominee this time, but we’ll see.

Carly Fiorina generated the most buzz. She did so right near the start with some false statements about the highly doctored Planned Parenthood videos. She essentially inflamed the Planned Parenthood funding issue in highly emotional and clinical terms to shamelessly draw attention to herself and it obviously worked. She also one-upped The Donald with her caustic reply to a question about Trump’s earlier remarks about her ugly face. I hope that Republicans are wising up to Trump, who is basically a very rich bully. In any event these two events allowed Fiorina to look sort of presidential, at least by comparison to the low standards the other candidates set. Trump’s rampant sexism and plain bad taste seem to have finally become counterproductive. He also made a snide remark about Rand Paul’s disheveled hair, perhaps because his hair is a frequent news story in itself.

More revealing was his degree of sexism, which should disqualify any thinking female from voting for him. He had already criticized Megyn Kelly with a vague reference to menstruation. In trying to dodge his remarks about Fiorina’s ugly face, he dug himself in further. He had earlier said he meant her persona was unpresidential, not her face. In the debate, after Fiorina caustically replied to his comment, he said she had a beautiful face. Would he say this about one of the handsomer men on the stage, like Marco Rubio? Not likely. He sees beauty as an important aspect of a woman. Beauty however is simply a matter of genetics and taking care of yourself. Beauty has nothing to do with judgment. By seeming to suggest it’s important for a woman to be beautiful to be successful suggests that he is handicapping all women that are not or won’t try to be. It must be his cluelessness because there is nothing clever about this at all.

It’s not surprising that when they weren’t criticizing each other or the minutia in their policy differences they were complaining about President Obama and his “disastrous” presidency. They said he was weak on foreign policy, which was laughable as he was the president that got Osama bin Laden, a goal George W. Bush saw as unimportant. Obama also got us out of an unwinnable war in Iraq and is getting out of a similar one in Afghanistan. They chastised him for the nuclear agreement on Iran, even though it keeps us out of the folly of a pointless war and reduces Iran’s potential to develop nuclear weapons. They said he was a disaster for the economy, even though he created more jobs than any other modern president and dropped the unemployment rate lower than their hero Ronald Reagan ever did. It all sounded so hollow. Obama is simply a projection of their own inner frustration at his many accomplishments in spite of their relentless obfuscation. Their solutions to his alleged deficiencies were to do more of the same failed things that haven’t worked before. Not one of them had the courage to admit this was retarded.

At least there was more debate about issues last night and less blather from Trump. Their solutions did not vary much, but it took the focus off of Trump, who seemed out of his element. Trump spent much of his time off camera giving peculiar stairs at the other candidates when they spoke. He seemed to have lost his footing and was only willing to engage when it gave him the opportunity to be judgmental about other candidates. He is a one trick pony who looked very played last night.

It was so painful to watch certain candidates. They are all pretty grating, but Ted Cruz just oozes obnoxiousness. No wonder he doesn’t have a single friend in the U.S. Senate. Ditto Scott Walker and Chris Christie, both well seasoned bullies. Cruz though just has this look that is totally off-putting. Seeing someone like him on the street I reflexively move to the other side. Memo to Cruz: picking fights all the time and saying “my way or the highway” is not leadership. Taking the initiative to solve problems, generally by collaborating with others to find common ground, is leadership.

Jeb Bush tried hard to sound reasonable and affable but none of it made him particularly interesting or helped him shine. Did you notice him standing on his tippy toes when pictures were taken? He was already the tallest candidate but he had to be seen as taller, maybe because he knows history tends to favor the tallest candidate. He wants to look as dominating as possible but this was over the top.

Most of the other candidates tried to get words in edgewise but didn’t have much luck. None of these candidates though, not even Donald Trump, can master a stage like Barack Obama. Of course he’s not running although they were talking about him so much he did sort of command the stage in abstention.

My dream would be to have a debate between Trump and Obama. Trump thinks he’s a wizard on the stage. On the same stage with Obama debating the issues, he would be road kill under Obama’s shoes. I hope during the final campaign the Democratic nominee is wise enough to bring Obama on the road with him/her. History will vindicate Obama’s presidency. None of these potential Republican nominees is ten percent of the person that he is.

I’ll try to critique more of these debates in the future, but it is a struggle. It is intensely painful at times to hear such ridiculous tripe and such nonsensical and counterproductive solutions to our many vexing problems. With the possible exception of John Kasich, it’s horrifying to think what wreckage any of these people would be likely to do if they actually became president. On the plus side, any of these candidates except Kasich might actually make George W. Bush look the better president in retrospect.

The Thinker

Anarchy at our doorsteps

The refugees keep pouring into Europe. Who can blame them for leaving? What sensible person would not want to escape war and poverty? It’s heartbreaking just to read about the hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East and Northern Africa trying to find sanctuary in Europe. They take trips on overloaded ships out of Libya, Morocco, Syria and other countries. Many of these ships are deliberately sunk near shore. Thousands of refugees and migrants have likely drowned at sea this year. Others try to escape over land — a difficult journey at best. After being holed up in Hungary, about 20,000 refugees won passage through Austria and arrived last week in Munich, Germany. They were the lucky ones. They made it and even luckier they were greeted warmly upon their arrival with food and shelter.

But Germany is already warning that these refugees are straining their services. England plans to take 20,000 migrants. France is preparing for 24,000. Germany expects that it might host nearly a million refugees this year. Other European countries are turning refugees away. The United States is largely looking the other way and will only accommodate a few thousand. In spite of Pope Francis’s call for kindness and sanctuary for refugees in its churches, it is likely that the world’s goodwill will quickly run out.

I have a feeling of foreboding, but it’s not paranoia. It’s a matter of simply looking at world trends and projecting them forward. There have always been refugees, but what we are likely to see in the first half of the 21st century is mass migration on a scale we simply have not experienced in modern times. This will have a profound effect on us, calling us toward our better selves, but it’s likely that we’ll move in just the opposite direction. Here in the United States, Donald Trump is its clarion. He’s calling for the United States to build a wall on our Mexican border not to mention somehow deport 11 million people already living here, but he’s hardly alone. All nations can help mitigate this crisis to some extent, but at some point it becomes too much. The drawbridges are raised and each nation declares, “Sorry, we can’t help anymore.”

Walls or not, it’s not going to stop. Desperate people do desperate things. We have much more coastline than we have borders with Mexico. If a wall works, which I doubt (tunnels will simply be dug under them), other tactics will be used to get into our country. Like Cubans did fifteen years ago, and Haitians still do sporadically, we can expect boats full of refugees on our doorstep too, washing up on our Gulf, Pacific and Atlantic shores. The wealthier ones will simply arrive on a tourist visa and overstay their welcomes. They will keep coming to Europe as well. Many will perish in the process. They want what all reasonable people want: freedom, prosperity and a better life for themselves and their children.

We will try to keep things the way they were, but it will increasingly become impossible. The numbers coming will make cultural conflict inevitable, likely fueling race and religious divides. Most of those streaming into Europe are Muslim, and Muslims frequently feel unwelcome in Europe. In France, the National Front Party’s rise has been linked to the discomfort many French are feeling to the Muslims in their communities. Arguably Donald Trump is feeding the same paranoia here in the United States, but this discomfort is what is driving the Tea Party. Trump has simply become its ringmaster.

The immediate cause of the crisis is political instability, particularly in Syria. Larger macro forces, particularly climate change, are feeding political instability. It’s made worse by overpopulation. We keep adding people but the size of the earth doesn’t change. It creates a downwardly vicious cycle. We consume more resources and deforest more of our planet, making problems that much harder to solve. Sea level rise will force people to move, including many here in the United States. If you look at the areas of the world that will be most affected by sea level rise, you are also looking at some of the most populated areas of the world, which also happen to be among the poorest parts of the world, places like Bangladesh. Sufficiently large numbers of poor and desperate people will overwhelm local governments. In fact, they will be able to change national boundaries and start their own states. This conflict will inevitably breed many wars where the competition will simply be to see who survives and gets to control the remaining resources. It may look a lot like a Mad Max movie.

The tendency will be to close our gates and protect what we have. Real solutions though require international cooperation that has so far eluded us. Addressing climate change is a big part of the solution but this must be done while knowing temperatures will still increase over the next century no matter what we do. Outside of China, no serious attempt has been made to address population control but it will have to be done and it fill feed religious outrage. Industrializing countries are likely to not be interested in ways to industrialize cleanly. We must do all this while trying to act humanely toward the living and while coping with the increasing presence of the other in our midst.

It’s pretty clear to me that government as we have known it so far is not up to this challenge. To address it, you have to give up the idea of having autonomous countries. Decisions need to be made collectively and worldwide. Survival of the species becomes a unified struggle or it devolves into widespread war, poverty and anarchy. Which one is more likely based on our history?

So the gates will go up instead and this will feed the problem rather than solve it. Those that have will effectively push more misery on those that don’t, which will feed the drive of those that don’t. There are many more of those that don’t have than those that do. In their quest to have what the rest of us have, we that have will compromise our values and fundamentally change society. We will become a meaner, harsher and more class-divided society.

I pray for sensibility in the decades ahead, but I sense anarchy at our doorsteps. I sense it will arise within us as we tighten the screws. Pray that our better half wins, but it is likely to be in vain.

The Thinker

Kim Davis’s rights are apparently more equal than yours

Kim Davis, the elected county clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky is sitting in a jail in Ashland, Kentucky tonight. She is in jail after being held in contempt of court by a U.S. district court judge for refusing to issue marriage licenses. The thrice-married Davis has been refusing all applicants (gay and straight) since the Supreme Court ruled in June that no state could prohibit two people of the same sex from marrying.

Davis says she cannot issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians because gay marriage contradicts her sincerely held religious beliefs, i.e. her freedom of religion. She is an apostolic Christian and she believes that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Five of her six deputies who were also called to the hearing have seen the light and plan to issue marriage licenses starting tomorrow. The other deputy, curiously Davis’s son, is not in jail.

Unsurprisingly this is national news. Both sides have been hanging outside the courthouse yipping it up at each other. To most Republicans it’s pretty cut and dry stuff. They have been promoting freedom of religion for a while as a way to selectively circumvent the law. Unfortunately for Davis, her case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that she must follow the law. Davis meanwhile seems to be suffering from a case of cognitive dissonance, unable to reconcile her oath to uniformly execute the law with her religious beliefs. It looks like God is winning, at least for the moment. It remains unclear if she will see the secular light, linger indefinitely in jail as a cause celebre or do the honorable thing for someone in these cases: resign.

Republicans definitely seem energized by this “freedom of religion equals freedom to discriminate” argument. This is hardly surprising but it certainly is curious. An oath is a solemn secular promise, and Davis swore it when she entered her elective office that pays a comfortable $80,000 a year (great money in rural Kentucky). An oath is a requirement of being in the civil service. I ought to know because for thirty-two years I was a federal civil servant. When our careers began we all raised our hand and swore the same oath: that we would faithfully serve the constitution of the United States. (Curiously I had to end it with “So help me God,” although I was an agnostic.) Davis is not a federal civil servant, but it’s likely that her oath contained similar words.

While I was a civil servant, upholding the oath was not just the law and a good idea, not following the oath was grounds for my dismissal and/or possible other criminal penalties. In 32 years I served five presidents from Jimmy Carter (very briefly) to Barack Obama. The presidents I served frequently wrote stupid executive orders, and some of them were deeply offensive to me. Congress wasn’t much better with the laws it was passing. For much of that time I was a Unitarian Universalist. Although its adherents have no creed to profess, lots of stuff I had to do contradicted my religious beliefs. The first part of my career was with the Department of Defense. I aided in the printing of maps and charts used to direct our armed forces, sometimes to kill people. As part of holding a security clearance I could not disclose things that I knew. To this day I still can’t, and some of the stuff I learned shook me to the core and was both personally offensive and violated my religious beliefs. To get a security clearance in the first place I had to swear I wasn’t a homosexual. (This fortunately has changed.)

While working at a more benign department, Health and Human Services, I had to sometimes provide support to the office that promoted President Bush’s faith-based initiatives. This was pretty obvious to me a violation of the boundaries between church and state, but I shut up about it while expressing my opinions freely outside the office. I didn’t like it, but Bush had been constitutionally elected and if it was unconstitutional, it was an issue for the courts. So like Kim Davis, there were many aspects to my job that rubbed me the wrong way. I knew if it became too much to bear that there was an alternative: resign and find a job without these conflicts. Davis has that option right now. All she has to do is use it and she gets a get out of jail free card, quite literally.

Oaths are there for a very good reason: government can’t run if civil servants can selectively decide which parts of the law they will follow or ignore: laws can become toothless if they are not uniform. These same Republicans who are gung ho supporting Davis’s religious rights would not for a moment allow it from a soldier who refused to fight. “It’s against the commandments to kill, sergeant. Sorry, I’ll opt out of this battle. Maybe the next one if it’s not lethal.” It won’t work for the food inspector with a sincere religious belief against GMOs. It won’t work for the judge who refuses to give a mandatory sentence. Our constitution says that the Supreme Court gets to decide what is constitutional, the court decided it about gay marriage and it conflicted with her religious beliefs. The constitutional approach if she doesn’t like their decision is to push for a constitutional amendment prohibiting same sex marriage.

Instead, Davis’s response was to deny all who came to her the right to marry. In doing so she violated couples’ civil right to marriage and all the benefits that come with marriage. Her “right” to freedom of religion effectively trumped the rights of lots of others and put others through unnecessary hassle, expense and emotional trauma.

It should be obvious that any right that restricts someone else’s rights is not a real right. But that’s essentially the argument she and Republicans are making, and in her case she is doing while executing the law. If all civil servants had the right to rewrite or sidestep laws they don’t agree with while retaining their position, government would be mostly dysfunctional.

Republicans basically want anarchy anyhow, so maybe that’s why they are cheering her on. They are cheering anyone who will push policies that they agree with, legally or illegally. It’s affecting the ends they want that matter, and most are not principled enough to see this is both illegal and wrong. This variant on the freedom of religion ruse is just one more.

Fortunately, at least U.S. District Judge David Bunning gets it. A fine would not be enough here. Right-wingers would simply set up a fund that would allow her to flaunt the law indefinitely. So I feel no pity for her whatsoever. If her convictions are as sincere as she claims, the honorable thing to do is to resign. Otherwise, she should follow the rule of law for her public position that she swore to uphold and for which she is paid to uphold. Or she can choose to rot in jail on principle, which is fine with me.

Update 9/4/15 – Clarified post to note that Davis’s son has not been jailed.

The Thinker

Trump tries the master illusionist trick

About a month ago I took my first look at the Donald Trump as a presidential candidate phenomenon. A month later he’s still a phenomenon. The press goes gaga over the man, as apparently does a good portion of the American public. This creates something of a virtuous loop, at least if you are Donald Trump. Even his detractors will admit that while he may be jingoistic and a misogynist, he rarely fails to entertain. He’s been the subject of countless editorials, op eds and internet comments. I too am feeding the beast with this second post on Trump.

Political analysts are spending a lot of time trying to understand the Trump phenomenon, as he comes out of far right field. Holding left field of course is Bernie Sanders. Sanders is actually attracting a bigger crowds than either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but the press for the most part is not interested and is chasing Trump instead. I was at the health club the other day and watching the TV screens on the walls there in front of the exercise machines. I was wondering if CNN had become 24/7 Donald Trump channel. He was at the Iowa State Fair and the camera kept lingering on Trump and his showy helicopter. He was attracting crowds but Bernie Sanders was drawing bigger crowds. CNN didn’t bother to follow Bernie, maybe because he doesn’t have a private helicopter.

Trump remains mesmerizing to watch not to mention to try to figure out. Trump is an expert at understanding his brand, as he’s been in the self-promotion business for most of his adult life. With his bombastic comments and his reality TV show where he kept busy firing underlings, virtually every American already knew him. We all had opinions on the man. Most were negative but even I would not say that Trump is not interesting. To quote some lyrics from the band Heart, he’s a magic man.

Magic of course is purely illusion and Donald Trump is an illusionist. The author of the comic strip Dilbert, Scott Adams, is fascinated by Trump (see his blog), in part because Adams some years back took a course on hypnotism. He is convinced Trump is hypnotizing us and he gives him 98% odds of being our next president. I can’t be as clairvoyant as Scott Adams, but I can read the polls. While he definitely appeals to Americans who want a strong leader, and particularly those who want someone of action instead of another weaselly politician elected in 2016, the polls are clear that while most of us find him entertaining, the majority of American have still soberly assessed the guy and won’t vote for him under any circumstances. I’ll never say never, however. Americans have a history of voting for bamboozlers. I mean we put George W. Bush in the White House twice, although technically the Supreme Court put him in the first time.

The best characterization of Trump I’ve seen is his comparison to Ronald Reagan. Reagan said it was Morning in America when he campaigned. Trump goes everywhere with his branded baseball cap saying “Make America Great Again”. Like Reagan he is a divorcee and like Reagan he is an accomplished actor and salesman, although Reagan sold mostly Borax. Reagan was elected twice and had pretty good approval ratings, even though he proved to be a pretty poor president. We identified with him as a sincere common man who spoke his mind and did what he thought was right.

Trump is betting on a number of things in his campaign. He is betting that even though almost no Hispanics or Blacks will vote for him that he can whip up white voters to vote massively and mostly for him, which is the only way he can overcome the quickly changing voter demographics. And since white voters as a class tend to be Republican, he looks for our soft underbellies. Just like Nixon realized his path to the White House went through white voters in the South, Trump realizes that he must make outrageous statements about Mexicans, women, John McCain and a whole lot of other people to gain the attention and affection of white voters, many of whom are scared that their country is in decline because of those others. Unlike most of the other candidates who have no name recognition to most voters, he was already a brand. It’s not surprising then that he quickly rocketed to the top of preferred candidates among Republicans.

His success at least so far has opened my eyes a bit. He understands that what Republican voters really want is not necessarily someone with conservative values, but someone with a certain attitude. It’s his in-your-face attitude that connects to these voters, and it’s what they admire. Trump says occasional things that should be anathema to Republican ideologues, things like the rich should pay more taxes and there are parts of Obamacare that he likes. None of this seems to matter to his fans, most of who are Tea Party types. They just sense his character, latch onto his pugnacious style and see a successful businessman who manages to get his way. They project this to the national stage and think: if anyone can make Washington work, Trump can!

Trump of course has never held an elective office, something his supporters see as an asset. Given Trump’s attitude, he would likely take liberties with the Office of the President far beyond what even George W. Bush or Richard Nixon could have ever imagined. If he takes these sorts of liberties, he stands an excellent chance of being impeached and convicted rather quickly. Even Donald Trump cannot trump the Constitution of the United States. Moreover, he will encounter the same institutional forces every president has to deal with, as well as lots of pesky rules and regulations that he ignores or bypasses at his peril. Whoever is president must be a politician first or he or she will fail. It drives us voters nuts, but that’s the way it is. Trump too will have to do inconvenient things like follow contracting laws to build his wall along the Mexican border, assuming he’s sincere about it, which I doubt. He will also have to persuade Congress to fund it. The president is not a dictator. The president must persuade not just voters but Congress to actually wield power his way. Democracy is slow, painful and inelegant by design. Trump won’t make it dance.

I continue to believe (perhaps naively) that Trump understands all this upfront. He understands that he won’t be the next president so perhaps his aim is to change the national conversation, or to push for his agenda or he is a secret Democratic operative that even the Democratic Party is oblivious to. I wouldn’t put it past the man. Or I could be all wet and he actually plans to be our next president and his following his instincts that served him well so far. All he has to do is persuade enough of us, and he’s a master at the persuasion business. It starts with commanding our attention, and he sure has done that. Maybe for him the thrill is to close the ultimate sales pitch. If anyone has the skills to bamboozle us into doing so, he probably has it, which makes him dangerous to our democracy.

I am certain that Trump is being disingenuous and doesn’t actually believe half the stuff he is saying. I’m hoping that voters will eventually figure this out. Perhaps many of them have and simply don’t care because they like his pugnacious attitude. It’s clear though that voters are looking for someone who can break our national gridlock and institute real change. Many see in Trump that shiny man of practical action that could do this.

While Trump is not sincere, Bernie Sanders is sincere and has a forty plus year career of sincerely pushing his agenda. When Sanders starts attacking Trump directly, the fireworks are going to get very interesting, assuming the press deigns to pay attention. Like Jimmy Carter, Sanders can speak with a consistent moral authority. Trump simply cannot. If anyone can pull the curtains and expose the mere mortal that is the Great and Powerful Trump, it’s probably going to be Bernie Sanders. There is authenticity and there is showmanship. Sanders has authenticity, which is why at least so far Trump can only dream of getting the crowds to his rallies that Sanders draws routinely.

The Thinker

Betting on failure

I regularly look to see what’s trending on my blog. Given the relatively little traffic that it gets discerning trends is kind of hard. My Craigslist posts frequently get hit, which is why I decided to encourage the trend with a monthly review of local Craigslist casual encounter posts. Also, no one else seemed to be doing as a form of entertainment. Over the last few months I’ve watched my Porter Stansberry tag trending upward. This probably means something too.

I wrote just one blog post in 2011 where I mentioned Mr. Stansberry and his dubious “research” firm. I mentioned him mostly in passing. His ads were following me all over the Internet so one day I gave in and spent forty-five minutes or so listening to his pitch. Of course he was trying to sell me something: a pricey subscription to his financial newsletter. He was looking for a certain kind of investor that I’m not, mainly the ultra paranoid “I’m ready for the zombie apocalypse” type.

Four years ago Mr. Stansberry was predicting the imminent collapse of the dollar but really all major currencies. He saw another Great Depression on the horizon and it was coming at us like a freight train. He had a plan to deal with an impending financial apocalypse that would let you survive it and ultimately prosper. When it hit you would presumably be sipping margaritas on your private island in Bermuda while the rest of the world went to hell. It was all pretty vague but his financial forecast was available in small segments via his pricey newsletters. They had to be pricey because not just everyone was good enough to afford his unique insights. Just the chosen, like you.

Four years later there has been no financial apocalypse. The stock market is higher than ever, even though incomes are not. Most of the income continues to go toward the top of the income scale, which explains why incomes still lag, our recovery feels somewhat tentative and why people are getting financially nervous again. China recently devalued its currency to make its products cheaper, basically to hold off a recession. Its stock market has lost roughly a third of its value the last time I looked, and might have lost more if China’s government hadn’t propped it up. Commodity prices are also falling as evidenced by the price of gasoline. Stocks while generally high are a bit off their peaks. So a lot of smart people are reading the financial tealeaves and trying to figure out if stocks are overvalued and whether they should be cashing those investments in for something safer. The bad news is that if you are chasing your financial fears you are probably going to take a financial haircut.

I won’t pretend to be an economist. However, I do feel my advice is at least as good as Porter Stansberry’s and most likely better. After all, I was not fined $1.5 million by a U.S. District court in 2007. Most of the fine was used to refund his investors who were urged to buy stock in a company based on fabricated insider information. Stansberry said it was sure to increase 100 percent. To find out the name of the company, you had to send him $1000. In any event, after the company’s announcement the company’s share prices fell after being artificially bid up by his investors. This led to the demise of his previous firm Pirate Investor and the creation of Stansberry Research and lots of videos hawking his presumably newly improved financial insight.

So even if you are a paranoid investor type, you should not trust Stansberry Research. Moreover, all the gold bullion in the world won’t save you in the event of a total financial collapse. The truth is that while there will certainly be future financial shocks and maybe even major widespread currency collapses, our financial system is too complex to go back to monetary sources based on perceived permanent value, like gold. Instead if there is uncertainty in the market, money will shift toward perceived safer forms of currency.

That’s happening right now with the collapse of the Yuan and slow slide of other currencies like the Euro. The dollar is perceived to be a safer currency, so its value is rising in comparison to most other currencies. This of course makes it harder for the United States to sell products and services priced in dollars. It’s the penalty for having a financial system less screwed up than everyone else’s. This has the ultimate effect of proving that we are all tied together. Investors running toward the dollar reduces economic growth in the United States, which makes it cheaper to buy commodities outside the United States, which hastens their recoveries at the expense of less economic activity in the United States. This cycle repeats endlessly but generally the United States is seen as having the most stable economic system, so generally cash is poured into dollars and U.S. treasury bills when economic uncertainty rises.

So when the value of the dollar rises significantly compared to an aggregate of all other currencies, this can be a warning sign that a financial correction is due. You don’t need Stansberry Research to tell you that. You can simply track currency valuations online and compare it with what happened in previous financial crises. What seems to be happening now is that the market understands that the recovery in the United States is much weaker than investors would like it to be, and that’s likely due to income inequality in the United States. When wage growth hardly moves upward that doesn’t give the majority of consumers a whole lot of money to buy more stuff. It stifles growth because as I pointed out before the top one percent will only choose to buy so much stuff. Hardly any economic growth ever trickles down from the top one percent’s personal spending.

Curiously, the best way to get economic growth on track again would be for voters to vote for a little socialism next year. Changing the rules so more income would go down toward the rest of us instead of the top would put more money in our pockets and start a virtuous cycle. Changing the rules to raise taxes on upper income people would have the same effect, since the government generally spends all it takes in and that feeds economic growth in the United States. Arguably the United States was never better than in the 1950s when top marginal tax rates were about ninety percent. That’s because taxes were put to use providing assets like our interstate highway system. Putting more money into the middle and lower classes gave people the means to spend it to increase their standard of living and keep the economy on a generally good footing. This is why there is more growth under Democratic administrations than Republican administrations.

It remains to be seen if voters will choose optimism or pessimism next year. The financial rumblings happening now and how we choose to react to them will probably influence voters in 2016. A downturn in 2015 would probably ensure a sustained downturn after the next U.S. president is sworn in, since the next president will have an austerity agenda.

None of this matters to Porter Stansberry because the fear of failure is the basis of his business model. It sells more of his pricey newsletters. As for me I will continue to play my financial cards the way I always have: keep a diversified portfolio and move toward more cash and bonds as I age. I’ll never win the game of timing the market, but no one actually does. Instead, investors sell themselves on the delusion that with the right financial guru they can outsmart it. The best thing we can do for our economy is simply talk to our neighbors and friends. We need to convince them to be cautious but rational, and to vote rationally in 2016.

President Obama famously campaigned on hope, which was derided by many Republicans. However, we’ve had seven years of economic growth and falling unemployment. Much of the growth went to investors and not to the rest of us, but it was growth nonetheless. We should hope for continued better times, but hedge our bets by electing politicians who will vote for some pragmatic democratic socialism again.

Paging Bernie Sanders.

The Thinker

Donald Trump proves that Republicans prefer assholes

Long time readers will know that I find Republicans to be both fascinating and appalling. They are my number one tag. I obviously don’t share many of their values. In many ways though some small part of me is Republican, the way my grandfather was.

I do think hard work should be rewarded, for example. Republicans agree with the principle in the abstract, but not in the specific. To them, hard work does not mean labor-intensive work. Watch fast food workers or bus boys working and tell me if you think they aren’t working hard. To me their hard work should be rewarded with a living wage of at least $15 an hour and probably more in higher cost of living areas. To Republicans, their wages should probably be cut so they can work harder and harder and achieve … well, that part is not too clear. Maybe they figure their boss will promote them to lead fryer chief or drive thru manager after seeing them run around like headless chickens for twelve hours a day. It’s clear that what they really hope for is that they can keep exploiting them. They hope that they will die young and that their tremendous productivity, made possible by low wages and plentiful poor people that they help create, will filter up to them in the form of higher stock prices and dividends, or possibly cheaper Happy Meals when they bring the grandkids by.

I’ve said Republicans are a party of sadists but after watching the reaction to Donald Trump’s misogynist statements during and after the first presidential debate the other night made me realize something for some reason I hadn’t before: Republicans prefer assholes for candidates probably because most of them are assholes too.

I’ve wracked my brain and I simply can’t think of an alternate explanation. Donald Trump has been a complete asshole throughout his professional life. He is a bully and his weapons are his wealth, his reckless mouth and his lawyers. He goes out of his way to offend people. When debate moderator Megyn Kelly asked probing questions about his behavior that he didn’t like, he reflexively and gleefully doubled down. If he gets a further negative reaction he double-doubles down some more. And since he is filthy rich, if he can throw some high priced lawyers at them to make their lives miserable and put their standard of living in jeopardy, he is happy to do so. He figures his wealth and success gives him the right to speak his mind freely without consequence and to toss aside common rules of etiquette or basic politeness.

Normal people of course have their jaws agape at his outrageous behavior. It’s no wonder he dominates the domestic news cycle. Except for the fact that he knows how to make gobs of money, he is a train wreck of a human being: a perfect example that money is the root of all evil. Normal people are just appalled by his behavior. And while some Republicans including the misogynist owner of Erick Erickson who abruptly disinvited Trump from his convention feel they have to make a stand, at best most of them are mute. With the exception of Lindsay Graham and Carly Fiorina, none of the other presidential aspirants in the Republican fold have the courage to call him an asshole. As for the others, it could be they are waiting for his fall and then hope to pick off his supporters. But mainly I think they aren’t saying anything because they generally agree with him.

In fact, most of them wish they could emulate him but can’t find the courage, perhaps because they don’t have a big enough bank account. Mind you they say a lot of the same things, just more politely, and in the abstract without naming names. What they can’t imitate, with the possible exception of Ted Cruz, is his compulsive and reflexive nastiness. In a less civilized age, Donald Trump would be the king, those who disagreed with him would get the rack, and The Donald would be tightening the rack personally until their limbs left their sockets and his victims were a massive blob of blood, tissue, bones and protoplasm on the dungeon floor. That’s because The Donald is a reflexive barbarian at heart.

And you know Republicans agree by looking at his poll numbers. There is a batch of polls out since this first debate and at worst Trump’s poll numbers have stayed steady. By some poll numbers, they have improved. A Morning Consult poll show’s Trump has the support of 32% of Republicans nationally, versus 25% before the debate. His favorability ratings among Republicans went from 40%/40% to 46%/40% according to Public Policy Polling. But he is hardly the only asshole candidate in the race. The other clearly asshole candidates running include Scott Walker (6% favorite), Chris Christie (3% favorite), Ted Cruz (4% favorite) and Bobby Jindal (1% favorite).

This means that roughly half of Republicans prefer candidates that are known, public and pugnacious assholes. So by association at least roughly half of Republicans prefer a known asshole for their president. Why? It’s because they identify with them, and that’s because they too are assholes. They want someone that will not only implement their conservative vision of America, but do it in a showy, obnoxious, “I don’t give a damn who I offend or what the consequences may be” way. In short, they want an asshole for president.

The way to win the Republican nomination is now clear: to try to be more of an asshole than Donald Trump. The problem is Trump has set such a high bar and is running the carnival show so it’s unlikely that they could say or do anything that could be anything worse that what Donald Trump is already doing.

All these candidates will breathlessly say they think that the United States is the greatest country on earth, but if they had their way they would ensure the next president was also the most loathsome, vile and disgusting asshole possible. But if your party consists of assholes, you are simply electing one of your own. You can relate to that kind of president.

The evidence is in the polls.

The Thinker

Why do Republicans want to kill Planned Parenthood again?

It’s no longer news that Republicans aren’t tethered to reality. You might say they are the anti-reality party. Pretty much anything that is undeniable, they will deny it. They don’t believe climate change is happening. Evidence like increased carbon dioxide levels and steadily rising average temperatures won’t persuade them. Even rising sea levels that are already threatening Norfolk, Virginia won’t convince them.

They are a pretty reflexive party in that, like Pavlov’s dog, you know how they will react before they open their mouth. If President Obama says it’s good, for example, they will say it’s bad and therefore it must be opposed with all necessary force and vitriol. His multi-nation agreement with Iran to lift sanctions in exchange for closer monitoring of their nuclear activities must be voted down because Obama’s name is on it. The alternative to not having an agreement is likely the collapse of sanctions against Iran by major countries and the rapid enrichment of Iran’s current nuclear stockpile. Republicans would rather have war against Iran instead, and it’s all in the interest of our (and Israel’s) national security somehow. Note that most of the yahoos pushing this approach also voted or advocated for the Iraq War in 2002. They have a great track record!

Now, a highly doctored video showing representatives of Planned Parenthood suggesting they might be able to provide parts of aborted fetuses for research (which they already do in some cases) has Republicans in Congress racing to pass legislation taking away all federal funding for the organization. This is much more important than, say, passing a multi-year funding bill for the Highway Trust Fund or passing appropriations so the government won’t shut down again on October 1. The bill is necessary they say to show their disgust for Planned Parenthood in general and their abortions in particular. Never mind that federal law does not allow a dime of federal money to provide any abortion services by Planned Parenthood or any other organization. It’s been this way for more than a decade. In their pique they now want to make sure Planned Parenthood doesn’t use federal money for any activities, like providing birth control to poor people.

Obviously I’m not the brightest person on the planet but I’m pretty sure that if poor people can’t get contraceptives for free or at a reduced cost, they’re probably not going to embrace celibacy. Instead lots of poor women are going to get pregnant that would not have otherwise. And some of them will choose to get an abortion rather than carry the pregnancy to term. Since zero federal money is going to Planned Parenthood for abortions (and only 3% of their funds are used for abortion services) it’s likely many of these women will go to Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics for abortions instead. This will mean that their actions will only increase abortions.

Moreover, to the extent that limited parts of fetuses (most are not much larger than a kidney bean) are provided for medical research now, because of these actions there will be more available in the future. Those women that don’t get abortions are more likely to raise poor children, who will probably need social services. Republicans clearly hate women, abortions and poor people, so it’s hard to imagine a more counterproductive act than this. However, given the way they reacted to the agreement with Iran, it’s just more par for their course.

In response to all of this, I am giving more money to Planned Parenthood. Maybe in doing so I can help keep some of these women from getting pregnant. Long ago while pondering the best use of the money I give to charity, Planned Parenthood went to the top. It’s hard to imagine a better use of my money. Consider:

  • It empowers women. By being able to get free or reduced birth control, they have greater freedom and control over their lives.
  • It strengthens families and relationships
  • It allows these people to have a higher standard of living
  • It reduces social services and costs borne by the taxpayers
  • It reduces infrastructure costs, reducing the need for new houses, roads, bridges, shopping malls, etc.
  • It’s environmentally friendly
  • Contraception prevents abortions in the first place. This should make both pro-life and pro-choice people happy because it supports their goals.

So Congress’s likely actions will wreak more havoc that will inescapably increase the number of abortions. It will unnecessarily add to our misery as a country. And it won’t retard the use of fetal tissues in medical research.

So nice going Congressional Republicans! You remain as consistent as always promoting your agenda. Your reflexive actions here offer us more of the same counterproductive results Americans have come to expect from you. It’s not surprising then that a recent Pew poll found the fewest number of Americans approving of the Republican Party in decades (just 32%).

It also sounds like you are going to get one hell of a karmic wallop come elections next year. Don’t tell me then that you didn’t see this coming.

The Thinker

Donald Trump and the art of carnival barking

Sorry about delays in postings, Razor fans. I’ve been occupied this week by a family reunion. Aside from deaths and weddings, reunions don’t happen very often in my family. The last scheduled one was in 2000. This one probably would not have happened either if I had not taken the initiative last year to find a location and to prod my siblings. Our reunion at Chenango Valley State Park was good while it lasted, but it didn’t last long. The weather at the park near Binghamton, New York (where most of us grew up) over the weekend was oppressively hot and humid, uncharacteristic of the region. It meant sleep was difficult, particularly during many extreme thunderstorms and torrential rains.

While we arrived last Saturday, siblings quickly started peeling away beginning on Tuesday. I ended up leaving early too. My wife developed an ear infection on a trip of her own, came home and started throwing up. She was weak and worried she might be developing pneumonia. So I drove back on Wednesday. My wife is improving but not without a lot of requisite suffering.

So I’m back and catching up on the news that I missed at the park while I sweated and tried to keep mosquitoes from biting me. There were no lack of interesting current events, but the media for some reason could not stop highlighting the latest crazy nonsense coming out of the mouth of Republican presidential “candidate” Donald Trump. Trump has developed a knack for sucking the oxygen out of the room, much to the consternation of his fellow Republican candidates that wanted the privilege instead. Unfortunately, their idea of doing this is to bash liberals, the poor, environmentalists and the Iranian government, which is hardly novel. Trump’s approach is to be more outrageous than any of the other candidates, and by an order of magnitude.

Trump has figured out a way to outdo them all by saying outrageous things not just about Mexican immigrants (suggesting most are rapists and criminals) but also his fellow Republicans. Most recently he suggested that Senator John McCain was not a war hero because all he did was spend five and a half years in a North Vietnamese prison. It’s all pretty crazy stuff, but it seems to be working in getting cameras and microphones to follow him. Republicans seem to like people that are outspoken to the point of being insane and foaming at the mouth. They also like candidates that make unrealistic promises, like Trump’s promise to build a wall along our entire border with Mexico, which he says wouldn’t be hard or expensive to do. At the moment Trump holds what is likely to be an ephemeral lead in the polls among self-identified Republicans.

I’m still puzzling over what Trump is really up to but I doubt it’s the presidency. It’s clear that he likes attention. He made his fortune in part by being brazen and outspoken. His crazy remarks are par for his course. This is a man after all, who at least says he believes that President Obama was not born in the United States. Wind Trump back twenty years when even then he was making motions of running for president and his policy solutions were very mainstream. Today he is wild and outrageous, which makes me suspect he is not being sincere. Perhaps he is impossible to accurately psychoanalyze, but in my mind there are two distinct explanations for what is spewing out of his mouth: he’s either running a parody campaign realizing in advance he won’t win and is just out for some kicks, or he is a secret Democratic party mole.

I personally lean toward the latter explanation, in part because Democratic administrations tend to be good for business. Much of his fortune is based on greasing the gears of government to look favorably on his skyscrapers and casinos. It’s hard to imagine that a man as successful as he is could be so blindingly stupid. For example, he needs those illegal Mexicans he rails against to wash the dishes in his restaurants and casinos, and doubtless employs plenty of them already. He’s probably not a progressive, but if he is sane then he’s more mainstream than he lets on. I say this based on his actions, not on his mouth. He may be worth the ten billion dollars he claims he is worth, but he has had many failures in his career. Indeed, he is hardly a self-made man. He got his start courtesy of his father’s fortunes. Many of his projects have proven disastrous for himself and his partners. I figure he simply doesn’t care what people think about him. His extreme wealth gives him that privilege.

But he can command the media’s attention, which means he can control the media playground. Most smart political observers think his popularity will quickly peter out and when it does to keep the camera on him he will launch a third party run for president. He has hinted at such. Since he is drawing Republicans to him instead of Democrats, a third party run would simply fracture the Republican base and the party’s chances of acquiring the White House in 2016. The outcome would look a lot like the 1992 election, when independent Ross Perot also fractured the Republican base, leading improbably to the election of Bill Clinton, when the overall dynamics would have favored George H.W. Bush’s reelection. In any event, his candidacy is not good for the Republican Party in general and for the many candidates vying for the nomination. If he is to represent the Republican brand through winning the nomination, he may be the death of the Republican Party, which first rose with the election of Abraham Lincoln.

If Trump actually believes the crap he is spewing then he is untethered to reality, which is just a polite way of saying he is mentally ill. He is not. He is crafty. He knows how to get attention. You can’t get attention by being conventional. The Republican Party of today is hardly conventional. Indeed, it is not even conservative. It is radical. It takes a certain skill to command attention in such an arena, but he has the advantage that with so many candidates the media cannot focus on any of them. He does know how to be a carnival barker. Trump has the skill and has used it successfully in his career. He has learned the art of showmanship, and it involves learning how to be heard. That requires being very loud in a tone and manner that is discordant because it draws attention. He is like fingernails on a chalkboard. Try not to hear that. This is how he sucks oxygen out of the room and draws attention to himself. It’s a marketing strategy. And in marketing you learn that any attention, even negative attention, is better than being ignored. At least you are talked about.

It works but it generally doesn’t work in achieving a lofty goal like being president of the United States. It might if the standards and expectations of the American voter have degraded as much as Trump might be hoping they have. If they have then we must really depend on God blessing America, because Trump would be a disaster of a president. It probably would not take both Republicans and Democrats long to impeach and convict him out of office.

The Thinker

Obama demonstrates he is the real grown up in the room

Our national government currently resembles a three-ring circus. Between carbon copy Republicans running for president on a platform of mostly hot air, pabulum from the so-called leaders of the U.S. congress and the weird rulings and opinions from our Supreme Court justices, a whole lot of nothing meaningful is happening in Washington at your expense.

There is thankfully one exception: we’re getting a lot of leadership from President Obama. And yesterday, the president tentatively scored a major win: a negotiated agreement with Iran over its nuclear weapons program, in concert with four other major powers that participated in the talks. The agreement reduces Iran’s nuclear capabilities over the next ten years and Iran gets release from the crippling sanctions against the country. This will be done through unfettered inspections of its nuclear facilities and sealed commitments to reduce its uranium stockpiles.

I breathed a huge sigh of relief when the agreement was announced but I was also grinning. In his first presidential campaign, Obama had promised change we could believe in. It’s been hard to deliver a lot of this change given the relentless obstruction in Congress, but this agreement should it be realized certainly will be change I can believe in. This is the kind of change I voted for, and it’s meaningful change.

While Republicans fall over themselves to deny global warming, restrict a woman’s right to an abortion and make life increasingly miserable for the poor and the wretched, at least Obama has kept his focus long term. While CEOs do conniptions to show higher quarterly profits, our president has ignored the rhetoric of the moment and concentrated on what we paid him for: real leadership. And boy did he deliver yesterday!

Consider what would happen if “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” John McCain had been elected president instead of Barack Obama. It’s pretty clear what would have happened based on McCain’s own words then and over the last six and a half years. Negotiate with Iran? It would not have been an option. It would have been framed as negotiating with terrorists. It’s quite likely that instead we would now be hip deep in another long, ghastly and frighteningly expensive war with Iran. Bombs would be dropping. Our ships would be shelling Iran’s shores. Aircraft would be dropping bunker-busting bombs all over the country, and maybe outside of it. Our troops would be dying, and overstretched in the area, which is already rife with conflict. That region would be even more so with a major war in Iran and the Islamic State even more resurgent. Consider what would be giving up now if we were at war with Iran: support for the Iraqi government, and the Kurds and pretty much anyone else trying to contain the Islamic state, and that’s just for starters. Our attention on other threats in Asia and Africa would be largely nonexistent.

This new war, as awful as it would be, would be far more awful because it would set in motion a series of future wars. Rather than contain Iran’s nuclear might, it would unleash decades of future madness in that region. Iran, which already hates America, would find it hated us even more due to the war. It would be working that much harder to undermine our national security through its proxies. You don’t have to look far in the Middle East to see how the hate business propagates endlessly. Israel and Palestine are locked in an eternal war fought as lots of major skirmishes. Each action by Israel or proxies for the Palestinians simply set up the participants for the next one, and further inflames tensions, making it impossible for them to cool. There is no military solution to their problems, just as there is no military solution to the West’s conflict with Iran.

The difference is that unlike Israel’s relentless intransigence, the United States can affect real political change through diplomacy instead of war. Obama figured that out long before he was president. He realized that the most important thing was to stop the cycle of hate and paranoia, because this puts out the flames of war. He spoke openly to the Iranian people that change was possible. He said that Iran and the United States did not have to be eternal enemies. He said we could resolve our conflict through diplomacy, but only if both sides were earnest and passions could cool. To improve the odds he worked with an international coalition not just to maintain sanctions on Iran but also to work together to find a peaceful way to lift them through a comprehensive agreement. And amazingly with the help of two hard working secretaries of state (Hillary Clinton and John Kerry) and of course our international partners (which gave us credibility), they pulled off this agreement.

Of course there are no guarantees that Congress will approve this agreement. It will probably be rejected, but because it is not a treaty, Obama’s veto of their bill rejecting it probably means he will win. This is because Congress probably can’t muster two thirds majority in both chambers to overrule his veto. Of course it is fraught with lots of potential pitfalls. But it also significantly reduces Iran’s nuclear weapon making capability and brings Iran back into the international community. It eases tensions and allows time for Iran’s demographics to take hold. It is a country full of young people, and it’s likely as they age they will have much more liberal values than their current leaders. You can see this from the satellite dishes on pretty much every house of size in Iran today. Iranians are more than ready to embrace Western values. They are just waiting for the political climate to change.

You will hear the usual noise from the war hawks about why this agreement is actually a calamity and how we are selling out our values not to mention our national security. In reality, Obama is holding us to our values, showing that we are a nation that values peace and goodwill. This buys real national security because when people don’t have reason to hate you, something called real peace happens. Obama is showing that we can model what is best about our country to the rest of the world again, rather than assert what is worst about it. He is reminding us of a time in the late 1940s and early 1950s when this was the United States and we really were that shining city on the hill. We sponsored the United Nations. We rebuilt Europe. We built international coalitions to handle the Korean conflict. We fed much of the malnourished world. We were an awesome country back then.

To quote the late Hubert Humphrey, I’m as pleased as punch with our president. Obviously he is not a flawless president. I too have major concerns with some of his decisions as president. However, his focus on a long game and doing the intelligent thing rather than the emotional thing certainly garners not just my respect, but also my deep admiration and gratitude.

Thank you for being one of the few grown up leaders in our government, Mr. President.


Switch to our mobile site