Saturday, October 31, 2015


Aware of the big money involved in their debates, and the fact that their fellow Republicans are capable of grilling a Democrat for eleven straight hours, on television, the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, fearful of being treated like Democrats, appear to have gotten together to change their working conditions.  They have already won a reduction in debate hours and now are working on easing the type of questions  to which  they are expected to respond.  No longer do they wish to be questioned by networks which have a  Liberal bias, such as Fox News. Indeed, as quoting their statements, on a verbatim basis, likewise demonstrates a Liberal bias, they want only an edited transcript of the proceedings to be released to the Press.  The audience, too, should consist only of the members of the candidates families.  Then, and only then, will they have an unbiased debate.

Friday, October 30, 2015


The most explosive remark, uttered during the most recent Republican candidates debate, seems to have been ignored by the media.  When Donald Trump, dismissively commenting on John Kasich's economic success in Ohio,  derisively said that he owed it to fracking, instead of a big hue and cry that the interests of the oil industry was being dissed by a Republican candidate, Kasich, defensively said it wasn't the only industry that Ohio had.

That both Trump, as well as Kasich, turns out to be a moderate Republican on climate issues, should have been worthy of note. That Trump turns out to be a moderate on any issue should have had banner headlines.

Tuesday, October 27, 2015


Dr. Ben Carson calls the Affordable Care Act the worst thing to happen since slavery.

It may be worse. After all, slave owners never tried to interfere between slaves and their doctors, or try to impose socialized medicine on them.  In that regard, slave owners were much nicer people than Barack Obama.

Sunday, October 25, 2015


I admit that I don't get it  From the recent Benghazi hearing, I have learned that the State Department did not use email to communicate sensitive material between Washington and its ambassadors.  They used cables, which I assume were encrypted, but not email.  Email was used for non sensitive material, to begin with, so Hillary was able to say, with confidence, that she did not email any document which had been classified at the time it was sent.  Nevertheless, Republicans excoriated her for having a private server which was not necessarily secure.  At the same time. according to what Trey Gowdy said on a TV interview, this date, it was shameful that while a private citizen, Sidney Blumenthal, had unfettered access to Hillary's email, Ambassador Stevens did not.  Of course, that Ambassador Stevens was required to send his communications by cable and not email, for security reasons, is hardly an excuse, for a crusading Republican Select Committee Chairman. 

The only other point that the committee seemed to make, in the 11 hour marathon grilling, was that somehow, Obama got some advantage, in the 2012 elections because, even though Benghazi was a terror attack and not a result of demonstrations against a movie, it was called the latter instead of the former, at first.  The committee pointed out that Hillary, in an email to another ambassador, within hours of the incident, called it an attack by  an al Quaeda-like group whereas other sources in the Administration were using CIA reports that it was part of a demonstration. 

The matter was brought up, by Mitt Romney, at the second Presidential debate on October 16th, 2012, before the elections were held.  Romney accused Obama of having waited 14 days before calling the Benghazi incident "an act of terror".  Obama pointed out that on September 12th, the day after the attack, he had called it an "act of terror" in a speech in the Rose Garden.  In addition, a day later, in Las Vegas, he also had referred to the incident in Benghazi as "an act of terror".  The American people had ample exposure to the fact that the attack in Benghazi was the work of terrorists before the November elections yet for almost three (3) years now Republicans persist in the delusion that Obama, somehow, tricked the public into believing that Benghazi was part of a demonstration, and therefore, somehow, stole the election.  Somehow, this somehow even outweighs, in importance, Bush/Cheney having lied us into a war in Iraq. 

Tuesday, October 20, 2015


Reports of a flurry of diplomatic initiatives, by Israel, with China and Saudi Arabia, might be judged in context of recent events:

1. Mr. Netanyahu had dealings, directly, with John Boehner and the Republicans in the House of Representatives, by-passing the President of the United States, an unprecedented breach of protocol and an insult, even if unintended.  Mr. Obama never gets mad, but he does get even.

2. Since Bibi's speech to Congress, the treaty, which he was trying to stop, has gone through, Mr. Boehner has resigned, the Republic Party, on which Bibi relied to change U.S. foreign policy, is in complete disarray.

3. At the recent U.N. General Assembly, Mr. Netanyahu, in an attempt, possibly, to mend fences, gave a fawning,  obsequious speech extolling President Obama, and I suspect he will bring his knee pads to his next meeting with the President.

4. In the interim, Obama made no effort to stop Russia from becoming a player in a country sharing a border with Israel.

I do believe that there is much consternation within the Israeli Government that serious damage has been done and failing a resignation of Mr. Netanyahu, they may not have the complete backing of this administration, or another Democratic one.    

Monday, October 19, 2015


Recently, there has been an increased interest in the meaning of "democratic socialism".  Perhaps the explanation that, for the past 3.5 decades, the U.S.A. has been living under plutocratic socialism which is the opposite of democratic socialism, might be helpful.  In a plutocratic socialistic society, the resources of the government is funneled to benefit a small number of wealthy individuals whereas under democratic socialism, resources are funneled to assist a large number of people, who are not necessarily wealthy.  

To demonstrate, under our present system, for example, the government will channel $1 trillion so that the people in the financial sector will not have to suffer the consequences of a reduced standard of living, or forgo their year end bonus, for having made the wrong bets, while at the same time allow the burden of a deep recession, that follows, to fall on the neediest.

With the present election cycle, the electorate may have the chance to switch from plutocratic socialism to democratic socialism, or even getting rid of both types of socialism, but I fear it will be neither. 

Sunday, October 11, 2015


The Nazi war machine's blitzkrieg went through the armies of France, Belgium, Norway, Poland and almost all of European Russia like a hot knife through butter.  If only they had had guns, they, like the Jews, could have stood up to the Nazis and could have made the Holocaust less likely.  Our thanks to Dr. Ben Carson for illuminating us, as to this obvious fact. 

Friday, October 9, 2015


In my opinion, Vladamir Putin is the Russian's George W. Bush, and he doesn't do nuance either.  His country not only contains a very large population of Moslems, but its southern border consists mostly of countries with a majority of Sunni Moslems within them. Putin, however, for some reason, has taken the side of Shia, or Shia-like sects, in Syria.  He already has begun bombing Sunni's who are not allied with ISIL.  As was the case with W., Putin has become involved in a war, voluntarily, with people who can cause him great harm.  Lotsa Luck, fella.

Tuesday, October 6, 2015


Republicans, constrained as they are by Grover Nordquist's pledge, not to raise taxes, and House Rules, that make it mandatory to offset costs of new programs with cuts in old ones (except for tax cuts for the wealthy),  have come up with a unique way to do something about the need to increase funding for mental health care. They propose a large tax cut for the wealthy, with which they will be asked to voluntarily donate, a part of, to mental health care institutions.  See how easy it is to take care of the nation's needs!

Monday, October 5, 2015


Republicans praise Vladamir Putin for his manliness, as proven by his beefcake photos, and, recently, as a fine chess player, as proven by his moves on the international stage.

People who know chess know better.  His moves in the Ukraine qualify him as a "patzer", the lowliest designation for a chess player.  Prior to fomenting a separatist movement, Putin, with a large Russian speaking population within Ukranian borders, was a major player in Ukranian politics, as proven by the fact that he had a most sympathetic compadre in the office of President of the Ukraine until he was ousted from power for corruption.  Putin's reaction to retaliate by force was a blunder no good chess player would have ever made.  He sacrificed his Queen for a handful of pawns.  Sure he has a little more territory and  some more mouths to feed but he lost his strong position in Ukrainian politics in the exchange.

In any event, I, personally, do believe that playing a linear game like chess does not convey any special ability in a decidedly non-linear world.  Better to teach your kids Chaos Theory.


Although Obama has issued less Executive Orders, to date, than his predecessor George W. Bush, Congressional Republicans are up in arms about what they consider unconstitutional intrusions on the power of Congress.  When it is pointed out to the that they can, at any time, pass legislation to nullify Executive Orders, they are further infuriated as Obama should know that that would infringe on their holiday time, another unconstitutional usurpation of Congressional perquisites.

Friday, October 2, 2015


As far as I can see there are three (3) basic arguments being made by anti gun control Republicans and the N.R.A:

  1. The problem is that there are not enough guns in possession of the people.  If every one had a gun, to defend themselves, there would be no massacres.  The problem is that there is a historical record, in the U.S., which completely disproves this contention.  In the newly acquired Western territories of the U.S., guns were ubiquitous and problems of violence were rampant.  In many instances town or city marshals were appointed to temporarily confiscate all guns at the town or city line as being the only way to keep the peace.  To my knowledge no case was ever brought before the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of the confiscations. Perhaps it was because there was no N.R.A., or rather judges, in those times, had a different concept of what a "Well regulated militia" meant.  In any event, in the U.S., we have been there, done that.  
  2. Gun regulations and laws will be ignored by criminals so it is futile to have them.  It follows from that, since scofflaws will go through red lights, they should be abolished.  Likewise, since many people commit traffic infractions, let's get rid of all traffic laws.  Think how entertaining a trip to the supermarket will become with no traffic regulations.
  3. Stuff happens.  There is no need to act rashly.  What's the rush? Yes, mass murders are becoming more frequent but a few more deaths of our children are no reason to be stampeded into something that has been going on all these years.


The seemingly philosophical divide between Pro-Life advocates who are also anti-gun control has been, recently reconciled. According to what I have learned, many of those that are anti abortion consider that killing a fetus is a complete waste.  That fetus could grow, in a relatively short time, into a fine target for those interested in school massacres, a growing pass time for gun hobbyists.

Thursday, October 1, 2015


Tens of millions of bison that once roamed the Great Plains were reduced to a mere handful because they lacked the wherewithal to adapt to the technology of firearms.  Likewise billions of passenger pigeons, once the most numerous of avian species in North America, became extinct because they too were unable to cope with the same technology.  Each could only be slaughtered without being able to change to meet the challenge.

In a like manner, the human species seem to unable to act for change as they are, almost daily, led to the slaughter by the same technology.

To be fair, however, scientist say that it is only a subset, that calls itself "Americans", of the species, have the problem of being immobilized, like deer being caught in the headlights of an automobile, and unable to act.  Other subsets of the human species are able to take action therefore the problem is self-limiting.  As the American subset becomes more and more debilitated and decimated,  other subsets will colonize the lands, and will able to put the remnants of  the American subset onto reservations, taking away their guns, of course, so they won't harm themselves.  They will have to be very vigilant that the Americans don't get their hands on guns, again, and start killing themselves off  once more. Perhaps they may have to put them in zoos rather than reservations.