Category Archives: Societal Issues

#371. Putin Praises Puppet President. Mandates Moscow Mitch Merits Medal.

16 Sunday Feb 2020

Posted by in Causes of the Revolution, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

Some of the entries are part of a series.  Several series are available as easy-to-read booklets for download:

ENTRY #371 BEGINS.  During a private, off-the-record meeting that was secretly recorded, Vladimir Putin gushed over how obedient Trump has been at following orders. Putin noted that Trump’s performance in wrecking long-held democratic standards in the United States had far exceeded his expectations.

Putin was heard on the recording stating, “In three years Trump has done more to destroy the fabric of US democracy than Russia has been able to accomplish in 75 years. And he’s got his supporters believing Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election and not us. What more could we ask for?” Putin continued, “The only problem is his paranoia is far worse than we realized.  Who knows what Trump will do next? He’s become like a mad dog.”

An unidentified attendee reminded the group that just last week during a ceremony at the White House honoring service dogs, Trump flew into a rage and actually bit a former service dog when he found out the dog was now owned by the Obamas. When being taken away, the speaker noted, “Trump yelled that Obama’s dog should be impeached and kicked out the service dog corps.”

The comment drew uproarious laughter by the group, after which Putin added the real surprise in the Trump era has been Mitch McConnell. Putin noted, “While Trump has created a lot of noise, McConnell – I like the nickname Moscow Mitch – has wielded a true wrecking ball to the legislative process.

Under any other Senate Majority Leader, Trump would have been impeached. But good ol’ Moscow Mitch managed to bring a vote to the floor without allowing any evidence or witnesses. And only one Republican senator objected. Now that’s how dictators operate. Whatta guy.”

Following an order to the waiter to bring another round of drinks, Putin declared, “I think Trump and Moscow Mitch deserve a medal. They’ve kowtowed to our requests and helped Russia more than we ever expected. And both of them have been so cheap to buy. What does the group think about a medal for each?”

Someone then rather loudly proclaimed, “A toast and a medal to the puppet president and to Moscow Mitch. Since Trump and Moscow Mitch have been so good at kowtowing, let’s give them a medal shaped like a cow’s udder.” In unison, the group was heard moaning, then laughing, which was followed by a loud, “Hear, hear!” End of recording.

 

#369 Climate Change. Who’s Right about the Cause? Doesn’t Matter.

02 Sunday Feb 2020

Posted by in Common Sense Policies, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

Some of the entries are part of a series.  Several series are available as easy-to-read booklets for download:

ENTRY #369 BEGINS.  Recently, a longtime colleague sent an article from a local paper about a series of speeches he’s been giving focused on electric transportation and climate change. The article noted his position about the increase in the earth’s average temperature was due to natural causes, and not due to actions by humans, such as burning fossil fuels or deforestation.

In the speeches, he argued because the change in temperature was due to natural causes, society should continue to burn coal, gasoline, natural gas, etc. He stated the CO2 generated from the burning would not be harmful to the environment and, in fact, could be could be helpful – e.g., more CO2 could increase agricultural production.

While I agree that the average temperature of the earth and CO2 ppm have varied over time due to natural causes, the changes have occurred very, very slowly, often taking hundreds if not thousands or even tens of thousands of years. In addition, in periods with very high concentration of CO2, all evidence suggests that humans didn’t exist.

I’m a big supporter of science-based decisions. However, the science doesn’t matter about the cause of climate change. What matters is how to mitigate the potential damage associated with the rapid increase in the earth’s temperature.

You don’t need to have a degree in climate science to know that if the earth’s average temperature continues to rise more polar ice will melt. Actually, a 3rd grader can understand the problem. What happens when all the ice melts? Oceans will rise. (Much of the ice is on land.)

Let’s say the ocean level increases 12-18” inches over the next 50-100 years, which is not an unreasonable estimate. Well, that amount of increase in ocean levels would be goodbye to much of Florida as well as goodbye to many coastal cities in the US and around the world.

In addition to the rising seas and the millions of people displaced, we are likely to see oceans as a less productive food source. There would also be a major disruption to agricultural production since many crops would not grow in the current location. The transition in agriculture could result in major shortages of food for years, possibly decades.

Regardless of the cause of climate change, the risk of doing nothing could be catastrophic. So let’s not get our panties in a wad about who’s right or wrong.  Instead, let’s figure out what it takes to mitigate the effects of higher temperatures and capitalize on any opportunities.

An obvious action that can start now is to accelerate the elimination of fossil fuels. And why not? Why not add solar panels to roofs? Add solar panels even in areas where the sun shines say only 50% of the days per year. While the electricity generated in the 50% areas won’t match electricity generated in Arizona, the cumulative effect of all houses in the 50%-sunny area would be an enormous amount of electricity over time.

Why not reduce the number of animals raised for meat? Cows are great for hamburger but they’re also a methane machine. Increased use of plant-based “meats” would have a positive impact.

My colleague was trained as a nuclear engineer. Despite his belief the increase in earth’s temperature is the result of natural causes, he is an advocate of migrating from using fossil fuels to nuclear power to generate electricity.

I’ll not argue the burn-fossil-fuel-and-switch-to-nuclear logic and agree with using more nuclear fuel as long as the industry chooses the least damaging and easiest to manage nuclear fuel. Based on very limited research I think that thorium would be a better choice than uranium, although I’m not a hundred percent sure.

Many other changes can be made to reduce CO2 emissions. As many of us are experiencing in the auto industry’s migration to electric-powered vehicles, the change can be challenging but also exciting fun. The changes are very likely to spawn a plethora of new technologies and create many new jobs.

The first step in this journey, however, is to have both sides quit pointing fingers about who’s right and who’s wrong. Folks, it does not matter. The consequences of continuing to do nothing are bad and worse. Consequences are the issue. Forget about who’s correct about the cause.

And, oh, what if the average temperature starts to fall in the future because of natural causes? Mmm, what has been lost by all the efforts to reduce CO2 ppm?? Absolutely nothing, nada, zero. In fact, the earth will be have cleaner air, more productive citizens and some new jobs. Not a bad thing to have happen.

So, to all the so-called “climate-change deniers” and to all the so-called “climate-change extremists”, let’s shake hands, go grab a coffee and start working on solutions, together. Something productive might get accomplished.

#368. The Big Bang Theory. Explosion of Political Ethics Inside the Beltway.

27 Monday Jan 2020

Posted by in Back Asswards Thinking, Causes of the Revolution, Societal Issues, Stupid Is as Stupid Does, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

If you want to a diversion, easy-to-read booklets for download.  These include:

ENTRY #368 BEGINS.  Normally when someone mentions The Big Bang Theory, the reference is to the formation of the universe. The Big Bang Theory might also be applied to political ethics in Washington.

The impeachment trial of Donald Trump has left me stunned and angry. Stunned not by what Trump has done – for decades Trump has flagrantly violated the law and many social norms – but stunned by the lack of moral character among Republican Senators.  Whether you think Trump should be removed from office or not, everyone should be stunned at how Republican Senators are refusing to even acknowledge publicly that Trump’s behavior was outside the norms for a democratic government.

Excuse me Republicans, since when is it okay to obstruct justice? Since when is it okay to insult publicly people who have put themselves in harm’s way to protect the United States? Since when is it okay to state publicly that you believe the remarks of a leader of a known enemy of the US, Russia, are more credible than the information from the US intelligence community?  When did such behavior become acceptable?

My formative years were spent in Central Illinois. The area then, and now, was definitely what one could call the Land of Lincoln.

While others might consider my remembrance naïve, everyone seemed to know and agree on what was right and what was wrong. Understanding right from wrong seems to be understood by all classes of people from all different religions and ethnic backgrounds.  Yes, there were some issues with gray areas but not many.

I’d like to think those values have stayed with me and my fellow citizens. The area had a social/political attitude that Bush 43 described as “compassionate conservatism.”  If someone or some family needed help, assistance was provided very discreetly. Further, most everyone seemed fiscally conservative. Even those with far more money than their neighbors were conservative in displaying their wealth.

Doubtless, residents of Central Illinois were not alone in being able to understand right from wrong.  Highly likely that many other areas of the country had similar attitudes. How many other “Leave-It-to-Beaver” towns were there across the country?

Given that reference point, what’s been displayed this week in Washington by Republican Senators indicates that the attitude and understanding of right and wrong, which made America great versus many other countries, has exploded.  Exploded just like the Big Bang.

Why have Republican Senators decided they can no longer distinguish right from wrong? What has become so complicated in making this distinction?

If leaders of this country are not willing to state publicly what behavior and actions are right and what behaviors are wrong, then the US is headed for a dictatorship.  In dictatorships, citizens no longer have a say in determining what’s right and what’s wrong.  The dictator decides.

Stating publicly a president’s behavior is wrong does not automatically require supporting a vote to remove the president from office. When a child misbehaves, the punishment is a function of the degree of misbehavior. Same with deciding about the punishment for a president misbehaving.  Not all types of misbehavior demand removal from office.

So once again, why can’t Republican Senators seemingly distinguish right from wrong?  Are these Republican Senators so afraid to stand before their constituents and declare, “Trump’s behavior is wrong? My oath of office is to uphold the Constitution. Based on the evidence presented, I thought the president should (should not) be removed from office.”

What’s so difficult about making such a statement? Not every constituent will be pleased with your decision, but at least the vast majority of people will respect your integrity. And, you know what? I’ll bet you get reelected for being…yikes, an honest politician.

The effect of the Big Bang, whether talking about the formation of the universe or behavior of politicians, maybe like squeezing toothpaste from a tube. Once the action is taken, it’s nearly impossible to return to the former state.

While the US can’t go back to the “Leave-It-to-Beaver” days, the populous can begin to demand politicians behave within the bounds of what is considered right and wrong. And, as a populous let’s not get sidetracked that only certain religions have the answer to what is right and wrong.  For every major religion, the major tenets are essentially the same for guiding what is right/wrong.  The US Constitution is also a great guide.

Unfortunately, since the Big Bang has left us with the toothpaste dilemma, the only way that seems feasible to jolt society and politicians back to some kind of normalcy is a revolution. Let’s hope the damage from the revolution is relatively mild.  Better still, let’s hope I’m wrong and we find another way.

 

#367 Prescription? Conscription for All. Steps to Implementation. (Part 2)

19 Sunday Jan 2020

Posted by in Common Sense Policies, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

If you want to a diversion, there are easy-to-read booklets for download.  These include:

ENTRY #367 BEGINS.  Blog entry #366 proposed reinstituting conscription and expanding it to include women.  Doing so makes sense only if those “conscripted” can be productive and the output benefit many US citizens.

If implemented, the goals of conscription would be:

  1. Improve understanding with a broader swath of the population how to:
    • Work in teams
    • Work with people who have different skills
    • Work with people from different socio-economic backgrounds
  2. Provide reasonably skilled labor for major government projects, such as rebuilding infrastructure. Think of the 1930s and how the WPA was used for building roads, dams, and other infrastructure throughout the United States.
  3. Create a sense of having served, and being proud of having served the country. Less than 1% of citizens currently serve in the military. In addition, of those who volunteer for the military, most are from families whose members have also served. The current military is supported by a very narrow segment of the population. The current enlistment model is likely unsustainable over time.
  4. Create skills that allow those discharged to find meaningful employment in the private or public sectors.

Key components of a broad-based conscription program would include:

  1. Everyone subjected to conscription at age 18.
  2. Minimal exemptions from serving.
  3. Being able to serve other than in the military. Individuals would have the option to select the military or other agency. If after joining the military, the individual could not meet the physical requirements, the individual would then transfer to a non-military assignment.
  4. Assignments would be throughout the United States, not just near the individual’s hometown.
  5. Assignments outside the US would be available for certain categories.
  6. Basic training would be required for everyone, even those not serving in the military. For anyone who has served in the military, basic training is a memorable experience. For those who have never lived away from home, basic training is an opportunity to begin to understand how the world operates.  The non-military basic training would not be as intense as the military but would have many of the same components: (i) being trained with people of disparate backgrounds; (ii) living in “barracks” for a certain period, including some KP. Total basic training for non-military would be maybe 8 weeks. Advanced training would vary by general assignment but likely not exceed 8 weeks. Depending on assignment, likely additional OJT.
  7. Meaningful tasks. During the time in service, members should be taught a skill that can be used in a meaningful job as well as a skill that can be transferred to the private or public sector once discharged.
  8. Uniform for all serving. While the uniform for non-military assignments would be different from the various military uniforms, requiring a uniform during working hours would help to: (i) designate who is serving their country; (ii) reinforce to the participant that he or she is a member of a team.

US Departments/Agencies where trainees could work include:

  1. Defense – optional. However, if DOD does not meet its recruiting quotas by branch, then some trainees could be assigned to help meet quotas.
  2. Interior.  Participants would work in national parks, for example.
  3. EPA.  Monitor pollution in and sources of pollution in lakes, rivers, air.
  4. Education. Could work at federal facilities – Native American schools, e.g., state facilities – academic institution, or local – neighborhood school. Dep’t of Education would be overall coordinator and manage selection of location.

Time Required to Serve. Two (2) years active service plus four (4) years reserve duty. Reserve would allow government to recall key individuals in critical situations.

Reenlistment. Participant could re-up for an additional two years, including seeking a higher-level position.

Years of Credited Service. Number of years would transfer with the individual if he or she transitioned to a government job, whether federal, state or local level.

Options of When to Serve. All individuals would be expected to begin service not later than age 23. Participant could join immediately after high school, at age 18 to 19. Program would include option to defer service until after college, with a maximum deferral of five years.

Exclusions from Serving. Minimal reasons for not serving.  Bone spurs would not qualify for exclusion. Few would be categorized as “4F.” Even those with physical handicaps would be expected to serve, unless the level of physical handicap was deemed extreme. Every effort, for example, would be made to include people using wheelchairs. For those who are handicapped there might be different level of training and jobs might be somewhat different. Nonetheless, every effort would be made to include them in the “corps.”

Autism Spectrum. To the extent possible all but the most extreme on the autism spectrum would be expected to serve in some capacity. Like those with physical disabilities, training routine and the type of job might be different.

While some might argue against including people with special needs, the service requirement would: (i) help train the individual with some transferable job skills; (ii) help reduce the stigma often associated with some type of perceived disability; (iii) help reduce the long-term cost of care since many will be employed following service and become taxpayers.

Non-Citizens in the US. Would be eligible to serve. Serving would be a path to US citizenship.

While the devil is in the details for large-scale projects, much of the framework to implement a conscription program is already in place. The US military has systems and procedures that could be modified. In addition, a “conscription-for-all” program could be implemented in phases, allowing inevitable kinks to be worked out before the program is expanded to everyone turning age 18.

An argument can be made that with such a low unemployment rate, a “conscription-for-all” program would make finding employees more difficult.  Well, if you look behind the numbers of the unemployment rate, its not as rosy as what the White House promotes.  Many counted as “employed” are in fact workers with low-paying, part-time jobs.

In addition, the economy is not going to grow forever.  There will be another recession, possibly depression. While the likelihood of a depression is the topic for another blog entry, there is ample historical evidence that supports a sharp economic downturn following a period of rapid concentration of wealth and “bubbles” in the financial markets.  Both conditions exist today.

Another reason to support “conscription for all” is to help mitigate the impact of the coming “technology tsunami.”  The tech tsunami will cause a major disruption to the workforce.  For more about the technology tsunami and the likely impact, download Tech Tsunami Booklet with Supplement.

Now, how to get the House and Senate to pass a bill to expand conscription.

#366 — Prescription? Conscription for All. (Part 1)

12 Sunday Jan 2020

Posted by in Common Sense Policies, Gov't Policy, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

If you want to a diversion, there are easy-to-read booklets for download.  These include:

Start of Entry #366.  With the new year, I decided to try, emphasis on try, and get back to outlining practical solutions to complex societal problems. Ideally all of the topics in the coming blog entries will be related to factors that could contribute to the 5th US Revolution, the Revenge Revolution.

Some topics will be more obviously linked to the projected revolution; some less so. Doubtless, there will be entries that are more a reaction to some recent event inside the Beltway, or some inane comment or action by Trump. However, one of my resolutions for 2020 is to keep “reactionary” entries to a minimum, or at least put the entries in a broader context.

A societal issue that seems to generate little discussion but one that has long-term implications for a stable US democracy is how to staff the military. In a previous entry (#293), I recommended conscription be reinstituted in the US. I also recommended that satisfying requirements of conscription could be expanded beyond service in the military. One could satisfy requirements by serving in any number of government agencies – Federal, state, local – as well as serving in certain jobs outside the US – embassies, e.g.

The general benefits of conscription include: (i) exposing “draftees” to jobs, people and activities they would likely never experience otherwise; (ii) providing an excellent way to train people for work in the private sector. Many of the jobs skills learned while serving, especially non-military assignments, would have direct applicability in the private sector; (iii) helping people understand how to build a highly functioning team from a group of individuals with disparate backgrounds. Such an understanding should help reduce the polarization that continues to worsen in this country; (iv) maybe the most important, allowing people to state rightfully and proudly they served their country.  Under the proposed conscription system, let’s change the term “draftee” to “patriot.”

Conscription would help overcome what is a growing problem for the military – a very narrow segment of the population volunteers to serve. According to an article in the New York Times (20 01 11 NYT Makeup of Military Recruits), less than 1% of the US population serves in the military. Further, nearly 80% of the current recruits come from families where someone has served, and 30% of the recruits come from families where one or both parents have served in the military.

The current volunteer system limits the personality profiles of people in the military. While some might find this comforting, my experience has been limiting personality types in a group can result in distorted thinking and/or distorted behavior. Expanding the type/personality profiles of individuals serving in the military can have a moderating influence on “group think” behavior. Such moderation seems especially important for members participating in units subjected to extreme training and precarious assignments – special forces and Navy SEALs e.g. Members of these units may find having a moderating force in the ranks would help mitigate the difficulty in transitioning to civilian life.

Admittedly, the number of former special forces personnel I’ve worked with in say the last ten years is limited. However the actions of each suggest a problem in the transition to civilian life. Of the four (4) in various special-forces units, one was a convicted felon, two were extortionists, and one was a seemingly “normal” individual but who also maintained a significant cache of weapons, including several .50 caliber rifles. Folks, .50 caliber rifles are not for hunting. They’re for armed warfare.

The military seems to be trying to address the most egregious misbehavior of personnel in special forces. Recent examples include the Navy’s conviction of Edward Gallagher, a high-ranking NCO SEAL, and the Army’s refusal to restore a Special Forces tab for Major Mathew Golsteyn, who had been accused of killing an unarmed Afghan suspected of bomb making.

Unfortunately, the efforts by the military have been thwarted by Trump. Trump, who has zero military experience and apparently no appreciation of the need for discipline within the system, pardoned both men and hailed them as true “warriors,” thereby undermining the military justice system.

Whereas reinstituting conscription won’t necessarily stop egregious, even criminal behavior by those in special forces, it will increase the appreciation among a wide swath of citizens, including those inside the Beltway, of what is required to operate a military that can be model of integrity for other countries worldwide. A credible, well-disciplined military with proper, separate oversight is also critical to a functioning democracy.

For “patriots” who serve in government organizations other than the military, the organizations will benefit by being exposed to a workforce with fresh ideas and skills that should be especially useful as more technology is integrated into these organizations. The “patriots,” in many respects, will be like interns in the private sector. Having “patriots” as workers allows managers of the government organization an opportunity to evaluate performance and then potentially recruit the higher performing individuals for employment following discharge.

Reinstituting conscription needs to be fair and equitable. Some ideas in the next entry.

 

#364. Would You Allow Your Child to Behave This Way?

22 Sunday Dec 2019

Posted by in Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #332.  An update coming later in December.

If you want to a diversion, there are two easy-to-read booklets you might want to read.  One is about my experiences working with Lee Iacocca after he left Chrysler.  Another describes some behind-the-scenes events affecting development and introduction of the GM EV1, the first modern electric vehicle. The third is a longer booklet about the coming technology tsunami and the implications for the US.

Entry #364 Begins. The coffee shop this morning was unusually quiet. When getting a coffee, the clerk, aka barista, and I were chatting. After a comment I made, she responded, “You know I’ve learned not to talk about religion or politics. People can make whatever choice they want, but I don’t need to hear their wrath about why they’re right and people with different opinions are wrong.”

Her comments were a segue to a discussion about where and how people get information. (I said the shop was unusually quiet.) We both expressed frustration that many people no longer make an effort to get credible information about a topic and use such information make a more informed decision.

That short conversation was the stimulus for this blog entry. Is it realistic to expect that people are willing to change behavior and seek more credible information about a topic? Based on the reaction of many this past week to the impeachment of Trump by the House of Representatives, probably not.

Given the likely resistance, why try to change anyone’s mind? Maybe a better approach would be to ask people to do what they think is right. If you were or are a parent, or if you were a kid at one point, which includes most of us, would the behavior of Trump be allowed?

As a kid, were you allowed to make fun of people with disabilities? Allowed to insult others publicly? Allowed to lie about issues who knows how many times a day? If you were, then your childhood was unlike any I’ve ever heard about.

So if we won’t tolerate such behavior in children, why do we tolerate such behavior from a president? Why do we allow the person who is supposed to be the role model for leadership to act like a bratty, spoiled 6 year-old kid?

Maybe the best way to get Trump to change his unacceptable childlike behavior is not insult or shame, neither of which seem to work, but resort to action my father took when I was a kid. My father was in the bathroom preparing to shave. Using a shaving brush, he was applying soap to the left side of his face.

I, too, was in the bathroom. What I said to him I don’t remember, although apparently he thought it was inappropriate. What I do remember is right after making the remark a shaving brush was partially inserted in my mouth. The brush was quickly removed and my father proceeded to finish leathering his face. No words were spoken, but the effect was immediate and obviously long-lasting.

By the way, shaving soap tastes awful. When I tell the story the taste comes back. Yuck!

Maybe someone should take the same approach when trying to get Trump to behave with more civility – wash his mouth out with soap. Nothing else seems to work. When they’re finished washing out Trump’s mouth, they can travel over to the House of Representatives and wash out the mouths of a few members.

Back to the barista. While she might not want to discuss religion or politics, it is very likely that sometime during the holidays at least politics will enter the conversation. To avoid a family feud, here’s an idea. When the conversation turns to discussing Trump, gently interject yourself and state, “I’ve got a couple of questions I’d like to ask.” Then proceed with:

“Assume everything about the Trump presidency is the same. All the executive orders, all the appointments, all the tweets, the insults to foreign leaders, the cozy relationship with Putin, the dichotomy of a growing economy and a growing Federal deficit, treatment of immigrants and children, etc. All that remains the same. The only thing that changes is rather than Trump being a Republican, Trump is a Democrat.

Question #1.

  • For Republicans, would you continue to support Trump if he were a Democrat?
  • For Democrats, would you continue to be opposed to Trump if he were Democrat?

Question 2.  if Trump were your child, would you tolerate his behavior – the tantrums, insults, swearing, and generally bad manners?”

Now, you can sit back and enjoy the conversation. Your questions might not get anyone to change his/her mind, but it just might get people to start thinking about real issues and understanding what those issue really mean for the country. And, if you can people to start thinking, that will be a major step forward for the new year.

 

#363 Connect Just Two Dots. Connecting Nine Not Necessary.

15 Sunday Dec 2019

Posted by in Back Asswards Thinking, Societal Issues, Stupid Is as Stupid Does, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #332.  An update coming later in December.

If you want to a diversion, there are two easy-to-read booklets you might want to read.  One is about my experiences working with Lee Iacocca after he left Chrysler.  Another describes some behind-the-scenes events affecting development and introduction of the GM EV1, the first modern electric vehicle. The third is a longer booklet about the coming technology tsunami and the implications for the US.

Entry #363 Begins.  Ever been challenged to connect nine (9) dots in a square with four (4) lines without lifting your pencil? The solution requires one to put away conventional thinking and be a bit more open minded. (See solution at end of entry.)

This past week Republicans in the House of Representatives, and based on public comments apparently Republicans in the Senate as well, demonstrated being incapable of connecting not nine dots or connecting even two dots. I mean, how much intellectual capacity does it take to connect two dots?

While Republican members of the Judiciary Committee might have a different opinion in private, during the hearings about the impeachment, they clearly demonstrated an oath to uphold the behavior of King Trump and not an oath to uphold the US Constitution. Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, and earlier Republicans on the Intelligence Committee, made lots of noise about process but offered no credible evidence disputing the charges justifying the impeachment of Trump. If some of the Republican members actually believed what they said during the hearings, then they are incapable of connecting even two dots.

No one, especially Republicans in Congress, should be surprised at Trump’s behavior. Trump has a long, public history of lying, cheating and illicit activities. There is also highly credible evidence of a multi-year, possibly decades-long financial association with Russia.

Why are Republican members of the House so afraid of supporting the truth? If the Republican members are afraid of a Trump tweet and/or possibly losing a primary because they upheld the Constitution, then these members do not belong in Congress.

In fact, based on the legal definition, these Republican members appear to have committed treason. By supporting Trump, instead of the Constitution, these Republican members have aided and abetted the enemy, Russia.

Here’s a question the House Republicans…in fact all of us…need to answer. I’ve asked a question before but it seems worth repeating. Assume everything about the Trump Administration is the same – Trump’s behavior, Executive Orders, tweets, crony cabinet members, insults to allies, support for Russia, a growing economy with an ever-growing deficit, and much more. The only change is that rather than being a Republican, Trump is a Democrat.

Republicans, would you still support Trump?

Democrats, would you still oppose Trump?

Let’s take Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. I’ll bet $1,000 to a stale donut the answer from the Republicans would be “No, I wouldn’t support Trump if he were a Democrat. Not on your life!”

If you are a Republican and you would still support Trump as a Democrat, then I suggest you find a new country to live in. Try going to Russia, or North Korea. Find yourself a country with a good strong man leader.

The US does not need people who are loyal to wannabe King Trump who breaks the law and ignores the Constitution. If you support Trump you are supporting the destruction of the very fabric that has held the US together and made it different from other countries. We welcome your ideas on how to make the US better. We don’t welcome your worship and loyalty to a known lawbreaker.

Supporting Trump is the same as supporting a thug and or a robber. In case you’re still having trouble connecting two dots, Trump and his family are stealing money from you and your children. Ever ask yourself, “If the economy is so good, why is the deficit continuing to grow so quickly?” Forget the Trump response, “Must be Obama’s fault.” No it’s Trump’s fault.

The reason the deficit is growing so quickly is simple – the effects of Trump and the spineless Republicans who supported the tax cut. A tax cut that was designed not to benefit the middle class or the poor but to benefit the rich. Trump is giving your money to the rich.

In periods of economic expansion the deficit should be declining, not increasing. You, my Republican friends, are getting screwed by Trump and Republicans in Congress, and for some reason you cannot connect the two dots between the economy and the deficit. It is not hard to understand what’s happening.

Let’s try one more. According to Trump, the FBI and the CIA are “scum.” Go ahead and cheer for your boy Donald as he makes this claim. Then ask yourself, “Why would Trump be saying that? What does he have against the FBI?”

He denigrates the integrity of law enforcement because he’s a crook. Trump has no interest in trying to tweak some of the procedural changes necessary at the FBI and CIA. Trump’s intent is to make you believe the FBI and the CIA are out to get him.  And you’re falling for the trap.

Another question. First, assume all the facts about Russian interference in the 2016 election campaign are the same, except that Russia supported Clinton, not Trump. Would the FBI still be scum?

Of course not! You’d scream and shout the FBI should be doing more to convict Clinton. You’d claim the FBI was too soft on crime!

So Republicans, you need to wake up and connect just two dots. Dot #1 is Trump as president. Dot #2 is corruption, lying and cheating and stealing.

If you want a president who lies, cheats and steals, then Trump is your guy. But be careful. Not supporting the impeachment of a president where there is overwhelming evidence of lying, cheating and stealing is setting the standard to allow future presidents to behave the same way with no repercussions.

So when your kids and/or grandkids ask why you supported Trump, please be honest and tell them the truth. “Kids and grandkids, I supported Trump because wanted do my part to help destroy democracy in the US. I wanted to make sure the wealthy got even more money and the middle class was destroyed. I wanted to make sure there was a huge Federal debt so my children and grandchildren could pay more money to the wealthy who held Treasury bonds.” I’m sure your kids and grandkids will be very proud of what you’ve done for them.

Solution to connecting nine dots with four lines

#362. Trying to Understand Trump Supporters

08 Sunday Dec 2019

Posted by in Causes of the Revolution, Education Issues, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #332.  An update coming later in December.

In the previous entry I committed to try and understand why people continue to support Trump. What is particularly puzzling is support for Trump by people whose core values are polar opposite of Trump’s behavior. Why would one make such a decision?

Because a discussion about Trump can be so emotional, I thought it better to first have a couple of “experimental conversations.” Also, and maybe somewhat selfishly, I thought the experimental conversations should be with people who are really more acquaintances than close personal friends. Thus, if the experiment went bad, then the consequence of alienating each other would not be damage to a close personal relationship.

Two candidates for the experimental conversations immediately came to mind. #1 was someone from high school with whom I’ve had no contact since other than on Facebook. #2 was a second-generation immigrant with whom I had a working relationship a couple of years ago.

When considering the candidates, I understand somewhat why the one from high school might be a Trump supporter. Why the second-generation immigrant supports Trump makes no sense. Why would he ever support Trump? He’s Hispanic, grew up in south Texas near the border. Obviously, I’m missing something in his logic stream.

A key open issue with the research is the venue for the dialogue. Each venue has benefits and drawbacks. Facebook is easy to use but uncontrollable. The conversation between us could be interrupted by a myriad of friends of the participants or of mine.

Email might be okay to introduce the idea and present a few questions, but nuances and subtleties are nearly impossible in email. Plus, the time lag with back-and-forth emails would break the rhythm of the conversation. Texting would be faster but, as with email, nuance remains nearly impossible.

So the plan? Use old technology. The initial contact with the candidates will be email. The email will discuss the experiment and ask about participating. If yes, then set a time for a call to begin the conversation.

Given the sensitivity of the topic, one of the guidelines will likely be that the candidate can stop the interview at any time, but with the commitment that within a few days, we would try to talk again. If the second call goes south, okay. The experiment with that person fails. Not to be discouraged, lots of experiments fail. Also, like experiments one should make every effort to understand what went wrong, and not just point fingers at the other person.

After a couple of experiments the idea is to talk to more Trump supporters, trying to understand their perspective. “Why waste your time?” has been a frequent comment from people I’ve discussed the idea with. The conversation usually also includes, “Trump supporters will never change.”

The naysayers are probably right. But the curiosity in me is compelling. Maybe, just maybe, there’s an underlying issue creating support for Trump that can be addressed with a solution that is good for society at large and addressed without Trump’s usual bombastic and hurtful approach.

At the worst, the experiment should become good conversation at cocktail parties and family gatherings. Rather than yelling at one another, talking about the experiment might allow different camps to have civil discourse. You never know.

So, I’m off to pursue my naive experiment. I’m going to try and start this week. Probably won’t have any results for a couple of weeks, but I will post them in the blog.

If you have an idea about how to approach understanding why people with a polar opposite set of values than Trump still support Trump, please let me know. Or, if you have a question or two you’d like to have answered, please forward as well. Thanks. All for now.

#361. Trump Supporters. Teach Me How You Got There.

01 Sunday Dec 2019

Posted by in Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #332.  

Entries for a few months were an intentional diversion from the craziness in Washington. Entry #352 put us back inside the Beltway.

Part of my daily ritual is a short trip to the coffee shop. Usually I listen to one of several podcast on the way over and back.

Today I finished a podcast on “The Best Way to Deal with Anger”, originally broadcast on “The People’s Pharmacy.” The People’s Pharmacy offers a wide variety of medical related topics.

While I don’t consider myself an angry person, I do have an incredibly difficult time understanding why anyone would support Trump. In addition, I find Trump supporters, when asked about an issue, are very defensive, often responding with a comment unrelated to the question. Further, the tone of the response seems to challenge my right to ask the question.

In several previous blog entries, I questioned whether Trump supporters had been brainwashed. Trump TV, aka Fox News, is anything but news. Yet many Trump supporters seem to make no effort to check other sources of information about a topic, or even apply the most basic test of logic to a conclusion presented on Fox. No matter the facts, or the logic, Trump supporters seem to be all in for the Donald.

So those of us in the middle politically and farther left have two choices. #1, continue to treat Trump supporters as brainwashed, or at best uninformed. Doing so will not change anyone’s mind and probably make non-Trump supporters even angrier. Choice #2 is sincerely try to listen and understand Trump supporters’ logic behind their decision.

Listening and trying to understand might not change any minds on either side of the fence, but it could save a friendship or avoid the family feud. Look at it this way. If you sincerely try to listen and understand the Trump supporter’s perspective, and the person continues to spout Fox News gibberish, then you can rightfully say, “Bless their little hearts.”

Have I tried to understand Trump supporters’ logic? Well, sort of. Recently, however, I posted on Facebook what I thought was a probing, but apolitical question. The short version, “If Trump were a Democrat, would you, as a Republican, still support Trump? As a Democrat, would you still oppose Trump?” The Facebook entry included a bit more explanation.

The response from a longtime friend, a Republican, seem to fit the pattern of response by Trump supporters – shoot the questioner and never answer the question. The Facebook post by the Trump supporter generated a couple of angry retorts from non-Trump supporters. In addition to the Facebook post by the Trump supporter, there were a couple of private messages, but still no answer to the original question.

So rather than getting into unpleasant and often heated conversations, should we try to carry on as if politics don’t exist? Well, no.

I may be naïve but I’m going to try and understand why people support Trump. Doubtless a number of friends and colleagues will ask, “Why waste your time? Trump supporters use no logic and, therefore, cannot be understood.”

The doubting Thomases might be right. And I might end up being even more frustrated than I am now. At the same time, I might learn something. If nothing else, I might learn how to discuss issues with Trump supporters, and that might save a friendship or two and/or allow the holiday dinner to proceed without a figurative food fight.

I’ll keep you posted on progress, good and/or bad. In the meantime, please take time to listen to The Best Way to Deal with Anger podcast in its entirety. Even if you don’t learn something, the guest is interesting.

#360. Yes, There Is Hope. Thank You Immigrants.

24 Sunday Nov 2019

Posted by in Post Trump Presidency, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #332.  

Entries for a few months were an intentional diversion from the craziness in Washington. Entry #352 put us back inside the Beltway.

Yes, there is hope. In this week of Thanksgiving, we should make sure to thank those who have immigrated to our country.

We just finished two weeks of testimony to the House Intelligence Committee addressing among other things whether President Trump used the threat of putting a hold on military aid to Ukraine in exchange for “do me a (personal) favor.” That favor being having the recently inaugurated president of Ukraine announce publicly that an inquiry had been initiated into possible corruption by Joe Biden and/or his son. No need to carry out the inquiry, just announce it so Trump could use in his reelection campaign.

Whether you’re a Democrat or Republican, and whether or not you believe Trump should be impeached, you should be proud of the public servants who testified during this inquiry. All but one were career employees of the government, having served in various positions in both Republican and Democratic administrations. The one who wasn’t a career employee was an ambassador appointed by Trump.

Each person who testified faced severe potential repercussions for telling the truth. By the time of the public testimony, several witnesses had received credible death threats, and for what? Death threats for telling the truth.

To me what was even more impressive than the courage of those testifying, was three who testified – an ambassador, a decorated military officer and a PhD intelligence expert – were immigrants. All were born outside the United States. Two migrated with their family, one alone.

Aside from the jaw-dropping testimony about Trump’s illicit behavior, the most disheartening part of the hearings was how Republican members of the Intelligence Committee disavowed their oath to uphold the Constitution and kowtowed to Trump by making disparaging remarks about these dedicated public servants. The snide remarks often challenged the individual’s loyalty to the US despite many years of service to Republican and Democratic presidents and having been thoroughly vetted by the FBI.

Putting the Republican theatrics aside, all of us should be thankful we have a country that is so appealing to people who live outside the United States. An interesting exercise is to look around your everyday life and count the number of immigrants that you interact with.

For me, a quick count included: the manager of the Starbucks, from Iran; the shoe-repair store owner, from Korea; the tailor, from China; the house- painting crew from Central America; the doctor, from India. And the list goes on and on. Spend five minutes thinking about how many immigrants touch your everyday life. You might be shocked at the number.

While I’m still convinced a 5th US revolution – the Revenge Revolution – will occur sometime in the next few years, I’m hopeful about the future after the revolution. Much of that hope lies with the men and women in our government who are truly dedicated to do the right thing. People in Congress should use these people as a reference points when making decisions. Doing so would help reduce the likelihood of a revolution.

As we look ahead, unless the country really goes off the rails, America will continue to attract people from a host of countries worldwide. We should give thanks to those who have already immigrated and we should encourage others to join them.