Make no mistake, I am a big fan of Joe Biden and also of the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation has done incredible humanitarian work with neither Bill nor Hillary taking a dime of profit from it. Having said that, let’s take a look at an interview by Casey Hunt on MSNBC today, Thursday, September 1, 2016 at a little after 12:00 pm.
This interview epitomizes the problem of the press and interviewees. Nothing really big or earthshaking, but just a small example of how the press fails in its efforts to get at the truth.
Hunt: Do you think Americans should be concerned at all about the ethics of the Clinton Foundation? Has the Clinton Foundation always been 100% ethical in your view?
Biden: Look, I think that the Clinton Foundation, like all foundations have found themselves in a position where things are changing and I think she’s gonna change and adjust to the realities of how complicated it’s all become.
This is a masterful piece of meaningless rhetoric, saying nothing, not answering the question. The question was “Has the Clinton Foundation always been 100% ethical in your view?” The answer is yes or no. I don’t mind if he wants to clarify or qualify his answer.
He says the Clinton Foundation has found themselves in a position where things are changing. Does that mean that they’ve been caught being unethical and won’t do it anymore? How have things been changing? The light has been shone on them and so what do we see? All Biden says is that they are going to have to change.
So one of the changes will be that they won’t accept foreign donations. But that doesn’t do anything, really. Any donor, domestic or foreign, could be wanting favors in return. So far no one has shown any case of a quid pro quo in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Only donors who have also had relationships with the US Government.
Here’s a question: How likely is it that any major donor would not have some interaction with our government? Anyone with enough money to make a million dollar or more donation to any foundation would be bound to have other things going on.
But I digress. Here’s Biden giving a non answer and making it sound like an answer. Casey Hunt seems to think it’s an answer and goes on to her follow up question.
Hunt: And is she clearing herself up with that? Should the Foundation have stopped taking foreign donations now?
Biden: Well, I think you’ll see them stop taking foreign donations.
He doesn’t put it in a time frame. The Clinton Foundation has already said they would stop taking foreign donations if she is elected. So his statement is meaningless.
Does this bore you? Is it too much hair splitting over nothing?
That’s why they do it and get away with it. The press and politicians are just going through the motions of seeming to have a rational discussion, each acting as if the other has addressed the issue. And it all goes breezing by the public eye. All the people who hire the broadcasters want to know is: are people watching?
Just think about the questions that remain after this short conversation between Hunt and Biden. Are these interviews even worth it?
In the best of all worlds Casey Hunt would have said, “But do you think the Clinton Foundation has been 100% ethical? What percent ethical would you say they have been?” And she would insist on an answer, and the viewers would want an answer to the question.
That’s in the best of all worlds, which it certainly isn’t right now, at least with regard to honesty in politics.
Thursday, September 1, 2016
Veteran's Benefits
Senate Republicans defeated a bill by Bernie Sanders that would have addressed a wide range of current veterans problems. We are all appalled by the fact that many veterans do not receive proper care after they have fought for this country. We all know that those who fought for our country deserve to be taken care of. There's no question.
I hate the commercials that urge us to support veterans by making donations to charitable organizations for their care. It rings the bell loud and clear: Why do we need to do that? Isn't the government taking care of our wounded soldiers?
There is a lot of quacking about taking care of our troops by the same Republicans who voted against this bill. Their false devotion to the troops is obscene.
It would have cost 21 billion dollars over a ten year period. That's a little over 2 billion dollars a year. The U.S. military budget for 2015 was 598 billion dollars. The proposed legislation would have cost .3% of the total military budget.
The total expenditure for veteran's benefits was 160 billion dollars in 2015. The federal budget was 3.8 trillion dollars. These numbers are so incredible that the mind balks at understanding what they mean. Simply speaking the increase of 2 billion dollars is mind boggling. But that is actually .05% of the national budget, 5/10,000ths of the national budget.
Like Senator Everett Dirksen (R) Illinois said many years ago, "A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money."
I personally cannot think of anything in the military costs that tops taking care of our wounded soldiers. They protect us, do the actual fighting. They need weapons, planes, boats to be sure. But we need them and we need to protect them.
Now the above is the truth. The numbers are correct. I believe the national sense that we should take care of our wounded soldiers is correct.
The vote was 56-41. It needed 60 votes to keep it alive. Only 2 Republicans voted for it. I said at the beginning of this blog that Republicans defeated the bill. That, too, is a fact.
The logic was that we can't afford it. I say that the cold pencil, the accounting mentality in the face of serious human need is unconscionable. The only conclusion I can draw is that this is a perfect example of the kinds of problems we face when representatives fail to do what is right for the people of the United States. And the problem is not the legislature. It's the Republicans in the legislature.
So when the newscasters say that congress is deadlocked it is grossly misleading. Some of them do say that the Republicans defeated a proposition, but generally they are a little vague about it.
Put this in the context of how we want to run our country, and I'm sorry, I don't mean to be partisan, I'm not really all that fond of the Democrats either. But they certainly seem to be the lesser of two evils.
One last thing. Mathematicians say that when you have a difference in the order of magnitude you have a difference in kind. I may not be all that crazy about the Democrats but the Republicans are taking it to another level, another order of magnitude.
I hate the commercials that urge us to support veterans by making donations to charitable organizations for their care. It rings the bell loud and clear: Why do we need to do that? Isn't the government taking care of our wounded soldiers?
There is a lot of quacking about taking care of our troops by the same Republicans who voted against this bill. Their false devotion to the troops is obscene.
It would have cost 21 billion dollars over a ten year period. That's a little over 2 billion dollars a year. The U.S. military budget for 2015 was 598 billion dollars. The proposed legislation would have cost .3% of the total military budget.
The total expenditure for veteran's benefits was 160 billion dollars in 2015. The federal budget was 3.8 trillion dollars. These numbers are so incredible that the mind balks at understanding what they mean. Simply speaking the increase of 2 billion dollars is mind boggling. But that is actually .05% of the national budget, 5/10,000ths of the national budget.
Like Senator Everett Dirksen (R) Illinois said many years ago, "A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money."
I personally cannot think of anything in the military costs that tops taking care of our wounded soldiers. They protect us, do the actual fighting. They need weapons, planes, boats to be sure. But we need them and we need to protect them.
Now the above is the truth. The numbers are correct. I believe the national sense that we should take care of our wounded soldiers is correct.
The vote was 56-41. It needed 60 votes to keep it alive. Only 2 Republicans voted for it. I said at the beginning of this blog that Republicans defeated the bill. That, too, is a fact.
The logic was that we can't afford it. I say that the cold pencil, the accounting mentality in the face of serious human need is unconscionable. The only conclusion I can draw is that this is a perfect example of the kinds of problems we face when representatives fail to do what is right for the people of the United States. And the problem is not the legislature. It's the Republicans in the legislature.
So when the newscasters say that congress is deadlocked it is grossly misleading. Some of them do say that the Republicans defeated a proposition, but generally they are a little vague about it.
Put this in the context of how we want to run our country, and I'm sorry, I don't mean to be partisan, I'm not really all that fond of the Democrats either. But they certainly seem to be the lesser of two evils.
One last thing. Mathematicians say that when you have a difference in the order of magnitude you have a difference in kind. I may not be all that crazy about the Democrats but the Republicans are taking it to another level, another order of magnitude.
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
The Problem Is Not The Problem
The problem is not the problem. The problem is the process.
We have no process for solving problems. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the process for solving problems primarily works for those who have the lobbying power to get their needs met.
Generally speaking, the ones who get their needs met are the large corporations. Their lobbyists are problem solving geniuses, manipulative geniuses. They give money to politicians. Politicians listen to them.
Democracy is not actually working. Obvious things like lowering the interest rates for student loans are not being passed. (If we want to get back to making America great try working our way back to free college education, for one thing.) There is a list a mile long of obvious things that need to be done and are not being done.
There are too many money based interests blocking things. And they work together. Politicians trade support for their special interests. You support mine and I'll support yours.
The problem is not the problem. The process has been totally corrupted by special interests. Ralph Nader, who drove congress to mandate seat belts thereby saving, by now, millions of lives said that in the modern era he could not have accomplished the seat belt legislation. Back in 1965 he wrote a book, Unsafe At Any Speed, in which he demonstrated that seat belts would save lives. It was well researched and showed that the automobile industry was not taking the steps needed to make driving as safe as it could be. The evidence was absolutely convincing and he was able to convince congress that something needed to be done. Hence, seat belts and air bags.
Nader has said that in the modern era the special interests would have easily defeated his research. The corporate strategy against legislation of that kind has evolved to the point that virtually nothing they don't want gets done.
Now I know there are exceptions to this rule, but the overwhelming majority of obvious things are not getting done because The Problem is Not The Problem. The problem is congress, lobbyists, money in politics.
We have no process for solving problems. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the process for solving problems primarily works for those who have the lobbying power to get their needs met.
Generally speaking, the ones who get their needs met are the large corporations. Their lobbyists are problem solving geniuses, manipulative geniuses. They give money to politicians. Politicians listen to them.
Democracy is not actually working. Obvious things like lowering the interest rates for student loans are not being passed. (If we want to get back to making America great try working our way back to free college education, for one thing.) There is a list a mile long of obvious things that need to be done and are not being done.
There are too many money based interests blocking things. And they work together. Politicians trade support for their special interests. You support mine and I'll support yours.
The problem is not the problem. The process has been totally corrupted by special interests. Ralph Nader, who drove congress to mandate seat belts thereby saving, by now, millions of lives said that in the modern era he could not have accomplished the seat belt legislation. Back in 1965 he wrote a book, Unsafe At Any Speed, in which he demonstrated that seat belts would save lives. It was well researched and showed that the automobile industry was not taking the steps needed to make driving as safe as it could be. The evidence was absolutely convincing and he was able to convince congress that something needed to be done. Hence, seat belts and air bags.
Nader has said that in the modern era the special interests would have easily defeated his research. The corporate strategy against legislation of that kind has evolved to the point that virtually nothing they don't want gets done.
Now I know there are exceptions to this rule, but the overwhelming majority of obvious things are not getting done because The Problem is Not The Problem. The problem is congress, lobbyists, money in politics.
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
Psychology of Scarcity
Years ago I was talking with my very wise mother about the problems in the world. She looked at me and said, "Well, what do you expect on a planet where we evolved by eating each other?"
We are a predatory world. Survival of the fittest has been our mantra. It's an undeniable fact, except for those who think the world was literally made in seven days.
Our evolution has been based on a psychology of scarcity. We have fought tooth and nail to survive in a world of mammoths and tigers. No dinosaurs, thank you.
In the modern era we have entered into a world of technological abundance but have been saddled with a psychology of scarcity. That psychology of scarcity has dominated our thinking, created an adversary system of virtually everything. We think we have to fight. The sports we, and I, love so dearly are based on one person or team winning and the other losing, often not just losing but getting the crap knocked out of them.
We have an economy of scarcity. When something is scarce the price goes up. In fact, abundance is seen as the enemy of prosperity. There's an insane paradox for you. Too much gas and it drives the price down, lowering the profit, affecting investments, gas production, lowering incentives for healing the ecosystem with green energy. It gets complicated fast. And it's all engineered by a psychology of scarcity that only sees abundance at the expense of someone else. It's engineered to protect profits
So a premise of this blog is that we need a psychology of abundance. It turns out that the implications of unfettered abundance are positive and beautiful beyond our current comprehension. If we wanted to we could feed and clothe the world. But our psychology of scarcity, fear, drives us to weapons and wars that stop our prosperity in it's tracks producing not only waste, death, and destruction, but creating a self perpetuating mind set of fear and hostility.
The future is coming (oxymoron alert) and we need to develop our psychology of abundance. It's a psychological, spiritual, physical, economic, and political healing.
We are a predatory world. Survival of the fittest has been our mantra. It's an undeniable fact, except for those who think the world was literally made in seven days.
Our evolution has been based on a psychology of scarcity. We have fought tooth and nail to survive in a world of mammoths and tigers. No dinosaurs, thank you.
In the modern era we have entered into a world of technological abundance but have been saddled with a psychology of scarcity. That psychology of scarcity has dominated our thinking, created an adversary system of virtually everything. We think we have to fight. The sports we, and I, love so dearly are based on one person or team winning and the other losing, often not just losing but getting the crap knocked out of them.
We have an economy of scarcity. When something is scarce the price goes up. In fact, abundance is seen as the enemy of prosperity. There's an insane paradox for you. Too much gas and it drives the price down, lowering the profit, affecting investments, gas production, lowering incentives for healing the ecosystem with green energy. It gets complicated fast. And it's all engineered by a psychology of scarcity that only sees abundance at the expense of someone else. It's engineered to protect profits
So a premise of this blog is that we need a psychology of abundance. It turns out that the implications of unfettered abundance are positive and beautiful beyond our current comprehension. If we wanted to we could feed and clothe the world. But our psychology of scarcity, fear, drives us to weapons and wars that stop our prosperity in it's tracks producing not only waste, death, and destruction, but creating a self perpetuating mind set of fear and hostility.
The future is coming (oxymoron alert) and we need to develop our psychology of abundance. It's a psychological, spiritual, physical, economic, and political healing.
Monday, August 29, 2016
Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire
So, what does it mean to make sense of the truth? Doesn't truth speak for itself? I mean isn't that why they call it the truth?
The truth needs a context, a story behind it that makes it meaningful. Like Trump's hair is orange, or whatever color or series of colors you and I have been watching for, oh, so long. That's a fact, a truth. But does it mean anything? I have an opinion, of course. But nothing that I could claim as a meaningful piece of information. No proof of anything.
But when he says that 81% of all whites who are murdered are killed by blacks, there you have a story to tell, a truly amazing story. He said this in a tweet on November 22, 2015.
According to FBI statistics only 15% of all whites who were murdered were murdered by blacks.
We can now officially say, "Donald, you are a liar." In fact if we are reporters, we should be required to say it or something to that effect.
This is not a gaffe. This is an outright lie.
So, making sense of the truth. We need to do it, and do it clearly and unmistakably. We can't ask someone to make sense of it or defend it. We can't get "the other side" to comment on it. It stands alone, speaks for itself.
What is the context? Trump got erroneous information from a nonexistent research group, used the misinformation for his own political purposes. He chose to tweet it. He liked the flavor of the lie and used it.
So we are forced, if we are to be at all logical to say: he told a lie therefore he is a liar.
And we have a responsibility to broadcast that this man is a liar. Hey, if we don't he could be nominated for president.
Oh? He already has been?
How did that happen?
We didn't all rise up and say, "This man is a liar and has no business even thinking about being president of the United States of America!"
The truth needs a context, a story behind it that makes it meaningful. Like Trump's hair is orange, or whatever color or series of colors you and I have been watching for, oh, so long. That's a fact, a truth. But does it mean anything? I have an opinion, of course. But nothing that I could claim as a meaningful piece of information. No proof of anything.
But when he says that 81% of all whites who are murdered are killed by blacks, there you have a story to tell, a truly amazing story. He said this in a tweet on November 22, 2015.
According to FBI statistics only 15% of all whites who were murdered were murdered by blacks.
We can now officially say, "Donald, you are a liar." In fact if we are reporters, we should be required to say it or something to that effect.
This is not a gaffe. This is an outright lie.
So, making sense of the truth. We need to do it, and do it clearly and unmistakably. We can't ask someone to make sense of it or defend it. We can't get "the other side" to comment on it. It stands alone, speaks for itself.
What is the context? Trump got erroneous information from a nonexistent research group, used the misinformation for his own political purposes. He chose to tweet it. He liked the flavor of the lie and used it.
So we are forced, if we are to be at all logical to say: he told a lie therefore he is a liar.
And we have a responsibility to broadcast that this man is a liar. Hey, if we don't he could be nominated for president.
Oh? He already has been?
How did that happen?
We didn't all rise up and say, "This man is a liar and has no business even thinking about being president of the United States of America!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)