California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

The Hype Over AI

by John Lawrence

There is much hand wringing over whether or not AI will be used for good purposes or bad. The proprietors of AI are mostly concerned about making money, not about how to use their products for good. That's the capitalistic system. And one can rest assured that one of the most interested parties in AI is the defense establishment. They are always interested in using the most advanced technology in order to create even more sophisticated and destructive weapons in accordance with the theory that, if they don't create them, their enemies will create them first, and then they will be in a less advantageous position. Of course this is always premised on the consideration that we are the good guys and they are the bad guys. Our supposed enemies use the same rationale with the result that the world becomes ever more dangerous as both sides develop more and more destructive weapons. AI is just the latest chapter of this merry-go-round.The problem is that the tech companies creating AI are just in it for the money, and the military-industrial complex, in addition to just being in it for the money, is in it for the rationale that we better use AI to create advance weapons first so that our "enemies" don't get them first.

Has anybody considered that some entity, whether it be government or private enterprise, should adopt the position that AI or any other technology should be used not only for good but for the purpose of creating peace in the world? No, no entity is concerned about that. If government was concerned, they would be using some of the trillion dollar military-industrial complex budget to develop peaceful enterprises in the world. Instead while a trillion dollars yearly is spent on defense/offense, a paltry $400 million is spent on the Peace Corps. So that's where our values are. We value a strong defense, not strong efforts to make the world a more peaceful place, and we value financial competition to make as much money as we can off of any new technology. Those are the imperatives. Peace is thought to be the absence of war rather than building enterprises that would prevent war in the first place. The interstices between wars should be used to prevent the next war, but instead the only prevention is thought to be to have such a strong military apparatus that no one would think about stepping out of line with the line being defined by us or whoever is the most powerful empire at any point in time. Empires come and go over the long term, but the mental imperative of using all resources to create the most powerful military establishment never changes.

The result is that war is inevitable as it has been for millennia. In fact for thousands of years war has been a way of life. Empires have been created because someone came along who was in a position to create them whether that was Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, Catherine the Great or Napoleon. No one ever called Jesus "the Great" because he didn't create an empire. He just preached peace as the foremost value. Too bad no one in a position of power ever took him seriously. That was not realpolitik. Instead, religion was used to placate and sublimate the masses while the war machines of the various empires ground on until thy eventually were subdued or wore themselves out or went bankrupt. AI does not presage a new millennium. It's just more of the same. It will be used beneficially in medicine and a few other enterprises. But its main development will be in the art of war wherein battlefields are populated not by humans but by robots. The destruction however will remain the same or worse. Not the military but innocent civilians will bear the cost of death and destruction as already has been taking place in modern warfare. Not military assets but civilian real estate will be destroyed. Such a shame that technological advances have been deployed more in the service of war than in the service of peace.

Off the Top of My Head

Trump Doesn't Know the Difference Between Capitalism and Communism

by John Lawrence

The Trump campaign is saying that they will bring grocery and housing prices down. To address high prices, Trump said he would sign an executive order on his first day sworn in as president “directing every cabinet secretary and agency head to use every power we have to drive prices down, but we’re going to drive them down in a capitalist way, not in a communist way,” he said. Really? In a capitalist economic system, which the US certainly is, prices are set by the market, not by the government. Now Trump proposes to use government to interfere with the market to bring prices down. That's anti-capitalistic. So exactly how do you bring prices down in a capitalist way without interfering with the market? You can't. If you're a capitalist, you let the market set prices, whatever they turn out to be. So Trump, a purported capitalist, accuses Kamala for being a communist or a socialist while he turns out to be one himself. Kamala has proposed a Federal ban on price gouging. Exactly how that would work is unclear. So both Trump and Kamala are proposing to use government to interfere in the market to bring prices down.

So what could be done to bring prices down? Bringing down prices is not really the problem. Making sure that every American can afford groceries and housing is. There is precedent for government supported housing also know as public housing for people that can't afford a house in the market economy. Kamala's proposal to grant first time buyers $25,000 for a down payment is also a good idea. That doesn't interfere with the price setting mechanism of the capitalist economy. Government has also supplied food for poor people whether it be food stamps or SNAP. So the market still sets the price of housing and groceries for those who can afford to buy these things in the market economy. This amounts to socialism for the poor, capitalism for the rich in contrast to the situation that now exists which is socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Trump's $7 trillion tax cut amounted to socialism for the rich.

The US has a mixed economy. It is partly capitalist and partly socialist as are most eonomies of advanced industrial nations. If Trump were a pure capitalist he would say that the market should set prices for housing and groceries, and that he as President would have nothing to do with that. But since he like most Republicans are hypocrites who will say anything to gain political power, he is all concerned about prices. Kamala by contrast does not claim to be a pure capitalist so she sincerely wants to help people at the low end of the economic spectrum to be able to afford adequate housing and nutrition. Exactly what programs she wants to implement do not have to be spelled out at this point in the campaign. The point is that she sincerely wants to help people at the lower part of the economic spectrum. Trump could care less about them. He only wants to help his rich billionaire friends.

Off the Top of My Head

An Academy of Peace: What a Novel Idea

by John Lawrence

We have several academies of war - the US Naval Academy, West Point, the US Coast Guard Academy, the US Air Force Academy. Is there a US academy of peace? We spend a trillion dollars a year on the military. How much do we spend on the peace industry? Congress has completed its work on a budget for fiscal year 2022, passing a $1.5 trillion spending package. ... Unfortunately, for a seventh consecutive year, instead of providing new resources to better meet the needs of a changed world, it keeps Peace Corps' baseline funding flat at $410.5 million. We spend a pittance on peace, a fortune on war. As the world's leading super power, we spend our money on what we value most - war. Do the big wigs in the American government even have an idea of what it would take to create a peaceful world? What would be the steps that should be taken to prevent war before it starts. One thing is to work toward eliminating poverty and disease in the world. We should have a world in which everyone has at least the basics for a decent life. That means adequate sanitation, adequate clean water supply, adequate shelter, adequate nutrition, adequate health care.

Fact: Over 1.5 billion people still do not have basic sanitation services, such as private toilets or latrines. Of these, 419 million still defecate in the open, for example in street gutters, behind bushes or into open bodies of water. There is much work to be done here. Does the US have anything in its budget to upgrade the sanitation level for the rest of the world? No, they are too much concerned with fighting the next war, spending billions on the most advanced military systems. Such a simple thing as improving sanitation in the world is something the US as a country is not really concerned about. Yet there is a connection between personal well being and peace. People that are at least basically well off are not inclined to go to war. War seems like a good alternative if the alternative is poverty. Throughout history the war making class has always been more prosperous than the peasantry. It's stlll true today.

So do our leaders have the faintest ideas about how to create peace ... or only how to win wars. There is never enough money to do the things that might result in a more peaceful world, but there is plenty of money for fighting wars. What would be some good ideas for creating a more peaceful world? Maybe citizen to citizen interchanges with countries who are deemed to be out "enemies." Maybe spending more money on creating diplomats and diplomacy. Maybe not characterizing any country as an "enemy"? Maybe creating the conditions for peace. Maybe two years of required national service in the Peace Corps as an alternative to the military with the same benefits? There's a song, "I'm not going to study war no more." Maybe creating more peace workers than soldiers, sailors and airmen. I think more results could be realized by spending less money on war. Peace should not really cost that much. What is costly is war. More money has been spent on it over the years than any other thing. It's the main thing that tax money has been spent on for millennia. It's what bankrupted France in the reign of Louis XIV. And after all the wars, France's boundaries remained the same as they were at the beginning of Louis' reign.

Off the Top of My Head

Kamala: Just Ignore the Insults and Keep Smiling

by John Lawrence

Trump's MO is to say outrageous things, and then get pundits to mull them over and candidates to defend themselves. Instead, just ignore them, and they will fall with a thud. Don't get involved with Trump's lies and insults. Just don't respond. Same thing for Tim Walz. Ignore anything that's said about his teaching, coaching, military service etc. The comments by JD Vance and Trump aren't worth responding to. Just ignore them and power on. Put forth your hopes, your vision and your agenda. Better not to get down in the mud and wrestle. Just keep on keeping on. It's not worth engaging with the likes of Trump. You don't really have to.

All Kamala needs to do is what she thinks is most propitious to getting more people to vote for her. She doesn't have to do what the pundits want her to do. She doesn't have to do what Trump wants her to do. She just needs to do whatever she thinks will get her elected. Obviously, Kamala's constituency is different from Trump's constituency. She appeals to women more so than men. Men, especially white men, are Trump's constituency. This election is about a gender divide as well as a black white divide. So probably it is about whose constituency is more excited and more committed to actually voting. Will voters study the issues and then make an intelligent, informed decision? I doubt it for the most part. This election is about how many people on Kamala's share of the divide will actually get out and vote for her as compared with how many on Trump's share of the divide will get out and vote for him.

I have a feeling that Kamala's committed voters outnumber Trump's committed voters because women outnumber men, and women are more likely to actually vote than men. Also Kamala has a huge war chest - hundreds of millions of dollars. If she uses it wisely, she will have an advantage from that perspective. Trump is grasping at straws by bringing RFK Jr on board. That could actually dilute Trump's support.Trump is seemingly doubling down on the crazy. Kamala just needs to hold steady and affirm that she is the adult in the room. Her policy agenda so far is excellent. It's simple: a middle class tax break and affordable housing. Tax breaks are the only thing Trump has going for him but his are mainly for the rich. Kamala has successfully co-opted Trump's "no taxes on tips' pledge. She's out foxed him on taxes. What's left? Oh, the border. She has a good point about how Trump nixed a bipartisan border deal. However, she needs to be more forceful. Resources have to be spent on the border both in human and financial terms so that the border is impregnable and so that the only possible crossings are legal crossings. How about this as a slogan: reduce illegal crossings to zero while enhancing legal crossings so that the US gets the immigrant workers it needs. Those entering legally should be those that enhance the US' position in the world in terms of the economy and in terms of sheer humanity. Amnesty should be requested from the home country or a third country. Even if granted, it does not mean that they will wind up in the US. International law does not guarantee exactly which country a person granted amnesty will end up in. The important thing is that Kamala should co-opt Trump's position on the border while doing it in a humane way.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Isn't This Election About Climate Change?

by John Lawrence

Climate change is the overwhelming existential issue. Why is it hardly mentioned by Kamala or Trump. Not only does Trump not mention it, he denies it. Kamala like most Democrats takes it seriously, but her campaign hardly mentions it. Why? The American people care more about their individual economic situations than they do about the fate of the planet. There is no other explanation. We should have been doing ten times as much ten years ago to mitigate climate change. At this point the earth is facing a catastrophe in the very near future even though significant efforts are being made to mitigate it at the present time. However, it's not nearly enough. Furthermore, the American people are not even that interested in doing anything about it. If they were, Kamala, at least, would be talking about it and making it part of her campaign. Instead, she hardly mentions it. One can only conclude that, despite local catastrophes for relatively small numbers of people who have lost their homes in fires or floods, the great masses of Americans who have not really suffered have figured that climate change is no big deal as long as some catastrophe has not happened to them personally. This seems to me to be utter selfishnss, ignorance and lack of concern about the commons which is the earth itself. The prevailing attitude seems to be, as long as it doesn't happen to me, I'm not concerned about it. Instead, I will vote strictly on my own individual economic interests.

It is complete foolishness to place individual concerns above the fate of the planet. The implication is that selfish interests of those alive today trump the interests of the next generation and future generations. Americans have been taught to pursue their individual economic interests rather than to be concerned about the economic interest of the commons. We have been taught and it is part of American ideology that individual pursuits are more important than commpn pursuits. In fact common pursuits have been denigrated as socialism or communism. However, the earth and its systems are something that we all depend on. We depend on the fact that temperatures won't rise to 130 degrees F. If they do, individual pursuits will not matter any more except for those whose only interest is to profit off of others' misery. When every rain storm floods out towns and villages, will those not affected just continue to pursue personal profit? When large areas of the world become uninhabitable, will that simply drive up real estate values in the remaining regions? It's happening already. Insurance companies are raising rates in areas that are subject to flooding or fires. The handwriting is on the wall except the American people have blinders on. Some go as far as to insist on gas powered vehicles and complain bitterly if their right to own one were to be taken away.

American voters don't even list climate change as one of their main concerns. Does it even make the top ten? Not according to a Pew survey which rated climate change 18^th!! So are the American people not only completely selfish but also catastrophically ignorant? It would appear so. "There's no excuse for fiddling while the planet burns." So said Tom Steyer, an investor who has devoted his life to fighting climate change,. His book, Cheaper, Faster, Better is out now. What it boils down to is that, although catastrophic climate change is already baked in, we should do everything possible to electrify the planet so that at least some life survives at some level. That's better than throwing up our hands and saying, "Why bother? It's all over anyway."

Off the Top of My Head

Which Is Truer: The American People Are Hurting Because of the Cost of Eggs or The American People Are Well Off If They Can Spend Thousands on Taylor Swift Concerts and All the Airline Seats Are Filled

by John Lawrence

Apparently, there's a cutoff point above which Americans are all enjoying the good life and below which Americans are sweating their next rent payment. Kamala needs to get a graph which shows where this cutoff point is. Then she needs to appeal to the majority of voters not just a minority of Taylor Swift concert goers or those that can't pay their rent. According to the Fed's 2022 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households survey ..., 37% of Americans lack enough money to cover a $400 emergency expense, up 5% from 32% in 2021 and back to 2019 levels. That means that 63% of Americans can cover a $400 emergency with no problems.Ticket prices to concerts and sports events are not cheap, and they sell out well in advance. Will the real American please stand up? Everyone complains about the cost of groceries, but does that include those filling airline seats, going to professional football games and paying big bucks filling seats at numerous events. Which is it? So, Kamala needs not to make a mistake by only appealing to 37% of Americans. She needs to appeal to the other 63% as well or at least a majority including both segments..

So what are the 63% of Americans concerned with? Reproductive freedom, for sure. It's very American to not want government telling you what you can and cannot do. They are also concerned about the border, and that includes Democrats as well as Republicans. Kamala should get out in front of Trump on this issue. Here's a policy for you: The goal should be not one illegal border crossing while increasing legal pathways for immigration. It's very simple. Forget all the ifs, ands, buts, whereases and other considerations. KISS: Keep it simple, stupid. That's the only thing Americans can understand. They don't read. They are only involved in politics to the extent that it is entertaining them, especially Trump voters. Kamala should go ahead and do what she did yesterday - make bold policy proposals without worrying about how we're going to pay for it. Leave it to the wonks to get down in the weeds about that. Most Americans don't care about the weeds. They just want to know what she will be trying to accomplish - where her head's at. It's all about getting elected. Did Trump ever get down in the weeds? He can't even make a coherent policy proposal. Kamala should outflank him.

It was a bold stroke to agree with Trump about not taxing tips. She neutralized that Trump initiative. Let Trump complain that it was his idea first. Who cares? Kamala is outsmarting Trump. It doesn't take much intelligence to do that. She should continue to out smart, finesse, outflank and do whatever it takes to get elected no matter how much Trump or the press or the pundits complain that she's not doing what they think she should do. It's not about doing what the pundits want you to do. It's about doing what will resonate with the American people and will get you elected. There is nothing that says you have to have a complete budget drawn up and every item accounted for before the election. Republicans have been relying on the fact that it's not illegal to lie yourself into a position of political power. They have been doing it for years. I don't advocate that Kamala should lie and for the most part Democrats have not lied, but they should not worry about accounting for every jot and tittle of the policy proposals. And she should do what she thinks she needs to do to get elected not what the pundits think she should do like give news conferences. If she thinks news conferences will advance her position, then she should do them. If not, then she shouldn't and the timing of everything is up to her. It's that simple.

Off the Top of My Head

Kamala Should Get Out in Front of Trump on Taxes

by John Lawrence

You know that Trump wants to make the Trump tax cuts permanent. These are the tax cuts that added $7 trillion to the national debt and primarily benefited the rich. Kamala should finesse this issue by taking it away from Trump. Here's how: make it part of her platform to keep the Trump tax cuts for the poor and middle class while sunsetting them for the rich. Even better use the money saved by sunsetting the tax cuts for the rich to give the poor and middle class an even bigger tax cut than the Trump tax cuts provided. The important thing is to get out in front of Trump on this issue. Let him respond to her. Trump will then be behind the eight ball on this and other issues. All Trump has to offer is personal attacks, and they seem to be falling flat with respect to Kamala. Her politics of joy seem to be winning, and the Democratic National Convention should add another boost to the Harris-Walz ticket.

CNBC has just reported: "[Harris'] policies include a ban on “corporate price-gouging” to lower the cost of groceries and prescription drugs, and they aim to expand affordable housing and cut taxes for the middle class." Of course nothing will happen unless Democrats also control both Houses of Congress. But that should not prevent Kamala or any other Presidential candidate from promising big things. The important words are "tax cuts for the middle class." Some of the other plans Kamala is espousing are "the first-ever federal ban on “corporate price-gouging” on food and groceries". Well, good luck with that. Good talking point though. Her other plans include encouraging builders to build starter homes and Federal help with down payments on a house. CNBC reported: "As the supply of entry-level homes expanded, the Harris plan would “provide working families who have paid their rent on time for two years and are buying their first home up to $25,000 in down-payment assistance, with more generous support for first-generation homeowners,” according to the fact sheet." $25,000 will not be much help for a down payment though. At 20% down, $25,000 would only provide a down payment on a $125,000 house. This might be possible in some parts of the country as real estate values vary a lot with region. However, in San Diego starter homes are around $1 million. It would be a non-starter.

Harris will also call for the U.S. to construct 3 million new housing units over the next four years. I don't think this would be very effective as long as those new houses are subject to the market. Market rate housing is the problem, not the solution. Preventing hedge funds from buying up houses and then renting them out would help the situation. Some mechanism must be found such that the average middle class family can afford to buy a house. The emphasis on affordable starter homes is a big deal. Democrats are also all about lowering the price of pharmaceuticals. We can thank Joe Biden for that. However, he won't get credit since that deal doesn't become effective for another year. The various other parts of Kamala's economic plan won't resonate all that well with the American public because they won't understand them. However, "tax cuts for the middle class" will resonate and will steal Trump's thunder. Let Trump complain, as he did with not taxing tips, that it was his idea first!

Off the Top of My Head

Problem With American Democracy: Voters Will Never Vote for a Tax Increase Even if It Would Prevent One Person Dying in the Street

by John Lawrence

Question: would you be willing to pay more taxes if it would house the unhoused? Hell, no. What's more, voters don't want even a shelter in their neighborhood. Any time one is proposed, a NIMBY group pops up to protest its location. People don't want to give up even a small portion of their income to help unfortunate Americans. That's the main reason why they vote Republican. They think Democrats will raise their taxes. Other countries like Sweden have high taxes in order to help people. They're called social democracies or welfare states. That's anathema in the United States. The philosophy in the US is "Devil take the hindermost." There is support for those at the top of the economic spectrum, but little if any for those at the bottom. In the US it's all about competition, and those who have failed in the competitive game of life don't deserve our help especially if that means we will have to pay higher taxes. We want tax relief not human relief for those who have lost out in the game of life. I've got mine, and I don't want the government taking one penny of it in higher taxes.

Since heat is becoming a major cause of death due to climate change, the unhoused will be dying on the streets in even greater numbers. But Americans couldn't be less sympathetic. If they were willing to have their taxes increased by one penny, the homeless problem could be solved. It will not be solved simply by building more housing. Housing in our economic system will be priced according to the market not according to affordability. Building more housing will not lower the price of market rate housing. There are too many other factors at play. Such as corporations buying up houses, fixing them up and renting them out. This trend will turn the younger generation in particular into a nation of renters, not a nation of middle class home owners. The younger generation cannot even afford starter homes! The investor class realizes that housing is an economic asset that offers more of a return on their money than even the stock market. Housing is an asset class, not something that satisfies a human need. Investors make money off of the debts of other people, especially the young. Mortgages, credit card  debt, rents - these are the investments that make rich people richer. There's a reason why bankers are rich. They make money off of human debtors. Eliminating debt eliminates the profits of the rich. No wonder there is so much resistance to Biden's student debt relief programs.

One of the Great Society's programs was the War on Poverty. In those days - the 1960s - the poverty stricken were at least presumably housed. Today we have a subclass of poverty - the homeless - which has become a veritable culture of homelessness. This is a culture that is beneath poverty. Even in Huxley's Brave New World, the lowest class, the Epsilons, were bred to be menial laborers. He didn't have the imagination to believe that there would be a class even lower than the Epsilons - the homeless. Presumably, Huxley's Epsilons were paid laborers; the homeless are people, primarily, who don't work at all but subsist on handouts, handouts which, however, are not sufficient to put a roof over their heads. The homeless are a class of expendables. They aren't valued enough as human beings to engage the charitable instincts of most Americans so that as a society we would be willing to see everyone housed, well fed and on the road to a productive life. Instead we blame the homeless themselves for their predicament. Charity is one thing; raising taxes to provide charity is quite another. So as a society we are willing to have people urinating and defecating on the streets, expending societal resources to clean up their trash and being treated to the spectacle of having to step over people zonked out on the sidewalk to get to our favorite restaurant.

Off the Top of My Head

Biden Has One Job for the Rest of His Term: End the War in Gaza

by John Lawrence

IMHO Biden has been played by Netanyahu. Netanyahu's assertion that "there's no daylight between Israel and the US" seems to mean that Netanyahu can do whatever he wants to in Gaza, and the US will go along with it. Up to now this has been basically the case. Biden has pushed back a little against some of Netanyahu's more egregious operations in Gaza, but has essentially gone along with it on the theory that Netanyahu should do whatever he thinks is best. The US also has shipped Israel much weaponry without any conditions. Since October 7, the Biden administration has reportedly made more than one hundred military aid transfers to Israel, although only two—totalling about $250 million—have met the congressional review threshold and been made public. So Biden and the US are complicit in the destruction of Gaza and the killing of its people. By June 19, 2024, 37,396 people had been killed in the Gaza Strip since the attack by Hamas and the Israeli invasion in October, 2023, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, as reported by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Most of those killed have been women and children. Biden has been weakly trying to get Netanyahu to rein in his over zealousness, but his imprecations have lacked any real teeth. He would have to threaten to hold up weapons shipments to Israel to really get Netanyhu's attention. Other than that, Netanyahu thinks he has free rein to do whatever he wants in Gaza.

Netanyahu says his goal is to root out and totally defeat Hamas yet so far he has mainly destroyed about half of Gaza's real estate. If Hamas and the hostages are underground in the tunnels, why hasn't the fighting occurred down there? Why has most of the destruction been on the surface if the real goal is underground? Why have bombs been dropped on supposed "safe areas"? It seems as if Netanyahu's intention is to make Gaza unlivable and to turn Gazans into refugees. The atrocities that occurred on October 7 were horrendous, but the destruction in Gaza only compounds that tragedy. Two wrongs don't make a right. President Biden has been taken advantage of by Netanyahu. He has used the traditional alliance between the US and Israel as an excuse to exercise a free hand in Gaza. He has shown no restraint nor has he shown any interest in a long term solution to the situation other than total destruction of Gaza. A two state solution has no interest for Netanyahu. He is playing Biden and the US while pursuing the goal of making Gaza a waste land. For too long Biden has given Netanyahu the benefit of the doubt.

Biden has been involved in one way or another with both the war in Ukraine and the war in Gaza. He needs to bring at least the war in Gaza to an end before the end of his term if he doesn't do anything else. No doubt the war in Ukraine is intractable for Biden to end it. His ego is too involved in that war. However, he could have a decisive part in ending the war in Gaza. He would effectively have to stop being buddy buddy with Netanyahu and insist on a cease fire. He would have to terminate any financial or military support to Israel until the war in Gaza has been ended and a two state solution has been preliminarily been worked out. He would have to take decisive steps to bring those two things about. I know that is what Biden would like to see happen, but he would have to put his foot down with Netanyahu to achieve those goals. Biden has done a whole lot domestically to make the United States a better place. He will go down in history for accomplishing more domestically than any President since Lyndon Johnson. His legacy is secure in that regard, but he needs to wrap up at least one of the two wars or his legacy will be tarnished in terms of foreign policy.

Off the Top of My Head

Character Assassination: That's What Donald Trump Does Best

by John Lawrence

It's not about what either candidate will put their energy into in order to make the lives of Americans better. It's all about destroying the character of the other party. Has Trump said one thing about what he will try to do to make the lives of average Americans better? Of course not. It's all about him, and he's all about ridiculing and attacking Kamala and Tim Walz. Trump is about stoking hate and fear. Oh, you better be afraid of Kamala and Tim because they are so radical. They're so left wing. They're socialists. So what do those labels actually mean? Nothing. According to Republicans, if you actually want to help people, you're a socialist.So according to them, the best thing for the country is NOT to try and help people. If anything you should give more trillions of dollars to the military and slash taxes for the rich, because, as we all know, it's only the rich that can make the US a better place. Meanwhile, the rest of the civilized world does not only try to make the lives of their people better, they actually care about doing something about climate change which will probably destroy the lives of the next generation if more isn't done about it.

So American democracy is about the candidates propitiating the wants of the least common denominators? Or about electing someone who has successfully assassinated their competitor's character? That's what democracy is all about? And God forbid that a candidate even mentions climate change or that Americans should have to give up their gas guzzling cars, their hamburgers or even their plastic straws. Meanwhile, climate change is already destroying the lives of millions of people and inconveniencing millions more. But "leaders" are still attributing weather disasters to "thousand year" floods. However, thousand year floods are occurring on a yearly basis. Democracy really doesn't work if you have to pander to the least common denominators and they are a bunch of ignoramuses whose only interests are self interest. But that's how Americans have been taught to be - self interested.

Meanwhile, one might think that American elections are all about raising and spending hundreds of millions of dollars.

By law, major presidential candidates in France may not spend more than 22.5 million Euros (about $25 million) on their campaigns. We in the United States have no such limits.

Joe Biden spent $1.6 billion to win the 2020 presidential election. That is 70 times more than Macron spent on his bid, yet the U.S. population is just five times larger than France’s. There is no end in sight to the amount of money in American politics. Biden spent three times more than Hilary Clinton did in 2016. One could argue that the high stakes in the 2020 election justified big spending, but that argument applies equally to France in 2022 when there is a war raging on two NATO borders to its east. The only reason France spends orders of magnitude less than the United States in its elections is because the French have limits.

Not only that, but there are time limits for campaigning in major European countries. In France, the official election campaign usually lasts no more than 2 weeks. In countries which have parliamentary democracies, there is no voting for President. You only vote for members of parliament. This in itself would tend to decrease the division of the electorate into two opposing groups as has happened in the US where the country is divided into two warring camps. In the US all races not only for President but for members of Congress are winner take all. This also tends to divide the electorate into two warring camps. To further exacerbate American elections, we have the antiquated system of the electoral college so that the election for President hinges on the results in just a few battleground states. The Presidential election is not determined by the popular vote resulting in the fact that the US is a democracy only in the minimalist of terms.

Off the Top of My Head

Starter Homes Cost More Than $1 Million in 237 American Cities

by John Lawrence

In many US cities a starter home costs more than $1 million making it unaffordable for most young people who make less than $400,000. CBS News reports:

If you put 20% down on your $1 million home, you would need an $800,000 mortgage for the remainder of what you owe on the purchase. In this case, your mortgage payment would be $7,739 per month, inclusive of estimated property taxes and homeowners insurance costs. That amounts to about $92,868 per year in mortgage payments. 

With 0% down, you can expect to pay $9,070 per month inclusive of estimated property taxes and homeowners insurance costs. With less than 20% down, you should also expect to pay for private mortgage insurance (PMI), which would cost about $1,250 per month. That works out to a total of $10,320 per month, or $123,840 in annual mortgage payments. 

Based on these figures, you would need to earn $331,671.43 annually to afford a $1 million home with a 20% down payment if you follow the 28% rule. Or, you would need to earn about $442,285.71 annually to afford the same home with no down payment based on this rule. 

Obviously, only very rich families with parental support can afford to buy a starter home in 237 American cities. So what is the solution? If you're young, move to an American city where the average price of a starter home is around $200,000. Cities like South Bend, Indiana, Cleveland, Ohio, or Topeka, Kansas. Indianapolis, Indiana has cheap starter homes. The median price for a housing unit in Indianapolis is $232,000. However, think twice about cities that are desirable or undesirable due to climate change. I wouldn't buy a house in a city in the south, for instance. Also there are several other factors like what's the job situation. As time goes on, some areas of the country will become virtually uninhabitable due to climate change. In general you have to consider the topography. Are you close to a river or creek that could flood? Are you close to a forest that could burn? Does the area have adequate water resources? What about infrastructure? I wouldn't want to be too close to the ocean as climate change raises ocean levels and shore lines are washed away.

Young people should be given a path to home ownership like returning GIs from World War II. They could buy a house with nothing down. Their mortgages were guaranteed by the government. In exchange for a two year commitment to the American Climate Corps, young people should also be able to buy a house with nothing down. Home ownership is the time proven way to build middle class wealth. Renters will never build wealth. The government should be in the business of creating a strong middle class. This can only be accomplished by encouraging wide spread home ownership, and this has to start with young people getting into homes.

Off the Top of My Head

Mud Slinging and Character Assassination: the Only Things Republicans Know How To Do

by John Lawrence

And then the pundits discuss the mud slinging by the hour. Calling people names. Making up stuff. What's this got to do with the future vision for the country? What I want to hear from Trump and Kamala is their vision for the future of our country. I could care less about what they seem to be all about - destroying their opponent. These are the ethics of a wrestling match - destroy your opponent. Kamala has to get specific about a few policies, namely, the border, taxation and abortion. She needs to co-opt Trump's issues. She needs to call for a tax cut for the middle class while raising taxes on the rich. On the border, she has to call for strengthening the border to the point that it is impregnable while calling for increased legal pathways for immigration and asylum. On the wars she has to demand a cease fire and hostage release in Gaza and a settlement in Ukraine that's basically a compromise instead of an all or nothing approach.

The overriding issue of our times is climate change. Nothing could be clearer than the differences between the two parties on this issue. The Democrats are very environmentally conscious. Republicans couldn't care less about the environment or climate change. All they care about is their plastic straws, gas guzzling vehicles, guns and meat. Don't ask them to change their way of life in order to save the planet for future generations. It's hard to imagine a worse ethical stance. They are against everything that is conducive to making the world a better place. It's the legacy of an ethic of selfishness as promulgated by Ronald Reagan, George W Bush and others including Ayn Rand who wrote The Virtue of Selfishness. The US has a very weak, to the point of nonexistence, communal ethic. Individualism and competition is the fabric of American character. There have been a few exceptions, namely, the Depression and World War II. Even in those cases there were many voices who called for not getting involved and just letting the chips fall where they may.

So Kamala, don't get caught up in the mudslinging, character assassination and name calling or responding to same. Express clearly where you are on the issues and where your policies will take America and the world. Vagueness is the enemy of clarity and decisiveness. Better to ignore Trump and his puerility. I want to see clarity about the border and clarity about taxation. As far as women's reproductive rights, Democrats own that issue. As for the rest, a continuation of Biden's policies in terms of infrastructure, the child tax credit, elder long term care and other aspects of Biden's Build Back Better program are important. Especially, the surge in mental awareness and acceptance of mutual responsibility for climate change and the environment is paramount regardless of Republican insistence on keeping their plastic straws, guns, meat and gas guzzlers. A change in the mentality of Americans has to occur or climate disasters will only get worse until many areas of the US, not to mention the world, will become uninhabitable in the very near future.

Off the Top of My Head

Young People Need a Path to Home Ownership and Hence Wealth Creation

by John Lawrence

Kamala Harris needs to give young people hope that they too can be home owners. This has traditionally been the path to wealth creation for the middle class. When the GIs came back from World War II, they were able to get mortgages with no down payments although black GIs were not able to take advantage of this program due to redlining. This is the key to home ownership for young people today. There has to be a way to get a mortgage with no down payment. What is happening is that economic and  financial forces are driving the cost of home ownership out of sight. Corporations are buying up single family homes and turning them into rentals. With nothing to stop this trend America will become a nation of renters. Renters create wealth for their landlords not for themselves. Right now there is no path to home ownership for young people except if their parents help with the down payment.

The US is becoming a nation of modern day peasants who own no property just as medieval peasants did not. They created wealth for the nobility who were their landlords. Today as home ownership recedes from reality for young people, they are looking forward to living paycheck to paycheck with annual rent increases. Even with target inflation of 2%, rents will continue to rise at least by that amount as young people are saddled not only with student loan debt but car payment debt and credit card debt. They will never get ahead as the corporatization of home ownership results in wealth accumulation for corporations and the rich. Kamala needs to address this problem so that young people have a pathway to home ownership the way returning GIs from World War II did.

President Biden has already set up the American Climate Corps. This is the existential issue of our times. Young people who sign up for a two year stint in the American Climate Corps should get a no down payment pathway to American home ownership. I would like to see Kamala implement this in lieu of making this a perk of joining the military. There are already all sorts of perks for joining the military while hardly any for nonmilitary national service. There should be pathways for young people to succeed without joining the military. Right now you can get a free college education by joining the military. This perpetuates militaristic incentives to get ahead in this country. There are no such pathways for those who want to serve their country without joining the military. There should be. There should be a pathway to wealth creation and incentives for serving America by addressing the most important and impending issue of our time - climate change and environmental justice. We need important programs to put people to work in the environmental area and in return they should get a pathway to home ownership and wealth creation. Otherwise the US will become a neo medieval society with the majority of people enhancing the wealth of the already wealthy and living paycheck to paycheck with most of that paycheck going to paying rent and interest on debt.

Off the Top of My Head

Tax Cuts for the Middlle Class; Tax Hikes on the Rich

by John Lawrence

The two issues Republicans have are tax cuts and border security. Don't cede these issues to Republicans. A majority of Americans want a secure border. This has nothing to do with LEGAL immigration or even with amnesty. Limiting amnesty to those applying for it legally does not require any changes in the law. What it does require is reinforcing the border so no one can get over it illegally. This would then require more resources devoted to reinforcing the border.   In terms of tax cuts, Democrats have to stress tax cuts for the middle class paid for by tax hikes on the rich. Kamala should go right after these issues. She needs to be extremely tough on both of them. Let's face it: Democrats are going to vote for her no matter what. However, at this point in time, most voters are independents. She needs to co-opt Trumplican issues. And don't be too worried about a plan. Does Trump have a plan? No, he just asserts, "I will do this. I will do that." Kamala should take a page out of Trump's book. Just say, "I will do this. I will do that." She doesn't need to spell out HOW she's going to do it in detail. For sure, Trump doesn't.

Now that Joe Biden has dropped out of the race, he doesn't have to do two jobs - being President and campaigning - while Trump just has one - campaigning. That's why Mike Johnson wants Biden to resign: so that Kamala will be saddled with the responsibilities of President instead of devoting full time to campaigning. Democrats know what the Democratic agenda is in terms of providing for and addressing the needs of the middle class and the poor. But she has to address the sweet spot - where the majority of voters are and what the majority of voters are concerned about. Of course the abortion issue resonates well for Democrats and all Americans.

This whole thing about a short campaign season for Kamala is ridiculous. Most countries don't let political campaigns last more than a couple of months by law. In France political campaigns just last a couple of weeks. In Canada the longest political campaign was 74 days. In Australia, the longest political campaign lasted 11 weeks. In Japan campaigning is allowed for 12 days. In countries where campaigns are limited by law, elections aren't controlled by big money interests as they are in the US. The longer the campaign season, the more big money controls elections and politics. In the US, if we don't want the very rich to control elections, not only the campaign period, but also the amount of money spent on political campaigns needs to be controlled.

The US is becoming a neo-medieval society in which the majority have no hope of home ownership, but are destined to work paycheck to paycheck and be renters for life. This means no asset accumulation while their rents increase even with low inflation or target inflation of 2%. 2% target inflation means at least 2% rent increases over the course of a renter's life. In addition to not having any asset accumulation those living paycheck to paycheck are vulnerable to credit card and car payment debt so that they are supporting the banking system with interest payments for their entire life.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Are Democrats Not Hammering on the Trump Tax Cuts Which Need to be Increased for Middle Class and Eliminated for the Rich

by John Lawrence

American voters love tax cuts. That's the main appeal of a Republican administration. Biden has said he won't raise taxes for anyone making less than $400,000. This is not a strong enough statement. He, or whoever eventually is the Democratic nominee, should say that they will lower taxes for anyone making less than $400,000. Most of the Trump tax cuts go to those making over $400,000. CNN reported: "The highest-income households would receive more than 45% of the benefits if the expiring provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are extended, according to an analysis released Monday by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center." Why can't the Democrats see this? The Republicans' only appeal to the middle class are the tax cuts which give them a paltry $1000 or 1.3% of their income off their taxes while the rich households making at least around $450,000 – roughly the top 5% - would see their after-tax income increase by 3.2%. Democrats need to take this issue away from Republicans. Right now their rhetoric around this issue is too weak.

For those in the top 1%, who make at least $1 million, they get a tax cut of about $70,000, on average, in 2027. The top 0.1%, who make at least $5 million, would pocket a tax cut of nearly $280,000, on average, or about 3% of their after-tax income. Also extending the Trump tax cuts would have a big impact on the national debt, raising it by more than $4 trillion over the next 10 years – before interest costs are factored in, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Of course this will give power to Republican claims that the government can't support social security and Medicare any more. There will not be any more money available after supporting a one trillion dollar military budget and paying interest on the national debt.

What is wrong with the Democrats? There is already too much disparity between the very rich and the middle class. We are going back to a medieval society where the rich aristocracy run the political establishment and the middle class are nothing but modern day peasants. The peasants will not be able to build wealth because they won't be able to buy a house which is the main wealth builder for the middle class. They all will be renters for life living paycheck to paycheck. This is the reality for life in America today. People who have even one asset, a house, will get ahead by building wealth. People who are life long renters will only create wealth for their landlords. This is the way it was 500 years ago. Well, at least today, everyone has a cell phone.

Off the Top of My Head

War is Institutionalized; Peace is Not

by John Lawrence

If all you have is a hammer every problem looks like it can be solved by pounding a nail. If all you have is a military-industrial complex, every problem looks as if it can be solved by the threat or application of military power. This has been true for thousands of years, most of which time war was just accepted as a given. Now more elaborate justifications seem to be necessary, but the results are the same. Resources are devoted to war while a pittance is devoted to peace. The US currently spends about a trillion dollars annually on its military-industrial complex while the Peace Corps is allocated next to nothing. Congress has completed its work on a budget for fiscal year 2022, passing a $1.5 trillion spending package. Unfortunately, for a seventh consecutive year, instead of providing new resources to better meet the needs of a changed world, it keeps Peace Corps' baseline funding flat at $410.5 million.  Diplomacy and even common sense take a back seat to war. Take Ukraine, for example. The longer the war goes on, the predictable result is only more destruction of real estate and more lives ruined both physically and emotionally.

President Biden wants to continue the war until there is a "winner", and he is sure that with the provision of US military assets, that winner will be Ukraine. More level headed experts think that the war will only be settled with a partition of Ukraine. To settle the Russo-Ukraine war diplomatically, a number of analysts have suggested that the apparent military stalemate be accepted in a ceasefire agreement in which Ukraine would be partitioned along the current battle lines. If we look at the history of eastern Europe, we see that partitions are not a novelty. The Partitions of Poland were three partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth that took place toward the end of the 18th century and ended the existence of the state, resulting in the elimination of sovereign Poland and Lithuania for 123 years. The partitions were conducted by the Habsburg monarchy, the Kingdom of Prussia, and the Russian Empire, which divided up the Commonwealth lands among themselves progressively in the process of territorial seizures and annexations. Hmmm. Partitions are nothing new and the redrawing of national boundaries is nothing new? So in 2024 the powers that be insist that there will be no redrawing of national boundaries even if it means that a war of attrition will go on indefinitely. I think President Biden has been a great President when it comes to domestic policy, but less so when it comes to perpetuating the wars both in Ukraine and Israel. Without going into detail about Israel, he has not been forceful enough in restraining Israel from destroying Gaza.

America does not need to defund the Department of Defense (War). It just needs to refund a Department of Peace. The United States accounts for nearly 40% of global military spending, and devotes a larger share of its GDP to defense than most other countries. U.S. military spending was greater than the next ten biggest spenders in 2023. Fruitless wars will only continue if revenge is the operative factor. Peace building needs to continue in other parts of the world in spite of wars currently being waged. However, there is always money to fight wars, hardly ever is there money to wage peace. The military and/or the national guard could be used in a more productive way to provide security in those areas where peace builders need protection and even along the border. This would be a productive use of the military. Instead, most military personnel sit idle in 800 military bases around the world only to be deployed in hot wars. Why not use them to provide security in areas where militias are running amok? So I feel that, while military resources are not intelligently utilized, peace building resources hardly exist. The two could be complementary if used wisely.

Off the Top of My Head

Democrats Are Not Married to Joe Biden

by John Lawrence

Joe Biden engaged in an unremitting debacle last night. Debates are about more than just words and points. Joe Biden looked like death warmed over - a gray pallor. Donald Trump had color in his face and walked and talked like a normal human being. Joe Biden shuffles. That's for starters. Then Biden spoke in a monotone, rushing his words and then stumbled over them and then lost his trains of thought. Debates are about more than scoring verbal points. They are about eloquence and articulation. Joe Biden had nothing to offer in these areas. Then there were the repeated Biden cliches - "and by the way" which he repeated ad nauseum. His defensiveness - "The idea ...". And there were more. Biden's delivery was so poor and expressionless that Trump's demeanor triumphed by comparison. Trump had no problem finding his words albeit his words were filled with lies. Trump sounded normal and looked normal. He was animated whereas Biden looked stiff and frozen - death warmed over. Sorry to say it because I was a big Biden fan and think his accomplishments are in the class of the few greatest Presidents.

What's important now is to get someone else in there. Almost any youthful, normal Democrat could beat Donald Trump. Also any normal Democrat would continue Biden's policies. We don't need Joe Biden in order to continue Joe Biden's policies. The stakes are so big for this election in terms of the policies of any generic Democrat versus the policies of Donald Trump which would be disastrous for the nation and for the world. Just the fact that Trump would disable any climate change policies is enough to vote against him. The world is simultaneously burning up and being drowned in floods. Trump would guarantee that climate change would not only continue unabated, but would be accelerated.

My pick would be Gavin Newsom, a very impressive, well spoken and knowledgeable Democrat. Newsom could easily beat Trump in my opinion and would continue for the most part Biden's and Democrat's policies.This election should not be about Biden's ego. It's about the fate of America and the world. Biden's domestic policies have been excellent, but I have reservations about his foreign policy. The two wars in Ukraine and Israel have hurt him, and I don't agree with how Biden has handled them. He has too much of a Cold War mentality. Biden is at least somewhat responsible for setting up a new Cold War axis with China, Russia, Iran and North Korea on the other side. I think that some other President could possibly ameliorate this situation. We don't need another Cold War at this point in history.

The President of the United States is too important a position for a joker like Trump to be in it. I believe any normal Democrat could beat Trump. It's all about Trump's policies versus generic Democratic policies and which are better for America and the world. We don't need Joe Biden to continue Joe Biden's policies. He should step aside for the good of the country.

Off the Top of My Head

Peace is Not Just the Absence of War

by John Lawrence

As an advocate for a Department of Peace, I do not advocate eliminating the Department of War (Defense Department) altogether. I think both are necessary but in a more balanced way. Most efforts toward peace in the world should take place outside the arena of war, that is as a preventative to war. This includes economic development in parts of the world that are liable to gang control. In fact I would advocate the use of the US military to go after the gangs that are controlling certain parts of the world, for example in Mexico where gangs are trafficking humans to the US border and controlling the inflow of drugs into the US. Haiti is another candidate for the use of the US military to eliminate the gangs while the Peace Corps is helping with economic development. In areas of the world that don't have mature institutions that can provide security for the populace, the US military could provide that while the Peace Corps is building infrastructure. The two should operate hand in hand. What China is doing with its Belt and Road Initiative is instructive. China is winning friends and influencing people by building infrastructure in many parts of the world. But much more needs to be done that China is not doing. Low level infrastructure such as clean water and sanitation needs to be built out. Approximately half the world does not have clean water or adequate sanitation facilities.  3.6 billion people are still living with poor-quality toilets that damage their health and pollute their environment. Inadequate sanitation systems spread human waste into rivers, lakes and soil, contaminating water resources.China is building high level infrastructure such as ports, railroads and trains. The US should complement their efforts.

There are around 750 U.S. military bases in at least 80 countries. Most of these bases are unnecessary and represent a waste of money. They are also sitting ducks for attacks by the likes of ISIS. They should be eliminated and the resources redirected elsewhere. With US sea borne and satellite military resources there is no need for land based resources. The efforts should instead be put into developing  infrastructure both in terms of economics and in terms of political institutions. What is important is helping to create stable institutions in parts of the world where instability results in chaos ^e.g. Haiti. Also if life was good in countries where there is a lack of stability and economic development, people would not be flocking to the US and European borders and asking for asylum. So military assets as well as Peace Corps assets could work hand in hand. Once war breaks out these efforts at creating peace in the first place are useless. A Department of Peace needs to have a diplomatic aspect as well as the Peace Corps division. Also person to person exchanges help to build understanding. In fact the largest efforts need to be made with those who are considered our worst enemies.

As an anti-war protester in the 1960s, I am still one today. Peace efforts or efforts at creating peace in the world today do have both an economic and a military component. In some countries peace workers would be slaughtered by gangs if they weren't adequately protected by the US military while they go about doing their jobs. So while I am anti war, I am not anti military. I just think that the balance of human and financial resources is completely out of whack. Less money and manpower (womanpower?) needs to be devoted to the military and more money and womanpower needs to be devoted to the Department of Peace which should include the Peace Corps (economic development), the diplomatic corps (institutional development)  and exchange corps ( person to person friendship). Less effort needs to be spent on proving to the rest of the world that the US way is the best way and more effort needs to be spent on creating stable societies with the economic and institutional resources so that people in all parts of the world can have comfortable and secure lives.

Bringing the rest of the world up to economic and institutional speed is of utmost importance today because, unless the whole world is operating cooperatively, it will be impossible to do much about our common enemy - global warming. In fact we have met the enemy and it is us. Economic development in the developed world has proceeded in such a way as to have created the global warming crisis. Now it must proceed in such a way as to eliminate it. Sustainable development and environmental responsibility should be the order of the day. Countries that have vast fossil fuel resources have no incentive to curtail the economic development of those resources if they are considered to be pariah nations by the rest of the world. Nations that are considered pariah nations have no incentive to convert from war time expenditures to peace time expenditures if they are not brought into the community of nations in a respectful way. Nations that are at war right now have no incentive to negotiate a peaceful resolution if their interests and concerns are not taken into account.

Off the Top of My Head

Inflation Hurts Some But It Helps Others

by John Lawrence

If you own a home or have money in the stock market, inflation helps you since your underlying asset is increasing in value. If you are a renter with no money in the stock market, inflation hurts you. It's that simple. Consider this: even with the Fed's target rate of 2 per cent inflation, your house, which is an asset, is increasing in value year after year. If you are a renter, not only don't you have an asset which is increasing, your rent will continue to go up since the owner of the apartment has his expenses increasing and because his asset, the apartment building, keeps increasing in value. So owners benefit from inflation, even target inflation (2 per cent) and renters keep going into debt. The fact that owners still have to pay more for eggs is meaningless because a house represents a much larger investment than a dozen eggs. When an asset of high value keeps increasing, this gives one much more money to spend on small items which are increasing at the same rate, The net result is that owners are much better off. Non-owners are much worse off.

Housing is increasing in value so much that people, especially young people, are being priced out of the housing market. They will never be asset owners and will be paying rent for the rest of their lives. Many of them have student loan debt when they start out in life. So Gen Z will likely be a generation of debtors. More and more low earning Americans are falling out of the rental market and becoming homeless. Seniors comprise a large percentage of the homeless. Billions have been spent on the homeless situation yet more fall into homelessness every month. There is seemingly no solution. The only solution, it seems to me, is public housing. The idea that providing shelters for homeless people until they can get into normal market rate housing is a chimera. Many of them are unemployable, and those who are employable will probably not make enough money to pay market rate rent.

Public housing is one thing that government is very reluctant to provide. Where will the money come from for that when more money has to be spent mitigating the results of climate change? There is a billion dollar disaster a month, seemingly, whether that comes from floods, tornadoes, hurricanes or a myriad of other weather disasters. The US is not a welfare state. It is the most free market economy of the western civilizations. That means that for the most part the homeless will be treated, in Nixon's term, with benign neglect. It's social Darwinism or survival of the fittest. A large number of Americans subscribe to that philosophy. It was a really big deal in the 1920s. Even forced sterilization was implemented for a period of time. So the US will continue on its way without solving the homeless problem. As rents continue to climb, more people will fall into homelessness and the modest efforts to combat it will probably not be sufficient. Only if the US reallocates its resources toward more of a welfare state will we make progress on this situation.

Off the Top of My Head

Peace is Not Just the Absense of War

by John Lawrence

War is inevitable as long as the various parties do everything to build up their war machines and do nothing to undertake peace initiatives even when the parties are not actually at war. Many think that if there is no war nothing must be done to prevent the next war except perhaps building up their war machine. When there is no active war, that's the best time for preventing the next likely war. There was no reason for World War I other than the fact that the nations involved had built up their war machines in "peace time" and were spoiling for war. Nietzsche said, "A good war hallows any cause. War and courage have accomplished more great things than love of the neighbor." Really? Then perpetual war followed perhaps by short intervals of the absense of war also known as "peace" is the fate of the human race until the human race is extinguished in one great cataclysm. But there is more to peace than just the absense of war. Peace must be built one step at a time just like any edifice. Every nation should have a Department of Peace to counterbalance the ubiquitous Departments of War. If peace is systematically built, war may be preventable. If it is not, the Department of War will always stay ready to conduct war if all else fails. To advocate for peace is not the same as to advocate for disarmament. Realistically, a peaceful neighbor can always be attacked by a stronger unscrupulous neighbor. In fact that is what always has occurred throughout history. This led to the "balance of power" situation in Europe before World War I. It was believed that this was the only way to prevent war, that is, if each neighboring nation was equally matched in their military capabilities. So putting resources into a Department of Peace does not mean not putting resources into a Department of War. In fact they both should be concurrently developed just in case. One is a deterrent. The other is a preventative.

I would advocate a different approach to the peace process than has been pursued so far.. Each nation should put as much human and financial capital into a Department of Peace as they do into a Department of War. So what would a Department of Peace actually do? First of all, eliminate poverty in the world. When everyone has at least a minimally adequate living standard, it is less likely that they will organize for war. Secondly, the existential fact of climate change will create war if it is not solved. In fact it is an existential threat to all life on earth that will make World War III seem trivial in comparison. The ones that will suffer the most are the poor nations and the poor in the rich nations. A Department of Peace needs to be spending a lot both in human and financial capital on this problem. Third, a Department of Peace needs to build infrastructure both to adapt to global warming and to bring poorer nations up to speed. A good place to start is to have the goal of clean water and an adequate sewage system for all of the world's inhabitants. China has taken the lead on this with its Belt and Road initiative building infrastructure throughout the world. Fourth, all nations and all leaders of nations should be shown respect. When one nation's leaders describe another nation's leaders as evil or talk about their countries as "evil empires," this alienates them. Calling a nation's leader a pariah actually turns them into one. Alienation follows disrespect. Friendship entails respect and consideration for all nations even ones with different political and economic institutions. Diplomacy should be increased a thousand fold or more. Person to person exchange groups should be encouraged.

Inequality leads to war. Everyone on planet earth deserves to have an adequate amount of material possessions including good health care, education, food and housing. Those who have inadequate possessions or services or at least a minimal amount of those material things and services compared to others will always want to take from those who have all those things. Rich nations need to help poor nations get richer or else face the consequence of always having to defend what they've got from those who have little or nothing. Many wars have been fought over territory and material possessions. Also many wars have been fought over religion. Education needs to pave the way for people to understand that a person's belief system is up to that person and need not be a threat to another's belief system. The religious wars in Europe between Catholicism and Protestantism went on for hundreds of years proved nothing. The same could be said for the wars between Islam and Christianity or between Hindus and Muslims. The secularization of the world's societies is necessary at least to the point that someone's religion is nobody else's business. The separation of church and state was one of the hallmarks of the US Constitution that has been very successful.

To sum up planet earth will never attain world peace unless that becomes a goal in such a way that peace is not just defined as the absense of war. Like the development of all good things peace must be worked at and for. An effort must be put into it. Resources must be devoted to it. Else the outcome will be the same as the outcome of any venture for which nothing much was done about it. The natural outcome for a world not working every day for peace and not devoting adequate resources towards it will be war. The Law of Entropy will prevail. Everything will disintegrate unless energy is put into the system.

Off the Top of My Head

A Superpower in Decline

by John Lawrence

1) Rights taken away from women. The Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to outlaw nearly all abortions in Arizona will likely lead to an influx of patients fleeing the state to find care in California, abortion rights activists said.

2) The world's policeman can't police its own borders. The asylum law lets anyone setting foot on American soil ask for asylum. Court dates for asylum cases are, on average, more than four years out in the future, and even longer for final decisions. Over 3 million cases were pending before immigration courts near the end of 2023, with the backlog growing by 1 million since 2022.

3) The archaic electoral college has never been replaced by a direct popular vote for President. The result is that the winner of the popular vote has not been elected President. Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but Bush was elected President. The Florida Supreme Court sided with Gore, but Bush appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately voted 5 to 4 to reverse the Florida court’s decision and halt the recount. With Florida in hand, Bush won the Electoral College 271 to 266, while Gore ended up getting 500,000 more votes in the popular vote. As a result Gore's push for limits on global warming was lost as Bush promoted fossil fuels. Also Bush lied the US into a disastrous war in Iraq that resulted in Iraq becoming an ally of Iran.

4) 750 military bases in 80 countries are sitting ducks for an attack by Iran or its proxies. The largest U.S. base in the Middle East is located in Qatar, known as Al Udeid Air Base and built in 1996. Other countries where the U.S. has a presence include Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The US spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined. Three American service members were killed and dozens more were injured in an unmanned aerial drone attack on a base known as Tower 22 in Jordan on January 28, 2024. Now that the US is expecting an attack by Iran, which sitting duck will be next?

5) An insurrectionist with several dozen indictments is allowed to run for President. Last year, Donald Trump became the first former president of the United States to be criminally indicted. Over the span of five months, he was indicted in four separate criminal cases and charged on a total of 91 felony counts.

6) Futile wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush lied us into war in Iraq. Osama bin Laden eventually killed in Obama administration by small Seal team, proving futility of invading Afghanistan

7) Wealth inequality. The United States exhibits wider disparities of wealth between rich and poor than any other major developed nation. There are now more billionaires than ever: 2,781 in all, 141 more than last year and 26 more than the record set in 2021. They’re richer than ever, worth $14.2 trillion in aggregate, up by $2 trillion from 2023 and $1.1 trillion above the previous record, also set in 2021. 

8) Housing unaffordability. San Diego families need an income of nearly $275,000 a year to afford a mortgage on a home, which is nearly double what it was before the pandemic, according to a new report from the real estate website Zillow.

9) Homelessness is an intractable problem. On any given night in the United States, more than half a million people experience homelessness.

10) The filibuster rule and the bicameral legislature. Nothing much can get done unless one party controls both Houses of Congress and the Presidency. President Biden looks stupid since he can't even keep his commitments to NATO because the Republican controlled House won't vote the funds Biden has promised. This means Ukraine will lose the war with Russia, and other countries cannot trust the US to keep its commitments.

11) The Second Amendment. No other country allows the uncontrolled proliferation of guns. More Americans died of gun-related injuries in 2021 than in any other year on record, according to the latest available statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That included record numbers of both gun murders and gun suicides.

Off the Top of My Head

What Biden Has To Do To Win

by John Lawrence

The two biggest issues are the economy and the border. Biden has to address these two issues effectively if he hopes to win the election. The way to neutralize Trump's appeal on these issues is essentially to co-opt Trump's positions. On the economy, Biden must come out for tax breaks for the middles class. He has already been talking about taxing the rich. Good, but this does nothing for tax relief for the middle class unless he explicitly comes out and say so. Americans are at least subconsciously accustomed to the fact that, f they elect a Republican President, they will get a tax cut. Problem is Republican tax cuts go mainly to the rich as they did during Trump's administration when he added $7 trillion to the national debt with his tax cuts. The fact that Biden wants to tax the rich should enable him to responsibly give tax cuts to the middle class without adding to the debt. He needs to simplify his messaging to the bare essentials as Trump does without getting down into the policy weeds.

Secondly, on the border, Biden's position is not strong enough. This vaunted "bi-partisan legislation" that Trump doesn't want passed is not strong enough. The correct position is that the goal should be not one illegal entry over the US border. This is the position of most countries after all. The US is spending too much money on 750 military bases in 80 countries being the world's policeman yet it can't control its own border! This is the height of ridiculousness. I hasten to point out that with effective border control the laws regarding amnesty would not have to be changed. Immigrants could still apply for amnesty albeit through legal channels. The ridiculous situation that anyone who sets foot on American soil illegally can apply for amnesty will have been effectively curtailed. This presupposes that enormous resources in terms of infrastructure and manpower will have to be redirected to the border. Well, how about closing some of those foreign military bases and using that money to beef up the border? The goal should be not one illegal entry, rather than hiring more judges. The bill entails: "The bipartisan Senate bill would add more than 1,500 new Customs and Border Protection personnel. Asylum Officers and Asylum Reform: Similarly, Asylum Officer staffing has remained stagnant over the last four years and there is an insufficient number of asylum officers to do initial screenings." This bill presupposes that immigrants will continue to enter the US illegally. It's the wrong approach, it's too complicated, the American people will not understand it. Trump will make that clear. Trump will state his case simply and directly in a way that a 12 year old can understand which is about the mentality of a lot of the American people. Biden has to out Trump Trump on this issue, but do it in a responsible way. If the goal is "not one illegal entry," then that can be coupled with increasing LEGAL immigration.

Thirdly, Biden has to end the two wars: Ukraine and Gaza. He is letting Netanyahu run all over him making him look weak. He has to demand an end to that war and impose a two state solution if necessary. He dos not need to state a lot of ifs, buts, whereases and wherefores. Simply state his position and what he intends to accomplish with all the might of US prestige and power. Trump will state his positions as if they will be fait accomplis no matter how impractical or unlikely they actually are in reality. Biden has to get a lot tougher and use the withdrawal of US resources from Israel if necessary. He is treating Israel with kid gloves. He has to be more evenhanded in his support for Gaza and Palestine. In Ukraine, the handwriting is on the wall. Biden's cold war mentality set up this proxy war between the US and Russia. He has to demand a cease fire with the lines being drawn between the areas that Russia and Ukraine now control. To be specific Russia would control Crimea, which they've controlled since 2014 without a peep from the Obama administration, and the Donbas region while Ukraine controls the rest. A plebiscite could later determine the eventual fate of the boundaries between the two countries. If Biden doesn't do something about a cease fire in each of these  two wars, it could doom his Presidency for a second term. Americans are tired of these meaningless wars and the inability of the all powerful US, the world's policeman, to do anything about them.

In short Biden has to get tough. He needs to simplify his positions. It's not enough to criticize Trump as being too extreme. Obviously, the American people aren't buying it. He needs to finesse the main issues - economy, border and 2 wars - by saying that he will 1) give tax breaks to the middle class, 2) prevent even one illegal entry to the US and 3) end the 2 wars. If he does all three things, he will co-opt Trump on these issues and win the election. If he continues to advocate for the Senate border bill, let Netanyahu make a patsy out of him and call for taxing the rich without a concomitant tax break for the middle class, he will lose.

Off the Top of My Head

The World's Policeman Cannot Even Police Its Own Borders

by John Lawrence

The U.S. has about 750 military bases across 80 countries in the world and had deployed 173,000 troops in 159 different countries as of July 2021. Yet it can't patrol or defend its own borders. This is the height of ridiculousness. While Congress persons debate some Rube Goldberg solution to border security, the Biden administration should do this if it wants to neutralize Trump's stand on border security: the Democrat policy should be "not one illegal border crossing should be tolerated. We stand for increasing legal immigration while decreasing illegal immigration to ZERO." The US spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined, and yet is willing to tolerate people entering the country illegally. What a joke! If Biden wants to defeat Trump, he should take this issue away from him by declaring that his goal is: NOT ONE ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES.

This means that, instead of spending money on 750 military bases in 80 countries all over the world, the US needs to spend money instead on policing its own border including, but not limited to, physical barriers. In addition there must be electronic barriers, satellite surveillance, and other sophisticated means of surveillance. Why not use AI, the supposed cure all for everything that ails us. Why not put 10 or 100 of those military bases circling the world right on the US border? To be clear I am not advocating withdrawing from being involved in world affairs, but that involvement which is manifested in being the world's policeman has got to change. It has been of very little value if you add it all up. The US can effectively patrol the whole world anyway from the sky, from space and from the sea. It doesn't need land based military bases. The US should be involved in the world by expanding its Peace Corp, building infrastructure like China is with its Belt and Road Initiative and mitigating climate change in vulnerable countries. In other words the US should be a force for good in the world not just a force for preserving US interests or the status quo.

Three U.S. soldiers were killed on January 28, 2024 in Jordan, while more than 40 other service members were injured following an uncrewed aerial system attack at a military base near the Syrian border. Then of course the US has to retaliate to avenge the deaths of those soldiers. Soldiers on many of these bases are sitting ducks and are provocative to those seeking to damage US interests.Yet the role of the US as the world's policeman is not even debated by politicians and probably won't be as the election season heats up. Instead the border debate is a big deal as it should be. Biden needs to assert that his goal is that not one person should enter the US illegally, but that legal immigration should be expanded. He should outTrump Trump on border security if he wants to be elected, and, while he is at it, he should demand that at least 25% of the bloated military budget which amounts to about a trillion dollars a year be redirected to border security. There is no reason why the US should not have the most sophisticated border security system in the world.

Off the Top of My Head

Theatre of the Absurd: Trump and the US Legal System

by John Lawrence

The judge in the hush money case, Juan Merchan, placed a gag order on Trump barring him from commenting publicly about witnesses, prosecutors, court staff and jurors. Only thing is he didn't bar Trump from commenting publicly about himself or his family. Of course Trump commenced to doing just that. Trump said, “Judge Juan Merchan is totally compromised, and should be removed from this TRUMP Non-Case immediately. His Daughter, Loren, is a Rabid Trump Hater, who has admitted to having conversations with her father about me, and yet he gagged me.” So now Trump's lawyers want to litigate the gag order which Trump, theoretically, did not violate since the judge did not include himself and his daughter in it. It doesn't get more absurd than this. First of all how stupid is the judge not to include himself and his family and everybody else in the gag order? Trump's lawyers say that the judge is violating Trump's First Amendment rights. So now let's litigate that. Let's litigate the gag order, and, if it isn't decided in Trump's favor, his lawyers will appeal it to a higher court. And if that higher court doesn't rule in Trump's favor, they will appeal it to an even higher court. This whole strategy is aimed at befuddling and delaying any action that would finally find Trump guilty of anything. Trump is making a fool of the judge and his family, and will probably never pay any price for it.

In this Theatre of the Absurd, one might humbly ask why did it take three years for any of these dozens of indictments to result in a trial? Now they're up against the next election cycle. It didn't have to be this way. Why weren't these trials expedited in the first place? Why does it take forever to get anything done in the US legal system? This makes it pretty easy for Trump to delay, delay and delay. Why are these guys so negligent with respect to time and so tardy to get anything done? This makes a mockery of the legal system if nothing can get brought to fruition as long as some wealthy guy can hire a bunch of lawyers to delay the whole process. Ionesco had nothing on the US legal system. Neither did Kafka. Kafka's literary endeavors typically featured isolated protagonists facing bizarre or surrealistic predicaments and incomprehensible socio-bureaucratic powers. Sound familiar?

Not only is Trump making a mockery of the whole legal system, he is making a mockery of US capitalism as well. While Trump is slipping the surly bonds of the US legal system, he is laughing all the way to the bank with the help of Wall Street. How is it possible that, while pundits are salivating over whether Trump can pay his legal bills, all of a sudden his social media mouthpiece, Truth Social, is going public which could net Trump billions of dollars. So he may not have his First Amendment rights, but who cares as long as Trump can make billions of dollars by his rights in the capitalist system to have Wall Street do an IPO for him and get investors, many of whom are probably rich Trump supporters, to gleefully invest in something which will probably make him and them billionaires? So there is money in misinformation and disinformation and hate speech. What else is new and why is the US legal and financial system supporting it? After all First Amendment rights combined with capitalism can be a toxic stew which the American legal and financial system is only too happy to condone or at least condone while some pundits wring their hands decrying it. That's their First Amendment rights - to complain while Trump escapes punishment and laughs all the way to the bank. And he might get to be President too! Only in America.

Off the Top of My Head

Will the Antiquated Electoral College Finally Bite Us in the Butt in 2024

by John Lawrence

Doesn't everybody agree that the President should be elected by popular vote? In more than half (65) of the world’s 125 democracies, the head of state – nearly always called a president – is directly elected by voters. Thirty other democracies are classified as constitutional monarchies, and in the remaining 30, including the U.S., the head of state is indirectly elected. Shouldn't the American President also be elected by popular vote? But that's not the way we do it due to an antiquated, sclerotic and archaic electoral system that was implemented over 200 years ago before widespread, mass communications. In those days the fastest way that information could be communicated was by horse and buggy or just by horse. That system may be responsible for the upcoming worst disaster in American history in which the popular vote would have elected Joe Biden but in which the electoral vote elects Donald Trump. Every State is allocated a number of votes equal to the number of Senators and Representatives in its U.S. Congressional delegation—two votes for its Senators in the U.S. Senate plus a number of votes equal to the number of its Congressional districts. Most States have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electoral votes to the Presidential candidate who wins the State's popular vote. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.” So it comes down to an arbitrary game devised centuries ago which bears little if any resemblance to the result of a majority vote among American citizens. This is pretty bad for a country who champions democracy in the world.

The electoral college presages a race for President of the US which comes down to the outcomes in five battleground states. These states are Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The rest of the states are reliably either Republican or Democratic. One of the pitfalls of the electoral college is that minorities of voters are not counted in most states. The majority of voters in these states determines who gets all the electoral votes from that state. This totally skews the vote for President. If a majority of voters in those battleground states vote for Trump, Trump will be elected no matter the results of the popular vote taking into account the votes of people in other states. Of course the minority vote of people in all states is discounted. This is democracy? Let's not kid ourselves. This is a foolish game. There have been five United States presidential elections in which the successful presidential candidate did not receive a plurality of the popular vote. In these cases, the successful candidate secured less of the national popular vote than another candidate who received more votes, either a majority, more than half the vote, or a plurality of the vote. The two most recent elections in which this was true were the 2000 election, Bush v. Gore, and the 2016 election, Clinton v. Trump. These arguably were the two most disastrous elections in human history because Bush led us into two disastrous wars and away from preoccupation with climate change, Gore's strong suit. Also the election of Trump gave us arguably the worst President in American history.

The problem is that Trump is poised to win again this year based on the electoral college while losing the popular vote to Biden. You have to give it to Republicans - they know how to manipulate what can only be called at this point a corrupt electoral system. The sclerosis of America is that it can never come to terms with something that is wrong when it is enshrined in the Constitution and then go ahead and fix it. They are committed to playing the same old game out of veneration for tradition and the past.This year it may be the final straw for democracy in the US if Trump is elected but loses the popular vote. It is unconscionable to many that a man who has dozens of indictments against him including one of trying to overthrow American democracy can even be allowed to run for President, but that in and of itself may be the downfall of American democracy. The outcome of the 2024 Presidential race comes down to an antidemocratic game in which Trump may well triumph.

Off the Top of My Head

What I Didn't Hear in Biden's State of the Union Speech

by John Lawrence

President Biden went on and on about taxing the rich, but he didn't make the concomitant declaration of "middle class tax cuts." Those are the words I didn't hear - TAX CUTS. These are the code words that Joe Six Pack wants to hear. Joe Six Pack could care less about "child tax credits." While those are probably the most responsible words and the most responsible way to handle tax benefits for the middle class and the poor, those are not the words that the majority of uncommitted voters want to hear. Those are the code words. Republicans always promise tax cuts period. Of course most of those tax cuts always go to the rich as the Trump tax cuts did, but the Joe Six Packs of the world do not make that distinction. All they care about is that they will get their tax cut no matter how paltry. That's why Biden should promise not only taxing the rich but tax cuts for the middle class. Trump will promise tax cuts for everyone. Biden should make the easily understood distinction of tax increases for the rich - as Biden has repeatedly said, those making more than $400,000 a year - and tax cuts for everyone else. Whether or not this makes economic sense or the best use of the saved money, this is politically the best way to neutralize the only economic policy Republicans have.

While taxing the rich makes good red meat rhetoric, it doesn't register on or resound with the naive, unsophisticated average voter's mind the way tax cuts does, and we must assume that the majority of voters are naive and unsophisticated based upon the fact that polls indicate that the majority of voters favor voting for Trump at this point. Any American citizen who has any understanding of what President Biden has accomplished would almost certainly think that he deserves a second term. Even if he doesn't finish it, his administration will give a push for the continuation of his policies which are far more in the interests of the average American than are Trump's. If it's up to Kamala Harris to finish Biden's second term, Biden's policies will almost certainly prevail through out that term.

The policy of tax cuts for the middle class will go a long way towards guaranteeing that Biden will be elected for a second term. Certainly some of the money gained from taxing the rich could be used for tax cuts for the not so rich in addition to child tax credits. The other policy that President Biden should espouse has to do with the border. It's not enough to blame Republicans for the fact that recent bipartisan legislation that would supposedly "fix" the border has not been passed. Biden should just come out and say he wants the border to be fixed in such a way that no one will be able to come across the border illegally. Certainly this is possible for a country that has 800 military bases around the world and a trillion dollar a year military budget. It's almost ridiculous that the world's most powerful nation that purports to be the policeman of the world cannot even police its own border. Taking a much stronger position on the border - in particular the illegal crossing of the border - will take that issue away from Trump who will promise that under his administration not one illegal entry will be permitted. Let's get beyond the trivial issue of whether those crossing the border are "illegals" or "undocumenteds." It's not about descriptive words; it's about policies. Use the words that most Americans use, not those that are politically correct. Take a page out of Trump's book. Biden's words should be much stronger on this issue. This is what the American people want, and Biden should take this issue away from Trump.

In summary, Biden needs to be much stronger on these two issues - tax cuts and illegal border crossings - taking these issues which are the only issues Trump has, away from him. Whether or not Biden or Trump can get anything passed in Congress on these two issues depends on whether or not either President ends up with a Congress, both Houses of which are composed of their own respective parties. No President has complete control of what gets passed by Congress. The average voter, however, thinks these issues are entirely in the President's hands. No one know this better than Joe Biden. However, when running for President, a person can promise anything and can fight for it if elected. Biden needs a second term if for no other reason than to deny Trump a second term which might presage the end of democracy in America.

Off the Top of My Head

Joe Biden Gave a Fiery State of the Union Speech

by John Lawrence

Right out of the gate Joe Biden's voice was clear and strong. Nothing mealy mouthed here. I'm sure he had been practicing his enunciation and articulation. It helped that the volume on the microphone had been turned up. That strong, loud voice reassured me and others that Joe Biden was not too old for the job. It helped too that he could overpower his hecklers. It made me a little nervous when he started to cough. Oh no, I thought, what if he has a coughing fit! But he held it together and his voice didn't waver towards the end as I might have feared.

Now as for the speech itself. Overall it was good, but one thing he and his speechwriters should have taken more seriously is that less is more. He tried to cram in too many details which probably went right over the heads of the people he most needs to persuade. For instance, the fact that Medicare can now negotiate for prescription drugs does save the taxpayers money, but it takes a real wonk to appreciate that point. All most Americans care about is does it save them money when they go to buy drugs at the pharmacy. Joe tried to rush through a lot of details that would have better left out of the speech. He was most effective when he slowed down and made a major point and an applause line.  I think it was lost on most viewers especially the non-wonks that Joe Biden needs to persuade that he wants to extend the fact that Medicare can now negotiate drug prices to the negotiation of drug prices for everyone including those who are not on Medicare. These are big points, but the average American probably did not appreciate them. Again less is more. The part about shinkflation and capping credit card late fees at $8. was right on. This is the stuff most Americans can relate to - their petty pocket book issues.

I was happy that he went on about taxing billionaires and the wealthy and about how much money this would bring into the Treasury, but I wanted him to go further and say that he would use some of this money to give the middle class a tax break. The Republicans and especially Trump's big selling point is that he will give everyone a tax break! His base thinks that's great even though most of those tax breaks will go - like they have in the past - to the wealthy. Trump's base doesn't care as long as they get a paltry by comparison tax break. Biden should have taken that issue away from Republicans by emphasizing that, while he would tax the rich, he would give tax breaks to the middle class. He lost that opportunity by emphasizing how rich the Treasury would get by his taxing the rich. Who cares?

Finally, Biden was on top of his hecklers, the leader of whom was Marjorie Taylor Green. Biden should thank her for the opportunity to show he could fight back and take it to her. The hecklers were a godsend for Biden. I'm sure he was prepared. Now some Republicans are saying that Biden didn't respect decorum enough. Phooey! How much decorum does Trump respect? Zero. He calls people names. He breaks every rule of decorum in the books. Politics today is not what it was 50 years ago, even 10 years ago thanks mainly to Trump who has broken every rule in the book. I'm so glad that Biden was up to the situation and gave as good as he got thereby defeating the purpose of Marjorie Taylor Green which was to bully him and show he was weak. Biden took it to her, thank God.

Off the Top of My Head

The Bipartisan Senate Border Legislation is Not Sufficient Even if Passed

by John Lawrence

Simply put it doesn't go far enough, and I'm a Democrat and a supporter of President Biden. I've written previously that Biden should go full Trump at the border. This vaunted Senate bill, that Trump doesn't want the House to take up and implement, is a step in the right direction. However, it doesn't address the fact that it doesn't really secure the border. It deals with what to do after people enter the country illegally and getting them processed more quickly. It has a provision that the border can be shut down after the number of illegal entries reaches 5000 people a week. Really? The goal should be zero illegal border crossings. In order to do that, security at the border needs to be stepped up. Although a border wall has become a political football, a wall in and of itself is necessary but not sufficient. There should be no place where someone can just walk across the border. There is already a wall along much of the border. It needs to be strengthened, but, more importantly, it needs to be augmented by electronic means including satellite surveillance. The national guard needs to be deployed because the border patrol does not have sufficient manpower to deal with the situation there. More manpower along the border is of utmost importance.

Here's an alternative. People seeking asylum should be required to apply with an app on their phone while remaining in Mexico or another country or to apply at a legal port of entry. People entering the country illegally should not be tolerated. Anyone entering illegally should be instructed to apply for asylum through the app or at a port of entry and immediately deported or at least denied entry onto American soil. They shouldn't be allowed to remain in the US until their case is heard. In fact their cases could be heard while they wait in a third country, not in the US. The point is that illegally entering the country and applying for asylum shouldn't be tolerated. The Senate bill allocates a lot of money for more judges and more ways to speed up asylum hearings so that cases can be decided in 6 months rather than 6 years as is the present case. This is an improvement over the present situation but not good enough. More money needs to be spent on securing the border itself rather than in processing people who have entered having crossed the border illegally. It's a question of how to best spend money to resolve the situation, Rather than spending more money processing people who have entered illegally, border security should be beefed up making it very difficult if not impossible for people to enter illegally in the first place.

Stepping up border security dos not prevent people from applying for asylum, and, therefore, does not violate the asylum law. It just channels potential asylum seekers to apply for asylum in a manner other than crossing the border illegally and then asking for asylum. Now Trump would just deport everyone crossing the border illegally and the hell with the asylum law. He just would give them no path to entry. However, when someone from abroad applies for asylum, they are not guaranteed that, even if they do qualify and are successful, they will necessarily wind up in the US. So right now what is important is border security in and of itself. All the other talk about a pathway to citizenship and all the other aspects of immigration and naturalization that Democrats want to throw into the mix, those things, while important, are not of paramount importance right now. Border security is. In that respect the Senate bill was apropos. On the other hand legal immigration is important. Most Americans are for legal immigration and so am I. However, it needs to be in an orderly process, not the chaotic situation of people crossing into the US because of a porous border. No other country would tolerate it and neither should the US.

Off the Top of My Head

Democracy and Fanaticism Cannot Coexist

by John Lawrence

Democracy presupposes that rational actors with different interests can peacefully resolve their differences by means of some rules based system which includes, for example, voting. The rule of law represents the congealed rationality of bygone days. However, when major actors in a political system are irrational and when their followers become fanatics, democracy is probably imperiled. Today we have one of the candidates for the highest office in the land who is irrational and his followers are fanatically devoted to him. It's hard to conceive why any rational society much less a democracy would let someone who arguably tried to overthrow that democracy run again for the highest office in the land. Take Richard Nixon for example. What if after he resigned he had decided to run for President in the next election cycle? Unthinkable, you say. Maybe so, but Richard Nixon's offenses were minuscule compared to Trump's. It seems that nothing in the American Constitution or rule of law is preventing someone who tried to overthrow that Constitution from taking power again. It should be cut and dried as the situation evidently was in Richard Nixon's case. Nixon was the only President who resigned from the Presidency, but nothing in the Constitution would have prevented him from running again. Why didn't he?

The leaders of autocratic societies are laughing up their sleeves at this American dilemma. Are Americans so tolerant of free speech that they entertain not only the speech but the candidacy of a person who tried to overthrow the Constitution of that society? Any society can be measured on a scale the end points of which are total freedom and total stability. Some societies, notably more autocratic ones, value stability more than freedom. Others value freedom more than stability. Obviously the US belongs to the latter variety. However, there is a point at which too much freedom threatens the viability of that society itself. Has the US gone beyond that point? Arguably, yes, when its allies cannot even rely on the President's word and policies involving war and peace. President Biden has committed himself to supporting the Ukrainians in their war with Russia. America's allies in Europe are all on the same page with this policy. Who's not? The American House of Representatives who must vote on the expenditure of money for this cause. Obviously, Biden looks weak if he cannot even deliver what he has promised as the leader of the Free World. European democracies are looking askance.

Other societies have no such problems. For example, the Chinese society values stability much more than they value freedom. It would be very unlikely that the Chinese would countermand a policy expounded by Xi Jinping. President Biden is in the position that a carefully thought out policy involving the preservation of democracy in Ukraine is being countermanded by a man who not only tried to overthrow democracy in the US, but is running for President again and is telling Congress not to vote the money for the continuance of Biden's policy in Ukraine. It's the tail wagging the dog. Despite 91 criminal indictments, the US system is so free that it cannot prevent this from happening. It goes to show that the American Presidency is weaker than the Presidencies of almost every European country. At least in Europe, for the most part, their societies are going along with supporting Ukraine financially. They also in the past looked up to the American President for leadership. Now they are finding that hard to do.

Trump has broke all the rules and created a followership of cult like fanatics who relish this fact. Trump and his followers are not rational actors willing to resolve their differences with the rest of the American population in a civilized manner following the traditional rule of law. Despite the fact that Biden has done more for the US than very few other Presidents, Trump is ahead in the polls to become the next President of the US. Rational actors and their followers should have favored a President in his reelection bid over a person who attempted to overthrow the American Constitution, but they're not. Hence, a good percentage of Americans are not rational actors to whom the rules of law of a 235 old Republic mean nothing. American politics has become a politics of fanaticism and American freedom is tolerating it. Too much freedom and too little stability in a political system does not bode well for the long range viability of that system. In addition the upcoming election for President will come down to very narrow margins in a handful of battleground states. Has the archaic American system finally hamstrung itself to the extent that the popular vote will mean nothing  ... again?

Off the Top of My Head

There's Never Enough Money for Peace; There's Always Money for War ... Until There Wasn't

by John Lawrence

President Biden wants $106 billion for wars in Ukraine and Israel and to strengthen the border after spending $112 billion on war in Ukraine alone since 2022. Of this $61.4 billion would be for the war in Ukraine. Biden thinks it's outrageous that the American Congress won't just fork over the money to continue this war. While he thinks it's unconscionable that the Republican House won't fork over the money, it's completely conscionable that they should fight tooth and nail over any money allocated for peace in the world. After all we're the United States of America. We can't just go back on our - or is it Biden's - word about war. We can be wishy washy about peace or about helping people either inside or outside the US, but a President's word must be Golden about war. After all democracy is at stake ... or is it? Well, in a democracy, it's possible, although unlikely, that money won't be voted for war. After all, Biden is not an autocrat. He just can't continue a war if Congress doesn't vote the money for it.

One phrase unlikely to be heard regarding the war in Ukraine is "sphere of influence." Why? Because it's taken for granted that a large country's sphere of influence extends outward over smaller, surrounding countries. Take the US for example. The US' sphere of influence extends over the whole western hemisphere. When a socialist leader was chosen in Argentina in a democratic election, the US undermined his regime. Salvadore Allende was elected President of Argentina in 1970, He had pledged to nationalize the mostly U.S.-owned copper companies, a large industry in Chile. Allende threatened US interests in Argentina, and this would not be tolerated, democratic election or not. The U.S. spent $8 million on covert actions between 1970 and the 1973 coup which ushered in the repressive Pinochet regime, according to a 1975 Senate report. So the US is all for democracy until its interests are threatened. In fact there is a long history of US intervention in Latin America. But according to western thinking, Russia, a super power with nuclear weapons, should have a sphere of interest of zero.

The United States participated, directly or indirectly, in Latin American regime change more than 40 times in the last century, according to historian John Coatsworth. That figure doesn't include a number of failed missions like the 1961 Bay of Pigs assault in Cuba. Some of the more stinging U.S. moves included the ouster of democratically elected governments in Guatemala in 1954, in Brazil a decade later and in Chile in 1973. If the US' sphere of influence includes all of Latin America, one might consider or even be as bold as to ask the question, what is Russia's sphere of influence? Would it include a country on its border that arguably had once been a part of Russia? Most of Ukraine fell to the Russian Empire under the reign of Catherine the Great; the Crimean Khanate was annexed by Russia in 1783, following the Emigration of Christians from Crimea in 1778, and in 1793 right-bank Ukraine was annexed by Russia in the Second Partition of Poland. So much for history.

The question must also be asked does the fate of Ukraine in the current war affect one way or another US interests? What are US interests in Ukraine? According to Joe Biden it's all about the idea that any country should be free to join NATO if it so desires. Is this something that the US should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars to achieve? Might the money be spent in some other way that might better promote peace in the world? Russia obviously considers Ukraine to be in its "sphere of influence." The architecture of the war as designed by Joe Biden is that the US would supply weaponry to Ukraine to fight a defensive war to push Russia out of its territory. At the same time the war was not meant to expand to a larger conflagration that would imperil a world war. The consequence of that is that all the dying and property destruction would be by Ukrainians and in Ukraine. This is a formula for disaster if the war should become a war of attrition which it has. A whole generation of Ukrainian men mostly are being wiped out. Of course a lot of Russians are dying too, but property destruction is taking place mainly in Ukraine.

Joe Biden has personalized the war in Ukraine as a vendetta between himself and Vladimir Putin. This does not bode well for a future peace settlement, and a peace settlement must come at some point or Ukraine will essentially be destroyed by an ongoing war of attrition. Ukraine obviously wants to expand the war to Russian territory with the help of more advanced US weaponry, something that Biden has resisted giving to them because he wants the war contained within Ukrainian territory. He doesn't want an expanded war which could develop into a World War. This is to his credit, but it leaves Ukraine in the position of being totally dependent on US weaponry, and, since the US is a democracy and not an autocracy, ironically if the House of Representatives will not allocate the money for the continuance of the war in Ukraine, Ukraine will lose the war. Is there any kind of back channel communication going on about a peace settlement?

At this point a good hard look should be taken at trying to have a peace settlement of the war in Ukraine. The alternative is either a war of attrition which will grind Ukraine down to the point that, whether or not it becomes a member of NATO, it will be a defeated nation. Or Ukraine could lose even more territory to Russia if the war grinds on especially if it grinds on without advanced US weaponry. It has become a proxy war of the US with Russia and a personalized vendetta between Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin. This dos not bode well for the future of a peaceful world which needs to cooperate in the war that really needs to be fought - a war which threatens the whole human and animal world - the war against climate change. For that war all nations including the US and its erstwhile enemies - Russia, China, Iran and North Korea - need to cooperate. The whole human race needs to be on the same page. But if history is any guide, the human race much prefers the drama of war than it does the quotidian banality of peace.

Off the Top of My Head

Biden Needs to Step Down But Not Because of His Age

by John Lawrence

In a nutshell his ego is too involved in the Ukraine war, and his stance on the Israel-Hamas war is ineffective and feckless. Trump is about to hand Biden a defeat, not at the ballot box, but by virtue of his control over the House of Representatives. The House will do what Trump tells them to do, and what he is telling Speaker Mike Johnson is to not hold a vote on military aid to Ukraine which is something Biden so desperately wants. So it's easy to see why Trump would use his influence over the House to hand Biden a major defeat here just like he handed Biden a defeat over solution of the border issue. So where would that leave Biden who has set this major US policy in motion? The flaw (or fly if you prefer) in Biden's ointment is that he has never given even lip service to a negotiated settlement of the war in Ukraine. A peaceful solution would be a loss to Biden since his ego is so entrenched in the idea of Ukraine winning that war with the help of US weaponry. Biden also has a deep vendetta against Vladimir Putin. It's personal with Biden although I at least have not seen any demonization aimed by Putin at Biden. So Biden has a dilemma. He cannot tolerate the idea that he will not be able to sell Ukraine weapons which just means a transfer of funds from US taxpayers to US weapon makers ^i.e. the US military-industrial complex, with Ukraine the beneficiary of the actual hardware. Some pundits have gone as far as to urge Americans to support the war on the grounds that it benefits American GDP!

As far as the Israel-Hamas war is concerned, Biden doesn't seem capable of tamping down Netanyahu's hawkish determination to do "whatever the hell he wants," to quote another actor, in Gaza. Netanyahu is playing Biden for a sucker. Biden's unmitigated support for Israel is falling on Netanyahu's deaf ears making him oblivious to Biden's entreaties to go slow in Gaza. In short Biden has no control over Netanyahu, and the IDF is certainly committing their share of atrocities there mainly on women and children. Revenge is no justification. Instead of one horrific and unjustified act, namely, the October 7 attack on Israel, we are treated to two horrific and and one partially justified act, namely Israel's war on Gaza. In his book, The End of Race Politics, Coleman Hughes writes, "[Ibram X.] Kendi explicitly endorses the logic of taking an eye for an eye. He supposes that the way to remedy a harm is by imposing an equal and opposite harm - that the way to remedy one kind of injustice is by replacing it with another kind of injustice. If I strike you, you strike me; if I steal from you, you steal from me; if I kill your child, you kill mine.

"Human history shows us how wrongheaded the neoracist [substitute war mongering] conception of justice is. It shows us that taking an eye for an eye doesn't stop injustice; it instead participates in it. It creates new injustices in a misguided effort to remedy the old ones. It then demands that those new injustices be remedied by yet newer injustices in the future. The neoracist [substitute war mongering] logic of retaliation will lead inevitably to a cycle of wrongful discrimination that never ends."

Netanyahi is strictly an "eye for an eye" kind of guy. Although Coleman Hughes is writing about racism, the same logic applies to war. Biden does not seem amenable to this logic. He is stuck in a wishy washy stance that says, yes Israel has a right to respond to the Hamas attack by devastating Gaza, but Israel should use restraint so that it doesn't do any more harm than is necessary [whatever that is]. Netanyahu makes no bones about the fact that he wants to wipe Hamas [and Gaza] off the map, and Biden seems incapable of restraining him all the time giving him more money. If I fight with my neighbor and say to my father, "Hey Dad, I need you to give me more money, so I can more effectively fight my neighbor," and my Dad says, "Well, here's the money son, but don't harm your neighbor too much," what is going on here? The son is controlling the father, not vice versa, and Netanyahu is controlling Biden. This is not a good position for the President of the United States to be in.

We need a fresh approach to the US' role in both of these wars. Biden is too entrenched in Old Thinking. His ego is too involved. Therefore, he should step down and allow other leadership to step forward who, hopefully, can have a more enlightened and creative approach to the solution of the problems created by these two wars. Both of these wars are stalemates in a sense. Both of them perpetuate the cycle of violence. Both of them do nothing to prevent an ongoing loss of innocent life as well as non innocent life as if there were such a thing. Where are the peacemakers? Blessed are the peacemakers. We are stuck in the Old Testament when what is needed is New Testament thinking. Biden should stop while he's ahead. Think of the example of Lyndon Johnson who was a President who did a lot of good before he was brought down by his quotidian involvement in war. Biden has done much good for the economy, but it is time to hang up his old thinking about war. We need new leadership; we need a new approach; we need new thinking. We need those who think, "How do we create peace, not how do we win this war."

Off the Top of My Head

Advocating For Public Housing as a Solution to Homelessness

by John Lawrence

Simple Fact: As housing prices rise, rents increase and more people are forced out onto the streets. In a market economy, whether a person is housed or not has nothing to do with human needs. It has everything to do with how much people are willing and able to pay for housing. Recent history has shown that there are few if any alternatives for those at the bottom of the economic scale. Market rate housing will never be able to accommodate them. Every day more people all over the country fall into homelessness. Section 8 is a joke. Landlords can always raise rates, section 8 or not, and people must wait for years even to obtain it. Affordable housing is a joke as is mixed economic level development. As long as housing is a totally private part of the economy, some people will inevitably be left homeless. So what is the solution? In lieu of an economic right to housing, government provided and owned public housing must take up the slack for those who can't afford market rate housing or market rate rents. Past history of public housing is not auspicious. That's why a new approach needs to be tried. It seems to me that a mixed level development in which some units are government owned and, therefore, rent controlled outside the market and some units are private market rate development might make sense. That way you wouldn't just have a development consisting of all poor people. There would be people there at all economic levels and also hopefully ethnically diverse.

The problem with prior public housing developments is that they turned into ghettos consisting of people almost exclusively on the bottom rung of the economic ladder and usually consisting of people of one particular ethnicity, usually black. They were poorly maintained and degenerated into crime infested and unhealthy pits. So the problem is how to provide non-market rate housing for people who can't pay for market rate housing in such a way that it doesn't degenerate into a ghetto. It can't be private development because private development without rent controls will always inevitably price people out of affordability. So it must be government owned so that it can be priced outside the market and in many cases be free. In order that it not become a ghetto consisting exclusively of those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder, it must be mixed in terms of different rents and different ownership levels, also different sizes and amenities. For instance, some units in a mixed level building could be privately owned and priced at market rates and other units in the same building could be government owned and priced at a level that people on the lowest rung of the economic ladder could afford. For instance, some units might be one bedroom, others could be 4 bedrooms.

Homelessness cannot be solved with market rate or even privately owned "affordable" housing. Privately owned housing will inevitably seek ownership by those who want to profit from their ownership either by charging market rate rents or by selling the property at market rates. Government owned or public housing can be subsidized in such a way that everyone, who otherwise would be homeless, can be housed precisely because they need not be priced at market rates. Rent or ownership can be determined outside the market and units that are government owned can be interspersed with units that are privately owned in the same development in order to insure economic and ethnic diversity. Additionally, the government owned units must be well maintained at government expense. Poor people will never properly maintain housing units because maintenance is a luxury compared with the necessities of life such as food. Proper maintenance helps to insure that a development will not degenerate into a ghetto.

Off the Top of My Head

Biden Needs to Bring These Two Wars to an End

by John Lawrence

Whether Biden wins or loses the next election, he still has a chance to bring two wars to an end. This will not only benefit the world situation, it will enhance his chances for reelection. First the war in Ukraine has ground to a stalemate, a war of attrition. This is not salubrious or propitious. The human race can ill afford the kind of enmity that war and the killing of innocents portends. The human race has to be most concerned about climate change, adaptation and mitigation. Instead, we are frittering away our chances to prevent a catastrophic outcome. But for Biden and others peace is not on the agenda, winning is. Taking sides in which we are the good guys and the other side are the bad guys is not helping the situation. Demonizing the heads of government in countries and creating enemies out of them is not productive for combating our common enemy  - climate change - nor is it productive for creating world peace. Is world peace even a consideration here? We all have to get along; the world is too small a place. Notwithstanding the war in Ukraine, Russia is a petrochemical producer which is contributing to climate change. We must get away from the production and usage of fossil fuels. Warring countries have no incentive to do that. Only cooperation among major countries has a chance at tamping down the production of fossil fuels.

Biden needs to create a peace conference, a peace initiative, for finding a compromise and solution to the war in Ukraine. Instead he wants to keep pouring money and weapons down the drain to support a war of attrition. This is totally a Cold War mentality with regard to Russia. Instead, there needs to be peace and compromise in that part of the world. Russia seems at least to be amenable to that. So should Ukraine be, but Ukraine will never be amenable to peace as long as the US keeps pouring money and weapons into it. Instead the war will only expand as attacks are starting to take place in a wider arena, something Biden did not contemplate at the outset. Instead of pouring gas on the fires of war, Biden needs to take a different attitude, an attitude of peace and reconciliation. He needs to get his dander down, and instead of insisting on winning, insist instead on creating peace in the world. Use the might of the US military to enforce the peace instead of promoting the war. The US military could be used to enforce the peace instead of winning the war.

The war in Gaza also needs to be brought to an end. Netanyahu is playing Biden for a sucker. Israel is the recipient of billions of dollars from the US. That gives Biden the right not just to suggest a solution, but to insist on a solution. The solution, which most knowledgeable people agree on, is the two state solution. So lets get on with creating it! Instead Biden is an enabler for Israel's war to turn Gaza into a refugee camp. This accomplishes nothing. Biden needs to take Netanyahu and Israel down a peg or two. The Palestinians have every right to a decent and peaceful life as do the Israelis. This needs to be created, and it can't be created as long as Netanyahu has a free hand to continue the war. Revenge is no solution; the two state solution is. Let's get on with it. It has to be an all out effort, one in which Israel cannot be allowed to have the controlling hand or the last word. On the world stage Israel and Ukraine are after all only bit players. Instead they are consuming the world's attention and resources when peaceful solutions of these two wars are not impossible to figure out. It's only hubris which is preventing those peaceful solutions from being manifested and implemented. The principals at least should be trying.

The prevailing mentality of us versus them is self defeating. It's a luxury which the world at large can no longer afford. We are destroying resources and innocent lives when we need to be pulling together to combat our common enemy - climate change. There are enough refugees in the world. There are too many children growing up without the resources necessary for happy and productive lives. Instead they will be candidates for future resentments and hatreds of those responsible for their predicaments. It is a vicious circle. Retribution, resentment and revenge is being created in the younger generation as we speak because war, hatred and recrimination is being allowed to continue. The world's collective foot must be brought down against the continuation of these two wars. Instead each side seems to think that, since they are in the right, the wars must continue. Their hubris and egotism must prevail over the other side's hubris and egotism. They are too dug in. Outsiders must discourage this. Instead the US and the west is encouraging it or at least taking a hands off attitude. They are saying in effect "you guys solve the problem," but they never will as long as each side insists on winning and not compromising.The protagonists of war must not be given a hands off attitude by the noncombatants. Instead, they must be reigned in in such a way that those who are not obsessed with retribution have the last word.

Off the Top of My Head

It's Time for a Cease Fire in Ukraine

by John Lawrence

Biden should snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in Ukraine by calling for a cease fire and a peace process. It doesn't look like he's going to get Congress to allocate the money that Ukraine needs to continue the war which has degenerated into a grinding war of attrition. The lines seem to have been drawn mainly as they existed in 2014 when Russia took over Crimea and large portions of the Donbas, a process which Obama didn't raise a hue and a cry about. Biden, on the other hand, has burnished his Cold War credentials and got his ego involved in expressing outrage over what Obama considered a fait accompli. Meanwhile, people are being killed and real estate is being destroyed mainly in Ukraine. Those seemed to be the ground rules which Biden predetermined: (1) the fighting would take place only in Ukraine, not in Russia and (2) American weapons but no American boots on the ground or in the air would be used. The war was supposed to be a defensive war in which Russia was to be pushed out of Ukraine which would maintain the territorial integrity of Ukraine. It seems that this objective can no longer be obtained in light of the fact that the US Congress is vaccilating over sending more money to Ukraine so it can continue a pointless war of attrition. There must be a better way. Yes, there is and that is to envision a peace process as an alternative to more killing and real estate asset destruction.

What would a peace deal in Ukraine look like? Writing in the New York Times, Julian E. Barnes said this on February 4, 2024:

Last year’s Ukrainian counteroffensive was a failure. Russia’s defenses in the territory it has captured look impenetrable. Republicans in Washington are blocking further Ukraine aid. President Volodymyr Zelensky is on the precipice of firing his top general — who may well become his chief political rival.

It’s a difficult moment for Ukraine. And another year of frontal assaults on the trench lines could make 2024 look like 1916, a year in World War I that brought harrowing loss of life but few battlefield gains.

...

But the situation is grim. The country has lost nearly one-fifth of its territory. In 2014, Russia took Crimea and orchestrated a separatist rebellion in parts of the Donbas. It grabbed the rest since the current phase of the war began in 2022.

Ukraine has lost a generation of young men — killed and wounded — to the war. It is also running out of ammunition, supplies and equipment. While Europe just approved $54 billion in economic assistance, it is American money that delivers Kyiv’s military might. But most House Republicans now oppose further Ukraine aid. And even pro-Ukraine Republicans are asking Biden administration officials what strategy can break the current battlefield stalemate. Meanwhile, the funding is ensnared in a border policy debate.

If Ukraine can’t get what it needs to beat Russia, what kind of deal could it make?

The author goes on to say

Vladimir Putin may accept a peace deal that gives him the territory he occupies now and that forces Ukraine to stay neutral, halting its integration with Europe. Ukrainians call this bargain a capitulation. But without additional American aid, they may be forced to take it.

A better deal for Ukraine would give it back at least some of its land, plus a promise that the United States and Europe would help defend it against Russia. Perhaps then Putin would think twice about further attacks. In this scenario, Ukraine might not join NATO or the European Union immediately, the prospect of which helped drive Russia’s invasion in the first place.

So with the prospect that Biden will not be able to successfully prosecute a proxy war in Ukraine against Vladimir Putin and the fact that the American people have either lost interest or don't want to fund this war any longer, he might better initiate a peace process there instead of continuing a futile, bellicose operation just as America is about to vote in November on whether Biden should get another four years. The continuation of the war in Ukraine does not enhance his prospects. More money for military operations in Ukraine might be better spent in rebuilding Ukraine after a cease fire has taken effect. A peaceful settlement might recognize the lines of control where the front lines exist now. Down the line a plebiscite could determine which side should control the disputed territory. Russian is the most common first language in the Donbas and Crimea regions of Ukraine and the city of Kharkiv, and the predominant language in large cities in the eastern and southern portions of the country. People in this area might prefer to be aligned with Russia rather than Ukraine. If so, it makes sense to stop the fighting, institute a cease fire and start a more orderly and civil process to determine the future of this part of the world. One less war in the world is always a good thing. The principals need to get their egos and recriminations out of the way first before this can happen.

Off the Top of My Head

Netanyahu is Playing Biden for a Sucker

by John Lawrence

It's clear that Netanyahu doesn't condone the two state solution which Biden favors. Despite Netanyahu's intransigence, Biden and the US keep on giving Israel, one of the most prosperous countries in the world, more money. While the US has given Israel around $4 billion annually, it has given a relative pittance of $500 million annually to the impoverished Palestinian people. Most knowledgeable people think that a two state solution is the only way to resolve not only the crisis in Israel and Palestine, but in the larger Middle East as well. However, Biden is not demanding that Netanyahu accede to the two state solution. Why not? Why does the US keep giving billions of dollars to Israel when Israel is belligerent and intransigent about a rational solution to the problems between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Instead, an intractable problem remains, one which is guaranteed to provide additional conflict and bloodshed in perpetuity. I have written before that the US and the UN should impose a two state solution on Israel and Palestine. Indulging Israel only means that the conflict in the Middle East will never end. The additional issue is that the US has some 30 military bases in the Middle East. The people on these bases are sitting ducks to be picked off by militias operating in those areas as we saw recently when 3 US soldiers were killed at Tower 22 in Iraq. Why are these bases still there? Iraq doesn't want them there. Syria doesn't want them there. They are just contributing to the enmity that exists between some countries, mainly Shiite countries, and the US. Bin Laden's big beef with the US was the presence of US military bases in Saudi Arabia and Somalia. He sought to drive US personnel out of these areas by force. When that didn't work, he began formulating plans to attack the West with an evolving, deadly new brand of jihad. We all know what that led to. Clearly US military bases in the area are a major irritant to Shiite countries such as Iran, Iraq and Syria. And it is cooling what had seemed to be promising developments with the Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

I wrote previously:

The Two State Solution Must Be Created, Implemented and Enforced ... Now.

We know what a Two State solution would look like. Even all the details have been worked out. It's just that Israel and the Palestinians won't agree to it. Therefore, it must be imposed on them ... both. They should not be free to continue their mutual madness forever. What a bizarre notion of "freedom:" this portends. Why, sir, your freedom includes a right to hate and attack your neighbor in perpetuity. Free and sovereign states should not be impeded from protecting themselves even if in the long run they are not protecting themselves but just involving themselves in endless rounds of attacks and counter attacks. The world's most powerful nation just stands back and says in effect "we don't want to impose ourselves on your freedom and sovereignty. You have a sovereign right to go on with endless rounds of revenge, hatred and war."

UN peacekeepers should separate the two sides and impose peace on Israel and Palestine by imposing a two state solution backed by the power of the US. The world should say to them, "Enough." You guys are totally incapable of solving your problems, and, left to your own devices, you will go on killing each other indefinitely. By virtue of your incompetence at creating peace among yourselves, you have both lost your right to come up with a workable solution, and, therefore, one must be imposed on you, like it or not. You have both lost your right to be completely free and sovereign nations. You are both making the world a worse place. Therefore, the world community has lost its patience and tolerance for your local squabbles which are forcing the whole world to stop what it is doing and deal with your seemingly overwhelming problems. We'd like to get on with solving the problem of climate change instead of devoting our attention to interminably, intermittent wars.

World leaders seem to be more adept on giving military advice rather than advice on creating peace in the world. They are just moving pieces around on a chess board devoid of any consideration of how many people will be killed or maimed in the process. For them war is a rational game. The peace makers can't seem to make a rational game out of the steps necessary to create peace in the world. It's not in their play book. So millions of innocents have to suffer because one side is right and the other side is wrong or vice versa. Where are the leaders willing to take a chance on peace?

Off the Top of My Head

Biden Should Run on Tax Cuts for Middle Class

by John Lawrence

There are only two issues Republicans have: the border and tax cuts. The American people are expecting a tax cut if a Republican is elected to the Oval Office. That's the reason they are complaining about the economy. The American people have gotten a lot of good economic stuff out of the Biden administration. Now they want their tax cuts. Every Republican administration in recent history has promised tax cuts. Biden should steal that thunder and run on tax cuts for the middle class and tax increases for the very wealthy. He started sounding this note during the last election cycle. He needs to reemphasize this medley. Biden needs to take these issues away from Republicans. I wrote previously about the fact that Biden should go full Trump on the border issue. It's ridiculous that the US has 750 military bases around the world, and seeks to control every other country's borders but can't control its own. A majority of these bases are equipped with modern military equipment and airfields. According to a report, the U.S. had about 750 military bases across 80 countries in the world and had deployed 173,000 troops in 159 different countries as of July 2021.

Let's review the Biden record on the economy which is truly epic. Biden has added 14 million jobs in less than three years, bringing the Black unemployment rate to a record low and reducing student loan debt by billions. That's for starters. The astoundingly strong labor market is arguably the White House’s biggest victory. In some ways, the bump was inevitable — Biden took office at a time when millions were still out of work because of the pandemic. Even so, the rapid job gains in recent years have blown past economists’ expectations and have fueled the economy’s blockbuster growth. To date, the White House has canceled some $132 billion in student loan debt for more than 3.6 million Americans. It has also increased federal Pell Grants to low- and middle-income students, allowing them to take on less debt. As a result, outstanding student loan balances have been falling for six months. 

The American Rescue Plan passed in March 2021, injected a $1.9 trillion stimulus into the U.S. economy. It included financial safety nets like payments of $1,400 to households earning up to $75,000, extended unemployment benefits, and an expansion to the child tax credit. Collectively that cut overall poverty by 44%, according to the Brookings Institution, and lifted Americans’ financial health to new heights. Biden’s $1 trillion Infrastructure and Jobs Act was the next major spending package to win congressional approval in November 2021. It fulfilled the president’s campaign-trail promise to refurbish the country’s roads and bridges, while expanding access to clean water and broadband internet. It will support an additional 600,000 new jobs by the end of next year and 800,000 jobs in 2025, according to Moody’s Analytics.

 

The passage of the so-called “Chips and Science” plan allowed Biden to cement an industrial-policy legacy and fulfill a bipartisan desire to rely less on China’s semiconductor industry. More than 460 companies have shown interest in its $53 billion of research and production subsidies, the Commerce Department said last month. And the relationship between public and private investment is something to brag about. Micron Technology’s (MU.O), opens new tab $100 billion outlay for a New York chip factory is expected to create nearly 50,000 jobs in the state. Intel’s (INTC.O), opens new tab $20 billion expansion in Arizona is expected to support 3,000 new jobs. The Inflation Reduction Act gave Biden a chance to revive progressive proposals before the 2022 midterm elections. Though the final plan was whittled down from $1.8 trillion to $430 billion of new spending, it still included Biden’s plans for clean energy tax credits and Medicare drug price negotiation. Bank of America estimates it has already spurred $132 billion of investment across more than 270 new clean energy projects.

 

So what is the American people's response to these clear economic gains that Biden has been responsible for? Now we want our tax cuts so we will elect Trump since that is what he provided after his election in 2016. This is an ominous predilection for the reelection of Joe Biden. He can neutralize this threat by out promising Trump on the issue of tax cuts for the American people. At the same time he can balance this by his previous promise of not increasing taxes on anyone making less than $400 million a year. This would make Biden's policy on tax cuts more fiscally responsible than Trump's. Trump's tax cuts added $7 trillion to the national debt, something Republicans weren't too concerned about. Biden should take the wind out of Trump's sails on tax cuts while also providing a more responsible policy regarding the national debt.

Off the Top of My Head

Biden Should Go Full Trump at the Border

by John Lawrence

There has been so much obfuscation about the situation at the border. Let's clarify one thing: the amnesty law gives anyone the right to ask for amnesty even if they set foot in the US illegally. This law needs to be changed. Any migrant that sets one foot in the US can ask for amnesty and then be assigned a case to be heard 4 or 5 years down the road. Meanwhile, they get to live and work in the US and probably disappear into the shadows never to be seen or heard from again. Even if this law were to be changed, people would still try to get into the country illegally and not be detected. That's why the border security needs to be ramped up both physically and using electronic and/or satellite surveillance. The goal should be to eliminate illegal immigration totally and completely so that the only alternative from the migrant's point of view is LEGAL immigration. This should be an orderly process and it should be made easier to migrate legally. In fact legal immigration should be increased.

The problem is that deporting any person who sets one foot in the US and asks for asylum is illegal according to the current asylum law. Of course Trump glosses over this fact. Biden should too. What's the worst that could happen? Biden would be sued for violating the asylum law. He should let it happen. It'll be tied up in court till after the election when, hopefully, Democrats will control all three branches of government and can then remedy the situation with the appropriate legislation. That legislation would change the asylum law so that people would have to apply for asylum and/or legal immigration in an orderly manner and not just set a foot in the US to do so. In fact anyone caught entering the US illegally would automatically be deported which is approximately Trump's position. Of course Trump wants to use this as his campaign Trump card so he tells his lackeys in Congress not to pass a new immigration law now. That's why Biden should just go ahead and act as if.

Biden should just do it. Automatically deport anyone entering the US illegally whether or not they are asking for asylum. Make it clear that there is an orderly process for asking for asylum and that entry to the US will not be allowed until that process has been completed. After all approximately 80% of those asking for asylum are denied it. The asylum law is being totally abused by migrants. The number one issue for Trump voters is the situation at the border, namely, illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants are adding to the homeless crisis all over the country. We can't even adequately house all the American citizens who are homeless, yet we are supposed to house, feed and take care of thousands of illegal immigrants who ask for asylum. It's not right. It's ridiculous.

Biden needs to take the wind out of the sails of the number one campaign issue for Trump and/or Republican voters. Just go ahead and fix the borders with or without Congressional help. Let the Supreme Court object. Who cares? It'll be a moot issue anyway after the election, and it'll be tied up in court for years. Then Biden should take the number 2 issue away from the Republicans and that is tax cuts. Tax the rich and give tax breaks to the middle class. The right approach to these two issues should secure the election for Biden.

Off the Top of My Head

Competition Leads to the Proliferation of Redundant Commodities. Cooperation is Necessary to Deal with Global Warming

by John Lawrence

Private enterprise fueled by competition is a great mechanism for creating products which can be sold in the market place to consumers. This has worked wonders for economies both in the western world and in China where private enterprise brought 800 million people out of poverty in 40 years, the largest reduction in poverty in world history. This was accomplished by private enterprise at the local level not by communism at the national level. However, private enterprise, while good at creating products to be sold in the market place, is not good at global cooperation which is what is needed to solve the problem of climate change let along create world peace. The problem of cooperation on a multi state level has not been solved let alone hardly addressed with the result that human society is hastening down the path to its own destruction, meanwhile trying to proliferate the sale of gadgets and the making of money and the regaling of competition as the solution to the world's problems. It's not. Unless national societies can learn to cooperate, the destruction of the earth's ecosystems necessary for human and animal well being is assured. While giving lip service to reducing the effects of climate change, no politician anywhere in the world wants to contemplate the fact that national GDPs might actually have to be reduced in order to reorient human energy and natural resources to the most important job of saving the planetary environment so that humans can safely live in it. Last year, 2023, was the hottest year on record and the year in which the most carbon dioxide was released into the atmosphere, just the opposite of the necessary conditions to save the planet for human habitation on a long term basis.

Meanwhile, advertising is supercharging the hawking of relatively worthless redundant products to individual consumers. Bolstered by the upcoming presidential election and attention-grabbing sporting events such as the Olympics, the U.S. will account for almost a third of the total ad spend, rising 2.2% to $303.6 billion in 2023 and 7.6% to $326.7 billion in 2024. Lingering macroeconomic concerns are not expected to hold back ad spending in 2024 amid a confluence of attention-grabbing events. Global ad spending is on track to top $1T for the first time, WARC (the World Advertising Research Center) says. Five companies — Alibaba, Alphabet, Amazon, ByteDance and Meta — will attract 50.7% of global spending in 2023 and 51.9% in 2024. Their ad revenues are expected to increase by 9.1% in 2023 and by 10.7% in 2024, while the rest of the industry remains stagnant. “High interest rates, spiralling inflation, military conflict and natural disasters have made for a bitter cocktail over the preceding 12 months, but the latest earnings season shows that the ad market has withstood this turbulence and has now turned a corner,” said James McDonald, director of data, intelligence and forecasting for WARC, in a release. “With the establishment of retail media as an effective advertising channel, the advent of connected TV as the next evolution of conventional video consumption, and the continued growth of social media and search, we are seeing once again the value advertisers place in leveraging first-party data to target the right message to the right person at the right time,” McDonald continued. WARC’s forecast suggests social media will account for $227.2 billion of ad spending in 2024, more than a fifth (21.8%) of the total spend. Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp and controls almost two-thirds of the social media market, can expect to see more than $146 billion in ad revenue, followed by TikTok owner ByteDance, which will see just under $40 billion in ad revenue (equating to a 17.6% share). It is to be noted that Meta does not produce one product necessary for human survival.

The force feeding of products to individual consumers is reminiscent of the force feeding of ducks to produce foie gras. It's relentless. United States Private Consumption accounted for 67.5 % of its Nominal GDP in Sep 2023. In other words without private consumption of individual consumer oriented products, the US GDP would hardly exist. Yet for the world to get climate change under control, it must reduce private consumption and individual competion for sales to consumers and redirect these resources to combating climate change. Instead human beings prefer actual combat and competition among nations to the global cooperation and cooperation between nations and the national efforts required to get climate change under control. It's a different mindset than the mindset that competition to sell products in the market place in order to get rich engenders. 2023 was the hottest on record by a long shot. Europe’s top climate agency released data showing 2023 global temperatures averaged 1.48 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Record-high temperatures are expected to continue this year. The planet didn't just set a new global annual heat record. It shattered previous records.

Greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels are projected to reach a record 36.8 billion metric tons in 2023, an increase of 1.1% over 2022, according to an annual report by the Global Carbon Project. While emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂) are declining in some regions including Europe and the United States, they continue to rise overall, the authors said, adding that global action to reduce fossil fuel consumption is not happening fast enough to prevent dangerous impacts from climate change. The steep reductions that are urgently needed to meet global climate targets have yet to emerge, said Professor Pierre Friedlingstein of Exeter’s Global Systems Institute, who led the study. Atmospheric CO₂ in 2023 will likely reach 419.2 ppm, 51% above pre-industrial levels. Remember when countless scientists, climate experts, and governments officials agreed that 350 ppm was the “safe” level of carbon dioxide?

So the handwriting is on the wall. Far from an all hands on deck effort to prevent climate change so that future generations can live in peace and comfort on planet earth, global competition in both the commercial and military realms is the preferred and ongoing mode of human behavior, climate change and global warming be damned. Hey, humans seemingly say, we'll get around to preventing climate change just as soon as we win this war. Human greed and the competition among greedy individual participants is a far greater force than altruistic human cooperation to do what's right by future generations. Greed has outpaced morality in the competition for individual accumulation of economic and financial resources. The cooperation and sacrifice that the world saw in the 1930s and 40s to win the Second World War is nowhere to be found today. The US is still preoccupied with individual consumption and especially in entertainment venues which contribute nothing to the effort to make the world safe in terms of climate change. Instead of making the world safe for democracy we must change the paradigm to making the world safe and habitable for future generations by an all hands on deck effort to prevent global warming, an effort, objectively speaking, that seems doomed for failure unless our collective mindsets somehow find a way to change. By the way, U.S. oil production reached a record high of over 13 million barrels per day in September 2023, surpassing all other countries.

Off the Top of My Head

The Negativity of the Republican party Preceded Trump. He Just Came to Embody It.

by John Lawrence

The vitriol expressed towards Barack Obama by the Republican party existed before Trump even entered the race. The controversy regarding Obama's birth certificate is something that Trump just latched on to and capitalized on as his entree into national politics. He saw an opportunity and he acted on it. During Barack Obama's campaign for president in 2008, throughout his presidency and afterwards, there was extensive news coverage of Obama's religious preference, birthplace, and of the individuals questioning his religious belief and citizenship – efforts eventually known as the "birther movement", by which name it is widely referred to across media. Conspiracy theories proliferated during Obama's run for the Presidency. There were some that encouraged the electoral college not to certify Obama. Activists unsuccessfully lobbied Republican members of Congress to reject the 2008 Electoral College vote and block Obama's election when it came before Congress for certification on January 8, 2009. This set the stage for Trump's unsuccessful attempt to manipulate the electoral college after the 2020 election in which he lost to Joe Biden. Republican finagling with the voting system is nothing new. Neither is their promotion of conspiracy theories in order to defeat their opponents and gain power in the US government.

Donald Trump predicated his run for the Presidency in 2016 on lies and deception. That should have been enough to disqualify him right there. But it wasn't and lies and deception became a staple of Republican, and, therefore, US politics. Lies and deception were mainstreamed and normalized. The New York Times weighed in thusly:

[The fact that Obama was not born in the US] was not true in 2011, when Donald J. Trump mischievously began to question President Obama’s birthplace aloud in television interviews. “I’m starting to think that he was not born here,” he said at the time.

It was not true in 2012, when he took to Twitter to declare that “an ‘extremely credible source’” had called his office to inform him that Mr. Obama’s birth certificate was “a fraud.”

It was not true in 2014, when Mr. Trump invited hackers to “please hack Obama’s college records (destroyed?) and check ‘place of birth.’”

It was never true, any of it. Mr. Obama’s citizenship was never in question. No credible evidence ever suggested otherwise.

In fact, it took Mr. Trump much longer than that: Mr. Obama released his short-form birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health in 2008. Most of the world moved on.

But not Mr. Trump.

He nurtured the conspiracy like a poisonous flower, watering and feeding it with an ardor that still baffles and embarrasses many around him.

Mr. Trump called up like-minded sowers of the same corrosive rumor, asking them for advice on how to take a falsehood and make it mainstream in 2011, as he weighed his own run for the White House.

And there you have the essence of corruption in American politics. The fact that anyone can base a political campaign on something that he or she knows to be a lie just because they can get a large portion of the electorate to believe in it is part and parcel of the American system. And now, despite the fact that there is plenty of evidence including 91 indictments that Trump perpetrated a hoax on the American public, still a large number of the American people still believes in him. He has created a personality cult around himself based on lies and deception yet the American system of government so far has not been able to prevent him from possibly attaining the office of President of the United States again! Surely, this is free speech run amok. The First Amendment should not entertain the possibility that lies and conspiracy theories should be left to fester and confuse the American public. Free speech should not allow that lies and deception are allowed into the political arena so that a politician can actually win office by convincing people to believe them. The cult centered around Trump has progressed or degenerated to the point that his believers have their own egos invested in the lies, and so are reluctant to disabuse themselves of them for fear of losing their self identity. It is easier to go on believing what they thought to be true, even though these beliefs have been thoroughly debunked, than it is to admit that they were fooled.

Rudy Giuliani said it best:

"Over the next 10 days, we get to see the machines that are crooked, the ballots that are fraudulent, and if we’re wrong, we will be made fools of. But if we’re right, a lot of them will go to jail. Let’s have trial by combat. I’m willing to stake my reputation, the President is willing to stake his reputation, on the fact that we’re going to find criminality there."

They were wrong and they have been made fools of. However, a large percentage of the American people are not willing to admit that they have been made fools of. Their collective egos will not entertain that possibility. In order not to think of oneself as a fool, one must go on believing in the lies and deception that Trump is still allowed to spew. His rallies are reminiscent of the rallies of another would be dictator who gained traction with the German people in the 1930s. And still there is no provision in the American constitution or the rule of law that would prevent the dictatorship of Donald Trump from taking place.

Off the Top of My Head

The Asylum Law Needs to be Changed

by John Lawrence

Right now anyone who can set foot in the US illegally can ask for asylum and have their day in court 4 or 5 years from now. So they get a free pass to live in America for at least 4 to 5 years. The asylum law was not set up to accommodate economic migrants which approximately 80% of them are. The result is that the border is overrun with desperate people seeking to set a foot on US soil. I am a proponent of legal immigration. However, there can be legal immigration without the border being overrun with essentially bogus asylum seekers. Even if the asylum law is changed, people will still attempt to get into the US illegally. For that reason the border needs to be strengthened whether by physical or electronic barriers. I hate to say it but Trump, despite his buffoonery about building a 30 foot wall and getting Mexico to pay for it, has a valid point, and I say that as a Democrat and one who thinks Biden is one of the greatest US Presidents. There is much confusion about legal immigration, illegal immigration, refugees, migrants and asylum seekers. Suffice it to say that the advantages of living in the US compared to any other country in the western hemisphere except Canada are such that people will risk their lives to get here, and that legal immigration pales in comparison with illegal immigration plus asking for asylum which legalizes getting across the border by any means necessary according to existing law.

Many plans have been put forward to stem the flow of illegal border crossers such as creating safe zones in other countries from which people could apply for asylum, setting up courts in other countries to separate out those who have valid claims of asylum and the approximately 80 per cent that don't. Also US aid to countries to create better conditions so that people don't seek to come to the US in the first place has been suggested. There is something to be said about processing people in Mexico or some other south or central American country to determine if they have a legitimate claim of asylum. However, it won't work as long as people can set foot in the US illegally and then ask for asylum which is how the law now stands. Immigration courts need to be streamlined. There shouldn't be 4 or 5 year back logs. Processing asylum seekers needs to be expedited. As it now exists, the system is ridiculous and people hoping to live in the US legally or illegally are exploiting the laws.

So the border needs to be strengthened in terms of both physical and electronic barriers - not necessarily Trump's 30 foot wall which can be fairly easily breached. Electronic barriers and increased manpower could be much more effective. Why isn't satellite imagery being used to detect border crossings? A situation needs to be created whereby it's not in anyone's interests to cross the border illegally because they will be caught and prevented from entering the US and also possibly because, after being caught, they will lose whatever rights they had for legal immigration or asylum seeking. At the same time legal immigration needs to be stepped up to augment the US work force which is badly in need of an increased number of workers in jobs that immigrants typically do. The situation at the border is representative of the dysfunction of American government in that a proper solution cannot be implemented due to the train wreck of American politics which makes it seemingly impossible to create an orderly border so that people and commerce can proceed in a legal manner.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Not Issue an ID Card to Every Member of the Human Race?

by John Lawrence

Every member of the human race should be issued an ID card at birth which qualifies them for all the rights and privileges of being a human without respect to nationality, ethnicity or religion. Every member of the human race deserves a certain status, dignity and respect given to them as their birthright, and it's the duty of every other member to respect those rights and privileges. Human beings need to deethnicize, dereligicize and denationicize. In short we need to secularize. No one's religion, ethnicity or national origin should take priority over one's rights as a human being. Most of the problems of humanity have come about because of rivalries having to do with religion, ethnicity or nationalistic hubris. People have hubris about their political and economic systems thinking that their system is better than someone else's system. Why not respect whatever system some other country chooses to enact? The bottom line is everyone regardless of where they live or where they came from or what religion they choose to be a part of deserves certain basic human rights as a function of being a human being. Wars have been fought over religion for thousands of years. Muslims and Christians fought for hundreds of years during the Crusades era. Protestants and Catholics fought wars in Europe for hundreds of years. Hindus and Muslims fought for years until the partition of India in 1947.

The following is from Wikipedia:

The Partition of India in 1947 was the change of political borders and the division of other assets that accompanied the dissolution of the British Raj in the Indian subcontinent and the creation of two independent dominions in South Asia: India and Pakistan. The Dominion of India is today the Republic of India, and the Dominion of Pakistan—which at the time comprised two regions lying on either side of India—is now the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the People's Republic of Bangladesh. The partition was outlined in the Indian Independence Act 1947. The change of political borders notably included the division of two provinces of British India, Bengal and Punjab. The majority Muslim districts in these provinces were awarded to Pakistan and the majority non-Muslim to India. The other assets that were divided included the British Indian Army, the Royal Indian Navy, the Royal Indian Air Force, the Indian Civil Service, the railways, and the central treasury. Provisions for self-governing independent Pakistan and India legally came into existence at midnight on 14 and 15 August 1947 respectively.

Perhaps the partition of India could be a template for a cease fire and  political settlement of the wars in Ukraine and Israel/Palestine. Borders have been moved for millennia and imposed from the outside. Borders were moved after the First World War and after the Second World War. Since the end of World War II, the international community has been committed to the preservation of territorial borders as they existed at that time. Is this realistic or even desirable when the movement of borders could resolve wars and create peaceful solutions? Borders have been changing for millennia. Saying that the world is outraged by a violation of international norms regarding territorial integrity disregards the fact that wars and disputes might be better ended by readjusting international borders. In both wars the two parties are contesting international boundaries when a redrawing of those boundaries might yield a better solution than the obliteration of one people by another, leaving the warring parties to either win or lose the war while civilian lives are being destroyed. What is more important - the retention of current borders with the concomitant destruction of civilian lives and property or the redrawing of borders while acknowledging the rights of human beings as people to exist?

In Ukraine a partition drawn where the front lines are now located might bring the bloodshed to an end. Is it right that the people of Ukraine should suffer and die over where the borders between the two adjacent countries should be drawn. After all eastern Ukraine and Crimea have been part of the Russian empire since the time of Catherine the Great. Most of Ukraine fell to the Russian Empire under the reign of Catherine the Great; the Crimean Khanate was annexed by Russia in 1783, following the Emigration of Christians from Crimea in 1778, and in 1793 right-bank Ukraine was annexed by Russia in the Second Partition of Poland. In Israel/Palestine IMHO the borders should be redrawn so that both Israel and Palestine have roughly the same amount of contiguous territory. That means that the West Bank should be expanded and Gaza eliminated as Palestinian territory. Does it make sense for the Palestinians to have two discontiguous pieces of real estate as a national entity? There should be international recognition of two separate contiguous states. Leaving it up to Israel and the Palestinians to work this out is a mistake. They will never do it voluntarily; they will fight on in perpetuity. A two state solution must be imposed from the outside with a powerful coalition probably involving the US guaranteeing the peace. What good is the military might of the US if it can't be used to impose and guarantee a peaceful solution to hostilities whether or not the hostile parties agree to it. Once the territorial boundaries are equalized, the two countries should be treated and resourced equally again whether they like it or not. One country should not be favored over the other.

War is about winning or losing irregardless of human suffering. As modern warfare has developed, the ones doing the suffering and dying are primarily civilians not soldiers as was the case in the old days, and now in Gaza the civilians doing the dying are mostly children. This is a pathetic indictment of the modern world and the human race. Humans have fought wars and committed atrocities for hundreds of thousands of years and yet we have, as a race, learned absolutely nothing. The situation has only gotten worse. Condemning the other side and insisting that our side win the war is only causing continued human - mainly civilian - mainly women and children - suffering death and destruction because (mainly men) have their egos involved and are just moving military pieces around on a chess board. Insisting on the respect and dignity given to every human qua human as being more important than who wins and who loses a war would be an advance in human civilization. The secularization of the human world with respect to religion, ethnicity and national boundaries needs to happen or humans will continue to destroy each other in the name of religion, ethnicity and national boundaries.

Off the Top of My Head

NIMBYism Run Amok

by John Lawrence

It seems that, whenever the City locates a suitable site for a homeless shelter, campsite, safe parking area or other accommodations, some group springs up to protest that that site is a threat to their community. Thus it was for the lot near the San Diego airport as residents of Liberty Station stepped up to complain that the site was too near their shops, schools, churches and homes although Liberty Station is separated from the proposed site by the Esplanade Canal! I guess their fear was grounded in the realization that the homeless were likely to swim across the canal to invade their cherished community. To the east is the San Diego Airport. To the south are a couple of hotels and then Harbor Drive a major thoroughfare. The Esplanade Canal is on the west side of the site. To the north is the Marine Corp Recruit Depot Boathouse and Marina. Other occupants of this spit of land are the DHS / FEMA California Task Force 8 (CA-TF8), one of 28 Federal Urban Search & Rescue Teams ready to respond to a multitude of natural and man made disasters, the San Diego Police & Fire Training Center and the San Diego State University Coastal & Marine Institute Laboratory. The area is bounded by McCain Road, Kincaid road, Spruance Road and Harbor Drive. Here is a map.

The San Diego Union recently reported on this. Here are some excerpts:

Local leaders want to create what could be the city’s largest shelter, potentially providing hundreds of desperately needed beds. Some residents fear the possible effects, especially near Liberty Station’s schools and shops, and have organized a substantial opposition campaign. The coming months should see both sides organizing public meetings about the future of the site known as H Barracks.

“Barring something drastic,” said Kohta Zaiser, the mayor’s deputy director of community engagement, “we plan to fully pursue this.”

It’s prime real estate, across North Harbor Drive from Spanish Landing, but the lot’s been promised to San Diego’s multibillion-dollar Pure Water recycling system .
Pure Water, however, doesn’t need it for five years, leaving the city with around 7 empty acres and time to kill.

Creating another parking lot where people can spend the night in cars is one option. A safe sleeping site that allows camping remains on the table.
The front-runner is an enormous fabric structure that could hold rows of bunk beds in one open space. A similar shelter in the nearby Midway district looks a bit like a circus tent.

The H Barracks lot could probably fit two, meaning there would be space for around 700 people.

The Midway shelter holds just 150, Derek Falconer, a 43-year-old who lives in one of Liberty Station’s nonmilitary homes, said in a phone interview. “I struggle with how you could put in an even larger facility and make it safe.”

Earlier this year, Falconer started an online opposition petition that had more than 6,200 signatures as of mid-December. A website launched under the banner of “Save Liberty Station,” similar signs have gone up around Point Loma and the Peninsula Community Planning Board, an advisory group, wrote the mayor to warn that the proposal “poses significant challenges and risks.”

But the main objection centers on the site’s proximity to the classrooms, businesses and homes in one of the city’s most prominent cultural hubs.
To walk from H Barracks to Liberty Station, you travel west on North Harbor, turn into a Marriott parking lot, cross a concrete bridge and follow a dirt path past more hotels until you arrive at the first of several grass fields.

It recently took a reporter 12 minutes to reach the first park. The Rock Church is several minutes past that. (Representatives for the church and Marriott did not return requests for comment.)

H Barracks would be low-barrier, meaning participants don’t have to be clean and sober. City officials said the site would be stocked with everything needed to keep everybody safe: bathrooms, showers, provided meals, case managers, vehicles offering regular rides and 24/7 security.
Plus, leaders have emphasized that the open beds will make it easier for police to clear nearby encampments. No-camping signs are going up this month around Liberty Station’s parks, according to Zaiser, from the city.

The NIMBYS want to make the case that the H Barracks site is too close to Liberty Station, but the geography of the area belies their claims. It should be made clear by the city that this site is nowhere near Liberty Station. It seems like the perfect place to locate various accommodations for the homeless population. It is actually completely isolated from Liberty Station. It's 1.3 miles via Kincaid Rd and N Harbor Dr from the San Diego Fire/Rescue Training Facility to the Patrick Wade Child Development Center in Liberty Station. It's a 35 minute walk (1.6 miles) from the H Barracks area to the Liberty Public Market, the main shopping area at Liberty Station. If this is not an isolated area perfect for locating facilities for the homeless, I don't know what is.

Off the Top of My Head

Ceasefire Now in Ukraine!

by John Lawrence

The US proxy war in Ukraine is teetering on the brink. If the US does not provide more money and weapons, Russia could march right past the lines as they now exist and take over all of Ukraine which, of course, was Putin's original goal. However, if there were to be a peace deal now with the front lines becoming a de facto border, Russia would have much of what it wants which is eastern Ukraine, which is mainly Russian speaking, plus a land bridge to Crimea where Russia has its deep sea fleet anchored in Sevastopol. Besides that there would be no more death and destruction which is something not even taken into account by the powers that be. So now while Biden is gung ho for continuing the war, the demands of democracy are such that he alone does not control foreign policy. I like President Biden. I think he has done more on domestic policy then any President since FDR. But on foreign policy I don't agree. He has a Cold War mentality about Russia. He has demonized Putin and not given him what Russia most wants - respect as a great power. This was evident on the lead up to the war when the US would not even consider Russia's main demand - that Ukraine not become a member of NATO. Of course the history of Russia and Ukraine was not considered either.

During the reign of Catherine the Great, she extended the borders of the Russian Empire southward and westward to absorb New Russia, Crimea, Northern Caucasus, Right-bank Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, and Courland at the expense, mainly, of two powers – the Ottoman Empire and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Under her rule, some 200,000 square miles (520,000 km²) were added to Russian territory. Catherine made Russia the dominant power in south-eastern Europe after her first Russo-Turkish War against the Ottoman Empire (1768–74), which saw some of the heaviest defeats in Ottoman history. In 1786, Catherine conducted a triumphal procession in the Crimea, which helped provoke the next Russo–Turkish War. This war, catastrophic for the Ottomans, legitimized the Russian claim to the Crimea.

Of course this is nothing new. Americans are notoriously ignorant of other people's history. Biden is no exception. His ideas were forged during the Cold War. They do not take into account much more than the idea that America is good, Russia is bad. The fact is that there is more or less a stalemate in the war in Ukraine. If the fighting continues, it just means that more Ukrainian civilians will die and have their lives destroyed as well as their real estate. So far no or very few Russian civilians have died and very little Russian real estate has been destroyed. What's wrong with this picture? Pretty much everything. It doesn't make sense that US money is fueling actually not the winning of a war against Russia but the destruction of Ukraine. This is stupid. If US foreign policy gave a hoot about Ukrainian lives, not to mention real estate, it would pursue a peace deal based on a cease fire and a de facto recognition of the lines as they exist at present. This would mean that Russia would control eastern Ukraine - Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, Kherson and Crimea - which are the historical borders, and the rest of Ukraine would remain under Ukrainian control and possibly become a member of NATO. UN peacekeepers could patrol and guarantee the border with a plebiscite at a later date to determine the final situation. Ending the war now would accomplish the most important thing - not one more Ukrainian would be killed or wounded. But that does not even seem to be a consideration either for Biden or Zelensky.

Off the Top of My Head

Hedge Funds Outbidding Average Americans for Single Family Homes

by John Lawrence

Want to know why single family homes are less affordable? Hedge funds are buying them up and turning them into rentals. The long term implications of this are that the American people will become a nation of renters. Home ownership has been the traditional way that Americans have increased wealth. A home represents an asset which increases in value over the years. Renters typically end up with no assets and very little to provide for themselves in old age. Those with fixed incomes are even priced out of the rental market as rents continue to increase. That's why so many seniors are ending up on the streets. This issue is even becoming noticed by Democratic politicians. In the Senate, the End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act of 2023 would force big investors to sell off all the single-family homes they own over a period of 10 years, and eventually ban hedge funds from owning any single-family homes entirely. "The housing in our neighborhoods should be homes for people, not profit centers for Wall Street," co-author of the bill, Senator Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said in a press release. "Yet, in every corner of the country, giant financial corporations are buying up housing and driving up both rents and home prices. It's time for Congress to put in place commonsense guardrails that ensure all families have a fair chance to buy or rent a decent home in their community at a price they can afford."

If home ownership is taken off the table for most Americans, there is only one asset class remaining in order to build wealth - the stock market. Today about 58% of Americans are invested in the stock market in some form or other. That's a huge increase from 1990 when only about 20%of Americans owned stock. If the stock market continues to go up in value, those Americans so invested will have a nest egg in their advanced years. However, there is no guarantee that this will be the case. Money has been made in the stock market, and money has been lost. Home ownership by and large has always been a much safer bet. The dotcom bubble of 2000 was a rapid rise in U.S. technology stock equity valuations fueled by investments in Internet-based companies in the late 1990s. When the bubble burst, the Nasdaq, which rose five-fold between 1995 and 2000, saw an almost 77% drop, resulting in a loss of billions of dollars. Home ownership, however, maintained its value. It took 15 years for the stock market to regain its value.

This does not augur well for Americans who are placing all their bets on the stock market to provide for them in old age. Stock market based wealth can vary considerably over time based on economic conditions over which the average investor has no control. Sophisticated investors can buy and sell on an almost instantaneous basis. The average American, however, doesn't have the expertise to exit the market if a crash or even a downturn is imminent. The stock market does not represent a stable investment in the same way that real estate does. Even though real estate values collapsed during the 2007-2008 Great Recession, rents remained stable in that time period. Notably rents did not decrease. Between 2007 and 2011, the worst years of the 2008 Recession, rental prices increased. So an investor in rental property continued to receive the same or more rent, even if the underlying property value decreased temporarily. People should not look to the stock market for all their wealth building needs because it can collapse leaving one with nothing. A rental investment, however, will probably continue to produce rental income in perpetuity unlike a pension or social security which will terminate on the death of the recipient. "This [affordability] crisis [for home ownership] has been exacerbated in recent years by an increasing number of large investors purchasing a significant percentage of single-family homes, squeezing out prospective buyers," said Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., in a statement.

Off the Top of My Head

Most "Aid" to Ukraine is Spent in the US Thus Benefiting US Defense Contractors and Adding to Inflation

by John Lawrence

Financial aid to Ukraine mostly benefits the US military-industrial complex from which Ukraine buys most of its weapons. This money, therefore, floods into the US economy thus increasing inflation because it's well known that money injected into the US economy by the government has an inflationary impact. In an article entitled "Most ‘aid to Ukraine’ is spent in the US. A total shutdown would be irresponsible" we find the following: "A lot of money considered to be "aid to Ukraine" is actually spent in the US. In this op ed, Mark Cancian argues that eliminating that funding would be bad business for both Ukraine and American interests." And the following: "As the discussion above shows, a large part of the aid is spent in the United States. Funding of US agencies, most of the funding for US military forces, most of the military equipment backfill and Ukrainian equipment purchases, and a part of the humanitarian assistance stay in the United States. In all, about $68 billion of the $113 billion enacted (60 percent) would be spent in the United States, benefiting the armed forces and US industry." So advocates for the military-industrial complex itself are arguing that, since the war in Ukraine benefits US business interests, taxpayers should continue to fund it.

Of course no one wants to talk about or connect the facts that when the government spends too much money into the US economy, it tends to have an inflationary impact. I support President Biden with the historic $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, the $1 trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the $53 billion CHIPS and Science Act, the $740 billion Inflation Reduction Act.  Biden has accomplished more than any President since Franklin Roosevelt. Nevertheless, critics of the war in Ukraine are correct when they say that supporting a US proxy war in Ukraine is having an inflationary effect on the US economy. Probably all the previous government spending, although beneficial, had a lot to do with causing inflation in the first place. More government spending is pouring even more money into the US economy at a time when the government should be using its authority to decrease the US money supply thereby helping to bring inflation down. Thy could do this, for example, by taxing the rich. Too much money sloshing around in the economy causes inflation. Too little money in the US money supply has the opposite effect - deflation.

The possibility arises that the US has gotten itself into a forever proxy war of attrition in Ukraine based on the noble premise that Ukraine has a right to join NATO. The alternative to that forever war, which will only result in the loss of many more Ukrainian lives, the destruction of Ukrainian families and the loss of billions of dollars of Ukrainian real estate and infrastructure, is a peaceful solution to the war along the lines of a ceasefire and Russian control of the portion of eastern Ukraine that it has controlled since 2014 including Crimea with western Ukraine becoming a member of NATO. Additionally UN peace keepers could patrol the border between those two entities to maintain a peaceful, stable border. Historically, Ukraine had been a part of Russia since the era of Catherine the Great in the eighteenth century, but only gained full autonomy by virtue of the fact that Premier Nikita Khrushchev granted it independence in 1954. So the history is complex. What is important now is to settle the conflict by a ceasefire and recognition of the current de facto borders. This is important not only from the point of view of Ukraine in light of a continued loss of life and real estate, but in view of the continued drain on the US economy. The money going to fund the war in Ukraine by the US could be better spent at home or not spent at all in light of the continuing, albeit reduced, inflation.

Off the Top of My Head

A Spokesman from the Department of Peace Was Interviewed by CNN

by John Lawrence

Hostilities in the world have died down significantly after the US established a Department of Peace. Now in addition to interviewing a military expert every time a war or a potential war threatens to break out, a spokesman from the Department of Peace, a so called peace expert is also interviewed. Recently peace expert Roshina Macerdinot responded to questions from CNN anchor Emily Sohodinat. Question: "How do you interact with the parties involved in a potential conflagration that threatens peace in the world?" Answer: "Well, first we don't take sides. We try to understand the issues from the points of view of both sides. We never denigrate either side or refer to one side as "the enemy." We try to work out a compromise that is acceptable to both sides, and we work hard with both parties to implement it given our substantial resources to do so. Fortunately, the Department of Peace now has a budget commensurate with the Defense Department which signifies our commitment to peace and not just to defending ourselves. We are proactive knowing that, if we can prevent war, we can save the destruction of life and real estate. In that sense we are pro life. One of our principles is to get the parties to understand that it is not productive to seek revenge no matter how outlandish was the behavior of one of the parties that instigated the conflict. Revenge just leads to a cycle of violence, sometimes never ending."

Sohodinat: "So you advocate just eliminating the Department of Defense? In other words you don't see the need to defend ourselves in a hostile world?

Macerdinot: "On the contrary. If all of our efforts at creating peace and resolving hostilities break down, our Defense Department stands ready to defend ourselves. It's just that we put an enormous amount of effort into creating peace and resolving hostility in the first place so that the resources of our Defense Department never have to be brought to bear hopefully. One of the ways we do that is to show respect to both parties. But if all else fails, we stand ready, with the largest military in the world to defend ourselves. However, our military budget is commensurate with out peace budget. We put as much effort into implementing peace as we do in creating and sustaining the weapons of war. A lot of our efforts are put into alleviating poverty in the world and mitigating the effects of climate change which affects the poorer countries more than it does the advanced countries although the advanced countries such as the US have been more responsible for putting most of the carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."

Sohodinat: "Well that's all well and good, but it seems a little bit pollyanish. Wars have taken place since the dawn of recorded history and probably long before that. So now we have a Department of Peace, a Division of which is the Peacebuilders such as the Peace Corps and another Division is the Peacemakers which is an augmented and upgraded diplomatic corps. Still even with all these initiatives, do you think you can change what has been a universal and ubiquitous human behavior such as war?"

Macerdinot: "Certainly it's worth a humongous effort. We know we are succeeding when the Peace Corps, which is one of our Divisions, is being given the same ritualistic recognition and honors as is the military. In fact we have created a Peace Industrial Complex which rivals the Military Industrial Complex. We are partnering with China to build infrastructure all around the world. We know we are succeeding when CNN interviews representatives who are both Military Generals and Peace Generals. We know we are succeeding when the perks and incentives for entering the Peace Corps are substantially equal to the perks and incentives for entering the military. We know we are succeeding when the Peace Academies rival West Point and Annapolis. We are turning out graduates committed to the arts of peace as fast or faster than we are turning out graduates proficient in the arts of war."

Sohodinat: "So what is peace? Is it just cessation of hostility or is it more than that?"

Macerdinot: "It's actually much more than that. It's when every person in the world has a shot at what used to be called "the American Dream." It's when no child goes hungry anywhere in the world. It's when there is clean water, nutritious food, adequate health care, a good sewage system and all the elements of a civilized life are available to everyone wherever they might live. It goes without saying that a stable and clean environment with climate change under control must be brought to fruition. Everyone, no matter where they might live, should have the tools available to live a healthy life and live up to their potential."

Sohodinat: Well, we are running out of time for this interview, but as I understand it, the Department of Peace is now on a par with the Department of Defense in terms of its funding level and the proficiency of its personnel. You all are committed to understanding and interoperating with other countries offering them friendship and respect regardless of their internal problems and political systems different from our own rather than criticising or bullying them."

Macerdinot: "That's correct. Finally, the world has learned from the Ukraine and Israeli-Hamas wars that the human suffering and destruction of real estate that war entails is not worth it, and that maximum efforts need to be made to create and maintain peace and understanding before hostilities reach the breaking point. It's important that at least as much funding and effort goes into the creation of peace as goes into the preparation for war. Jesus said "Turn the other cheek" if someone strikes you. We advocate that as well, but not in a purely defenseless manner. It's never too late to resolve the situation peacefully even if you're struck, but if worse comes to worse we still have the ability to defend ourselves. Revenge never works because it leads to a cycle of violence"

Sohodinat: Thank you, Roshina.

Macerdinot: Thank you. Nice to be with you.

Off the Top of My Head

The Two State Solution Must Be Created, Implemented and Enforced ... Now

by John Lawrence

So now they are having a 5 day peace after which time they will resume the killing? They should be using the time to come up with a permanent solution, not just pausing the killing for humanitarian reasons. That's a contradiction in terms. The US has the power to impose a Two State solution on Israel and the Palestinians instead of leaving it up to them. Leaving it up to them means that it will never happen. They will go on killing each other till the end of time. What good is unlimited military power unless it is used to impose peace? What is the principal here - that every "free" state is free to make peace or war as they so choose. I say that peace needs to be imposed, and in this case it can be imposed because neither state is big enough to resist it if that is what the world community wants to do. Israel and the Palestinians should not be free to kill each other till the end of time. Mose Allison has a song with the lyric, "Everyone's crying peace on earth just as soon as we win this war." Now even that lyric has been corrupted to, "Everyone's crying peace on earth (temporarily) until we can get on with this war." But squandering a pause in the fighting for humanitarian reasons seems a travesty knowing that in a few days, once those humanitarian reasons have been accomplished, we will get on with what we really want to do - continue the war!

We know what a Two State solution would look like. Even all the details have been worked out. It's just that Israel and the Palestinians won't agree to it. Therefore, it must be imposed on them ... both. They should not be free to continue their mutual madness forever. What a bizarre notion of "freedom:" this portends. Why, sir, your freedom includes a right to hate and attack your neighbor in perpetuity. Free and sovereign states should not be impeded from protecting themselves even if in the long run they are not protecting themselves but just involving themselves in endless rounds of attacks and counter attacks. The world's most powerful nation just stands back and says in effect "we don't want to impose ourselves on your freedom and sovereignty. You have a sovereign right to go on with endless rounds of revenge, hatred and war."

UN peacekeepers should separate the two sides and impose peace on Israel and Palestine by imposing a two state solution backed by the power of the US. The world should say to them, "Enough." You guys are totally incapable of solving your problems, and, left to your own devices, you will go on killing each other indefinitely. By virtue of your incompetence at creating peace among yourselves, you have both lost your right to come up with a workable solution, and, therefore, one must be imposed on you, like it or not. You have both lost your right to be completely free and sovereign nations. You are both making the world a worse place. Therefore, the world community has lost its patience and tolerance for your local squabbles which are forcing the whole world to stop what it is doing and deal with your seemingly overwhelming problems. We'd like to get on with solving the problem of climate change instead of devoting our attention to interminably, intermittent wars.

Off the Top of My Head

The Worldwide Need For Energy Grows as World Population Grows

by John Lawrence

One factor not taken into account as the world grapples with replacing fossil fuel energy with renewable energy is that the population, and, therefore, the need for energy is growing exponentially with a billion human beings being added to world population approximately every decade. This makes it less likely that we will hit our targets for fossil fuel emissions. One could quantify the number of gigatons of carbon dioxide emitted per year per person on the planet. Obviously, every person has needs that require either fossil fuel or renewable energy although people in more advanced countries are more responsible for the emission of greater quantities of CO² than others. Let's look at world population growth over the years. It took most of human history for our population to reach 1 billion—and just over 200 years to reach 8 billion. It is estimated that earth reached one billion in population for the first time in 1804; two billion in 1927, 123 years later; three billion in 1960, 33 years later; four billion in 1974, 14 years later; five billion in 1987, 13 years later; six billion in 1999, 12 years later; seven billion in 2011, 12 years later; and eight billion in 2022, 11 years later. Notice that 7/8 of the world's population have been added to the planet after the advent of the industrial revolution, after the advent of the widespread use of fossil fuels. If the world's population had not increased so rapidly, planet earth would probably not be facing the dire consequences of climate change at this point in time. Notice also that the addition of a billion people to planet earth is happening over shorter and shorter time spans, the last billion in just eleven years!

Can the defossil fuelization of planet earth proceed at a rapid enough pace to keep up with world population growth? That is a critical question. What is the average energy consumption per capita for planet earth? The U.S. average residential energy consumption per capita in 2021 was about 63 MMBtu. MMBtu is the abbreviation for one million British thermal units. It is the common unit used to measure heating content and the value of a fuel.The world average per capita consumption of primary energy in 2021 was about 76 MMBtu. Total world energy consumption then would be 8 billion times 76 MMBtu. So by 2032 or so add in another billion times 76 MMBtu. Will renewables be able to supply that much energy by 2032? Major changes have to take place in agriculture and building materials in addition to power generation and transportation. The manufacture of steel and cement contribute large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. These building materials need to be replaced but by what? You can't have high rises built out of adobe. In agriculture we have to get away from eating farm animals. Cows burp and fart methane. Pigs contribute a lot of waste products which leech into rivers and streams. Problem is people don't want to give up eating cows and pigs. Consumers won't stand for a mandatory vegetarian diet. 

Consumers want their consumption habits not to change. This means that efforts to rid the planet of fossil fuels, carbon dioxide generation by building materials and agriculture are apt to fail. As the earth warms, humanity is going too slow in its efforts to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere. Also the amount of dangerous chemicals going into the environment is threatening civilization. The need for cooperation and collaboration among nations to ameliorate climate change is also being held back by the incessant human penchant for war and violence. The profit motive seems to trump all efforts to build a healthier planet. Sellers want to sell things that are inherently destructive to the planet whether they be food products or other consumer items. If a food contains fat, salt or sugar, it is more palatable, and, therefore, there is a greater demand for it even though it contributes to ill health. There is also an insatiable demand for alcohol and drugs even though they are detrimental to human health. A paradigm change would be necessary to get the plant on the right track in terms of human health and a healthy environment devoid of carbon dioxide production.

Off the Top of My Head

Will There Ever Be a Department of Peace?

by John Lawrence

Let's face it. The US Department of Defense is really a misnomer. It's true name is the Department of War. Why not call it what it really is. That's its mission. That's its raison d'etre. In fact the United States Department of War, also called the War Department (and occasionally War Office in the early years), was the United States Cabinet department originally responsible for the operation and maintenance of the United States Army, also bearing responsibility for naval affairs until the establishment of the Navy Department in 1798, and for most land-based air forces until the creation of the Department of the Air Force on September 18, 1947. The Secretary of War, a civilian with such responsibilities as finance and purchases and a minor role in directing military affairs, headed the War Department throughout its existence. The War Department existed from August 7, 1789 until September 18, 1947, when it split into the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force. The Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force later joined the Department of the Navy under the United States Department of Defense in 1949.

But there is no countervailing Department of Peace! I'm proposing one. Furthermore, the trillion dollar annual budget for the Department of War should be divided in two with half going to the Department of Peace. So $500 billion for war; $500 billion for peace. Please note that I'm not advocating doing away with the war department. I'm just advocating balancing it with a Department of Peace. Halving the Defense Department budget will still leave it with a larger military budget than any other country in the world. So when will it be a good idea to actively pursue peace if not now? Can the human mind even visualize what a Department of Peace would encompass or be involved in? Part of its mission would be to do just that - imagine what peace would look like. How do you spend the allotted resources in such a way as to bring about peace in the world? Dare I say that eliminating poverty and disease in the world, assuring educational opportunities and building infrastructure would be a good place to start. The Peace Corps would be incorporated into a Department of Peace, and its budget made commensurate with the budgets of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Space Force. Instead of extracting resources from what used to be called the Third World, the Department of Peace should be in the business of providing resources to the Third World. Instead of being totally focused on US interests, how about focusing on the interests of others particularly those who have been exploited by more technically advanced nations.

Bear in mind I'm not proposing defunding the Defense Department, just halving its budget and spending the rest on peace. The Defense Department would always stand ready to fight and win any war if all efforts for peace fail. But efforts at peace should take place preemptively and proactively long before tensions fester. Part of creating peace just consists of showing respect for all parties. That costs nothing. As an example of what not to do consider Israel's relationship with the Palestinians. They let it fester until the horrible recent events resulting in much destruction, death and suffering on both sides. Israel, the US and other interested parties had years to come up with a solution that was fair to both sides. But, admittedly, there was some trying especially by President Clinton, who almost got Israel and the Palestinian Authority to agree to peace. Yasser Arafat just refused at the last minute to say yes. But wars have been fought by human beings for millennia. Homo Sapiens probably wiped out the Neanderthals and other humanoid species. Why should we believe anything else given the history of human warfare in most cases based on religion and/or ethnicity?

China, at least, is building infrastructure throughout the world, and in particular in Africa with its Belt and Road initiative. This is a peace building exercise which is not recognized or given credit by the US. The US is a Johnny-come-lately to the idea of building infrastructure in the Third World. It can hardly accomplish this at home. If it wasn't for Biden's excellent diplomatic skills, nothing in that regard would be happening in the US itself. The US can barely keep its government open. It's not a good prognosis for the leader of the free world especially in light of the fact that a multiply indicted authoritarian who tried to overthrow the government is favored to win the next election straight out of the German playbook circa 1932.

Off the Top of My Head

Four Things That Would Make America a Better Democracy That Will Never Be Implemented

by John Lawrence

They are 1) Elect the President based on popular vote. Eliminate the electoral college. 2) Eliminate gerrymandering. 3) Eliminate the filibuster. 4) Eliminate the Second Amendment. These four things could all be done; there is nothing structurally standing in the way. It's just that the only practical way that they could be accomplished is to scrap the whole Constitution and start over. Many other countries have done just that. Sometimes that's accomplished by having a revolution, but a revolution is not always necessary. Numerous countries change their constitution each year. Already this year we have observed new constitutions in Fiji and Zimbabwe and constitutional amendments in Brazil, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Georgia, Hungary, Mexico, Switzerland and Tonga. A typical constitution lasts only 19 years, which means that, on average, 5 constitutions are replaced and 30 are amended each year.

The US Constitution is 236 years old. Is it outdated? You bet. But the obstacles to amending it or replacing it are all but impassable, not to mention unthinkable. The result is that the US as a political system is getting to the point of being unworkable. Right now the government is planning to shut down as the Republican controlled House cannot come up with a budget. The two parties are completely at odds. Biden is seemingly the last person capable of constructing a compromise between the parties that has allowed the country to move forward at least on some levels. The US voting system known as first-past-the-post practically guarantees that there will be a two party system. Third parties, while almost never successful at electing their candidates, act as spoilers to the other two major parties. This distorts the democratic will of the people by electing the party least favored. Another voting system could rectify this defect, but the US will never implement another kind of voting system at the national level although some entities have done so at the local level.

The US Constitution is regarded by many as the political equivalent of the Bible. It is unthinkable that it should be revised or amended. Thomas Jefferson made an effort to revise the Bible. The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, was completed in 1820 by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition excludes all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels that contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages that portray Jesus as divine. Needless to say the Jefferson Bible did not make the New York Times best sellers list or the eighteenth century version of that. There are various groups working on a new Constitution for the US, but there is no consensus that a new one is necessary just as there is no consensus that a new and revised version of the Bible is necessary.