California Free Press

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.

Off the Top of My Head

The Absence of War is Not Peace

by John Lawrence

Human beings do not use the absence of war to create peace. They use the absence of war to prepare for the next war. The time between wars could be used in a more constructive way and that is to do everything possible to prevent the next war. Instead what we do is to build up our offensive and defensive capacities so that whatever side we are on prevails in the next war. The US military-industrial complex is allotted almost a trillion dollars a year whether or not there is war or absence of war. There is never ever really peacetime. It's sole purpose is to prepare for the next war. Meanwhile the Peace Corps is allotted next to nothing in order to create the conditions that might prevent the next war. What are those conditions you might ask? They are very simple: creating educational opportunities for the undereducated, creating economic opportunities for those in poverty, creating hospitals and clinics for those whose health is at risk, building infrastructure for those lacking access to modern infrastructure. In other words building more successful societies from the ground up for those lacking what the most advanced societies already have. Above all poverty and lack of healthful conditions must be alleviated all over the world including in the advanced nations themselves before anything approaching world peace can be achieved.

So what is the lesson of the Israeli-Gaza war? It is that in the time period before the war, nobody did nothing to create the conditions for a lasting peace which would have been the two state solution. Instead people just stood back content to have the Palestinians live miserable lives without political or economic rights. Nobody cared. Nobody worked hard to correct or ameliorate the situation. People were content just to let the situation fester until the next violence broke out, and then it did with very dramatic and horrific results. When there was an absence of war, people just said ho hum, there's no urgency to create the conditions for a lasting peace. Then when war breaks out everyone gets very excited and upset, horrible things happen to children and old people. People want revenge. Hate proliferates. War is exciting. Peace is dull and undramatic. People get bored with the absence of war. People's senses come alive during war. During the absence of war in which there is no real peace, people pursue their self interest or in other words lining their purses. During war they get all excited. There is nonstop news coverage. People get upset by (wo)man's inhumanity to (wo)man as if people doing horrible things to other people is unimaginable. It's not. People's senses come alive and they come out of their collective stupors.

If the US just spent half its defense budget on war and the other half on peace, it would still have a larger defense budget than any other country in the world, and just think what the Peace Corps could do with a $500 billion budget. Why it could even compete with China's Belt and Road initiative which is building infrastructure in parts of the world where inadequate infrastructure exists. The two largest world economies could compete creating peace in the world instead of trying to out compete each other with larger and better weapons and more vitriolic and challenging rhetoric. However, this is not OK with conservatives who feel very threatened by the Chinese COMMUNIST Party although the Chinese system brought 800 million people out of poverty in 40 years primarily by adopting a free enterprise capitalistic system. Oh but it is still authoritarian politically, you say. That is subject to interpretation as the Chinese political system is based on Confucianism which promotes a meritocracy unlike the US where any bozo can become President.

So where is the American Department of Peace? We have the Department of Defense(Offense). We have the Department of Homeland Security. We have the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). What agencies of the Federal government are devoted to creating a more peaceful world? Basically, none, and so is it any wonder that, while the human race continues to invent a plethora of gadgets, it can do hardly anything to create world peace? Peace depends on mutual respect among the leaders of the various nations of the world. Instead US authorities criticize and lord it over the leaders of other nations because they are not exactly like us. Instead of walking a mile in their shoes, they insist that every other nation walks a mile in our shoes.

Off the Top of My Head

The Main Hope for Humanity: Secularization

by John Lawrence

When you consider all the wars that have been fought in the name of religion, it is not too farfetched to propose that the main hope for human civilization is secularization. Some of the commandments would be

1. No war is worth being fought over someone's religion.
2. There is no sacred ground, land, location, site or artifact.
3. Only the earth as a whole is holy.
4. Remember the body, to keep it holy. Thou shall not kill.
5. Do not despoil or pollute the environment.
6. Only extract resources as needed.
7. Replace, regenerate, replant or renew extracted resources.
8. All life on earth is to be respected.
9. All humans are equal and have the same rights including economic rights.
10. No religion is more important or more holy than any other religion.

Humans have slaughtered each other from the beginning of time. Many times the slaughter has been carried out in the name of religion. The slaughterers have maintained that God was on their side. The other side were infidels who needed to be converted to the correct religion or be killed. We, as a species, have not made any progress in the elimination of war. We have only made progress in the invention of gadgets, many of which have been destructive to the environment: namely, fossil fuel based gadgets and advanced weapons. Chemistry has led to the invention of plastics which have accumulated in the oceans. Pesticides and herbicides have accumulated in the ecosystem creating conditions conducive to cancer.

Islam, Christianity and Judaism trace back the founding of their religions to Abraham. The descendants of Abraham's two sons, Isaac or Israel and Ishmael, became the Jewish and Arab tribes respectively. Muslims are the descendants of Ishmael; Jews are the descendants of Israel. Christians also trace their lineage back to Abraham since Jesus was a Jew. There are schisms in Christianity (Protestants and Catholics) which led to centuries of European wars. Schisms in Islam (Sunnis and Shiites) led to wars between them. For hundreds of years Christian crusaders killed Muslims and vice versa. Jews have been persecuted and killed for millennia right up to the present day. So what good has religion done for the human race? In terms of world peace we would have been better off without it. It has led to the justification of war and killing and the belief of the killers that their religion was the only correct religion. PreChristian religions have been labeled with the pejorative word - pagan. NonChristians have been labeled as heathen, another pejorative word. Eastern religions have led to conflict between Hindus and Muslims. Pakistan was created by partitioning India so Muslims could live in one place, Hindus in another. China seems to be the only place where there was religious tolerance. In Chinese philosophy, the three teachings are Confucianism, Taoism, and Chinese Buddhism. All of these three teachings are considered a harmonious aggregate.

Meanwhile, while religious people were not killing each other, they were despoiling the environment under the Biblical edict of dominion: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." So man is free to use the environment in any way that profits him regardless of the harm to the ecosystem. Animals can be slaughtered to extinction with no Biblical or religious consequences just as humans who are not of the correct religion can be killed without consequence. The earth can be polluted by corporations for whom externalities do not impose a cost so that pollution of the environment without consequence increases profits to shareholders. Earth is plundered; shareholders profit.

There will never be world peace until religion has no bearing on respect for the human rights of all people, and until respect for the environment predominates over the extraction of the earth's resources. There is always a rationale for war. There is never enough work done to create peace and understanding. Human rationality has led to war which is undertaken in a very rational way, but the rational human mind seems incapable of working out a rationality and a followup for a peaceful world especially when creating a peaceful world costs money.

Off the Top of My Head

What do the Pope and Ted Kaczynski Have in Common?

by John Lawrence

Recently the Pope delivered a strong condemnation of the western lifestyle in Laudate Deum. In his writing, which was all about our failure to address climate change sufficiently, he decried our "technocratic paradigm" which basically is the worship of technology as a false god whose premise is that technology in and of itself will solve all the problems of the human race especially in terms of artificial intelligence (AI). The implication is that the new religion is technology. Kaczynski railed against "industrial-technological society" which he felt reduced the free exercise of human potential. The Pope decried spiritual poverty; Kacynski decried psychological poverty. In both cases the authors felt that humanity had lost its soul.

It's easy to see why. As the Pope observed, consumption equals fossil fuel emissions equals climate change. The more consumption, the more climate change. Kaczynski was also anti-consumption, but his gripe was more with the lifestyle required to live a life of consumption as opposed to getting by with less so one could opt out of "the system." The American way of life is surely one of high consumer values. Advertising to get people to consume more is relentless. People work to acquire things as opposed to just working enough to supply one's basic needs leaving the rest of your time free to pursue more life affirming pursuits. While Kaczynski focused almost exclusively on the negative psychological results, the Pope focuses on the long term effects that climate change can have on people especially poor people who are suffering and will suffer disproportionately although they are not the main perpetrators of fossil fuel emissions. One could also mention that many of the consumable products that rich nations favor also pollute the oceans and have negative health effects in general. All of creation including animals suffer as a result of the high consumption lifestyles of rich nations, rich nations that have been most responsible for inventing the technologies that are driving climate and ecological destruction.

What Kaczynski failed to do and what the Pope is doing is to relate the high consumption technology driven lifestyle to the destruction of the earth's resources and the environment. The Pope expressed this very well in his writing:

"This is a global social issue and one intimately related to the dignity of human life. The Bishops of the United States have expressed very well this social meaning of our concern about climate change, which goes beyond a merely ecological approach, because “our care for one another and our care for the earth are intimately bound together. Climate change is one of the principal challenges facing society and the global community. The effects of climate change are borne by the most vulnerable people, whether at home or around the world”. In a few words, the Bishops assembled for the Synod for Amazonia said the same thing: “Attacks on nature have consequences for people’s lives”. And to express bluntly that this is no longer a secondary or ideological question, but a drama that harms us all, the African bishops stated that climate change makes manifest “a tragic and striking example of structural sin”.

A spiritual life, a psychologically healthy life is very much at odds with the American high consumption lifestyle. A high consumption lifestyle driven by advertising is not only bad for us as individuals, it is bad for the planet as well.

Off the Top of My Head

What To Do About Religious Intolerance Leading to War

by John Lawrence

The current situation in the Middle East is a reminder that throughout history war has been religious based. Think of the wars in Europe between Protestants and Catholics or the Crusades which were wars between Christians and Muslims or the persecution of Jews throughout history. If we are ever to have peace in this world, religious tolerance is paramount. So there should be religious studies in schools at all levels, but not studies about one religion. Students should be required to study all the major religions which are Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. Not only that, but students should be required to attend religious services in all these religions. Only by understanding the different religions can one develop a tolerance for them all. Only when we come to a time when it doesn't matter what religion a person espouses will we be able to all get along. It shouldn't matter what one's religion is. They shouldn't be perceived as "the other." All human beings need to get to the point where they are human beings first and their religion is a matter of indifference.

I think this can only be accomplished by an educational system in which a student becomes familiar with all the different religions, has friends who are members of different religions and comes to see that, regardless of one's religion, human beings are all basically the same. In other words all societies should become secularized. It would help greatly if all students were required to attend religious services of all the five great religions mentioned earlier. What is more important than peace on earth, and to accomplish this tolerance of all religions must be inculcated in students everywhere. Tolerance of other religions is more important than the beliefs of any particular religion. As long as one perceives that someone is a member of a different religion than their own and is perceived as "the other," there will be suspicion, fear, tension, hatred and war. World peace is something that needs to be worked at to be accomplished and understanding and tolerance of religion is a good place to start.

In addition to tolerance of different religious views, an uplifting of the economic circumstances of the world's poorest citizens will do more to create peace than anything else. War is often the result of the perceived superiority of living conditions of one group of people by another group. One group is the downtrodden and one group has all the advantages and is living the good life. Everyone in the world needs to be brought up to at least a decent standard of living before there will be peace in the world. So religious tolerance brought about by education regarding all the world's religions and attendance at all religious services combined with an all out effort to bring all the world's peoples up to a decent standard of living will do much to bring about world peace. These efforts have to be done at the same time that the earth itself must be protected from environmental degradation especially with regard to climate change. The old paradigm in which earth's resources were to be exploited without consequence, in which humans were told that they had "dominion" over earth's resources, must go to be replaced with an ethic not of exploitation but of respect for the planet and all its resources including its human resources.

Off the Top of My Head

Congress Gets Paid While Government Shuts Down: Perfect!

by John Lawrence

A bunch of highly paid do-nothings keep getting paid while average paycheck-to-paycheck people starve. It doesn't get any better than this. The leader of the free world can't even keep its government functioning. What's wrong with this picture? Or, if you prefer, what a revolting development this is. Obviously, the founders did not contemplate this! Republicans want to reduce government spending, but they're not interested in reducing spending for the bloated defense department. They want to spend more on defense (offense), and they're only too happy to talk about all the wonderful new weapons the US is developing like the F-35 which continues to crash. Every one costs $150 million by the way. Recently a pilot bailed out of one and let it crash rather than trying to land it and save the country $150 million. And then there are the ATTACKEMS. What a clever name! Let's attack em before they ATTACKUS. Now Republicans don't want to spend any more money on Ukraine. Does that mean the US and NATO will have to negotiate a peace settlement? What a disaster - being forced to stop the killing because of an inability to ATTACKEM any more. As a last option we would be forced into peace instead of WINNING! What a disaster! No more killing? No more generals on TV telling us how disastrous this would be?

All the generals and spokesmen - and they are mostly men -  for the military-industrial complex, who only can think in terms of war and winning, cannot even contemplate that a negotiated peace settlement might be even possible. For them peace is an unmitigated disaster. Lockheed's profits might even go down. At least one thing Elon Musk has done is to show that it's possible to do great things without the venerable cost plus contracts that the military industrial complex prefers. Musk just gets paid for performance not cost plus. Cost plus contracts incentivize private industry to delay the finish date and run up costs because their profits are guaranteed to be a percentage of those costs. So, what the hell, the more something costs, the more money they make! Fortune magazine wrote: " Lockheed Martin’s $1.7 trillion F-35 fighter jet is 10 years late and 80% over budget—and it could be one of the Pentagon’s biggest success stories" Subtitle: "How America's biggest defense contractor turned a military spending fiasco into a business victory." You could say much the same for the bureaucracy at NASA. Musk totally showed them up with a workforce one tenth the size. Can you say "BLOATED" and by the way, "SCLEROTIC." Now the US government relies on Elon Musk for its space program. Pitiful. But at least it's saving the taxpayers money. You go, Elon!

Well, at least, SpaceX won't be shutting down although they probably won't be getting paid either. Perhaps Musk could build the next jet fighter for a fraction of the cost of the F-35. Meanwhile, part of the world is laughing at the fact that the US government can't even keep the lights on. And part of the world is crying in their beer about the fact that the US can't keep the lights on. I'll leave it up to you, dear reader, to guess what parts are laughing and what parts are crying.

Off the Top of My Head

These Two Things Do Not Compute: Shutting Down the American Government and Lecturing the World About the Virtues of American Democracy

by John Lawrence

The US power structure dominates the world in terms of its military bases. The US controls about 750 bases in at least 80 countries worldwide and spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined. The US also controls the world's financial transactions. The dollar’s role as the primary reserve currency for the global economy allows the United States to borrow money more easily and impose painful financial sanctions. With the US' dominant position in world affairs, you would think that it would be impossible for a handful of representatives in Congress to shut down the entire US government. But that is exactly the situation the US and the world is in. The US is the leader in world affairs. Yet the leader can't even keep the lights on. Other countries are looking at this. Nixon called the US a pitiful, helpless giant. He said, "If, when the chips are down, the worlds most powerful nation, the United States of America, acts like a pitiful, helpless giant, the forces of totalitarianism and anarchy will threaten free nations and free institutions throughout the world." So what is the US when its government shuts down? Exactly that: a pitiful, helpless giant. Its military personnel on the 750 military bases won't get paid. How's that for demoralizing the military? Service members will continue to report for duty, though they will not get paid during a shutdown. And many of the hundreds of thousands of civilians who work for the Department of Defense will likely be furloughed, says White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby. Air traffic controllers will not get paid either although they will be required to report for work as well. Does that portend more close calls at airports?

The world is watching. American diplomats are fond of lecturing other world leaders about the pitfalls and shortcomings of their governments. However, their governments probably would not be caught in the pickle of a complete government shutdown. Nor would the governments of the civilized world, with the exception of the US, contemplate putting a person with 91 criminal indictments into the position of their President. The US is much in the need of updating. It is giving democracy a bad name in the sense that the national dialogue is turning into a clown show. Trump's rallies are providing entertainment for his base which is an audience that is more addicted to being entertained than it is to supporting a leader who is devoted to improving their lives. This reminds me of Hitler's rallies which were designed as pageantry for its entertainment value. It sure enthralled the German people. People are loyal to a leader who entertains them, who moves them, not one who will use the legitimate levers of government to improve their lives or to make the country and/or the world a better place. Joe Biden is the opposite. He has made the country and the world a better place despite not being very entertaining. That's why he's not leading Trump in the poles. Trump's base (cult) are excited by Trump. Biden's base, if you could call it a base, are ho hum. Oh well, I guess he's done some good, but I'm not excited. For Trump's base excitement is the sine qua non.

Getting back to the military NPR reports the following:

Separately, the Department of Defense says post and base services would be closed or limited, while elective surgeries and procedures in its medical and dental facilities would have to be postponed. Commissaries would remain open overseas but close in the U.S.

And certain Pentagon activities, like operational planning and military recruitment, will be paused.

Defense officials warned earlier this week that a shutdown would strategically "play into the hands of U.S. competitors" because it would cost time as well as money. Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh called it "the worst thing that could happen."

"The U.S. military's going to continue to do its job and protect our national security interests, and of our allies and partners as well," she said, adding that a shutdown would make those efforts harder. "When you don't have your full operating capacity to be able to help with the mission, to be able to conduct an exercise or training, of course, that gets to our national security and readiness."

Kirby agrees that a prolonged shutdown could harm national security, especially when it comes to delayed management of DOD contracts for things like maintenance, logistics and procurement.

So five Republican representatives can act collectively as dictators to threaten national security as well as domestic tranquillity, and there's absolutely nothing anybody can do about it. This is democracy in action? This is the vaunted "rule of law"? What exactly is this except a fly in the ointment of democracy or in any system that purports to be a democracy and what does this say about the world's military and financial leader? Other countries are watching this spectacle.

Off the Top of My Head

Is the World Engaged in “A Battle Between Democracy and Autocracy”?

by John Lawrence

Joe Biden thinks so. Here's what he said: "But we emerged anew in the great battle for freedom: a battle between democracy and autocracy, between liberty and repression, between a rules-based order and one governed by brute force." Politicians tend to look at the world in binary terms. It's all black and white. Their system is bad; ours is good. In reality there's a lot of gray; it's not simply black or white. If Biden were to be absolutely truthful, he would have to say that the US has a version of democracy and so does China. America's version would be decried by the founders who were totally against what they called "factionalism." Jefferson abhorred political parties. This is from history.com:

"Today, it may seem impossible to imagine the U.S. government without its two leading political parties, Democrats and Republicans. But in 1787, when delegates to the Constitutional Convention gathered in Philadelphia to hash out the foundations of their new government, they entirely omitted political parties from the new nation’s founding document.

"This was no accident. The framers of the new Constitution desperately wanted to avoid the divisions that had ripped England apart in the bloody civil wars of the 17th century. Many of them saw parties—or “factions,” as they called them—as corrupt relics of the monarchical British system that they wanted to discard in favor of a truly democratic government."

The US' version of democracy is based on a two party system with a voting system called first-past-the-post. Neither parties or voting systems are mentioned in the Constitution. The first-past-the-post voting system essentially precludes third parties. The effect of a third party candidate is that of a "spoiler." He or she takes votes away from the party he or she is most closely associated with which tends to elect the least popular candidate if the third popular candidate were not running. This has had disastrous effects on American popular elections as it did in 2000 when Ralph Nader running as a third party candidate took votes away from Al Gore with the result that George W Bush, who subsequently lied us into the Iraq war, was elected President. Gore would have gotten the US further along the road of climate change mitigation.

The European parliamentary multi-party system is arguably more democratic than the US two party system because more parties with varied interests can be represented. Their head of government, the Prime Minister, equivalent to the US President, is not popularly elected but is elected by members of parliament. The US tends to identify heads of government not popularly elected with undemocratic systems yet Presidents in the US were not popularly elected until the 17th Amendment was passed in 1912. China has a version of democracy in which the President is not popularly elected but is elected by the highest legislative body - the National People's Congress. Yet the US keeps insisting that China is an autocracy but the parliamentary systems of Europe are OK as was the US before 1912. China has multiple political parties but is dominated by one party - the Chinese Communist Party. The question is to what extent is the Chinese one party system less democratic than the American two party system in the sense of which system most closely represents the needs and wants of its people.

Democratic elections are held in China at the local or county level. These Congresses elect officials at the provincial level and they in turn elect the National People's Congress. The people vote democratically for officials only at the local level. Officials at higher levels are only indirectly democratically elected similar to the US system before 1912 or the parliamentary system. Voters have selected U.S. senators in the privacy of the voting booth since 1913. This system of “direct election” was not what the framers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind, however, when they met at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Article I, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, as written by the framers, provided for election of senators by state legislatures, something Donald Trump sought to exploit. Election of officials by the democratic vote of a body that was democratically elected by the people is arguably democratic in some sense just as the election of head of government by a parliament is arguably democratic. Therefore, it can be argued that China has some version of democracy. Moreover, eight minor political parties in addition to the Chinese Communist Party exist.

One can quibble about how democratic a political system is. The point is that there is no absolute version of democracy so different systems have to be judged on their own merits. A one party system is not necessarily less democratic than a two party system which is not necessarily less democratic than a multi-party system, all things considered. How well the system functions to meet the needs of its own people, the historical evolution of the present system and how well established is the rule of law which exists in conjunction with the democratic election of leaders and representatives should also be considered. For instance, in China stability is a primary value whereas in the US freedom is a primary value. According to Keyu Jin in The New China Playbook, the Chinese people don't mind video surveillance in public because it minimizes street crime. On the other hand in the US video public surveillance is considered an infringement of freedom even though much street crime has been solved by both public and private video cameras .

Off the Top of My Head

500,000 Killed in Ukraine War. Is It Worth It Just To Insure That Ukraine Can Join NATO?

by John Lawrence

Putin's bottom line is that Ukraine should not join NATO. Biden insisted that it should be able to. That was the impasse that led to the Ukraine war. All that Biden had to do was to negotiate a time period during which Ukraine would not be considered for NATO membership. He would not do that. He could have called Putin's bluff if indeed it was a bluff that Putin would not invade if Ukraine were not allowed to join NATO. If Putin had still invaded after prohibiting Ukraine from joining NATO for a period of time, then the US and the EU could have gone ahead with their current strategy of supplying Ukraine with arms to defend itself. The New York Time reported:

The total number of Ukrainian and Russian troops killed or wounded since the war in Ukraine began 18 months ago is nearing 500,000, U.S. officials said, a staggering toll as Russia assaults its next-door neighbor and tries to seize more territory.

The officials cautioned that casualty figures remained difficult to estimate because Moscow is believed to routinely undercount its war dead and injured, and Kyiv does not disclose official figures. But they said the slaughter intensified this year in eastern Ukraine and has continued at a steady clip as a nearly three-month-old counteroffensive drags on.

Russia’s military casualties, the officials said, are approaching 300,000. The number includes as many as 120,000 deaths and 170,000 to 180,000 injured troops. The Russian numbers dwarf the Ukrainian figures, which the officials put at close to 70,000 killed and 100,000 to 120,000 wounded.

But Russians outnumber Ukrainians on the battlefield almost three to one, and Russia has a larger population from which to replenish its ranks.

Is it worth it? I repeat IS IT WORTH IT? For the principal that any country can join NATO? IMHO war is never worth it. Why is there not a peace movement? If it was so important that Russia keep its hands off Ukraine, why didn't Obama protest in 2014 as Russia seized territory in Eastern Ukraine? To be clear Obama did not want to commit the US to stopping Russian aggression in Ukraine according to Brookings:

As regards the two-year-old conflict between Ukraine and Russia, the president [Obama] said Ukraine is a core interest for Moscow, in a way that it is not for the United States. He noted that, since Ukraine does not belong to NATO, it is vulnerable to Russian military domination, and that “we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for.”" Obama was hesitant to get involved militarily in Ukraine. "But the president [Obama] has signaled privately that despite all the pressure, he remains reluctant to send arms. In part, he has told aides and visitors that arming the Ukrainians would encourage the notion that they could actually defeat the far more powerful Russians, and so it would potentially draw a more forceful response from Moscow. He also wants to give a shaky cease-fire a chance to take hold, despite a reported 1,000 violations so far, and seems determined to stay aligned with European allies that oppose arms for Ukraine.

“If you’re playing on the military terrain in Ukraine, you’re playing to Russia’s strength, because Russia is right next door,” Antony J. Blinken, the deputy secretary of state, told an audience in Berlin last week. “It has a huge amount of military equipment and military force right on the border. Anything we did as countries in terms of military support for Ukraine is likely to be matched and then doubled and tripled and quadrupled by Russia.”

In February 2014 Obama even threatened Ukraine, not Russia, with sanctions, putting the onus on Ukraine. "TOLUCA, Mexico (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama called on Ukraine’s armed forces on Wednesday to stay out of the country’s political crisis and warned that there would be consequences for those who “step over the line.” Using his toughest language so far in response to a Ukrainian conflict that has drawn threats of U.S. and European Union sanctions, Obama denounced the violence and put the onus on Ukraine’s government to reach a peaceful resolution."

George W Bush, the perpetrator of lying us into the Iraq war, agreed with Obama: "There are good reasons why even George W. Bush backed off (or at least stopped short of pursuing) a pledge to consider Ukraine for NATO membership. First, calmer minds weighed the level of Western interests in Ukrainian independence against the cost of defending it in a pinch, and found the former coming up short." Calmer minds did not prevail, however, when Joe Biden became President. Despite all the good Biden has done domestically, his Ukraine policy has committed the US to what amounts to perpetual war.

Some advisors advocated for a moratorium on Ukraine's joining NATO as a way to stave off war. "Before the Russian invasion, Quincy Institute senior research fellow on Russia and Europe Anatol Lieven wrote that as part of a broader package to stave off war, the United States should propose “the declaration of a moratorium on Ukrainian membership of NATO for a period of 20 years, allowing time for negotiations on a new security architecture for Europe as a whole, including Russia.”"

Putin's primary concern was that Ukraine not join NATO, a concern that was effectively ignored in negotiations leading up to the February 2022 invasion.

"President Vladimir Putin accused Western nations of ignoring key Russian security concerns, following the U.S.′ refusal last week to concede to Moscow’s demands over Ukraine and NATO.

“It’s already clear now ... that fundamental Russian concerns were ignored,” Putin said at a press conference Tuesday, according to a Reuters translation.

Putin said that the U.S. wanted to “contain Russia” and that it was using Ukraine to do that, as he reiterated Russia’s position that any possible membership of Ukraine in NATO would “undermine Russia’s security.”

“Let’s imagine that Ukraine is a NATO member, it is fully packed of weapons, it gets advanced attack means like those in Poland and Romania and it starts an operation in Crimea,” Putin said, describing Crimea, a part of Ukraine annexed by Russia in 2014, as a “sovereign Russian territory.”

“Let’s imagine that Ukraine is a NATO member state and it initiates a military operation. What should we do then, [should we] fight against the NATO bloc? Did anyone think at least something about that? Apparently not.”

Nonetheless, Putin said he hoped dialog over Ukraine would continue and that a way needed to be found to, as he put it, “protect everyone’s security.”

Biden could have acknowledged Putin's concerns regarding Russia's security interests and argued for a moratorium on Ukraine's bid for NATO membership. This may or may not have forestalled Russia's 2022 invasion. If it had, the US and its allies had nothing to lose except the principal that any country should be free to join NATO. If it hadn't, Russia's invasion could be countered with the policy the US has pursued since Russia invaded which is to send weapons to arm Ukraine without putting "boots on the round." Subsequently, Russia secured Ukraine's non-membership in NATO by starting and pursuing what amounts to a perpetual war with the result of 500,000 people killed so far and billions of dollars in destroyed real estate. Has it been worth it to uphold the principal that Ukraine should be free to join NATO. I don't think so. A new security arrangement is needed for Europe including Russia sans NATO.

Off the Top of My Head

Should the President Be Popularly Elected by Direct Vote of the People?

by John Lawrence

In the US the President is popularly elected by the people after having been filtered through the archaic electoral college. In a parliamentary democracy the head of government equivalent to the US President is indirectly elected by the parliament not by a direct vote of the people. In China the president is also elected by a majority vote of the National People's Congress, the highest legislative body very similarly to how the heads of government are elected in parliamentary democracies. In Russia the President is nominally elected by a popular vote of the people similarly to the US although the system has been manipulated in such a way as to keep Putin in power. So what are the drawbacks of a popularly elected President by a vote of the people? The main drawback IMHO is that in the US an incompetent but popular boob like Donald Trump can be elected to the most powerful office in the land and arguably in the whole world. The election for President of the US is a popularity contest, and there is no requirement of experience or competency. In parliamentary democracies as well as China, supposedly the indirect election of President or its equivalent, "head of state," is an election by a meritocratic body of lawmakers. Therefore, it is more likely that a competent President or head of government will be elected.

In recent history in the US, the least competent but most popular person has been elected President based more on their personality and charisma than on their competency or knowledge of the job. It is more likely that a guy who "you would like to have a beer with" is elected President than someone who is more experienced and/or intelligent. Adlai Stevenson was branded as an "egghead" which effectively ended his political career. The leading Democratic figure of the 1950s, Stevenson was known for his wit, intellectual speeches, and liberal political convictions. For many Americans in the mid-twentieth century, he symbolized conscience in politics. Stevenson lost the Presidential election twice to Dwight Eisenhower, the World War II war hero. In 2000 Al Gore lost the election to George W Bush who promptly lied the US into war with Iraq. Gore, who was a staunch advocate for climate change mitigation, presumably would have employed government resources in that direction rather than fighting a fruitless war. Gore actually won the popular vote but was defeated by a combination of the Electoral College and the Supreme Court.

Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House that were then taken down by Ronald Reagan. So much for science taking precedence over popular ignorance and prejudice. Reagan also ran up the national debt substantially as did George W Bush and Donald Trump. Then when Democrats are elected President, Republicans cry bloody murder over the national debt while doing their best to prevent Democrats from spending any government money to actually help people. Fortunately, Joe Biden has been very successful in getting legislation passed to mitigate climate change among other accomplishments. But, his popularity as a candidate in 2024 in on the line as a majority of the American people don't want him to run again. Trump, despite 91 criminal indictments, is running neck and neck with Biden, one of the most accomplished Presidents in American history. One wonders whether the sclerotic American electoral system can withstand the challenges brought by popular but unscrupulous candidates for the Presidency by those you'd "like to have a beer with." Finally, the electoral College has all the disadvantages of indirect elections and none of the advantages.

Off the Top of My Head

Does China Have Some Version of Democracy and Capitalism?

by John Lawrence

The Chinese Communist Party in reality is just the Chinese Party. It is communist in name only. Kishore Mahbuboni in the book, Has China Won, says "...is America making a fundamental error of perception when it views the CCP as a Chinese Communist Party? This would imply that the soul of the CCP is embedded in its communist roots. Yet, in the eyes of many objective Asian observers, the CCP actually functions as the Chinese Civilization Party. Its soul is not rooted in the foreign ideology of Marxism-Leninism but in the Chinese civilization." China has had a capitalist economic system ever since the reforms of Deng Xiaoping in 1978. China has lifted 800 million people out of poverty in about 40 years mainly due to the component of its system that represents private enterprise. It also has state owned enterprises but they have not been mainly responsible for China's rapid growth in GDP.

Xi Jinping has been President of the people's Republic of China since 2013. He is not popularly elected by the general public. Instead, he is elected by the National People's Congress (NPC), constitutionally China's highest state body, which also has the power to remove the president and other state officers from office. Elections and removals are decided by majority vote. This is not dissimilar to how the head of parliamentary democracies, the Prime Minister is elected. The British head of government is not elected by a popular election of the people either. He is elected by members of Parliament similar to most other parliamentary democracies. The US also originally had a system in which the President and Senators were not elected by a popular election of the people. Passed by Congress on May 13, 1912, and ratified on April 8, 1913, the 17th Amendment modified Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution by allowing voters to cast direct votes for U.S. Senators and the President. Prior to its passage, the President and Senators were chosen by state legislatures. The Chinese government has been based on a meritocratic bureaucracy for thousands of years. The popular vote elects the first representative body who elects the next higher body until the National People's Congress elects the President.

The cleavage between communism and capitalism is basically an historic artifact. Capitalism won. Almost all nations of the world have capitalistic economic systems including China. None of them have systems that are identical to the US. They all have some versions of capitalism and democracy. Prior to 1912 the US had a system similar to China's in that the President was not popularly elected but was elected by a vote of the states' senates. Today in order to maintain international tensions, US politicians keep up the dichotomy between the US and China by insisting that China's leaders are not elected democratically and that China has a communist economic system. The truth is that China has a version of democracy and a version of capitalism just as the US does. Vested interests in the US are responsible for maintaining the fiction that Chinese is communist and autocratic. In fact US democracy is vulnerable to being overthrown by a demagogue like Donald Trump which almost happened on January 6, 2020. The US is still vulnerable as a near majority of Americans prefer Trump to Joe Biden, a man who has passed landmark legislation like only a very few American Presidents have accomplished.

US democracy is also vulnerable in the sense that its first past the post voting system almost guarantees that third party candidates will be spoilers as happened in 2000 when Ralph Nader took votes away from Al Gore. Despite that Gore won the popular vote. If Nader had not been in the election, Gore would have overwhelmingly won the popular vote. However in the electoral college, which is an outdated feature of American democracy, it came down to who won the popular vote in Florida. The Supreme Court stopped the hand recount giving Bush the Presidency. There is still controversy over who would have won if that hadn't happened. In any case the Bush administration lied us into the disastrous Iraq war, something Gore probably would not have done. Also Bush was a fossil fuel guy while Gore was knowledgeable about global warming and would have pursued that agenda . History might have turned out differently, and more importantly the future history of planet Earth might turn out differently if Gore had won.

Chinese philosophy is based on Confucianism which emphasizes duty to family while the US is based on individualistic ethics emphasizing individual freedom. Keyu Jin writes in The New China Playbook, "According to the World Values Survey, which explores people's beliefs and values in more than 100 countries, 93% of Chinese participants value security over freedom, as compared to only 28 % of Americans. Such differences can be fully understood only by taking culture and history into account. In China, an interventionist state is rooted in paternalism, a hallmark of government in China since Confucian times, more than 2500 years ago;..." Although China's private enterprise capitalism has resulted in the fact that 800 million people have been pulled out of poverty in 40 years, GDP growth is not the sine qua non of Chinese capitalism. Under Xi China is turning a corner and reining in certain aspects of unbridled growth in order to mitigate certain unsalutary aspects of unfettered enterprise while emphasizing producing economic benefits for the 13% of the Chinese population still in poverty. So China is much more apt to put its finger on the economic scale while the US has more of a hands off policy on private enterprise. The downside of this is the unregulated growth of toxic social media and potentially artificial intelligence in the US. The US could mitigate the spoiler effect of third party candidates for President by adopting a different voting system. The current first past the post voting system practically guarantees that there will be a 2 party system with third parties acting as spoilers, something which could result in a second Trump Presidency despite 91 criminal indictments. Replacing first past the post with a voting system such as approval voting would eliminate the spoiler effects of third parties. It could be implemented simply by a vote of Congress since it would not violate any aspect of the Constitution. However, in the sclerotic American Congress it is unlikely that there will be any major changes in the US Constitution which is well past its "use by" date.

Off the Top of My Head

A Winning Strategy for Democrats in 2024

by John Lawrence

Democrats should add one item to their already impressive list of campaign strategies such as reproductive freedom, lowering drug prices, the Inflation Reduction Act, the Chips Act and more! They should take the wind out of the only Republican economic sail that they can offer: tax cuts. Dems should run on a tax break for the middle class paid for by a tax increase on billionaires and multimillionaires. They could also throw in a financial transactions tax but that would not be well understood by most voters. However a tax cut for the middle class would be well understood, and taxing billionaires more to pay for it would be equally well understood. All the arcane computations to achieve this scenario need not even be mentioned. That would be getting down in the weeds and too wonky for the average state of ignorance of the American public.

Biden is still at work on his Build Back Better agenda. Witness:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden touted the potential cost savings of Medicare’s first-ever price negotiations for widely used prescription drugs on Tuesday as he struggles to convince Americans that he’s improved their lives as he runs for reelection.

The drugs include the blood thinner Eliquis, diabetes treatment Jardiance and eight other medications. The negotiation process was authorized under the Inflation Reduction Act, which Biden signed last year, capping decades of debate over whether the federal government should be allowed to haggle with pharmaceutical companies.

Any lower prices won’t take effect for three years, and the path forward could be further complicated by litigation from drugmakers and heavy criticism from Republicans.

But the effort is a centerpiece of Biden’s reelection pitch as the Democrat tries to show Americans he’s deserving of a second term because of the work he’s doing to lower costs while the country is struggling with inflation. The drug negotiations, like many of Biden’s biggest policy moves, will take time to play out, and his challenge is to persuade the public to be patient.

So as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, Medicare gained the right to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies over drug prices. This is huge. Other countries have been doing this for years. Prices are substantially higher compared with European countries. One explanation for this price differential is that, unlike in the US, national health authorities in Europe negotiate new drug prices with manufacturers. Until now, that is. For the first time the government will be able to negotiate drug prices down at least for Medicare. This is still not the case for the general public however. For them they will still have to pay through the nose unlike any other civilized country. Unlike almost every other "democracy", the US does not have universal health care. Predatory drug corporations can still sock it to the American people. Democrats need to keep hammering away at making universal health care a right and a reality for the American people.

Off the Top of My Head

It's Not Biden's Job to Reduce Inflation. That's Jerome Powell's Job.

by John Lawrence

Republicans are so stupid. They blame Joe Biden for not doing something that's not his job to do. Furthermore, the way Powell is going about his job requires him to create more unemployment, to reduce economic activity. That's the traditional way to reduce inflation. So getting rid of inflation requires more economic pain not less. Then if there is a recession, they'll blame Joe Biden, not Jerome Powell, for that. As far as house prices being out of sight for more and more people, how about blaming the hedge funds and other entities that are bidding up asset prices. Eventually houses will be unaffordable for the masses of people which will turn the American people into renters and basically debtors. Is that Joe Biden's fault or the fault of hedge finds and other cash flush investors who are entering this market? In fact they are in the process of cornering this market. Higher interest rates are also hurting would be home owners and car buyers. Is that Joe Biden's fault or Jerome Powell's fault for raising interest rates? Joe Biden has no control over interest rates. The American consumer is all about me, me, me not what is best for the country as a whole.

Biden has done more than any President since Lyndon Johnson to improve the economy with the Chips Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, the American Rescue Plan and more. Nearly 11 million jobs have been created since President Biden took office – including 750,000 manufacturing jobs. It's the first time the US government has had an industrial policy. He kept the economy afloat during the COVID lock down. The US economy has been left to free enterprise for too long. With deregulation this has allowed corporate entities to pollute, to create dangerous products, to do nothing about carbon dioxide emissions.The government was just supposed to be hands off and let corporations run wild, all in the name of maximizing GDP. Well there are more important things than maximizing GDP like saving the planet from global warming. It is all ready too late to do that. It's only a question at this time of how bad it will get before some of the measures that are being taken today will kick in and save the planet, hopefully, from complete destruction. Each year heat waves and floods are getting more severe. Each year is hotter than the previous year. How important is it to maximize GDP under these conditions?

During World War II, the government made sure that the economy was completely focused on the war effort. Consumer consumption was kept low in order to support the war effort. Today with an even larger danger looming, the economy is going on its merry way with so many elements of it not focused on climate change. In fact I call it the Taylor Swiftization of the economy. Entertainment including professional athletics are very large components of GDP. Nero fiddling while Rome burned is nothing compared to what is happening today. Perhaps the energy going into these frivolous sectors should be refocused on climate change. But the American people don't even all agree that climate change is even a serious situation. They want more fossil fuels, more drilling, more pipelines, more gas production. Fortunately, some states like California are doing more like outlawing gas powered cars by 2035. However, 2035 is too late. Too little, too late is the story of the world's response to climate change. So major disasters will continue with the government's fiscal budget increasingly committed to bailing out these disasters. FEMA, by the way, is bankrupt, and insurance companies no longer want to insure.

Off the Top of My Head

How Trump and All His Co-defendants Will Win

by John Lawrence

In a nutshell: get one Trump voter on the juries. You need all 12 jurors to agree that someone is guilty. You need only one Trump voter on the jury to acquit. Who wins? The lawyers who will make millions. The media who will be transfixed with this legal circus. It'll end up being much ado about nothing. If Trump happens to be found guilty and actually faces jail time, he will probably leave the country. Why should a billionaire or semi-billionaire, who has assets in other countries and probably money stashed away off shore, willingly go to some sleazy jail or even some country club jail when he could live well in some other country? Trump is not exactly a loyal American citizen who adheres to the rule of law and playing fair. He can declare from abroad that he is some sort of President in Absentia and his loyal followers will still probably send him money. He will say he is prepared to come back to America as soon as his followers take political power and he can come in riding on a white horse.

Trump and his lawyers like constitutional scholar John Eastman who set up the fake electors scheme will work the system, and, if they can't convince one juror of their innocence, they will get themselves pardoned by the next elected Republican President which could be in 2024. American voters are nothing if not fickle. They have one of the best Presidents in American history who, despite great odds, accomplished more than anyone since Lyndon Johnson. Biden's popularity is in the tank despite his accomplishments. Why is this? Maybe because of his age. Maybe because he's not "charismatic" enough. Trump voters seem to be impressed by his charisma first and foremost. I guess charisma and popularity, not competence, is what gets you elected President in this country. Even as he faces 91 criminal indictments, on the TV it's all Trump, all the time. Just like the movie Trump is everywhere all the time all over the place.

Trump and his lawyers had a scheme for replacing electors, but it was not all that far fetched. Until 1913 state legislatures had control over electors. Passed by Congress on May 13, 1912, and ratified on April 8, 1913, the 17th Amendment modified Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution by allowing voters to cast direct votes for U.S. senators. Prior to its passage, senators were chosen by state legislatures. So Eastman and others were just trying to argue that there was something unconstitutional about the 17th Amendment. The Supreme Court might have been convinced that he was right and the state legislatures should have the final say in which case Trump would have been elected, not Biden. Republicans have used the Supreme Court before to get George W Bush elected in 2000 despite the fact that, when all the votes were counted, Al Gore really won the election. Bush convinced the Supreme Court to stop counting the votes. The result was the disastrous George W Bush administration in which he lied us into the Iraq war.

Republicans have been using dirty tricks for years to get themselves elected including gerrymandering and doctoring voter rolls to eliminate black voters. Black politicians and activists say that Republican lawmakers have used racial gerrymandering and voter suppression to secure those majorities and are using their political might to further consolidate power among mostly White Republicans. Republicans have been busy removing black voters from registration lists. According to Mother Jones: Fifty-five percent of the registration notices were sent to municipalities where Hillary Clinton had defeated Donald Trump, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and nine of the 10 areas with the highest concentration of voters on the purge list were big cities and college towns that had voted for Clinton. Milwaukee and Madison, the state’s two Democratic strongholds, accounted for 14 percent of the state’s registered voters but 23 percent of the names on the removal list. Voters in predominantly Black neighborhoods or areas with large student populations were nearly twice as likely to be flagged for removal, The Guardian found.

Trump and his lawyers just took dirty tricks to a whole new level. Now they will win in court just by the process of jury selection. It only takes one to find any of the myriad of defendants not guilty.

Off the Top of My Head

Ted Kaczynski and His Protest Against Technology

by John Lawrence

Ted Kaczynski, aka the Unibomber, wanted a revolution in which all technology would be removed from civilization and we would basically go back to the days of hunter gatherers, which he considered to be our natural state. If he were protesting only the harm that technology has done, he might have had a better case. In particular the chemical industry which has given us plastics which are polluting the oceans, PFAS chemicals, aka 'forever chemicals', weed killers such as Monsanto's Roundup and other chemicals likely causing cancer, Kaczynski might have had a better case. But his case was based on his perception that technology was psychologically inhibiting human freedom. In particular participation in a technological society was enslaving the human spirit. In many respects his protest was against wage slavery which in the early days of the American republic some writers considered almost as pernicious as chattel slavery. Michael Sandel writes in Democracy's Discontents:

"Labor leaders dramatized their case against wage labor by equating it with Southern slavery - "wage slavery," as they called it. Working for wages was tantamount to slavery not only in the sense that it left workers impoverished but also in the sense that it denied them the economic and political independence essential to republican citizenship.

"Wages is a cunning device of the devil for the benefit of tender consciences who would retain all the advantages of the slave system without the expense, trouble and odium of being slaveholders," wrote Orestes Brownson. The wage laborer suffered more than the southern slave and, given the unlikelihood of rising to own his own productive property, was scarcely more free. The only way to make wage labor compatible with freedom, Brownson argued, would be to make it a temporary condition on the way to independence: "There must be no class of our fellow men doomed to toil through life as mere workmen at wages. If wages are tolerated it must be, in the case of the individual operative, only under such conditions that, by the time he is at a proper age to settle in life, he shall have accumulated enough to be an independent laborer on his own capital, on his own farm or in his own shop."

Kaczynski's problem with the system included the slavery of the university system in which one must struggle for years at no or little pay for the privilege of going to work as a more highly paid wage slave and what this does to the human spirit that longs for freedom from this technological system. By going off and leading a barely self sufficient life in a cabin in the mountains, Kaczynski was escaping from the system which had enslaved his mind psychologically for years. What he didn't realize was that he could have achieved this by dropping out of that system and pursuing an independent life based on some form of independent labor. In other words, he could have left the system for self-employment and so can anyone else. The really destructive thing about the technological society is not what it did to the human spirit but what it did to the environment, and that was something that Kaczynski was not very much concerned about. Some people evidently have no problem with participating in the "system." However, the destruction of the environment brought about by the chemical industry and fossil fuels is actually destroying the planet. Kaczynski missed his calling. He could have made his life a protest against climate change and environmental destruction caused largely by the chemical industry, and he could have figured out a different way to get his manifesto published without killing and maiming people. Self publishing, perhaps?

Off the Top of My Head

Contrasting the Chinese, EU and American Economic Systems

by John Lawrence

Since 2001, China has pursued a “going-out” investment policy. At first, the PRC (People's Republic of China) mainly encouraged SOEs (state owned enterprises) to invest overseas but in recent years, China's overseas investments have diversified with both state and private enterprises investing in nearly all industries and economic sectors. After Deng Xiaoping came to power in the late 1970s, China opened up its economic policy with the result that approximately 800 million people were lifted out of poverty in about 40 years. This turned China into a capitalistic nation ruled by the Chinese Communist party although the word "communist" is largely an anachronism at this point. China developed a unique economic system comprised of state owned enterprises and private enterprise. It has been the private aspects of China's system that have mainly driven the huge increases in GDP to the point where China is likely to take over the US as the world's largest economy in terms of GDP in a few years.

There are 4 components of GDP: consumption, investment, government spending and profit from exports. Some of the reasons for China's becoming an economic powerhouse are that consumption is only 38% of GDP whereas US consumption is nearly 70% of GDP. While Americans consume, China produces, exports and invests. I would characterize the US as having a Taylor Swift economy, an economy based on consumption of entertainment and other disposable items with no lasting value. It has been reported that Taylor Swift and the Barbie movie have been at least somewhat responsible for keeping the American economy afloat. When you add in social media and professional athletics, much of American consumption is immediately disposed of as soon as the event is over. In the EU consumption is about 52% of GDP so somewhat larger than China's but much less than the US.

Chinese investment is 43% of GDP while The US' is about 16%. EU investment is about 25% of GDP so midway between the US and China. At 21.4% EU government spending is larger than either the US (17.6%) or China (16%). Like the American government the Chinese government doesn't spend a lot of money on welfare. Chinese families are basically savers and provide a lot of the same services to their own intergenerational extended families which are provided by EU governments. The American ethos is largely individualistic and so many family members who can't provide for themselves fall through the cracks. This is one reason for the homeless crisis in the US.

The Chinese economy is bolstered by the fact that it is a net exporter (2.5% of GDP) while the US (-2.7%) and the EU (-2.7%) are net importers which subtracts from their GDPs. China also exports capital and manpower in the form of the Belt and Road Initiative. Announced in 2013, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) aims to strengthen China’s connectivity with the world. It combines new and old projects, covers an expansive geographic scope, and includes efforts to strengthen hard infrastructure, soft infrastructure, and cultural ties. As of October 2019, the plan touches 138 countries with a combined Gross Domestic Product of $29 trillion and some 4.6 billion people. Supporting a diverse array of initiatives that enhance connectivity throughout Eurasia and beyond could serve to strengthen China’s economic and security interests while bolstering overseas development. 

The Chinese political system, nominally communist, has the same elements of democracy that the early US political system had which is that locally elected bodies select the next higher political body with 3 successive iterations so that the National Assembly is chosen by the provincial assemblies at the next lower level. The original American Constitution had a similar feature in that the Senate was not chosen directly by the people but by state legislatures. State legislatures continued to elect senators until adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1913 which provided for popular election of senators. The Chinese system tends to meritocraticy with the best and brightest ascending to the top levels whereas the more democratic American system has within it the possibility of electing complete idiots like Donald Trump whose ascendancy served to prove how vulnerable the two party system really is. By contrast the Chinese emphasize harmony and stability which are attributes of their main philosophical inheritance: Confucianism.

Off the Top of My Head

The Best Democracy May Not Be One Achieved by Elections

by John Lawrence

For a truly democratic system we would have to go back to ancient Greece and the system developed by Aristotle: sortition. Sortition is the selection of a legislative body randomly by lot. If the American House of Representatives truly represented the American people it would be chosen in this way. There is no more representative way of choosing a democratic legislative body. In the ancient Greek legislative body known as the Council of 500, each representative was chosen by lot. If the American House was chosen in this way, it would a) eliminate the need for money in American politics and b) eliminate the need for political parties in American politics. People have been brainwashed to believe that only a government in which there are elections for the representatives is a true democracy. It's not the only or even the best way. Representatives chosen by lot are more representative of the American people than representatives chosen by election. So at least for the purposes of selecting this body, with sortition the two party system would go by the wayside.

So what would this say about the relative merits of a democracy in which the representative body was chosen by lot and a one party system such as the Chinese government. In other words how would a no party system compare to a one party system , and is a no party system more democratic than a one party system. Yes, certainly it would be. But is a two party system such as the US currently has necessarily more democratic than a one party system. In the Chinese system the lowest deliberative body is voted on by the people. Then there are 3 levels of elections. The first is for the municipal people's Congress which elects the people's congresses of provinces which elects the highest level the National People's Congress. If the National People's Congress were to be selected by lot, then the Chinese system would be truly democratic just as the American system would be if the House of Representatives were selected by lot. Based on this analysis one could argue that the Chinese one party system is just as much a version of democracy as the American two party system and that if both systems used sortition instead of elections by vote, both systems would be arguably more democratic. Whether a system is a one party system, a two party system or a multiparty system such as they have in Europe, the various systems should only be compared on the actual results the system is capable of manifesting and how much their various bodies reflect the wishes of the people.

The American system is currently on the brink of systemic failure due to the fact that there is such a great divisive split between the two parties.The American system notably does not always elect the best and brightest candidates. The Chinese system arguably is more merit based than the US system. In the US a clown and no nothing like Trump can be elected and cause great havoc. In fact he almost instigated a complete overthrow of the American system of democracy. People with money or financial backing stand a better chance of being elected than people of merit or good will. The First Amendment allows candidates to lie about virtually anything, and, if they can convince enough voters that their alternative facts are the true facts, they can win elections. While the Chinese system does not represent the ultimate democratic form of government, neither does the American system. Both systems could be reformed to allow more truly representative government and more successful and capable government. In fact in the US if the House of Representatives were formed by sortition and the Senate were formed by voting or sortition based on a pool of candidates that had at least minimal background, experience and educational requirements, the American system would be quite a bit more democratic than it is right now. The ideal system might be one that approaches as closely as possible to a no party system.

Off the Top of My Head

American Democracy Teetering on the Brink

by John Lawrence

So what are the possible outcomes? Let's assume Trump is the Republican nominee. Option 1: Trump is convicted and goes to jail before the 2024 election. In this scenario, Trump will probably lose the election for President. Independents will be aghast. Trump's base will not be able to organize sufficiently to carry out another assault on the seat of American democracy. There will be sporadic outbursts. In jail Trump will not have the media exposure he has outside of jail. Option 2: Trump is indicted multiple times but not convicted before the 2024 election. Trump probably still loses the national election, but is in a position as a free man to organize another insurrection, this time on a much larger level than the one on January 6, 2021. This could amount to civil war. Option 3: Trump loses the election and subsequently goes to jail. This could also result in a dangerous situation because Trump still has access to an outsize megaphone and continue to rile up his base before he goes to jail and cause trouble leading again to a possible civil war.

As long as Trump is a free man, he can continue to foment a revolution. He can continue to advocate for violence towards his perceived enemies, even those that are a legitimate part of the judicial and legal system. He is already attacking Jack Smith, the special counsel, who is prosecuting him on multiple counts regarding January 6 and also the document handling fiasco. Trump continues to insist that the American legal system is not legitimate. He continues to undermine the legitimacy of the rule of law. His followers essentially consist of a cult who want Trump exonerated irrespective of his purported criminality. As long as Trump is free, he will continue to whip up his followers and lead them to the brink of civil war. Who knows if in addition to Trump's calls for revolution, there is also a parallel movement going on to organize for a response to Trump's being convicted and put in jail or if Trump loses the election regardless of whether he has been convicted or not. Trump's followers are bound and determined to put Trump back in the White House by any means necessary. They will do whatever Trump eggs them on to do.

The United States' continued existence as a democracy cannot be taken for granted at this point. The Republican controlled House can throw the US into chaos if they decide not to authorize the budget. That in and of itself could shut the country down. There is a good chance that they will not authorize the continuance of government spending. There are many other ways that they could partner with Trump to bring the country down. Are some elements of the military also in league with Trump? Who knows. It seems that they were on January 6 when they wouldn't send troops to protect the Capitol on a timely basis. Obviously, some people in the military establishment sympathize with Trump. The influence of Fox News and other conservative media continues to amplify Trump's messages. The First Amendment guarantee of free speech enhances Trump's ability to foment a possible civil war. Trump's base who have grievances going back to loss of the Civil War combined with Trump's perceived grievances reinforce each other. An aggrieved leader and his aggrieved followers represent a volatile mixture

Trump almost succeeded in overturning the American government on January 6. Only Mike Pence stood in his way. Notably, firearms were not a part of the insurrectionists' arsenal as they invaded the Capitol. Marjorie Taylor Greene has said that next time they would bring their fire arms. Could another mob do what they did on January 6, and also be successful at it? Or could they be successful at the State level? These are tenuous times during which a number of scenarios involving Trump trying to take over the American government could play out. His base will never accept the outcomes of any indictments or even convictions. How will they react when he is sentenced to jail for the rest of his life? Or will the prosecutors chicken out when it comes to conviction and putting Trump in jail. If Trump is successful in fomenting a civil war, an unlimited right of Free Speech will be largely to blame. Can Trump be sentenced to shutting his mouth?

Off the Top of My Head

Toxic Masculinity

by John Lawrence

Traditional masculine traits are dominance, aggression, emotional repression, violence. These traits have been historically mostly expressed in terms of the military. In the First World War, many of the participants were more than eager to cover themselves in glory by proving their manhood in combat. Instead many of them ended up dying miserable deaths in muddy trenches or hung from barbed wire. The persistence of war in the human experience can be laid squarely at the feet of men and their interpretation of what is manly in my opinion. In fact peace or even world peace is seen as a feminine idea. Most traditional men would not consider peace in the form of world wide understanding and compassion even possible because it would be based on feminine values. The only peace even possible in the traditional male mind is "peace through strength." Traditional male values prevent even an acknowledgment of what peace would really consist of because it would consist of emotional values that are traditionally feminine. The predominant attitude is that joining the military will "make a man out of you." A real man is only supposed to express a limited and actually stunted set of emotions and certainly is not supposed to express any vulnerabilities. Physical force or the threat of force is acceptable in a man's world. Understanding, cooperation and diplomacy are not.

Traditional male activities are beer drinking (a man can hold his liquor), fast car racing or pickup driving (showing dominance by means of a powerful machine), participation in or spectating at competitive sports, participation in or admiration of the military. Dominance, competitiveness, the use or threat of violence, pugnaciousness, toughness, looking down on men who don't conform to this stereotype - these are all traditional male traits. None of these traits are physically or mentally healthy. For instance, holding your liquor can lead to cirrhosis of the liver. Emotional repressiveness can lead to an inability to relate to women even though some women are attracted to the traditional male type. In fact it can be argued that Trump's popularity is a result of his expression of traditional male values. In an article in FiveThirtyEight entitled With His Version of Masculinity, we find this:

But the quest to seem masculine is particularly complicated in this year’s GOP primary because Trump has been so successful at projecting a macho image that Republican voters have responded to. This masculine identity isn’t about demonstrations of physical prowess — nobody talks about how far Trump can run or whether he can bench-press a certain weight. His version of manliness is fueled by other kinds of behavior — including his belittling of other candidates, aggression toward women, “tell it like it is and don’t apologize” affect — that are associated with traditional ideas about how a man should behave. The other GOP candidates largely aren’t trying to imitate those aspects of Trump’s macho identity — but experts told us that without Trump’s signature belligerence, his version of masculinity might not resonate as much. And that means his rivals may have an especially difficult time convincing the GOP primary electorate that they’re as strong a leader as Trump.

“In this view of masculinity, men are supposed to be dominant, powerful, aggressive,” said Theresa Vescio, a professor of psychology at Penn State University who studies masculinity. “And the more that people — both men and women — think that good men should be high in power, status, dominance and toughness, the more they say that’s what a man is, the more they support Trump.”

It might seem strange to some that a man who is not particularly physically fit or athletic, never served in the military and eats junk food is an exemplary manifestation of manhood. It seems ridiculous that Trump's penchant for belittling his opponents is seen by some as "manly." That his getting away with stiffing contractors, creditors and not paying taxes are manly traits. But somehow Trump's unwillingness to apologize about anything or ever admit he did anything wrong is seen by some Republicans as the counter to "liberal values" like having compassion and respect for people who disagree with you. Instead Trump calls his detractors and competitors names, assails them as weaklings and asserts his macho masculinity while he hides behind a bevy of lawyers and uses his money to shield himself from any negative consequences. His seeming ability to get away with stuff is seen as quintessentially masculine. The article continues:

These are the voters who are especially likely to find Trump’s version of masculinity appealing. Trump is particularly effective at drawing on his supporters’ fears about threats to traditional masculinity, while simultaneously building himself up as a paragon of that version of manliness, according to the experts we spoke with. His image as president was aggressively militant, threatening other world leaders and avoiding compromise. And his refusal to apologize for a well-documented track record of sexual harassment and assault makes him seem authentically masculine and powerful to some voters, according to Dan Cassino, a political scientist at Fairleigh Dickinson University who studies male gender identity. “It’s as much about tearing others down as it is about building others up,” Cassino says. “The insults, the misogynistic behavior — these are very negative masculine traits but he’s willing to assert them in a way others aren’t, and that means nobody thinks he’s lying about who he is.”

By projecting an image of himself as a powerful, strong, dominant man who’s willing to shrug away modern conventions around how men and women should behave, Trump has reached people who support traditional gender hierarchies. “There are a lot of conservatives — men but some women too — in this country who increasingly feel like they’re on the outside looking in, while liberals run things,” said Paul Elliott Johnson, a professor of communication at the University of Pittsburgh who studies gender and politics. “Trump invites those people to feel victimized and then says, ‘I will fix the problem.’”

As detrimental to society in general as these toxic traditional masculine values are, they will even probably contribute to the annihilation of the human race altogether either through war or the ignoring of climate change. There is not even any talk of world peace any more. It's not even on anyone's radar. The militarization of the American psyche is complete. The Peace Corps is never even mentioned in the media. Most people would not even know that it exists. The Peace Corps represents the feminine values of help and caring for those less fortunate. The traditional male simply looks upon them as losers in the game of life, probably because of their inferiority to white males. As traditional white males, they believe that they have simply outcompeted those who come from as Trump has termed them, "shithole countries."  Let people with feminine values agonize over them and their claims that rich white men should help them out with their situations due to climate change. Macho men would scoff at their suggestions that the rich nations should bear the cost of ameliorating the effects of global warming or as U.N. chief António Guterres declared, "global boiling." As Trump and other macho men might say, "suck it up." There will probably never be world peace until women run the world. And where would that leave the traditional man and his toxic values? Healthy manhood, in my humble opinion, should be nothing more nor less than loving, supporting and cherishing the girls and women in our lives whether they be girlfriends, lovers, wives, daughters, mothers or grandmothers. All the rest of the positive values a man can manifest are simply personhood values which can be exemplified by both sexes.

Off the Top of My Head

Barbie and Taylor Swift Prop Up US Economy

by John Lawrence

The Federal Reserve has credited Barbie and Taylor Swift with propping up the US economy. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia announced this month that Taylor Swift's tour helped boost travel and tourism in the region, a claim also made by several other U.S. cities regarding the musician's widely popular concerts. The US consumer is amusing itself to death. Meanwhile, the earth is burning up or in fact boiling. One would think that, if the climate situation were so dire, there would be an 'all hands on deck' effort to fight the war on climate change. But, nope, Americans are propping up the economy and in so doing are contributing even more fossil fuel emissions into the atmosphere thus hastening rather than retarding climate change. Even as some American cities - namely Phoenix, Las Vegas and Palm Springs - are sweltering under temperatures greater than 110 degrees Fahrenheit, even with the handwriting on the wall, Americans are dealing with this crisis by going to the movies and to Taylor Swift concerts. Taylor had better beware that she may get a container of coke thrown at her or even chicken nuggets while she struts about the stage. Cardi B got so mad when a "fan" threw her drink at her that she threw her microphone at the fan.

Newsflash: Americans attending Taylor Swift concerts aren't the same Americans who fought World War II. The era of Americans foregoing consumer delights in order to commit themselves to a long hard slog in the name of world peace, freedom and democracy is over. In fact, politically speaking, a major portion of Americans, not a majority hopefully, would rather be entertained by a clown like Trump than to have to ask themselves what they can do for their country as John F. Kennedy suggested. "Ask not what your country can do for you," Kennedy intoned. Well, that question has been answered. What this country can do for Americans is to provide them with entertainment like Barbie and Taylor Swift. And "what you can do for America" is to go to the movies and attend concerts spending your money in order to keep the economy afloat.

The U.N. chief issued a stark warning on climate change this week: “The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived,” António Guterres declared in a news briefing, as scientists confirmed that July is set to become Earth’s hottest month on record. But, boiling or not, most Americans just want to be entertained and to consume all the merchandise that goes with it. Taylor Swift and Beyoncé have been moving markets, quite literally. The Federal Reserve has tracked the striking effect of Taylor Swift's tour on host cities. One analysis estimates it could generate almost $5 billion in global revenue. When Beyoncé comes to town, hotels, hair stylists and bartenders all get a boost, according to Yelp. "Despite the slowing recovery in tourism in the region overall, one contact highlighted that May was the strongest month for hotel revenue in Philadelphia since the onset of the pandemic, in large part due to an influx of guests for the Taylor Swift concerts in the city," the [Federal] reserve wrote in the Beige Book, which is published by the regional banks to share information about the state of the economy.

Have Americans degenerated to the point that when given a choice between letting the earth boil and become unfit for human habitation and entertaining themselves, they would choose to entertain themselves. This is literally "amusing ourselves to death." Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (1985) is a book by educator Neil Postman. Postman sees television's entertainment value as a present-day "soma", the fictitious pleasure drug in Brave New World, by means of which the citizens' rights are exchanged for consumers' entertainment. Postman was on to something. In the current scenario, though, citizens' responsibilities are being exchanged for consumers' entertainment. In America, as we have been promised, our only responsibility is to enjoy our freedom even if that means that we succumb to the future of a boiling earth.

Off the Top of My Head

How to Turn the US From a Two Party System into a Multi-Party System

by John Lawrence

Very simply by changing from a first past the post (fptp) system in which the candidate with the highest number of votes wins to approval voting. In the first past the post system a voter can only vote for one of the candidates who are running. In the approval voting system a voter can vote for more than one candidate. In both cases the candidate with the highest number of votes wins. Taking Presidential elections as an example, the fptp system generates the 2 party system. Third party candidates mess up the system because they take votes away from the party they are most closely associated with. Ross Perot took the 1992 election away from George H W Bush since some voters most closely associated with the Republican party voted for Perot while most Democrats voted for Clinton. The second choice of most Perot voters was probably George H W Bush. Perot took 19% of the vote. Clinton won with 43% of the vote, and Bush lost with 37% of the vote. If Perot had not been in the race, Bush probably would have won. If the fptp voting system had been replaced with approval voting, voters could have voted for Bush and Perot. In that case Perot still wouldn't have won, but he wouldn't have taken votes away from Bush. For example if all the voters voting for Perot had Bush as their second favorite and voted for both candidates, Bush would have had 19% more votes thus winning the election. Perot would still have 19% of the vote and Clinton would still have had 43% of the vote, but Bush would have won having garnered 37 + 19 = 56% of the vote!

Making this simple change in the US voting system at all levels would result in a flourishing of third, fourth and fifth parties. These parties would not take votes away from the winners of the election, but would give information about which alternatives were on voters' minds in addition to the platforms presented by the major parties. Eventually, one of the multitude of parties might even replace one of the two major parties. This change of voting systems would let a multitude of parties and ideas flourish instead of cleaving all voter concerns into two parties. It would result in a loss of power for the 2 major parties and do much to decrease the divisiveness in American politics. It would allow real participation by minorities in American politics. The fptp system encourages the division of American voters into two camps in a system where hate and divisiveness can flourish. Approval voting would eliminate the possibility of third party candidates being spoilers in elections and taking votes away from the candidate who would have won if the third party candidate had not been running.

The change from the fptp system to the approval system could be done very simply. Nothing else about the American system would need to be changed, not the ballots, not the counting of votes. The only change on the ballot would be from "vote for one" to "vote for more than one." This change would encourage a multiplicity of candidates and viewpoints and would enrich the American political system. Third parties would be welcomed instead of feared. It would also tend to diminish the role of money in politics as the two party system encourages wealthy donors to give to only one of the two parties. If a viable multi-party system were in place, they would need to spread their money among a multiplicity of parties. Parties with a small number of supporters would be in the position of adding to their membership and growing into major parties based on their ideas and not on their war chests. There are many other improvements that could be made to the American democratic system, but none could be implemented more simply and have such far reaching results. And it doesn't mention in the Constitution which voting system should be used.

Off the Top of My Head

Ukraine War is First World War All Over Again

by John Lawrence

In the First World War, Britain relied on supplies from the US the same way that Ukraine is relying on supplies from the US. The only difference is that Britain first had to borrow the money from the US and then use that money to buy weapons from US defense contractors. As a result Britain went into debt and US defense contractors got rich. Now the US is just giving the weapons to Ukraine with the result that US tax payers are basically picking up the tab. I like Joe Biden and what he's accomplished with respect to the economy, but I think his open ended policy towards Ukraine is a big mistake leading to the continued escalation of the war. The war in Ukraine has become a war of attrition just like the First World War. US sanctions against Russia are having the same effect as the British blockade of German ports in the First World War. In both cases the wars of attrition slogged on. In WW 1 16.5 million people died. The winners lost more people than the losers. The war in Ukraine also slogs on with no end in sight. Both sides have too much to lose, and both have their sights set on winning. This is a formula for disaster in terms of loss of life and billions of dollars of real estate destroyed. At that point it does not matter much who is the eventual winner.

So what's the off ramp other than total victory by one side or the other? In the First World War there was a nominal winner - Britain - although both sides were losers. Both sides were destroyed and in debt. Will this be the same in Ukraine? While the war in Ukraine rages on fueled by the egos of Biden, Zelensky and Putin, more and more Ukrainians and Russians are dying. So far only Ukrainian property is being destroyed, but I think we are on the brink of seeing a further escalation in which Russian property will also start to be destroyed. Biden's war rules were that the fighting should take place only in Ukraine and not on Russian soil, a proposition which was inherently flawed as far as the Ukrainians were concerned. According to Biden's rules, Ukraine could only fight a defensive war against Russia while Russia was totally on the offense in Ukraine. Of course this does not result in a fair fight. So Zelensky will almost inevitably take the war onto Russian territory and then beg Biden for more offensive weapons with which to destroy Moscow and other Russian cities the way that Russia has attempted to destroy Ukrainian cities.

The war will become a war on civilians on both sides as the war of attrition on the battlefield stagnates since both sides will have weapons capable of causing major destruction to major cities occupied by civilians. As both sides dig in, the thought or consideration of a peace plan gets further and further out of sight. As the war escalates, the probability that Russia will use tactical nukes to end it increases just as the US used nukes in World War II to destroy the civilian populations of two Japanese cities. Putin will use the same logic, and, while the US accuses Putin of war crimes, Putin will accuse Harry Truman of war crimes since he used nukes to wipe out the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki under the rationale that it would save American lives if the US had to actually invade Japan. Putin could use much the same logic. In any event the longer the war goes on without any serious discussions of a peaceful settlement involving compromise, the more dangerous and heartbreaking will be the eventual outcome. All sides need to stop fighting and put their energy into fighting our common enemy - climate change.

Off the Top of My Head

"Everyone's Crying Peace on Earth Just as Soon as We Win This War" - Mose Allison

by John Lawrence

Note from the future: One of the last humans evacuating planet earth, Elon Musk, writing the last chapter of the human race from his space hut on the moon: "Well, I guess it's up to me to write the last chapter of human history. I personally was able to escape planet earth as temperatures soared into the 150s. People had been forced into caves deep in earth to escape the heat. However, the war in Ukraine still raged on. Each side was intent on winning that war. More and more resources were poured into weapons. The US defense budget soared into the trillions of dollars. Some of us more enlightened ones said, 'Wait, wouldn't it be more important to take that money and put it toward fighting climate change, our common enemy. Climate change is the enemy of both NATO and Russia. No, the power structure said, it's more important to win this war. As the fighters in that war were dying of heat exhaustion rather than enemy bullets, they were some of the last humans to hold out on the surface of earth. Air temperatures were buckling roads and railroads. Even tanks and drones were melting in front of their eyes. It came down to hand to hand combat as guns were useless in the severe heat. Soldiers got second degree burns just from touching anything metal. But the war raged on. Ukraine was promised a path to NATO membership at the end of the war, but the brush along that path was burning furiously. It's doubtful if Ukraine would have made it all the way along that path to NATO without burning up first."

Musk continued: "You know the human saga reminds me of the fairy tale about the frogs in a pan of water. The water temperature was gradually increasing, but frog A insisted on staying in the water until his frog army was able to defeat Frog B's army. He reassured baby frog that as soon as his side won, they would all jump out of the water and be safe. But first they had to win this war. But baby frog said, 'Aren't you devoting all your time and energy to winning the war when, if both sides cooperated instead, you could devote your resources to lowering the temperature of the water.' No, said Frog A. Frog B is despicable We want all this land. We're not going to cede any of it to Frog B's tribe. But baby frog insisted, 'Who cares who owns what land if the whole pan of water which is our collective habitat burns up while you guys are still fighting? Your budget for cooling the water is miniscule compared to your defense (offense?) budget. If you just got along with other frogs you wouldn't need such a large defense budget. You could devote that money to global water cooling. This is the only pan of water we've got!.' I assure you, Frog A said, that as soon as we win this war, we will devote all our resources to cooling this pan of water."

Musk continued, "Well the moral of the story is that the human race was not able to get its act together even when they faced a common enemy. Each year even after global temperatures reached 140 degrees in some parts of the world for 100 days at a time, neither side in the Ukraine war would stop fighting. In fact that war would have gone on for the next hundred years, but, unfortunately, earth would not have been inhabitable by humans for another hundred years. It was not more than a decade later when temperatures reached 150 degrees for days at a time in most parts of the world. All the glaciers had melted in Antarctica so sea levels had risen more than 10 feet inundating Miami, London, New York City, Tokyo and New Orleans not to mention many other less noteworthy cities. No one could get property insurance any more; the insurance companies all went bankrupt. FEMA had run out of money. Flash floods left hundreds of thousands homeless. Those who had bought those old missile silos in Montana were lucky. They were safely ensconced underground where the temperatures were cooler. People crowded into Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico and Mammoth Cave in Kentucky. After these caves reached capacity a detachment of former marines stationed at the entrance shot anyone trying to gain entrance. Survivalist skills were highly in demand."

"As the last fighter on the battlefield in Ukraine died of heat stroke, NATO and Russia declared the war was over. It was undetermined who actually won. The path to membership in NATO for Ukraine was littered with dead bodies, many of whom had died from heat exhaustion. Ukraine itself was littered with tanks and other metallic weapons of war which seared the flesh of anyone foolish enough to touch them."

Off the Top of My Head

Certain Places Are Already Becoming Unlivable

by John Lawrence

Today it's supposed to be 121 degrees in Palm Springs, 115 degrees in Phoenix, 108 degrees in Athens. If you don't have air conditioning in those places, you are at high risk of dying. Thousand year floods are becoming annual events. And yet last year the human race pumped more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than ever before. Is this nuts or what? The human race will not become obsolete due to Artificial Intelligence; there is another much more deadly and imminent scenario - global warming. The Washington Post reported in an article entitled Floods, fires and deadly heat are the alarm bells of a planet on the brink:

The world is hotter than it’s been in thousands of years, and it’s as if every alarm bell on Earth were ringing.

The warnings are echoing through the drenched mountains of Vermont, where two months of rain just fell in only two days. India and Japan were deluged by extreme flooding.

They’re blaring from the scorching streets of Texas, Florida, Spain and China, with a severe heat wave also building in Phoenix and the Southwest in coming days.

They’re burbling up from the oceans, where temperatures have surged to levels considered “beyond extreme.”

And they’re showing up in unprecedented, still-burning wildfires in Canada that have sent plumes of dangerous smoke into the United States.

Scientists say there is no question that this cacophony was caused by climate change — or that it will continue to intensify as the planet warms. Research shows that human greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from burning fossil fuels, have raised Earth’s temperature by about 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels. Unless humanity radically transforms the way people travel, generate energy and produce food, the global average temperature is on track to increase by more than 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 Fahrenheit), according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — unleashing catastrophes that will make this year’s disasters seem mild.

It's the problem of the frog in warm water. As the temperature of the water is increased, the frog doesn't jump out because the water warms so gradually. Eventually, the water gets so warm that the frog wants desperately to jump out but he can't. The water is too hot for him to move so, as the temperature keeps on increasing, he eventually boils to death. This is the exact metaphor for what is happening to the human race in its relatively short existence on planet Earth. As the human race developed and urbanized, towns and cities were built adjacent to water sources. This means that every babbling brook is potentially a source of catastrophic floods because such immense amounts of water are dumped out of clouds that the babbling brook infrastructure cannot contain it. As sea levels rise many great cities also will soon be under water as soon as the Antarctic glaciers melt.

Meanwhile, the human race is amusing itself to death. Instead of an all hands on deck effort as was seen in World War II, we are seeing increasing demands for tourism, entertainment and increased consumption in the developed world. That world will just crank up the air conditioning as the world warms until such time that the electric grid fails. Then those without a personal generator will be doomed. In the undeveloped world, they don't even have adequate potable water or a decent sewage system let alone any kind of air conditioning. They will be the first to succumb. Eventually the human race will run out of options even as those in more favorable locations continue to consume and amuse themselves. Then later only the rich will survive.

Off the Top of My Head

Was the War in Ukraine Worth Not Giving Putin Assurances That Ukraine Would Not Join NATO?

by John Lawrence

In an interview with Fareed Zakaria President Biden said this:

"I don't think [Ukraine] is ready for membership in NATO, but here's the deal. ... I don't think there's unanimity in NATO about whether or not to bring Ukraine into the NATO family now at this moment in the middle of a war. ... The very first time I met with Putin two years ago in Geneva, and he said I want commitments on no Ukraine in NATO, I said we're not going to do that because it's an open door policy. We're not going to shut anybody out. NATO is a process that takes some time to meet all of the qualifications and from democratization to a whole range of other issues so in the meantime though I've spoken with Zelensky at great length about, at length about this and uh one of the things I indicated is the United States would be ready to provide while the process is going on - and it's going to take a while - while that process is going on, to provide security ala the security we provide for Israel providing the weaponry they need, the capacity to defend themselves if there is an agreement, if there is a cease fire, if there is a peace agreement and so I think we can work it out but I think it's premature to say, to call for a vote you know in now because there's other qualifications that need to be met including democratization and some of those issues."

So since Ukraine was not ready for NATO membership when Biden met Putin two years ago, why wouldn't Biden give Putin assurances that Ukraine would not be admitted to NATO at least for some period of years? That in and of itself might have forestalled the war so that Putin would not have invaded Ukraine in February 2022. Or Biden could have persuaded NATO to admit Ukraine to NATO two years ago and that in and of itself might have deterred Putin from invaded Ukraine. Clearly, Putin invaded Ukraine because it was not a member of NATO, and so his invasion would not have amounted to a full scale confrontation with all of NATO's forces. Also clearly, since Ukraine was not in Biden's mind ready to join NATO, Biden could have given Putin assurances that Ukraine would not become a member of NATO. Then at such time as Ukraine was deemed fit to become a member of NATO the US could have gone back on its assurances. It wouldn't have been the first time the US had made a commitment and then broken it. In fact when the Soviet Union dissolved itself in 1989, Gorbachev was given assurances that NATO wouldn't move "one inch eastward," an assurance that was clearly broken during the Clinton and George W Bush administrations when NATO moved aggressively eastward.

So was the war in Ukraine in which there have been as of June 2023 25,170 civilian casualties, with 9,177 killed and 15,993 injured, really worth not givving Putin assurances? By the end of 2022, an estimated 5.9 million people were internally displaced by the war, while nearly 5.7 million refugees and asylum-seekers from Ukraine were recorded across Europe. The damage to housing facilities from the Russian invasion of Ukraine was estimated at 50 billion U.S. dollars between February 24, 2022, and February 24, 2023. Further 36 billion U.S. dollars were recorded in losses from damages to infrastructure. Was the war in Ukraine worth Biden's refusal to give Putin "assurances?" The United States has appropriated approximately $115 billion in emergency funding to support Ukraine since February 24, 2022. Could that money have been better spent? Since Russia’s invasion in February of that year, Ukraine has become far and away the top recipient of U.S. foreign aid. It’s the first time that a European country has held the top spot since the Harry S. Truman administration directed vast sums into rebuilding the continent through the Marshall Plan after World War II. All of this does not even count the inflation caused the world by the sanctions against Russian oil and the disruption of Ukraine's grain crops. And even now the war grinds on with the possibility of Russian tactical nuclear bombs being used in Ukraine or the largest nuclear power plant in Europe being destroyed.

Biden's opening the door for the war in Ukraine was based on the principle that he couldn't give Putin assurances that Ukraine would never join NATO. War based on principles, my friends, is never worth it. He should have given Putin assurances even if he was crossing his fingers behind his back.

Off the Top of My Head

Supreme Court Judgments Undermine the US as a Nation

by John Lawrence

So Harvard can't admit students based on race but can admit legacy student based on the fact that their parents gave money to Harvard. First of all Harvard is a private institution. Why can't it decide for itself how to admit students based on policies of their own making. Why is the government telling Harvard how to admit students. Harvard as a private entity within the United States is entitled to its own freedom without government interference as dictated by the Supreme Court. This conservative Supreme Court will not hesitate to tell government to get out of the affairs of private individuals as it did in the case of the web designer who didn't want to design web sites for gays. Yet it wants to dictate to Harvard what its admission policies should be. If I started a college and wanted to admit only blacks, I suppose the Supreme Court would have an issue with that, but then isn't my admission policy free speech? It seems that everything else is. Whatever anyone wants to do, providing the Supreme Court agrees with it, it declares that that is free speech. The principle is that it doesn't want the government to set any policies at all. According to their philosophy government should be policy neutral. Government should just set a level playing field and then get out of everyone's business. But in the Harvard case they declared just the opposite should hold. The government should be in the business of setting admission policies according to the Supreme Court.

According to conservative philosophy by which the Supreme Court is dominated, the Federal government should have no role in public policy whatsoever. So one of the techniques it uses is to refer everything back to the states. The states should set all policies, not the Federal government. So if a state wants to ban books, it has a perfect right to do so. If a state wants to ban trans males from female sports or bathrooms, its has a right to do so. But of course the Federal government has no right to weigh in on one side or the other. This is the philosophy for overturning Roe vs Wade. Each state should set its own abortion policy. The Federal government does not have a right to set this or any other policy for the country as a whole. Presumably the Supreme Court at some point will also weigh in on the illegality of the Federal government setting policies on the environment and in particular climate change. When all is said and done the only legitimate function of the Federal government will be to have the largest defense department and defense budget in the world. The function of the Federal government will be confined to waging war.

So according to the Supreme Court's philosophy, all social programs like Obamacare or Social Security or Medicare will be relegated to the states. All Federal programs will be deemed illegal. The United States will not even be a nation any more in the sense that France or Germany or China is a nation. The United States will not be capable of having a national policy regarding climate change or anything else. The United States as a nation will be totally weak when it comes to anything except war. There the nation will be all powerful. But when it comes to anything that actually benefits human beings whether here at home or abroad, the United States will be little more than a hollow shell. Other nations will look at the United States, as Nixon stated, as a "pitiful helpless giant." Other nations will not trust the United States since already they know that national policies can change every four years based on which party is in power. Now they also know that the United States has a Supreme Court which is determined to undermine national power at every step and refer everything back to the states.

Off the Top of My Head

Bidenomics: The US Finally Gets an Industrial Policy

by John Lawrence

The Republican policy that the government should be hands off regarding the economy is out the window. Trickle down is a failed policy. Bidenomics gets the government involved in crucial areas of the economy. The export of jobs to parts of the world where labor is cheapest is replaced with a policy of creating jobs within the US. Deregulation is replaced with regulations to protect the environment and combat climate change. The traditional Democratic alliance with unions is back in vogue. Bidenomics is all about building the economy from the middle out and the bottom up instead of from the top down. Bidenomics is about shaping the economy in a way that is propitious for the middle class and the environment. Infrastructure building is more important than accelerating the consumer economy. Putting our house in order is more important than giving away fattening goodies to consumers. People are being put to work doing jobs which actually make US society a better place instead of encouraging jobs in frivolous pursuits. This is not necessarily what the American consumer wants.The American consumer wants more money in their pockets so they can buy more gadgets and aspire to making millions as a pro athlete or an entertainer. They don't actually want to work at the good jobs Biden is creating building infrastructure or making semiconductors. CNN reported:

Trickle-down economics, which was at the heart of President Ronald Reagan’s policies and continues to be the guiding light of Republican lawmakers, typically revolves around tax cuts for the wealthy and large companies. Supporters say the benefits flow down to middle-class and working Americans, boosting economic growth more broadly. But many experts dispute the effectiveness of this practice at lifting all boats.

Biden argues that supply-side, trickle-down economics has cost jobs and hollowed out the middle class. He has long focused on that group of Americans, serving as chair of the Middle Class Task Force when he was vice president in the Obama administration.

“Folks, let me say it as clearly as I can: (The) trickle-down approach failed the middle class and failed America,” said Biden.

To fund Bidenomics, the president once again calls for ensuring the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share of taxes.

The problem is that now that the American people have had  a good taste of Democratic programs, they want more: Republican tax cuts. They want their cake and eat it too. They know that Republicans will have no problem with the national deficits and debts as long as they come in the form of tax cuts. So from the American consumer's point of view they have got about all they can expect to get out of Bidenomics. Now they want a tax break to boot.

The Biden administration has focused on infrastructure, clean energy and semiconductors, Lael Brainard, director of the National Economic Council, said. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Inflation Reduction Act, and CHIPS Act each include direct funding and tax incentives for public and private manufacturing construction. Biden outlined how states will receive more than $42 billion in federal funding for high-speed internet service, which was part of the 2021 infrastructure law. It is aimed at bringing connectivity to more Americans and closing the digital divide. The administration is comparing it to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Rural Electrification Act, which brought electricity to homes throughout the country. And 35,000 new projects – including roads, bridges and ports – have received funding through the bipartisan infrastructure law, the White House said.

E.J. Dionne Jr. said in the Washington Post:

Bidenomics has also gone global. One indicator is the exceptional and ongoing debate Sullivan’s speech provoked in proposing a “new consensus” to replace “a set of ideas that championed tax cutting and deregulation, privatization over public action and trade liberalization as an end in itself.” The old formulas, Sullivan argued, not only failed to address new problems; they didn’t work on their own terms.

“In the name of oversimplified market efficiency,” he said, “entire supply chains of strategic goods, along with the industries and jobs that made them, moved overseas.” The idea that freer trade “would help America export goods, not jobs and capacity, was a promise made but not kept.” He stressed the need for “a modern American industrial strategy” and the benefits of “moving beyond traditional trade deals to innovative new international economic partnerships.”

Can the dumbed down and self seeking American people even understand much less appreciate the great things that Bidenomics has brought forth? Biden has changed the narrative on taxes by repeating ad nauseum that he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year. Big idea: raising taxes doesn't mean raising taxes on everyone and a tax break does nor mean lowering taxes on everyone. The meme about raising taxes which Republicans have endeavored to attribute to Democrats ("tax and spend") and tax breaks which Republicans have endeavored to attribute to themselves has been change by Biden. "Tax the rich" has become the Democrats' motto thanks to Bernie Sanders and AOC.The immense inequality that Reaganomics has resulted in is being addressed by Bidenomics. The American people say "Ho Hum". They are more interested in spectator sports which is exemplified by the fact that news programs on TV are routinely bounced in favor of sports events. In short the American people don't appreciate Biden because they don't take the time to understand Bidenomics.

Biden has done much good for America and Americans. He is the least appreciated great President in American history. It's a reflection on the American people themselves that all they're interested in is their own personal situation. If they are well off, they could care less about social programs that help the poor. If they have a good job, they could care less about the unemployed. American have been taught to be totally selfish and not to care about the wider world or about the improvement of society in general. Corporations by law are only supposed to consider the financial well being of their share holders and nothing else. These attitudes in and of themselves preclude the concerns of minorities, whether racial or economic, because the US is a majoritarian society. In politics the majority rules. Concern about the welfare of minorities and of the world in general and in particular the environment is not a consideration. Meanwhile, global warming is taking out individual families who are victims of tornadoes or other particular manifestations of global warming on a daily basis. It has yet to sink in that perhaps concerns for larger interests than just ourselves might be a paradigm change we might have to make.

For the American people, it's not abut how much Biden has done, it's about how much have you done for me lately, Mr Biden, and, more importantly, how much more are you going to do? If there are many more carrots, then maybe I'll vote for you. Otherwise, I'll take the tax break Republicans are offering. The American national character is selfishness personified. Ayn Rand would be proud.

Off the Top of My Head

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) Says Americans Need To Stop “Electing Idiots.”

by John Lawrence

Did the Founders design a Constitution that was idiot proof? Not according to Liz Cheney. Is this a flaw that is inherent to democracy? Not necessarily although it seems to be a flaw in the American system of democracy. There are other forms of democracy that may be more idiot proof. For instance, a democracy in which there are background requirements for political representatives such as education and experience. It is important to have a President who is educated and experienced in areas related to government. The Senate and House of Representatives also should have education and background requirements. Any corporation requires education and experience requirements for jobs. Why should the government be any different? The Hill reported:

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) suggested Monday that the problem with American politics is that “we’re electing idiots.”

“Look, I think that the country right now faces hugely challenging and fundamentally important issues,” Cheney said at an event with the cultural and community center, 92nd Street Y, New York. “What we’ve done in our politics is create a situation where we’re electing idiots.”

Cheney, who is a staunch opponent of former President Trump, offered the reflection in response to a question about whether she would run for president if polling showed that it would hurt Trump’s third White House run.

“I don’t look at it through the lens of, you know, is this what I should do or what I shouldn’t do,” the former congresswoman said. “I look at it through the lens of, how do we elect serious people? And I think electing serious people can’t be partisan.”

Cheney, who is a staunch opponent of former President Trump, offered the reflection in response to a question about whether she would run for president if polling showed that it would hurt Trump’s third White House run.

“I don’t look at it through the lens of, you know, is this what I should do or what I shouldn’t do,” the former congresswoman said. “I look at it through the lens of, how do we elect serious people? And I think electing serious people can’t be partisan.”

“I really believe, and I’ve never believed something as strongly as I know this, that the single most important thing for the country is that Donald Trump can’t be anywhere near the Oval Office again,” she said.

The question is how do you accomplish "not electing idiots" within the constraints of the American system? Or should the American system be redesigned to accomplish this goal? Perhaps the first item should be to educate the populace in such a way that the voting pubic contains as few idiots as possible. If the electorate is a bunch of idiots, then they will elect someone who looks like them - namely, an idiot. The second thing is that perhaps people running for office should be required to take a test, the results of which would show their knowledge of the position they aspire to whether it's the Presidency, the House or the Senate. Americans are subjected to testing all through their educational experience. Corporations that hire American workers are very interested in their test scores. They want to know whether or not the person they are hiring is an idiot. Why doesn't this apply to politicians as well? Otherwise, running for election comes down to a popularity contest and very often a blood sport. Is this the kind of person who should be running our government?

Off the Top of My Head

Is Voting a Necessary Component of Democracy?

by John Lawrence

Many people consider voting the sine qua non defining characteristic of democracy. However, the inventors of democracy, the ancient Greeks, did not. Their legislative body, the Council of 500, was chosen not be voting but by lot, in other words randomly. Arguably, random selection is more democratic since it guarantees a legislative body which actually represents and reflects all of the people. Voting, at least in the US, does not result in a legislature that reflects the actual composition of the electorate because the candidates need a lot of money even to get on the ballot. Random selection requires no money, just a complete list of all citizens. A legislature which reflects the actual composition of the electorate is more democratic than one that reflects only the composition of the moneyed class. Therefore, voting must be disassociated from democracy in the larger sense. So let's ask the question how is the Chinese legislature, the National People's Congress, chosen? It is chosen by the people by voting although the nominees are chosen by the Communist Party. It could be argued and debated how well the National People's Congress reflects the actual composition of the electorate. It could also be argued which system, the American system or the Chinese system is more democratic in the sense that the national legislative body represents and reflects the actual composition of their respective electorates. My guess is that the American two party system is only slightly more democratic than the Chinese one party system. Someone should do a study and comparison.

In addition to getting money out of politics, random selection, which is also known as sortition, would end the districting system and gerrymandering. The House would reflect the composition of the US electorate. Instead of an elaborate system of voting and majority rule, all you would need is a data base of all 330 million Americans and a program for random selection. Voting systems in and of themselves are controversial (which of the several available voting systems should be used), and majority rule is notorious for leaving out minorities.  The US system know as first past the post practically determines that the US will be a two party system. Third parties contribute the "spoiler effect," which we've seen all to often in Presidential politics, for example, when Ross Perot and Ralph Nader ran as third party candidates. They just take votes away from the party that they are closer to on the political spectrum helping the other party to win. The Chinese have a one party system and the US has a two party system which is probably only somewhat more democratic than the Chinese system if the measure of democraticness is that the legislature represents a reflection of all the people. The European parliamentary system is a multiparty system where minorities are better represented than in the US or Chinese systems, and hence, is more democratic than either of them. A further benefit of random selection us that extremists and extreme parties are unlikely to be over represented in the outcome. In fact political parties would have no reason to exist if the legislature was chosen by sortition.

Rousseau says in The Social Contract, " 'Election by lot,' says Montesquieu, 'is of the nature of democracy. ' I agree , but how is it so? 'The lot,' he continues, 'is a mode of election which mortifies no on; it leaves every citizen a reasonable hope of serving his country.' "Montesquieu , by the way was one of the chief architects of society that the Founders took as an example in their design of the US Constitution. Sortition was used in the Athenian democracy. With few exceptions, all magistrates were chosen by lot, beginning with the archons in 487–486 BC; likewise the Boule (council) of 500 and the juries of the law courts were chosen by lot. Sortition is used in the American system for jury selection.

My reform of the American system would be #1) The legislature should be chosen by sortition to serve 4 year terms. Pay would be high enough to induce the average person to want to serve. The only requirement would be US citizenship. #2) The Senate would be chosen by sortition among the people who met certain educational and experiential background requirements. The term would be 6 years. #3) The Supreme Court would be chosen from among the people with even more stringent background requirements especially in law and government. The term would be 8 years. #4) The President would be chosen by means of an electoral system with an advanced method of voting like approval voting. The electoral college would be abolished. The President would serve for 4 years with the possibility of serving two terms if the people elected him again. At any level of political participation people could opt out of the pool of which otherwise they might be randomly selected. We have already seen in 2016 with the election of Donald Trump how extremists can be elected by purveying false information and outright lies creating a cult following. The elimination of political parties altogether would transform politics from the Chinese one party system, the American two party system and the European multiparty system to in fact a more democratic no party system.

Off the Top of My Head

Who Would Have Thunk It: China is the World's Leading Exporter of Cars!

by John Lawrence

In an article by Fareed Zakaria entitled, The rest of the world doesn’t see China the same way we do, there is this: "Ten years ago, China exported a relatively small number of cars. Today, it is the world’s leading exporter of automobiles, handily ousting Japan from that position. It is especially strong in electric vehicles. Two of every three EVs made in the world are made in China." So far Chinese cars have not shown up in the US, but they will. American car manufacturers are playing catch up. "As you enter a car showroom in Berlin, you see what looks like a Bugatti or a Ferrari, except more stylish. It’s an EP9, a top-of-the-line race car that has been sold to a handful of customers for about $3 million each. The company behind it is Nio, one of China’s new carmakers, which is going to take the world by storm."

The economies of the western world including the US and Europe are inextricably intertwined with that of China. The difference is that the US under Biden's leadership is taking a semi-belligerent attitude towards China while Europe is taking a much more deferential and mutually respectful approach. Biden's latest gaffe is referring to Xi Jinping as a "dictator" just after Secretary of State Antony Blinken just returned from China having tried to stop the downward spiral of US-China relationship. One of the problems is that the US insists on insulting China and the Chinese leadership. They really can't afford to do that any more if they want to create a mutually respectful relationship. Respect in nation to nation relationships is of the utmost importance. It could be argued that the lack of respect toward Russia was a precursor to the war in Ukraine. What is true among individuals - that mutual respect is important for creating and maintaining salubrious relationships is important - is equally true with respect to nations. Why doesn't the US leadership get this?

Former British prime minister Gordon Brown explained the European dilemma. “Europe needs an industrial policy, but it cannot afford to mimic the [Biden] administration’s protectionism,” he told me. “For Europe, trade is vital; its prosperity is dependent on trade with the rest of the world, including China, in a way that America’s is not. [Unlike America, Europe] imports energy and is not self-sufficient. Despite the surface agreement across the Atlantic, this could become a growing divide.” He acknowledged that the Biden administration has made moves to expand trade ties, but he expressed concern that all of them are bilateral or regional efforts that might undercut global trade. They come, he said, “at the expense of any real discussion of what a modern multilateralist order would look like.” Helle Thorning-Schmidt, former prime minister of Denmark, concurred. “Europe cannot divorce itself from China,” she explained. “That would be the end of globalization. That is why we want to de-risk, not decouple.” “De-risking,” a term famously used by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, is the hottest buzzword in diplomacy these days. Even the Biden administration now says it also wants to de-risk rather than decouple. But many I spoke with in Europe said they worry that this is just a rhetorical change and that U.S. policies — and Chinese responses — will keeping moving the ratchet up.

"Kishore Mahbubani, the former Singaporean diplomat and author of “The Asian 21st Century,” pointed out that discussions in the West often forget that the world’s growth is mostly coming from Asia. He used his own region as an example. In 2000, Japan’s economy was about eight times larger than Southeast Asia’s. In about three years, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations is projected to be the same size economically as Japan. The largest trade relationship in the world is between China and ASEAN — almost $1 trillion. And ASEAN countries cannot grow without open and vibrant trade, especially with China." So the world is changing. The US is not changing with it, but instead is trying to maintain its grip on being the world's leading superpower. Criticizing other nations based on their forms of government is leaving the US open to the criticism that its foreign policy is subject to change with respect to other nations based on the election cycle and an administration coming into power every four years that has diametrically opposed views on the subject. China by contrast maintains a consistent approach over much longer periods so that once a successful policy has been implemented, it will probably remain in effect indefinitely and not be subject to an election cycle which can swerve back and forth and even spin out of control as it did on January 6, 2020.

The US also could be exposed to the criticism that any fool can become President as was the case in the election of 2016, not to mention any Congress person, while in China the best and brightest are usually promoted to the highest positions in government.

Off the Top of My Head

Can a Puma Be Raised to Prefer Plant Based Meat?

by John Lawrence

Actually, this is a good question. If meat eaters could be trained to eat plant based meat, they would no longer be predators. If lions can lie down with lambs, then maybe there is even hope for the human race. In fact some animals that would attack each other in the wild, when raised together as babies, become the best of friends. Anthony, the lion, was brought to “Keepers of the Wild” animal sanctuary as a sick cub after being auctioned off in Virginia, and Riley, the coyote, was rescued by Arizona game and fish. Both were just over one month old when they met. Coyotes and lions are social animals, and Riley and Anthony grew quite fond of one another almost immediately. So they grew up, not to eat each other, but to be friends. Does this portend some hope for the human race? If babies of all races, religions and nationalities grew up together, maybe they would continue to have mutually constructive relationships as adults. Perhaps this would be a way that world peace could be attained. No more predator and prey relationships. No more friend and enemy relationships. It's worth a try. It would be a great sociological experiment, and there is nothing weird about it. It would only entail play dates for children of all races, nationalities and religions as they grew up. As they grew older, they would grow into an age appropriate understanding of their friends' backgrounds. If animals can form these kind of relationships, probably so could humans.

After photographer Isobel Springett, took in an abandoned fawn, it was almost immediately adopted by Springett’s Great Dane, Kate. Pip clearly feels very strongly for her canine caretaker, and even though Pip joined a herd, she still finds time to spend with Kate. Perhaps animals can lead the way. Perhaps they can be the prime movers towards a more mutually beneficial society. Perhaps there would no more be predators and prey. What would this portend for the human race? One thing it portends is that, in order to end war and conflict, everyone would have to be adequately fed with a plant based diet. As long as some people have nothing and others have seemingly everything, there will always be war as the underdogs try to redress the balance. If everyone is relatively well off, the incentive for altering the status quo by violence and force is greatly diminished.

In a hidden realm at the end of the world, amidst the massive ice mountains of Chile’s Torres del Paine National Park, condors soar, colorful caracaras keep a sharp eye out for prey and vivid pink flamingos make a theatrical appearance. This kingdom is the stronghold of the puma, a large mountain lion that hunts for guanacos – cousins of llamas – as they roam from the valleys to the hillsides. Follow the fate of Solitaria, a female puma in her prime. The mother of four cubs, she hunts and teaches her young how to live in this extraordinary landscape. Narrated by Uma Thurman. This is a beautiful story about a successful huntress who is so tender and loving with her four kittens, but is relentless when it comes to the life and death struggle with guanacos. The guanacos must be eternally vigilant for any sign that there might be a puma lurking and stalking them. It's an athletic contest that occurs on a daily basis. Both kinds of animals must use their entire skill set to stay alive and to eat. Guanacos eat a plant based diet, and pumas eat guanacos. Could pumas raised from babyhood with baby guanacos grow up to see each other as friends instead of as rivals and enemies? Could pumas be trained to a plant based diet? The implications for human survival and the survival of the human species might be significant.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Americans Want Republicans and Democrats to Alternate Election Cycles

by John Lawrence

Democratic Presidents get elected and hand out a bag full of goodies, but there's no plan to pay for them. Then the American people elect Republicans because Republicans say in effect, "You don't have to pay for the goodies the Democrats gave you, and, furthermore, we'll even give you a tax cut." So is there any wonder why Democrats and Republicans alternate being elected? Or why the national debt keeps increasing? Goodies not paid for followed by tax cuts followed by more goodies followed by more tax cuts. The American people are wise to keep alternating these election cycles between Republicans and Democrats. Now that the Republican accusation of "tax and spend" aimed at Democrats has been followed by Democrat protestations of "tax the rich and spend", the wind has been taken out of Republican sails. Most of the national debt has been racked up by Republican tax cuts which mainly have benefited the rich. But as long as the Republican middle class has gotten teenie weenie tax cuts, they're more than satisfied. With Trump as their champion, Trump could even reduce taxes on the rich and increase them on the middle class and the Republican middle class would still love him. He's very special.

So why is the increasing national debt even an issue? For sure it never has to be paid off by our children or grandchildren ad infinitum. There are 2 reasons though why it is important. #1) The interest on the national debt is a budget item and it keeps increasing crowding out other budgetary items. #2) The Treasury debt assets held by other countries represent funds that can be used to purchase US assets. Of these #1 is probably the most worrisome. Interest on the debt could be controlled by the Fed and the Treasury working together. The Fed can buy Treasuries thus reducing the amount on the market or held by other entities. When interest is paid on Treasuries held by the Fed, it reverts to the Treasury Department so basically Treasuries held by the Fed are interest free - they cost the government nothing! Secondly, the Treasury Department can set the interest or coupon values for Treasuries very low. There is no need to raise the rates paid on Treasuries to reflect market interest rates because there is no need to sell any particular amount of Treasuries. Treasuries are just a safe warehouse for funds regardless of their coupon values and so there will always be a market for them, and the Fed can always by any unsold Treasuries. This is just a policy that has been in effect for years called quantitative easing. It's a tried and proven policy, and there is nothing new or revolutionary about it.

So let's examine the composition of the national debt. Without the Bush and Trump tax cuts, debt as a percentage of the economy would be declining permanently. The nation’s fiscal pictured changed in 1981 when President Ronald Reagan enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history reducing revenues by the equivalent of $19 trillion over a decade in today’s terms. Although Congress raised taxes in many of the subsequent years of the Reagan administration to claw back close to half the revenue loss, the equivalent of $10 trillion of the president’s 1981 tax cut remained. The George W. Bush administration, empowered by a trifecta in 2001, enacted sweeping tax cuts that will have cost more than $8 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2023. These legislative changes—the Bush and Trump tax cuts—are responsible for more than 90 percent of the change in the trajectory of the debt ratio to date, and will grow to be responsible for more than 100 percent of the debt ratio increase in the future. The Trump tax cuts cost $7.8 trillion. The national debt is approximately 32 trillion,and, toting up the figures listed above, it can be seen that approximately $26 trillion of this is due to the Reagan, Bush and Trump tax cuts.

So politicians of both parties have colluded to give the American public everything they want: goodies plus a free lunch when it comes to taxes. American voters just need to alternate administrations! Americans don't vote for a President based on all he's done for the American people. Case in point: after all Joe Biden has done for the American people (in terms of goodies), Americans will probably elect a Republican President in 2024 so they won't have to pay for it. They will get a tax cut instead. And tax cuts are the gifts that keep on giving year after year ... mainly for the rich! Some might say this phenomenon of incentivizing voters to alternate the party in power is a flaw in American democracy. Keeping the same party over several election cycles might result in more consistency in government policy, but democracy is messy. The question is is it too messy. Is there a better way?

Off the Top of My Head

The Difference Between Chinese and US Philosophy

by John Lawrence

Western philosophy is predicated on the individual and the philosophy that the best society is one in which the individual is completely and totally free. Freedom of the individual is the bedrock of the US Constitution which spells out individual rights but not individual responsibilities. Freedom is spelled out in John Stuart Mill's book On Liberty, but it goes back even further than that all the way to the life of Jesus who, as demonstrated in the New King James version of Luke, when his mother was looking for him famously said to her,  “Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?” So for Jesus the freedom to pursue his career took precedence over familial responsibilities. Chinese philosophy places the emphasis on the fact that familial responsibilities should take precedence over individual freedom. That is the basic philosophical difference between US and Chinese philosophy. Confucius, who is the penultimate philosopher for Chinese society, had a different view regarding the relations of human beings to society. According to Roger T. Ames, Theorizing the Person in Confucian Ethics,"How or in what way (dao) do persons in their roles become consummately humane (ren)? This was the perennial Confucian question asked explicitly in all of the Four Books: in the Great Learning, in the Analects of Confucius, in the Mencius, and again in the Zhongyong. And from the time of Confucius onward, the answer was a moral, aesthetic, and ultimately religious one. Persons (necessarily plural) become humane by cultivating those thick, intrinsic relations that constitute our initial conditions that locate the trajectory of our life narrative - its whence and whither - within family, community, and cosmos."

The Chinese emphasis is on harmony and stability whether at the familial level or at the societal level. Western society emphasizes individual liberty in the hope that the societal level will take care of itself. The US Constitution emphasizes individual rights; there is no mention of individual responsibilities. There is the hope that individuals competing among themselves will end up with the result that society will flourish, but there is no direct connection as there is in Chinese philosophy. Article 53 of the Chinese Constitution states: "Citizens of the People's Republic of China must abide by the Constitution and the law, keep state secrets, protect public property, observe discipline in the workplace, observe public order, and respect social morality." Article 54 states: "Citizens of the People's Republic of China shall have the obligation to safeguard the security, honor and interests of the motherland; they must not behave in any way that endangers the motherland's security, honor or interests."

While the Chinese Constitution also grants political rights such as freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, and religion and also economic rights, the Constitution also emphasizes obligations and responsibilities. Article 51 states: "When exercising their freedoms and rights, citizens of the People's Republic of China shall not undermine the interests of the state, society or collectives, or infringe upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens."

There is an emphasis on order, social morality, not infringing on the interests of others or society in general. Americans find this emphasis on social cohesiveness and stability too restraining and inhibiting of their rights as guaranteed in the American Constitution. The US Constitution's emphasis on individual rights without a concomitant emphasis on responsibilities has produced major instabilities in American society. The fall back position for the US is complete dependence on the rule of law and the preservation of American institutions rather than a libertarian view of freedom. Basically, the US, in order to preserve US democracy has had to come up with an almost Chinese position regarding societal stability. The January 6 insurrection and subsequent indulgence in free speech by certain actors to and beyond the point of truth telling has resulted in a continuing threat to US democracy. Certain members of American society are pushing Constitutional guarantees of free speech and gun rights to the point of undermining US democracy in general. Perhaps the American Constitution needs to be rethunk or at least amended. The Republican party threatens the destruction of American society unless they get their way.

Off the Top of My Head

San Diego Moving Forward With Solution to Homeless Problem

by John Lawrence

The San Diego Union reported:

"The San Diego City Council voted 5-4 Tuesday [June 13, 2023] to adopt a controversial policy to ban homeless encampments on public property after hearing hours of public testimony.

"The ordinance was supported by Councilmember Stephen Whitburn, who proposed it, and Councilmembers Marni von Wilpert, Jennifer Campbell, Raul Campillo and Joe LaCava.

"Mayor Todd Gloria also supported what they referred to as an unsafe camping ordinance, with he and Whitburn saying it would address a public safety issue while also helping to get homeless people off the street and into a shelter and connected to services."

In approximate tandem with this ordinance is the City's plan to provide safe sleeping and camping areas and also to buy 3 motels and convert them to housing for the homeless. Father Joe also plans to build a high rise with additional rooms. The problem is that these additional housing units and camping areas are not ready yet. So this ordinance and the plan to provide additional shelter units will have to be somewhat compromised until the additional units are available. The opposition to the ordinance seemed to be based mainly on the fact that the additional units are not immediately available. The larger question is do the homeless have an unconditional right to live on public sidewalks which trumps the rights of downtown residents and business owners who also would like to use those sidewalks in a clean and safe manner. The answer in my mind is no they do not have an unconditional right to use the sidewalks as living areas. If I went downtown and set up a stand selling something, anything, I would be arrested if I did not have a license. However, homeless advocates would argue that the homeless have an unlimited right to sleep wherever they please on public sidewalks.

Finally, I think the Mayor and the City Council are taking a serious approach to this problem after farting around for decades. It amounts to government admitting that people have a right to housing - public housing or social housing, whatever you want to call it - something that American governments at all levels have never before been willing to concede. Once the units the City has promised come online, they need to expand that program since the proposed units are unlikely to be a once and for all solution. As rents are continuing to increase, the City has to be in the business of providing the SROs that the free market used to provide and now doesn't. Getting people off the streets and into housing or safe camping and parking areas with proper sanitation and other services accomplishes not only more humane conditions for the homeless. It prevents San Diego from becoming a tourist desert. Also residents and businesses will be moving out if the streets cannot be returned to their safe and proper usages. People living and running businesses downtown should have rights too. This argument that the new City ordinance is criminalizing homelessness is entirely bogus. If shelter beds or other accommodations are available, the homeless should be forced to take advantage of them IMHO. On the other hand,to the extent that these resources are not available, they should be cut some slack. That does not mean an unlimited right to park their tents wherever they please.

I noted the story of the parent pushing a stroller who was almost run over by a car because they could not use the blocked public sidewalk. I had a similar experience on Commercial street when my car was almost run over by the San Diego Trolley. The fact that the City will be providing SRO type rooms and other accommodations for the homeless as well as social services does not mean that that will be permanent housing for the contemporary homeless. The social workers will be attempting to reintegrate if possible currently homeless persons and families back into normal society. That means that they will be trying to find them jobs and get them living accommodations that they can pay for in the mainstream of society. Problem is that rents are so expensive that it will be impossible for many people, even if they have a job, to provide housing for themselves especially in San Diego where housing prices and rents are continuing their upward cost progression. That's why the next step for the City should be to do something about affordable housing. This means that the City needs to counteract the free market with respect to housing so that people who are reintegrated into society can at least function within the parameters of that society. The free market tendency for rents to keep on rising needs to be counteracted by the public sector. The free market will continue to make housing unaffordable which will result in more people becoming homeless. What is happening is that hedge funds are buying up housing units, rehabilitating them to some extent and turning them into rental units if they aren't rental units already thus driving up rents. People who in prior years could afford to buy a home now can't in the current environment. This process is turning more and more would be home owners into renters and renters who are devoting more and more of their income to paying rent.

The only way children of long time San Diego residents can buy homes today is if the parents can convert some of the equity in their homes to a down payment on the child's home so that they end up with a mortgage they can afford which is something I was able to do. I bought into the San Diego real estate market exactly 50 years ago for a house that I paid 3% of the market value of that same house today! There are companies that will make a home equity investment in your house which means that they will loan you money that you can use as a down payment on a child's house if that's the way you decide to use that money. There are no monthly payments. When the contract period - which can be as long as 30 years - is up, the house must be sold or the contract settled in some other way and the home equity investment must be repaid in proportion to the equity increase in value over that time period. Since I will probably not be here in 30 years, my heir, who can also inherit the contract, will sell the property and have to split the profits with the home investment company. Meanwhile, the property she bought with the down payment they provided and with a mortgage she can afford is increasing in equity. It's a pretty good solution, but only available to people who bought into the San Diego market when prices were cheap. The Home Equity Investment is like a reverse mortgage, but there is no age restriction and it can be used in conjunction with a rental property.

Off the Top of My Head

Interest on the Debt or the Whole National Debt Could Be Wiped Out by the Fed Tomorrow

by John Lawrence

One of the largest components of the Federal budget is interest on the debt. But the fact is that interest rates on Treasuries don't have to go up when the Fed raises interest rates. The Fed raises interest rates by adjusting the Federal Funds Rate. The Federal Funds Rate is one of the Federal Reserve’s key tools for guiding U.S. monetary policy. Here’s how it works: Customers deposit money at banks, and those deposits provide banks with the capital needed for extending loans and other forms of credit to their customers. Regulators require that banks and other depository institutions keep a certain percentage of their total capital in reserve, to help guarantee their stability and solvency. Banks often need to borrow money from other financial institutions overnight to meet regulators’ reserve requirements—or they may end up with excess reserve capital to lend out to their peers. The federal funds rate provides a reference for institutions as they are borrowing or lending reserves. A bond issuer such as the Treasury Department decides on the coupon rate for its bonds based on prevalent market interest rates, among other things, at the time of the issuance. So the Treasury Department has complete control over the coupon at the time of the issuance of the bond. It doesn't need to consult the market or the Fed or the secondary market for Treasuries which is the market in which Treasuries are traded after they are auctioned off originally. Furthermore, it does not have to rely on the primary market either to sell a sufficient amount of Treasuries so the government can pay its bills. That's because the Fed can buy any unsold Treasuries and just place them on its balance sheet. The Fed buys and sells Treasuries all the time.

All monetary policy decisions of the Federal Reserve--including buying and selling securities--are made independently of the borrowing decisions of the federal government and are intended solely to fulfill the mandate set out for the Federal Reserve by law--maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

The Federal Reserve purchases Treasury securities held by the public through a competitive bidding process. The Federal Reserve does not purchase new Treasury securities directly from the U.S. Treasury, and Federal Reserve purchases of Treasury securities from the public are not a means of financing the federal deficit.

In financing the federal deficit, the federal government borrows from the public by issuing Treasury securities, which are sold at auction according to a schedule that is published quarterly. The Treasury determines the types and amounts of Treasury securities sold at auction with the goal of achieving the lowest financing costs for the federal government over time. The Federal Reserve does not participate in competitive bidding at Treasury auctions, and the Treasury's debt management decisions are not influenced by the Federal Reserve's purchases of Treasury securities in secondary markets.

When the Fed was goosing the economy with quantitative easing, QE, it bought mortgage backed securities and also Treasuries. Quantitative easing refers to the fact that the Fed bought up ill performing or bankrupt assets held by private banking institutions like Collateralized Debt Obligations, CDOs, which ere worthless mortgages packaged together, for cash which was then injected into the bank. Presto chango, now the bank was healthy again instead of being burdened by these worthless CDOs. When QE was in place, the Fed purchased other securities on the open market, including U.S. Treasuries. “Under this program, the Fed became one of the biggest buyers of Treasury securities in the market,” says Tom Hainlin, national investment strategist at U.S. Bank. So the point is that although "the Treasury's debt management decisions are not influenced by the Federal Reserve's purchases of Treasury securities in secondary markets," the Fed could purchase Treasuries if they went unsold when they were first introduced into the primary market, and it can always buy Treasuries on the open or secondary market. This flexibility means that the Treasury doesn't have to set coupon rates on its Treasuries based on market interest rates, and that means that interest on the national debt could be controlled. The Fed could buy up Treasuries with high coupon rates and replace them with low coupon rate Treasuries or not replace them at all. Interest on the national debt could be reduced to an insignificant amount based on the Fed's operations. The fact that the Fed's balance sheet is growing by all these QE activities means absolutely nothing. In fact the Fed's balance sheet could swallow up the entire national debt. It would be just a figure on an accounting sheet of no consequence.

To answer the question posed by this article, "Why do Interest Rates on Treasuries Have to Go Up When the Fed Raises Interest Rates", they don't. People will want to hold Treasuries regardless of their value because their money is absolutely secure. That's the key point.

Off the Top of My Head

America Has an Employment Problem, Not an Unemployment Problem

by John Lawrence

Wherever you look from air traffic controllers to fruit pickers to caregivers to teachers to police, there are not enough workers. That is why unemployment is so low - at 3.4%. The Health Services, Professional and Business Services, Trade, and Accommodation and Food Services industries have the highest numbers of job openings. The question is why there is a shortage of workers and what to do about it.The pandemic caused a major disruption in America’s labor force—something many have referred to as The Great Resignation. In 2022, more than 50 million workers quit their jobs, many of whom were in search of an improved work-life balance and flexibility, increased compensation, and a strong company culture. But a closer look at what has happened to the labor force can be better described as ‘The Great Reshuffle’ because hiring rates have outpaced quit rates since November of 2020. So, many workers are quitting their jobs—but many are getting re-hired elsewhere. In a game of musical chairs workers are seeking and getting better jobs, leaving high stress professions like nursing and teaching and getting paid more to do other things.

So America basically has a shortage of "essential workers," workers who do necessary work for traditionally low pay. America has developed so many ways to make money doing inessential work at higher pay so why should anyone who doesn't have to work in an essential job? There are two ways. 1) Pay more for essential work and 2) increase legal immigration because increasingly immigrants are doing the work that Americans who have been Americans longer don't want to do. The worker shortage has empowered workers. They are so to speak in the catbird seat. They are demanding more pay, shorter hours, better working conditions. This is all well and good, but, as the pandemic showed, essential work is necessary for people to live while so many other forms of work, while more lucrative, could disappear tomorrow without affecting much most Americans' quality of life. For instance, Facebook had 86,482 full-time employees as of December 2022, up from just 150 people in 2006. If Facebook disappeared tomorrow, nothing essential to life would be lost in my opinion. The same is true for other social media like Tik Tok. In fact considering the effects social media has had on the population, the world might be better off if all social media disappeared tomorrow. Then those workers would be available for more essential jobs.

If the advertising industry disappeared tomorrow, the world might be better off. For instance, I can find anything I might be interested in buying on Amazon. I don't need to be pounded on by TV commercials to be told what I should want or what I should need. In particualar, Facebook makes all its considerable revenues from advertising. It does not manufacture a product essential to life or any product at all. People are getting smart that there are cushier, safer jobs with better work-life balance than essential jobs. Caregivers like Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) are low paid but essential jobs. Anyone who has had a loved one in the hospital for any length of time realizes how essential they are. They do the dirty work like changing patients diapers and cleaning up when they haven't got to the patients' bedsides in time to prevent a tragedy. Nurses and teachers are overworked considering the nurse/patient ratio and the teacher/student ratio. Much essential work is done by non college graduates and, therefore, does not merit the esteem that college graduates' jobs garner. Nevertheless, they are more important jobs in an essential sense, than many jobs that require a college education. When you need a plumber, you will not usually be hiring a college graduate.

About half of Americans who lost their job during the pandemic and are still not working say they are not willing to take jobs that do not offer the opportunity for remote work. However, many essential jobs can't be done remotely. They are "hands on." It is about time that America values its essential workers and makes a distinction between what's essential and what is inessential. It's a question, to some extent, of values, of what kinds of work are valued. This is where unions come in. America cannot function without essential workers. Yet the only way they can get the pay and benefits they deserve is to unionize and withdraw their workforce if necessary to get what they deserve. For sure, they won't get a better paying job otherwise unless they quit and go to work for Facebook.

Off the Top of My Head

The Biden Policy in Ukraine Is Unraveling

by John Lawrence

President Biden's original policy in the Ukraine war included the notion that the war would be confined to Ukraine's physical territory and not lead to a wider war. The west would supply Ukraine with weapons, and Ukraine would have a fighting chance of pushing Russia out of their territory. The whole strategy was predicated on the goal of preventing World War III. Now that policy is failing due to the fact that the west has gradually increased the firepower and sophistication of the weapons supplied to Ukraine, and also the fact that Ukraine is starting to attack inside Russia. The war is widening and intensifying. Ukraine, meanwhile, is in no mood to try and negotiate a settlement to the war, and NATO doesn't seem to be in any mood to force them to negotiate. So the war is escalating. Zelensky never misses a chance to demand more and more sophisticated weapons from the west. Biden and other western leaders continue to support his rhetoric that Ukraine can win the war. It's all about winning or losing, not about a negotiated peace.

So what went wrong, and how could this war get so out of hand? First, it is undisputed that Russia invaded Ukraine unprovokedly. However, there were negotiations and events leading up to the invasion which might have resolved issues which would have prevented the invasion in the first place. On Dec. 17 2021, Russia presented security demands including that NATO pull back troops and weapons from eastern Europe and bar Ukraine from ever joining. Russia had been upset for years due to the fact that, after the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO had marched resolutely eastward despite assurances to the contrary. I had written earlier:

"NATO expanded during the 1990s largely due to the imprecations of President Bill Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright even though President Gorbachev had been promised that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward" as part of a deal to reunify Germany after the Cold War.

Politifact reported:

After explaining why the U.S. wanted the reunited Germany to stay within the framework of NATO, Baker told Gorbachev that "if we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO 1 inch to the east."

"I put the following question to (Gorbachev)," Baker recounted in a letter to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. "‘Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces, or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift 1 inch eastward from its present position?’"

Those comments, along with similar remarks from Baker’s European allies, like Genscher and Kohl, were part of what researchers at George Washington University’s National Security Archive called a "cascade of assurances" offered to the Soviets.

But Baker and other officials involved in the events have denied that the conversation ever turned on expanding NATO to other countries. 

So basically Gorbachev was sold a bill of goods that, if he consented to the reunification of Germany and with Germany as a NATO member, that NATO would not expand eastwards. However, "given assurances" is not the same as "legal and binding". Therefore, in July 1997, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic (where Albright was born) were formally invited to join NATO."

Ever since Russian Czar Peter the Great attempted to "westernize" Russia, there has been a dicey relationship between Russia and Europe, each eyeing the other warily. Culturally, in terms of literature, dance, music and athletics, Russia is a western nation. Even Putin expressed interest in being part of the west. George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time,” he said.

The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join NATO?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join NATO, they apply to join NATO.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

The account chimes with what Putin told the late David Frost in a BBC interview shortly before he was first inaugurated as Russian president more than 21 years ago. Putin told Frost he would not rule out joining NATO “if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner”.

He told Frost it was hard for him to visualise NATO as an enemy. “Russia is part of the European culture. And I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilised world.”

However, Putin was rebuffed. He was further slighted when his demands that Ukraine not be considered for NATO membership before the war were, probably in his mind, disrespected. The whole Ukraine war could have been prevented perhaps by massaging sufficiently Putin's bruised ego - in other words intelligent diplomacy. In his mind it seems he and Russia were not properly respected nor were their interests properly taken into account. With two individuals, one of whom looks down on the other, more often than not a fight can ensue. It's the same between two nations. Mutual respect is important in any negotiation. Clearly, Putin did not feel that that was the case in negotiations before the war.

So now there is cross border fighting between Ukraine and Russia. This is clearly an escalation of the war and diminishes Biden's attempts of containing the war to Ukraine and preventing a larger conflict including perhaps World War III. The introductin of more sophisticated western weapons into Ukraine including offensive capabilities and more bellicose rhetoric on the part of Ukraine, no matter how justified, does not presage a good outcome for this complex situation. Putin and Russia could have perhaps been assuaged before the war by placing Ukraine's NATO membership on hold for a period of years, but Biden's insistence that any nation can apply and get NATO membership clearly was a non-starter for Putin. At this point the only alternative to escalation of the war and possibly a nuclear Armageddon, is a negotiated peace, something that Zelensky is disinclined to do and something that Biden is disinclined from telling him to do.

Off the Top of My Head

Biden: The Least Appreciated Great President in American History

by John Lawrence

President Biden has gotten more real work done for the American people than any President with the exception of Franklin D. Roosevelt. So why is his job approval rating so low - just 39%? Chalk it up to the fickleness of the American people. They don't know a great President when they see one. Biden has been able to do so much with much narrower margins in Congress than FDR had in all his terms as President. In fact Roosevelt had Democratic majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate from 1933 until his death in 1945, and in those days the filibuster was a speaking filibuster that delayed but didn't terminate legislation and so was of little consequence compared to the fact that today 60 Senators are required to pass any bill.

So what are some of Biden's accomplishments? The Inflation Reduction Act is a historic legislative achievement that lowers costs for families, combats the climate crisis, reduces the deficit, and finally makes the largest corporations pay their fair share. For the first time, Medicare is able to negotiate the price of certain high-cost drugs, a month’s supply of insulin for seniors is capped at $35, Medicare beneficiaries pay $0 out of pocket for recommended adult vaccines, and seniors’ out of pocket expenses at the pharmacy will be capped at $2,000 a year. Historically low unemployment at 3.5%. A manufacturing boom is occurring. Companies have announced nearly $300 billion in manufacturing investments in the United States. These investments are ensuring the technologies of the future are made in America, and bringing back supply chains from overseas. And they are creating good-paying jobs, including union jobs and jobs that don’t require a four-year degree. As part of the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act, the Department of Commerce is overseeing $50 billion to revitalize the U.S. semiconductor industry, including $39 billion in semiconductor incentives. The first funding opportunity seeks applications for projects to construct, expand, or modernize commercial facilities for the production of leading-edge, current-generation, and mature-node semiconductors. This includes both front-end wafer fabrication and back-end packaging. The Department will also be releasing a funding opportunity for semiconductor materials and equipment facilities in the late spring, and one for research and development facilities in the fall.

President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan to change the course of the pandemic and jump start our economic recovery. The American Rescue Plan funded our successful vaccination campaign, safely re-opened schools for in-person learning, helped 200,000 child care providers keep their doors open, and delivered relief to American families. Biden forged a consensus and got the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed – a once-in-a-generation investment in our nation’s infrastructure. We are rebuilding our roads, bridges, ports, and airports, upgrading public transit and rail systems, replacing lead pipes to provide clean water, cleaning up pollution, providing affordable high-speed internet to every family in America, delivering cheaper and cleaner energy to households and businesses, and creating good-paying jobs – including union jobs, and jobs that don’t require a four-year degree.

President Biden signed into law the PACT Act – the most significant expansion of benefits and services for toxic exposed veterans in more than 30 years. This law also enables the Department of Veterans Affairs to move more quickly in the future to determine if illnesses are related to military service, and it offers critical support to survivors who were harmed by exposures. And, the law authorized 31 new clinical sites and provides VA several tools and resources to ensure effective implementation of the law. The Biden Administration announced debt relief of up to $20,000 for Americans earning less than $125,000 per year who had Pell Grants in college, and up to $10,000 for all other borrowers below that income threshold. More than 40 million borrowers stand to benefit from this action, and about 20 million would see their debt entirely wiped out - and nearly 90% of this relief will go to borrowers earning less than $75,000 per year. In early 2023, the Biden-Harris Administration announced a plan to provide millions of borrowers with more affordable monthly student loan payments through changes to income-driven repayment plans.

The U.S. is positioned to achieve our ambitious climate goals of cutting our emissions in half by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050. The President has taken executive action and signed legislation to develop clean energy at home, accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles, and reduce pollution that endangers overburdened communities. And, the President is lowering energy costs for families, creating good paying jobs, and ensuring America leads the global clean energy economy. The President also protected more lands and waters in his first year than any President since John F. Kennedy. President Biden took action to lower the cost of health care for millions of Americans. Right now, four out of five people who sign up for health insurance through the Affordable Care Act can find health care coverage for $10 a month or less and millions of Americans on Obamacare are saving an average of $800 a year. Since he took office, there has been a combined 50 percent increase in enrollment in states that use HealthCare.gov and the nation’s uninsured rate is historically low at 8 percent. Over 16 million Americans signed up for quality, affordable health coverage, the highest number ever produced in an open enrollment period.

So what are Biden's most significant achievements? In my opinion infrastructure and climate action lead the way. These areas have been neglected too long, and the Biden initiatives will just barely make amends. In and of themselves, they are probably insufficient, but they are a good start, a start that has been delayed too long. Changing the narrative on taxation, I think, is a major accomplishment. Making it clear that a tax bill does not have to apply to everyone. By not raising taxes on anyone making less than $400,000, an oft repeated phrase, the narrative has been changed from "tax and spend" to "tax the rich and spend on helping the poor and middle class". Deficit reduction doesn't mean necessarily to stop spending on social programs as it means getting more money into government coffers by taxing the rich. Inequality is out of control; taxing the rich ameliorates this situation. What Biden did to get us through the COVID crisis is remarkable. It could have been an economic disaster for everyone; it wasn't. Student debt relief was a great achievement although it is still not clear how that will play out in the courts.

The American people by and large don't appreciate all that Biden has done compared to what any Republican administration would have done. Clearly, Democrats are on the side of rationality and helping the American people. Republicans are on the side of winning at all costs and helping the rich. They don't give a damn about helping the American people especially the middle class and the poor. The Republican mantra of reducing the deficit and the debt would have you believe that it can only be done in one way, that is by reducing spending. No, it can also be done by taxing the rich which would also reduce inequality. But this is all the Republicans have, that and the discredited policy of tax breaks for the rich that have done little to "trickle down" and have greatly contributed to the national debt. Enhancement of Obama's landmark health care legislation is another major achievement although Obama deserves much of the credit. It's a testimony of what the Democratic party is able to achieve for the country. The fact that Biden accomplished so much in a bipartisan way is something few other politicians could have hoped to accomplish especially in the political environment that exists today.

My criticism of Biden has to do with the Ukraine war. On the one hand he has prevented it from becoming a world war as of yet. However, in the negotiations preceding the war, I believe more could have been done to prevent the war in the first place. By not acknowledging or being sensitive to Russia's concerns about the encroachment of NATO on its borders which started during the Clinton administration and was hastened by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Biden and other diplomats missed an opportunity to defuse the crisis. Their policy was a de facto attempt to bully Russia into accepting the fact that Ukraine would also become part of NATO. Now the US is entrenched in a policy of Ukraine "winning" and Russia "losing" instead of a policy of a negotiated settlement to end the war, a negotiated settlement which could have been had before the war even started IMHO, for instance, by delaying Ukraine's admission to NATO for a period of time during which Russia's security concerns might have been addressed. In effect Ukraine has become a vassal state of the US instead of its historic situation of being a vassal state of Russia.

Off the Top of My Head

San Diego On the Way to Solving Homeless Problem

by John Lawrence

With a combination of safe sleeping and safe parking areas and also converting motel rooms into single occupancy units (SROs), San Diego is heading in the right direction for solving the homeless situation. This is combined with an ordinance that prohibits sleeping in public areas including sidewalks. Finally, a workable solution that gets the homeless off the streets, provides them with some amenities including sanitation facilities and makes the streets and city sidewalks safe for pedestrians again. As a tourist destination San Diego can't afford the spectacle of back to back tents crowding city sidewalks, and the provision of amenities in safe sleeping areas or city sponsored SROs makes the homeless at least somewhat better off than they are without any amenities on public sidewalks. The San Diego Union reported:

The properties being considered include three hotels and one apartment building.

One of the hotels is a 62-unit Ramada Inn on Midway Drive, which the Housing Commission agreed to pursue at its May 12 meeting when it unanimously agreed to apply for $18 million in Project Homekey funding. The estimated purchase price would be $11.6 million, equating to about $182,000 a unit, but adding kitchenettes and other upgrades would increase the overall cost to $29.5 million, or $469,000 a unit.

The city also is submitting a joint $4 million application with Wakeland Housing and Development Corp. to purchase a vacant 13-unit apartment building in Ocean Beach. Purchasing the building would cost $4.5 million, but rehabilitation expenses would increase the cost to $6.8 million, bringing the per-unit cost to $525,000.

The other two properties are a 107-unit Extended Stay America Hotel on Murphy Canyon Road for $40.7 million and a 140-unit Extended Stay America Hotel on Mission Valley Road for $52 million.

Essentially the city is taking the responsibility for providing public housing, something that was abandoned during the Reagan administration. The most dramatic cut in domestic spending during the Reagan years was for low-income housing subsidies. Reagan appointed a housing task force dominated by politically connected developers, landlords and bankers. In 1982 the task force released a report that called for “free and deregulated” markets as an alternative to government assistance – advice Reagan followed. In his first year in office Reagan halved the budget for public housing and Section 8 to about $17.5 billion. And for the next few years he sought to eliminate federal housing assistance to the poor altogether.

Public housing was stigmatized due to failed projects like Cabrini-Green. Cabrini–Green was home to 15,000 people, mostly living in mid- and high-rise apartment buildings. Crime and neglect created hostile living conditions for many residents, and "Cabrini–Green" became a metonym for problems associated with public housing in the United States. Now cities like San Diego are forced to take up the fallen banner for public housing under the metonym of  "housing the homeless". The state of California, however, is providing most of the funding.

Other cities have had no problem in providing low cost rental housing. Take Vienna for example, a city which has largely solved the worldwide crisis of soaring rents:

Experts refer to Vienna’s Gemeindebauten as “social housing,” a phrase that captures how the city’s public housing and other limited-profit housing are a widely shared social benefit: The Gemeindebauten welcome the middle class, not just the poor. In Vienna, a whopping 80 percent of residents qualify for public housing, and once you have a contract, it never expires, even if you get richer. Housing experts believe that this approach leads to greater economic diversity within public housing — and better outcomes for the people living in it.

People living in Vienna's social housing pay as little as 3% of their monthly salaries on rent. To boot the availability of low cost public housing keeps costs in the private housing market down.

In 2015, before they bought an apartment on the private market, the Schachingers were making about 80,000 euros ($87,000) a year, roughly the income of the average U.S. household in 2021. Eva and Klaus-Peter paid 26 percent and 29 percent in income tax, respectively, but just 4 percent of their pretax income was going toward rent, which is about what the average American household spends on meals eaten out and half a percentage point less than what the average American spends on “entertainment.” Even if the Schachingers got a new contract today on their unit, their monthly payments would be an estimated 542 euros, or only 8 percent of their income. Vienna’s generous supply of social housing helps keep costs down for everyone: In 2021, Viennese living in private housing spent 26 percent of their post-tax income on rent and energy costs, on average, which is only slightly more than the figure for social-housing residents overall (22 percent). Meanwhile, 49 percent of American renters — 21.6 million people — are cost-burdened, paying landlords more than 30 percent of their pretax income, and the percentage can be even higher in expensive cities. In New York City, the median renter household spends a staggering 36 percent of its pretax income on rent.

The article goes on:

Real estate is a place where money literally grows on tree beams. In the last decade, the typical owner of a single-family home acquired nearly $200,000 in appreciation. “Another word for asset appreciation is inflation,” the academics Lisa Adkins, Melinda Cooper and Martijn Konings write in “The Asset Economy,” “an increase in monetary value without any corresponding change in the nature of the good itself or the conditions of its production that would make it scarcer or justify an increased demand for it.” That inflation is creating a treacherous gulch between the housing haves and have-nots. Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies found that, in 2019, the median net worth of U.S. renters was just 2.5 percent of the median net worth of homeowners: $6,270 versus $254,900. Last year, as higher interest rates slowed home sales and caused prices to plateau (and even soften in some overheated cities), the asking price of the median U.S. rental reached $2,000 a month, a record high, according to Redfin. Inflated rent prices line the pockets of landlords while preventing renters from saving for a down payment and ever getting off the treadmill.

Inflation in asset prices, particularly real estate, is causing more people, especially senior citizens, to fall into homelessness. The recent rise in interest rates which supposedly are aimed at curbing inflation have done nothing to bring the cost of housing down. In San Diego county, real estate is still appreciating in value despite the Fed having raised interest rates to highs not seen in recent years. It has done nothing to stop investors and hedge funds that pay cash. I reported previously:

In a deal with the Conrad Prebys Foundation, Blackstone Group, CEO'd by Steven Schwarzman, is buying 5800 rental units in San Diego. According to the San Diego Union, "The deal makes Blackstone one of the biggest real estate holders in San Diego County. It already owns $4.5 billion in assets here — including Legoland and the Hotel del Coronado. The transaction, which also includes Los Angeles-based investment firm TruAmerica as a partner, is expected to close in the next few weeks. The sale of the apartments was praised by Dan Yates, the president of the Conrad Prebys Foundation, who said the portfolio was assembled by Conrad Prebys — a San Diego developer — himself. Yates said the money from the deal will be used for grants primarily in San Diego."

Investors pay cash t buy up cheap rentals, and, therefore, the rise in interest rates doesn't affect them. They don't pay interest. They then give the tenants a 30 or 60 day notice depending on how long they've lived there. Then they refurbish the apartments and rent them out for twice the previous rent. This is the so-called "gentrification" of San Diego neighborhoods. This is why low cost rental units are disappearing just as all the SROs have disappeared. The policies now taking place by the city and county of San Diego to provide converted hotel housing and safe sleeping and parking areas will counteract this trend of higher and higher rents producing more and more homelessness. It's a policy that needs to be continued and increased. It cannot just be a one-off. Eventually, it will put a damper on the private rental market just as it did in Vienna.

Off the Top of My Head

Government Deficit Spending Is Not the Problem: Lack of Labor and Physical Resources Is

by John Lawrence

Since the US dollar is a sovereign fiat currency, the US can never run out of dollars. The debt ceiling is a totally artificial limit which results in the US hoisting itself on its own pitard. According to Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) as espoused in The Deficit Myth by Stephanie Kelton, the only limit on government spending is inflation, and inflation is concerned with the amount and nature of resources available to soak up the money injected into the economic system by the government. According to this theory it makes sense that a lack of labor resources could lead to inflation. Consider that right now there is a shortage of air traffic controllers, and this is leading to a cancellation of flights. If there were more air traffic controllers available, the number of flights could be increased, and more economic activity would ensue. The constraint on flights available because of the lack of air traffic controllers leads to inflation because the money charged for each available flight can be increased. Essentially there is a bidding war for the available flights. If any resource including natural resources like steel and cement is not sufficient for the demand for those resources, then the price of those resources will increase leading to inflation. Right now in the US labor is becoming a scarce resource especially labor of the type necessary in the essential economy, that is the economy of goods and services necessary for the continuation and enhancement of everyday life. As more labor is developed for essentially useless services like the entertainment and social media industries, plumbers, electricians and carpenters are not available for useful services, and, therefore, the cost of those services increases.

Which brings us to Biden's Inflation Reduction Act which allocates $370 billion to rebuild infrastructure and fight climate change. These are all necessary and vital goals, but the question should be asked are the resources for this amount of spending sufficient or will this spending be inflationary. To put it more succinctly is the blue collar labor sufficient for the job? If not, the price of labor will be bid up and the spending will be inflationary. More and more these days students are encouraged to go to college where they end up after graduation working for Wall Street or hedge funds or in the entertainment/social media industry. They are not encouraged to go to vocational technical schools to become carpenters, plumbers and electricians. So they go into industries which are not essential to the real economy. There are shortages of labor for the real economy everywhere we look. In order to overcome these shortages, it would be necessary to step up legal immigration since immigrants by and large fill the jobs Americans don't want to do, and by and large Americans don't want to perform any kind of the less glamorous and remunerative type of labor necessary for production in the real economy. Also outsourcing has made it unnecessary for Americans to perform labor in the real economy. We rely either on immigrants or foreign workers for that.

The next thing is that all this infrastructure rebuilding is going to contribute to global warming as well as reducing it. Rebuilding all the bridges of America will require large amounts of steel and cement. Steel and cement production produce large amounts of carbon dioxide which is emitted into the atmosphere. The International Energy Agency estimates that direct CO² emissions due to crude steel production is approximately 1.4 tons of CO² per ton of steel produced. The cement industry is responsible for about 8% of planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions — far more than global carbon emissions from aviation. If the cement industry were a country, it would be the third-largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, after the U.S. and China. So rebuilding America's infrastructure will contribute to global warming while at the same time attempting to reduce global warming. The fact is that alternatives to steel and cement which do not produce greenhouse gasses are not available. Research on these topics needs to be stepped up. But more research in areas like artificial intelligence, of the kind which has no use in the amelioration of global warming, takes place while productive research into materials to replace steel and cement languishes. Also while more electric vehicles are being produced, the electric energy to power these vehicles is coming from power plants that still use fossil fuels to produce it. One form of greenhouse gas production is being traded for another. Nothing is gained unless all energy generating power plants are using renewable and non carbon dioxide producing fuels.

The problem is that limited resources both in terms of labor and physical resources will hamper efforts both in repairing American infrastructure and building infrastructure which reduces the amount of greenhouse gas production. Stephanie Kelton writes: "That's why MMT recommends a different approach to the federal budgeting process, one that integrates inflation risk into the decision making process so that lawmakers are forced to stop and think about whether they have taken the necessary steps to guard against inflation risk before approving any new spending. MMT would make us safer in this respect because it recognizes that the best defense against inflation is a good offense. We don't want to allow excessive spending to cause inflation and then fight inflation after it happens. We want agencies like the CBO helping to evaluate new legislation for potential inflation risk before Congress commits to funding new programs so that the risks can be mitigated preemptively. At its core  MMT is about replacing an artificial (revenue) constraint with a real (inflation) restraint." The artificial revenue constraint is the debt ceiling!

In the above passage the words "inflation risk" could also be replaced with "greenhouse gas emission risk." The CBO should evaluate both kinds of risks. So as the economy becomes more electrified in terms of electric cars and buildings, we need to think about the fact that the electricity generated by these increased demands needs to come from non carbon dioxide emitting sources. Also substitutes must be found quickly - in other words research needs to be stepped up - to find substitutes for steel and cement. To boot, non polluting energy sources must be found for ships and planes. Both human and physical natural resources must be taken into account. Have all these things been thought through?

Off the Top of My Head

Biden's Changing The Asylum Law Without Congress' Help

by John Lawrence

The asylum law in effect says that any alien who enters the US legally or illegally may apply for asylum. This incentivizes aliens to enter illegally, and, if caught, to simply request asylum. Since they would have to go before a court to determine if they should get asylum and the court is backed up for years, entering illegally and requesting asylum is a guarantee of at least currently five years in the US during which time they could attempt to remain hidden and not show up at court. The reality is that only about 40% of asylum seekers that show up for their court date actually get asylum. The rest are deported. According to U.S. and international law, a claim of persecution must be made based on one of five “protected grounds”: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Poverty, scarce economic opportunities, displacement caused by natural disasters or a desire to reunite with family are not grounds for asylum under U.S. law. Here's the actual law:

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

In order to dissuade asylum seekers from just showing up in a disorderly fashion en masse at the southern border, the Biden administration has been setting up a system to encourage people to apply for asylum in an orderly manner. This includes applying at a port of entry or applying from a country in south or central America. Also,they are disincentivized from coming across the border illegally because, if they do, they are ineligible for asylum for 5 years. Here's the new rule:

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) are issuing a final rule in anticipation of a potential surge of migration at the southwest border (“SWB”) of the United States following the termination of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (“CDC”) public health Order. The rule encourages migrants to avail themselves of lawful, safe, and orderly pathways into the United States, or otherwise to seek asylum or other protection in another country through which they travel, thereby reducing reliance on human smuggling networks that exploit migrants for financial gain. The rule does so by introducing a rebuttable presumption of asylum ineligibility for certain noncitizens who neither avail themselves of a lawful, safe, and orderly pathway to the United States nor seek asylum or other protection in a country through which they travel. In the absence of such a measure, which would apply only to those who enter at the southwest land border or adjacent coastal borders during a limited, specified date range, the number of migrants expected to travel without authorization to the United States would be expected to increase significantly, to a level that risks undermining the Departments’ continued ability to safely, effectively, and humanely enforce and administer U.S. immigration law, including the asylum system, in the face of exceptionally challenging circumstances. Coupled with an expansion of lawful, safe, and orderly pathways into the United States, the Departments expect the rule to lead to a reduction in the number of migrants who seek to cross the SWB without authorization to enter, thereby reducing the reliance by migrants on dangerous human smuggling networks, protecting against extreme overcrowding in border facilities, and helping to ensure that the processing of migrants seeking protection in the United States is done in an effective, humane, and efficient manner. In addition, the Departments are requesting comment on whether applicability of the rebuttable presumption should be extended to noncitizens who enter the United States without documents sufficient for lawful admission during the same temporary time period at a maritime border.

DATES: Effective date: This rule is effective on May 11, 2023.

This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 05/16/2023 and available online at federalregister.gov/d/2023-10146, and on govinfo.gov

The Biden administration is solving the border crisis without the help of Congress in a way that's sure to be challenged in court, but in the way that Congress would actually probably solve it if they were inclined to act and reform immigration laws. Biden should get a lot of credit for going ahead without Congress which is a sewer of conflict, stagnation and malfunction. An orderly process for applying for asylum has been created by the Biden administration which should discourage masses of people showing up at the southern border. For this they deserve much credit.

Off the Top of My Head

Republican Presidents Have Been Mainly Responsible for Increases in the National Debt

by John Lawrence

The Reagan, George W Bush and Trump tax cuts are responsible for most of the US national debt. During the Trump administration, the debt increased by roughly $7.8 trillion, and The George W. Bush administration  enacted sweeping tax cuts that will have cost more than $8 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2023. The nation’s fiscal pictured changed in 1981 when President Ronald Reagan enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history, reducing revenues by the equivalent of $19 trillion over a decade in today’s terms. Although Congress raised taxes in many of the subsequent years of the Reagan administration to claw back close to half the revenue loss, the equivalent of $10 trillion of the president’s 1981 tax cut remained. Donald Trump Built a National Debt So Big (Even Before the Pandemic) that it’ll weigh down the economy for years.

A series of massive, permanent tax cuts have created large federal budget primary shortfalls and continue to exert upward pressure on the debt ratio. In other words, the current fiscal gap—the growing debt as a percentage of the economy—stems from legislation that cut taxes, disproportionately for the very rich. While it is true that the Great Recession and legislation to fight it, along with the costs of responding to the health and economic effects of COVID-19, pushed the level of debt higher, these costs were temporary and did not change the trajectory of the debt ratio. If Congress wants to decrease deficits, it should look first toward reversing tax cuts that largely benefited the wealthy, which were responsible for the United States’ current fiscal outlook.

Therefore, taxes on the rich should increase while spending on the poor and middle class should also increase. Americans want both: social programs and reduced taxes. However, the gross inequality that exists between rich and poor begs the question: why raise taxes on everyone? Shouldn't the rich have their taxes increased while the poor and lower middle class have their taxes reduced? Of course, that 's the ideal solution. However, Republicans represent the interests of the rich so they would never agree to this proposal. They will continue to argue for increasing taxes on the poor while cutting spending that mostly benefits the poor and lower middle class. That's the American situation, writ large, folks. That's all you need to know to understand American politics. It's a struggle between rich and poor. The rich think they deserve all their money even if it runs to billions of dollars while the poor are only trying to get a foothold in the American Dream. The rich think the poor deserve their lot in life because they didn't work hard enough to overcome their poverty. The rich also believe in a meritocracy where they themselves are the winners who made all the right moves and worked the hardest. What's wrong with this picture?

Read "The Tyranny of Merit" by Michael Sandel.

Off the Top of My Head

Donald Trump: The Dominator

by John Lawrence

Just as George W Bush characterized himself as 'the Decider', Donald Bush might well characterize himself as The Dominator. He dominates the other candidates or would be candidates in the Republican party. They are all afraid to criticize him. In the 2016 debates Jeb Bush, a decent guy, was destroyed by him.

“Jeb is having some kind of a breakdown,” he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. ​”He’s an embarrassment to his family. He has to bring his mother out and walk his mother around at 90 years old. I think it’s a very sad situation that’s taking place.”

“Frankly, he’s a stiff,” Trump said. “He’s not a guy who can be president. He doesn’t have what it takes to be president.”

Ron DeSantis is walking on egg shells and is hesitant even to declare his candidacy. The Republican base, many of whom have a military background, want a Dominator as their candidate. That is indeed the military tradition. Recruits are dominated by their drill sergeant who gets in their face and barks orders. Ironic then that, although Trump never served in the military, he exemplifies the military mind set. Most active duty military as well as most people in the military industrial complex vote Republican because Republicans. especially Donald Trump, exemplify their values. These are the same values that are part and parcel of the animal world where the dominant male gets to mate with all the females. So Trump characterizes himself as so dominant that he can act like a dominant male and grab 'em by the pussy or shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and get away with it. Just as other species do, a certain percentage of the Republican base respects and admires a Dominator like Trump. When Trump says this kind of domination has been going on for "millions of years, unfortunately or fortunately," he is referring to the fact that this kind of behavior is the norm in the animal world, and we humans are, after all, not really all that different.

The Denominators of history are of course Fascists. In 1922 Benito Mussolini led a coalition of fascist leaders to Rome and forced the king to yield the government. Mussolini was appointed prime minister. By 1925 he had dismantled Italy's democratic government and, acting as a dictator, declared himself Il Duce ("The Leader"). Hitler dominated the tired old men of the Weimar Republic who were cajoled into appointing him Chancellor. Fascism is a top down political structure similar to the military's top down rank structure. No wonder then that Republican voters, many of whom have a military background, are quite comfortable with a top down structure of political dominance with Trump at the apex. No wonder that Trump is leading all the polls even though he is under several criminal indictments. Friedrich Nietsche was the philosopher of fascism, one who argued for a repudiation of Christian values to be replaced with the values of domination. "A good war hallowith every cause". Just as the dominant male in the animal kingdom passes on his superior DNA to his harem of females, Fascist values insist that dominant men are the ones to eugenically pass on superioor genes to their offspring, and they should be valued and looked up to. All other men should be submissive to them. There is no separation form the animal world. Homo Sapiens represents a continuation of the values that assert that the best and strongest genes of the Dominators should take priority.

Trump's followers in fact give him a pass on Christian values for the very reason that, as Nietzsche asserts, Christian values are the values of the weak. The values of the strong and vital are the values of top down authoritarianism for which the strong man or the dominator should rule the day. As Trump said, this has been going on for millions of years, fortunately or unfortunately. This gives a pass to misogyny as Nietzsche also stated, "The family is the smallest unit of domination." The father is dominant; the wife and children should be submissive. The ethos of dominance and submission should prevail. Christian morals, the morals of tolerance and equality, according to Nietsche, are the exact opposite of the morals that lead to the betterment of the species. Let the cream rise to the top, and, unfortunately or fortunately, the weak must inevitably fall by the wayside. "Devil take the hindermost" is an imprecation that everyone should look after their own interests, leaving those who cannot cope to whatever fate befalls them. The leader of the most dominant nation on the face of the earth should be the most dominant male, ^i.e. Donald Trump, the Dominator. Utter selfishness should prevail. Cooperation is a feminine value. Love is a feminine value. Getting along is a feminine value. Diplomacy is a feminine value. Male dominance is what the US populace wants in a leader.

Off the Top of My Head

San Diego Finally Gets It Right for the Homeless Situation

by John Lawrence

San Diego identifies two areas which can be devoted to safe sleeping places for the homeless. They will provide 500 spots for homeless to have tents. Also rest rooms, meals, security and other services will be provided. At the same time the City will pass an ordinance which prevents people from sleeping on the public streets. I have been advocating for this for some time here, here and here. In an article in the San Diego Union Tribune we find this: San Diego to open homeless camp sites at two parking lots near Balboa Park. In addition to these newly identified areas, the City is also buying motels to provide single room shelters. These along with the existing shelter beds should go a long way to providing accommodations for the approximately 2000 homeless people on the streets of San Diego. It will also be a huge sigh of relief for pedestrians and business owners who would like the streets to be clean and safe for customers and dog walkers. According to the article:

Hundreds of homeless people in San Diego will have a legal place to live outdoors in tents on city-owned parking lots adjacent to Balboa Park later this year, Mayor Todd Gloria announced Monday.

One site will be in Parking Lot O near the Naval Medical Center and just east of Nursery Road, which could accommodate up to 400 tents.

The second site could accommodate 136 tents and is in the parking lot of a city maintenance yard at 20th and B streets. That site was temporarily used as a campground with individual tents in 2017 as the city tried to quickly get homeless people off the street during a hepatitis A outbreak.

The safe sleeping sites, as they are known, will be the first of their kind in the county and have individual tents provided by the city. Homeless people often decline offers to move into congregate shelters, and safe sleeping sites are seen as alternatives that people may be more willing to accept.

Monday’s announcement came at a time when the number of homeless people in downtown San Diego has reached a record high.

The mayor also said the new safe sleeping site is in tandem with an ordinance that would prohibit camping on sidewalks when shelter beds are available, which is expected to go before the City Council early next month.

“When the taxpayers of this city are spending tens of millions of dollars on homelessness services to get people off the street and into care, we should expect those on the street to avail themselves of those opportunities,” he said.

Councilmember Stephen Whitburn proposed the ordinance and also has been pushing for the creation of a safe sleeping site for months. Whitburn’s district includes downtown San Diego, where the number of homeless people living in sidewalk encampments has surged in recent months.

Speaking at Monday’s announcement, Whitburn said the new safe sleeping sites will benefit homeless people, who will be offered a place to camp that will include security, toilets, meals and access to services, while also benefiting downtown residents and businesses.

“I have spoken with a number of people who are tired of living in squalor on the sidewalk and want to be in a better place but do not want to go into an enclosed shelter,” he said. “They have told me they would happily move to a safe sleeping site with bathrooms, with security, with meals and services.”

The homeless crowding the downtown city streets put somewhat of a damper on the extensive tourist and conference business that is a big part of the city's economy. Besides in such a beautiful city, homelessness creates a huge eyesore right in its midst. The safe camping sites represent at least a partial solution to the homeless problem and will alleviate the complaints I receive about the city as an Uber driver. Tourists and conference goers notice the homeless problem and it doesn't sit well with them, let alone the residents of expensive high rise condos who, when they descend to street level have to wade through filth in order to get where they're going.

From the point of view of the homeless they will at least have some services plus sanitation plus meals plus social worker access to help them get back on their feet if they should choose to do so. Let's not underestimate security as well. They had none of this on the public streets. Since a lot of them don't want to go to shelters for various reasons, such as they can't take their pets with them, they should be relieved at this solution. It should not be a problem for them to access other services since they will be centrally located. Many have bikes and there are bus stops near by. Now what the City needs to do is to identify other safe sleeping areas that the City could make available for future use. Hopefully they won't be needed, but it would be good to have them available if they are.

Congratulations to San Diego's mayor and city council for finally coming up with a promising solution which by the way will cost the city hardly anything compared to the recent motel purchases. See the article: San Diego to pursue buying three hotels to house homeless people — at a cost of $383,000 per room.Total: $150 million. Compare this with the $5 million the City is spending on the safe sleeping campsites. Such a deal!