Everybody's Got a Theory

In Friday's editorial section of the Wisconsin State Journal
of September 6th, there was an opinion piece by John
Kass, columnist for the Chicago Tribune, an
unabashedly right leaning newspaper.  It was titled
'Warren should break some eggs, drop out, back
Sanders'.  Mr. Kass purports to advise the Democrats
on how to defeat Donald Trump in 2020.  His theory
is that Joe Biden, even though he is leading in the
polls and has been ever since he joined the race, is
unelectable.  no matter that most polls have him
trouncing Trump by double-digits across the
country.

Kass feels that Warren should 'do the right thing',
drop out, and encourage her supporters to back -
wait for it, Bernie Sanders - immediately, if not
sooner.  His justification, the progressive Democrats
remain split between Sanders and Warren which
leaves the door open for Biden to capture the
nomination.  Now I have to agree with Kass that
Biden would make a poor choice for president,
but not for the same reasons.  He would, however,
make a great candidate, and most probably could
win in 2020.

But Biden is not what the country needs right now,
if ever, his time has come and gone.  He represents
the past, and many people are waxing nostalgic
for the past.  I don't mean the past of fifty years
ago, when white men ruled, and women and people of
color were second class citizens, I mean the 'no
drama Obama' years.  When civility and good
taste were de regurrre, and America had the trust
and respect of the world.  But Thomas Wolfe had
it correct, 'you can't go back'.

The Trump administration has changed America, and
for that matter, a great deal of the world.  Pandora's
box has been opened and I'm not sure there is even
hope left.  Trump has elevated dictators and despots,
and denigrated our oldest and most trusted allies.  The
new president, whom ever it will be, will have to deal
with what is left of the shambles of America's foreign
and domestic policies.  That person will have to earn
back the trust of our friends and enemies.  America
once again will have to be open to the world.  The
present administration's policies are to withdraw
within our boarders as if the oceans that insulate us
cannot be breached in a matter of hours, and to build
walls that keep the world at bay.  "America First" is
the cry!

It is as though Trump is trying to obliterate everything the
prior administration had done, like he can erase the memory
of a black president, and assure his base that he will not
allow them to be second, ever.  And Biden is running to
restore everything the Obama, and previous presidents
had done.  But that is not presidential policy to run a
campaign on, and looking back is not going to take
America into the future.

But Bernie Sanders is not the answer either.  Kass says
that Sanders has the 'necessary authenticity', whatever
that is.  If he means that Sanders has been around for
a long time and is as old as mold, he is right there.
Perhaps he has the stamina to withstand the rigors of
a long campaign, but will he have anything left to give
the presidency is the question?  Even if, and this is a
BIG if, the Senate turns in 2020, Sanders would have
a difficult time getting his agenda passed, it is socialism
even in the eyes of the most progressive Democrats.  Yes,
the younger voters love him, who doesn't love Santa Clause?
If, however, the Senate remains in the hands of the
Republicans, and Mitch McConnell is still Senate Majority
Leader, we will face another four years of stalemates or worse.

So, Kass asks Elizabeth Warren to give up her lead and bow
to the more 'electable' male candidate.  As is that isn't insulting
enough on its premise, let's go back to the 2016 campaign.  When
it became apparent that Bernie was not going to get the
nomination - and you can argue the righteousness of that outcome
all day - did he graciously concede and throw his support to
Clinton?  Not on your life, his ego wouldn't let him, he was riding
high on adulations and reveling in it.  By the time he did concede,
and half-heartily asked his 'Bernie Backers' to think about supporting
Clinton, it was too late.  Sanders is partly responsible for Trump
being in the White House today.  Sanders is an Independent, perhaps
he should try running on that ticket.

Now let's look at Elizabeth Warren, she has moved up in the polls
and is either second or third behind Biden and Sanders, depending
on which poll you favor.  She is energetic, intelligent, articulate,
personable, and she connects with the people she talks to.  But Kass
said her big drawback is that she claimed to have American Indian
heritage.  Warren was born in Oklahoma; I defy you to find any native
Okie who doesn't have American Indian in his family tree somewhere.
I'm sure her family told the story through the generations of a great
uncle or grandfather who wore a headdress and fought the 'blue bellies'.
Many a family legend has been disproved by DNA testing.  Warren has
apologized to those people who might have been offended by her claim,
and her apology was accepted without question.

So let's look at Donald Trump, he has said his father was born in a little
town in Germany. Yeah, not unless the Bronx was a part of Germany. Fred
Trump, Donald's father, was born in the good old USA.  Where is the
hue and cry at that whopper?  Trump has been credited with well over
12,000 deliberate mis-statements - or as I like to call them, bold face
lies - and it doesn't seem to raise an eyebrow, yet Kass feels that one
inadvertent mistaken statement should disqualify Warren from the
Democratic nomination...REALLY!

As far as the debates are concerned, I do believe that facts will out-
weigh ad hominin attacks and juvenile name calling.  And the force
of Warrens positive outlook for the country will overcome the dour
predictions of doom from the other side.  You know why?  Because
she has a plan for that!

   I'm just sayin'.

What is Wrong with Being Right?

Let us begin with the premise that not everything
is all right or all wrong, and that is correct as far
as it goes.  But some things are more wrong than
others, and there must be an end to the equivocation
that the Republicans and the Democrats are the same
when it comes to what is right and what is wrong.
But then who is to judge, when thirty-nine percent
of the voters believe what the president is doing
is right, and the Republican Party is so afraid of
that thirty-nine percent that they refuse to stand up
and defend their principles.

The evangelicals, who chose to overlook what is
wrong, to achieve what they think is right are
perhaps the greatest hypocrites of all, secundum
quid.  This president was a flawed candidate from
the start.  Beginning with alluding to the size of
his penis on a presidential debate stage, to stating
he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not
lose a vote, to publicly stating that he was a sexual
predator, the list goes on.  Yet these good
Christians, who disavowed one president for
having a consensual affair in the White House,
fully embraced this thrice-divorced man who
confesses to having no religious beliefs at all.

This man who was born with a silver spoon in
his mouth - that might explain his problem
with the English language - had convinced millions
of poor and disadvantaged, and for the most part
uneducated, mostly men, that he would fight
for them.  He, the outsider, would take on the
establishment in Washington and 'drain the swamp'.
He has fueled hatred and bigotry, made fun of the
disabled, and incited violence during his campaign
speeches.
Right or wrong?

But Donald Trump is not the cause of our current
malaise, he is the result of the backlash from Obama's
election.  There were millions of people across the
South and some 'rednecks' further north, who were
furious that a black family was in their White House.
The Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell,
gathered his minions together and vowed to not pass
any of Obama's legislation and to make sure Obama
was a one-term president.  So it began.  It ended
with McConnell refusing to bring Obama's nominee
to the Supreme Court, up for approval before the Senate.
Merrick Garner was an eminently qualified jurist,
but he never even got a hearing.
Right or wrong?

It didn't take long for Trump to establish the fact that
he was biased against certain 'other' religions.  One of
his first acts was to restrict immigration from
predominately Muslim countries.  A gift to the
evangelicals who helped elect him.  Many of those
who were seeking immigration were families of the
local men who had helped in the war effort in
Afghanistan and were now in danger because of it.
Right or wrong?

The second group who benefited from the Trump largess,
were the top two-percenters.  A massive, unfunded tax
cut was passed through a Republican House and Senate.
The beneficiaries; the top earners and corporations.  A nod
to the millions in campaign contributions that went to Trumps
election victory.  The tax cut was sold as an economy booster,
even though the economy that Trump inherited was humming
along nicely, it expanded the deficit by trillions of dollars and
was against everything the Republicans stood for.
Right or wrong?

There has been an exponential increase in hate crimes since
Trump has been campaigning.  The White Supremacists have
been emboldened by the actions and words of this president.
As when a group of peaceful demonstrators were mowed down
and one was killed, in Charlottesville NC during a Unite the 
Right rally.  The Unite the Right is an alt-right, neo-confederate,
neo-fascist group.  Trump took to the microphone and said there
were "good people on both sides".  No, there weren't Mr. Trump,
one side was in favor of overthrowing the government using
violent means, and the other side thought that they were wrong
and were peacefully carrying signs saying so.
Right or wrong?

I simply don't know which of Trump's failures to list next,
could it be his vicious tweets directed at his perceived
enemies, his more than 12,000 falsehoods - oh hell, just
call them what they are, lies - his violation of the emolument
clause of the constitution, his self-aggrandizement, his
using the presidency of the United States for personal gain,
his total lack of empathy, his embarrassing behavior on the
world stage, his insulting rhetoric to our allies and fawning
before our enemies. Through it all, he has garnered support
from the Republicans in Congress, they are more than sheep,
they are eunuchs, castrated by the fear of standing up to a bully.
Right or wrong?

Donald Trump, the business tycoon, who squandered his
inheritance and declared bankruptcy six times, has proclaimed
himself a financial genius.  He believes he can break China
through tariffs, and bend Xi to his will by sheer wheeling and
dealing.  He has told his followers that China will pay for the
tariffs the same way Mexico is paying for his wall.  Farm
bankruptcies have doubled in 2019, and family farms are
being snapped up by corporate farms at bargain prices.  The
estimated cost to the American consumer from the tariffs
will be close to $500.00 this year alone, and even more if
the new round of tariffs go into effect in September.  Still
the Republican Party, which has touted free trade for years,
refuses to call out the president for his recklessness.
Right or wrong?

Some of the most serious charges against Trump come from
the trashing of the environmental protection laws, that were
implemented by previous presidents: cutting restrictions
against coal burning emissions, repealing the clean water
act, reversal of methane regulations. reversing the miles-
per-gallon restrictions on automobiles, opening up the
Tongass National Forest  to drilling and forestation.  There
appears to be no limit to which this man will go to prove
that climate change is a hoax.  He is stealing from our
children and grandchildren their air to breathe and clean
water to drink.
Right or wrong?

Trump has declared himself 'the chosen one', as he cast
his eyes to heaven, he feels he was chosen by God to bring
order to the chaos that is the world today. He quotes the
right-wingers who say the Israeli Jews love him like
the 'second coming', totaling unaware that Jews do not
believe in the second coming.  His blasphemy is
boundless, he insults all religions with equal distain.
But above all his shortcomings, the most egregious
is his refusal to do anything about the proliferation
of guns and gun deaths in America.  There were
fifty-five mass murders with guns in August alone.
After the killings in El Paso, he declared he was for strict
background checks.  That was before he got a call
from Wayne Lapierre.  That phone call put a stop
to any talk of background checks.  Is there no
price to great to pay to be reelected?
Right or wrong?

So, what is wrong with being right...I just told you.
                                  I'm just sayin'.

I Believe Again

I have spent the past three Saturdays working at
the Farmer's Market on the Capitol Square in
downtown Madison WI.  I'm not selling fruits
and vegetables; I am selling an idea. I am standing
behind a card table covered with bumper stickers,
campaign buttons, and information sheets about a
candidate I really believe in.  There is a donation
jar there also, as everything that  is on that table
was bought and paid for by the people behind the
table. No national campaign money here.

Next to the table is a life-size cardboard cutout
of the candidate, suitable for posing with, and
a number of people do. Not twenty-feet to our
right is a table filled the same way as our table
and a cutout of another candidate.  And across
the square are more of the same.  Surprisingly
they people manning these tables are in their
mid-twenties.  I am the grandma of the bunch.
I stand out in the blazing sun with my sign held
high for hours on end, and call out to anyone
who will listen, I answer questions until I am
near hoarse.

Now, I have been doing this for nigh on forty
years or more.  I am, admittedly, a political
animal, it is hereditary.  My dad worked for
years for the 'Machine' in Chicago, he was also
a union steward and was always the first man on
the picket line.  He made me promise that I would stay
out of the fray, and with fingers crossed, I agreed.
But I am my daddy's daughter, I remember going
with him to wait out the results of an election at
campaign headquarters.  When I was younger, I
didn't always understand the machinations, but
I could sense the euphoria of the crowd as the numbers
were posted on the large blackboard, it seemed
our side always won.

How can you not become addicted to the excitement,
the crowds, the confetti, and the balloons?  As I grew
older, I got a glimpse behind the façade, to the
everyday workings of a machine that made a great
city run.  It wasn't always pretty.  The machine was
relentless, it was constantly moving and evolving,
and if you didn't move with it you were crushed  under
its wheels.  It needed to be fed and its live force was
money, always money.  In time, I became disillusioned.

My dad's only sibling, his sister, was married to a staunch
Republican, a very influential Republican.  Uncle Ed was
not just my favorite uncle, he was my godfather.  He and
his wife never had children so he doted on his godchild.
He filled my head with the ideals of the Republican
Party, and back then there were many, and I agreed
with most of them.  To say the least, our holiday dinners
were tense, the head of the family, my grandfather, would
bellow when the discussions got out of control, and voices
were raised.  "No more", was the cry from the head of the
table.  And an uneasy truce would be called.  (I'll bet that
goes on yet today in many households.)

And so it was, I joined the Young Republicans, and I
worked for Barry Goldwater.  I worked my heart out
and then, like my dad said, my heart was broken.  The
Republican moved on without me.  Gone was the party
of small government, fiscal responsibility,  and personal
non-interference, suddenly the government was everywhere,
looking into your church and your bedroom.  And I found
myself voting for John Anderson.

I met and married a man who, like my father, had a job
that depended on the politics of the day.  The administration
at that time was Democratic hence so was he.  I loved him
and I loved my father, but that love stopped at the polling
place and my independence won out at the ballot box.

It's been a long and strange journey, but all along I have
followed not just my heart but also my head.  My dad
voted a straight ticket his whole life, he would never think
of leaving the party.  My uncle worked his whole life for
the Republicans, he never understood my defection. My
husband remained a Democratic till the day he died.  I
cannot and will not compromise my beliefs.

In 2016 I voted for the most qualified candidate to ever
run for president, I had met her and spoken with her on
several occasions and she never failed to amaze me with
her grasp of Washington and the world.  And once again
my heart was broken, I was sure this time a woman. a
strong and capable woman would break through.  But I
am still out there.  And the thing that gives me hope are
the young folks who are there with me, and the number
of young people who stop at the table and sign up to
receive more information and volunteer to work, and
take a button.  I tell them to wear it proudly.  I make
them promise that they will vote, that it is their future
on the line.  And those people who don't stop, they give
me a smile and a thumbs up, and I give them a smile
because I know what  am doing makes a difference,
not just in my life, but for the country I love.

It matters not who I am supporting, what matters is
that you go out and vote, because your vote does matter.
And, if like me, you believe in something and someone
who you feel will make a difference in the country, work
for them.  They need your help, no one gets elected without
help.  The Russians are working hard to get the candidate
of their choice elected, you can be sure of that.

Democracy is not a spectator sport!    I'm just sayin'.


the ballot

R. E. S. P. E. C. T.

Chicago, like most major cities in the 1940's and 50's, was
strictly divided into neighborhoods, mostly along ethnic
lines.  And so it was when I was growing up there.  Our
neighborhood on the near west side, was predominantly
Polish.  It was the language of choice by most of the older
mothers and fathers, those in their 30's and 40's, (when
you are 10, thirty is old).  They had immigrated to
America as adults or came with their families when
they were older children.  Either way, Polish or 'pigeon
English' was their language of choice, and by virtue
of speaking and hearing it at home, so also was it our
choice as children.  And many of us went to the Catholic
school where classes were taught in Polish.

On our street, South Troy Street, there was a small group
kids all around the same age, Think Our Gang, but not
as cute.  There was Mike, Richie, Ellen, Stash, Mickey,
and me.  We were all close in age and size, except for Mickey,
he was a full head shorter than the rest of us.  Because of
that, or perhaps in spite of it, he was a real scrapper.
When his nose wasn't running it was bloody, and he
wore his bruises and various scabs as badges of honor.

Our street, like most of those in the area, was comprised
of the good ol' Chicago two-flat.  Your family either
owned one, or you lived in one, except for Mickey.  His
pa owned the tavern on the corner and they lived 'above
the store'.  My folks owned our two-flat, well them and
my grandpa who held the mortgage.  Ellen's family
rented the second floor right next door to our house.
Stash lived across the street; his family owned their
building also.  When Stash's pa came home from the
war he was blind.  Talk was, the Salvation Army paid
off the mortgage, and the family collected disability
from the government.  Still the neighborhood women
clucked their tongues and shook their heads when Stash's
ma came outside - "poor Helen they would say.  Richie's
family rented the second floor next to the El tracks.  You
got used to the noise after a while...a long while.  Mike's
family lived next door to my grandpa and across and
down the street from our house.  You could just about
swing a cat and hit all our houses.

We were thick as thieves, the six of us.  We met up to
walk to school together, and walked home the same way.
And come summer, we spent the long days playing in
the street. Troy Street was our playground, even though
just two blocks to the east was Douglas park, with open
green spaces, a lagoon, and a playground with swings,
jungle gym, monkey bars and such.  I think our mamas
wanted to be able to look out the window and see their
brood.  It's not that there was so much crime around then,
but the park was a breeding ground for perverts of all
kinds, and I guess mama felt it would be better I should
get hit by a car, than have some weirdo 'wave his winkie'
at me.  I'm only speculating.

The game of choice most days was Bounce or Fly, a
game played with a softball and a bat.  If you are not
familiar with a Chicago softball, it is a 16-inch ball, not
the 12-inch softball used elsewhere, and you play it
without a glove.  Folks in Wisconsin laughingly call
it a 'pillow fight', but I digress.  Between the six of us,
we had one bat and one ball.  I had the bat; it was several
years older than I and at one time it had been blue.  The
business end had a few chunks missing and so did the
handle, there was one big chunk out of the no-slip ring at
the end.  Mike had the ball, it was even older than my bat.
It had long ago lost its shinny whiteness and now was a
soft shade of gray suede.  The seam had split more than
once and Mike's ma had sewn it together with black darning
thread.  It wasn't quite regulation baseball stitching, but it
held the stuffing in.  The ball had a perpetual flat side that
gave it a weird bounce and made the game more interesting.

When all six of us played we chose up sides. three on three,
the last team to pick got Mickey.  First ups were chosen by
having one team toss the bat to the other side.  They caught
it with one hand and from then on it was hand over hand to
the top.  Last hand was first up.  If you could hold on to the
ring while the other side kicked the bat - an impossible fete
with the chunk out of the ring - you were first up.  The game
was played in innings like regular softball.  Three outs and
your team took the field.  An out was either a strike-out or
a hit that was caught on the fly or on one bounce, hence
the name.  If the ball wasn't caught you scored a run.  There
was no pitcher, the batter threw the ball up into the air and
swung for the fences as it came down, three misses and you
struck out.  The rules were sacrosanct, and were handed down
to you by your older sibs.  They were agreed upon by each and
all of us.  I'm not saying there weren't squabbles, of course
there were, but they never lasted the day.

Then one day into the mix, came Donnie*.  His folks had
bought a house across from Douglas Park on the Boulevard.
That area was known as 'the park district', the homes were
mostly single-family and were on larger lots than the standard
Chicago 25'x125' city lot.  Donnie's pa was my pa's boss, I
should say he was management to my pa's union stewardship.
Donnie's pa wanted Donnie to meet friends in the area, so he
asked my pa if Donnie could play with us.  You know the old
saying: To have a friend, you must be a friend?  Yeah, well
Donnie never heard it.  He was an obnoxious little creep,
but he had one thing going for him, Donnie had a new soft-
ball and not just one bat but two.  One for softball and one
for league.  However, we were not allowed to play hardball
in the street for obvious reasons.  We were allowed  to play
if we used the innocuous pink rubber ball.  The one we used
to play stoop ball with.  I digress again.

And so it was, Donnie was allowed to play with us, if he
brought the ball and bat.  But Donnie didn't like our rules,
and now that we were an odd number, it meant that one
guy didn't get to play all the time.  Donnie said that Ellen
shouldn't play because she was a girl and she struck out too
much, - he didn't dare say that to me, or I would have
socked him one.  We told him we all play or no one plays,
Donnie went home.  Next day we compromised, Ellen
would be the pitcher.  Ellen had thick glasses, and poor eye-
to-eye coordination, but she had an arm.  Maybe she struck out
a lot but she could throw a ball, even underhanded she could
put some English on it.  It appeared Donnie wasn't that great
of a hitter either, Ellen caught him swinging every time, and
you didn't do that to Donnie.  We gave him chatter every
time he came up to bat and called him names in Polish,
Donnie didn't speak Polish.  No one wanted him on their team,
which was good for Mickey as now he didn't get picked
last all the time.

Well that didn't last the day, Donnie took his bat and ball and
went home again, he told his pa we were a bunch of rag-a-
muffins.  Back we went to our beat up bat and ball.  It lasted
a week, and Donnie was back.  This time he said we could
have his ball for keeps if we let him play again.  Sure, we
said, you can play.  We told Ellen to lob him nothing but
softballs, we gave him long counts, we played his hits
 on the second hop, Donnie was having a great time but
he was the only one,  Finally, we had enough, when Donnie
came to play again, we said 'no thanks', and gave him back
his ball.  Donnie sulked home, he told his pa we were just
plain mean to him.  We went back to having a great time
with our old bat and ball.

Donnie's pa had a little talk with my pa.  I don't know what
he told my pa about us kids, but my pa said if Donnie wanted
respect, he had to earn it himself.

They say the child is the precursor of the man, who knows,
maybe they are right'

I'm just sayin'.

* the name was changed to protect the guilty.    

Who Are We Protecting?

There has been much talk about what can be done about
the proliferation of gun violence in this country.  But so
far all it has been is talk, everyone has an idea of what
the problem is and what the solution should be; is it
mental health, background checks, assault style weapons,
large capacity clips, too many guns?  Is it one thing, or a
combination of things?  Perhaps it is all of the above.  In
the mean time the killing continues.

In 2017, there were 39,773 gun deaths in the United
States, that is 12 gun deaths per 100,000 population.  By
contrast, there were 37,133 deaths from automobile
accidents in 2017.  You are much safer taking your
chances with an eighteen wheeler on the intestate at
80mph, than you are going to the local mall or movie
theatre.

Everyone is looking at the obvious solutions, let's look
at it from another angle.  When deaths from smoking
were on the rise in the 1950's and 60's, scientist began
to equate many cancers with smoking cigarettes.  That's
when litigation began against the tobacco companies,
however it wasn't until the 1980's when there was a huge
wave of lawsuits.  The premise being:
             
          1) Tobacco companies failed to act with reasonable
               care in making and marketing cigarettes.
          2) Tobacco companies made and marketed a
               product that was unfit to use.

It wasn't until the 1990's that there was limited success
with lawsuits against the big three tobacco companies.
And finally, in 1998 the tobacco companies gave in,
and agreed to pay annual recompense to states, of $206 billion
over twenty-five years for  health care costs stemming from
smoking, and to pay for advertising to discourage smoking.
Too bad the states have used those monies for everything but.

Sensing the same murmurings, the NRA and the gun manufacturers
leapt into action and what resulted was The Protection of Lawful
Commerce in Arms Act, passed on October 26, 2005.  It is a United
States law which protects firearm manufacturers and dealers from
being held liable when crimes have been committed with their
products.  In the years before this legislation, the United States had
successfully sued manufacturers and dealers on the grounds that they
should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal
use.

After the shootings in 2012 in Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook
Connecticut, there have been efforts to repeal the Lawful Commerce
in Arms Act, to make it possible for the victims of theses shootings
to sue firearms manufacturers and dealers on a broader array of
grounds.  Nothing has come of the efforts, due mostly by opposition
from the NRA.

According to the Center for American Progress, the protection of the
Lawful Commerce of Arms Act prevents; "victims of gun violence
from pursuing well-established legal claims against irresponsible
gun manufacturers and sellers - without presenting an alternative
means for the victims to be compensated".

The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct, there are exceptions to it,
and there have been for years.  In 1934, responding to multiple gangland
killings, Congress passed the National Firearms Act, it banned the
manufacturing, sale and possession of 'machine guns', fully automatic
guns that could fire multiple rounds, it was reaffirmed by Congress
in 1998.

However, in response to stricter gun laws in Washington DC, and Chicago
the Supreme Court took up the case of  The District of Columbia v Heller.
The ruling significantly reduced the power of cities and states to legislate
effective gun control. It did however, say that there are limits to gun
ownership; felons may not own a gun, those diagnosed with a mental illness
cannot own a gun, guns may be prohibited in schools and government
buildings, and military weapons, such as the M 16, may be banned.

But I ask you, what is the difference between a machine gun and an assault-
style rifle with a 100-round clip and a bump stock?  Yet those things are legal and
readily available for purchase on the internet or at a gun dealer near you.
Can the manufacturer and seller really defend the sale of these products?
Based on what...hunting?  That would have to be one really big buck, or
a hunter who is a really bad shot!  These products are used to inflict the
greatest amount of harm in the shortest amount of time.  And the manufacturer
and dealer knows that.  And that knowledge is tantamount to making and
marketing a product that is unfit to use.

Perhaps it is time to hold the firearms industry liable for the damage they have
inflicted on America, it may nor put them out of business, but it will slow
them down some.  

I'm just sayin'.

The Power of Positive Thinking

In 1952, an American Minister by the name of Norman
Vincent Peale, published a book called The Power of
Positive Thinking.  I'm sure you heard of it; it is still in
print today.  It was based on the premise that if you
believed, really believed in yourself you could achieve
anything.  You can dispel negative thoughts by tuning
into a cheerful channel in your mind.  The book and its
beliefs were thoroughly debunked by psychologists
and the mental health community, who called Peale
a con man and a fraud.  But the Reverend Mr. Peale
was feted by several presidents including Nixon, Ford,
Carter, Reagan, and Bush I.  At his death, he was
lavishly praised by president Clinton.  Our current
president, Donald Trump, attended Rev. Peale's
Marble Collegiate Church as a child, and he, and
his sisters, were married in the church.  Trump has
praised Peale and cited him as a guiding influence
in his life.

I bring this all up, because it appears as though the
lessons learned by Trump at that tender age, are what
has driven him to overcome failure and bankruptcy
and still believe he is a business genius.  Trump has
used Peale's philosophy throughout his life, he lives
by it, and it has served him well.  It has taken him all
the way to the White House as president, the most
powerful position in the world.  And like the Rev. Peale,
Donald is a con man and a fraud, he has managed to con
39% of the United States population.

I see now that what Trump says are not lies, they are the
reality as he wants it to be.  Trump refuses to see, hear,
or speak anything negative.  It is one of the tenets of his
belief, it is what he learned in church as a young man.
When he said the crowd at his inauguration was larger
than Obamas, he wasn't lying, it was as he saw it.  He
refused to believe it rained on his inauguration.  In his
mind, he had envisioned his inauguration, and it was
perfect, and the facts of the matter will never change
that.  He does have alternative facts.

He only sees his adoring minions; it matters not that
some of them are paid to be there.  You can see it in
his face, he becomes transfixed.  He believes that
everyone loves him, and if they don't, they are un-
American rabble.  If the press dares to print anything
unflattering, they are 'fake news' or worse.  He actually
believes he can do anything to any woman, grab, fondle,
or kiss them and it is alright, because he is The Donald.

Trade wars are easy to win, they are if you believe they
are, and Donald Trump believes they are.  He believes
it is his destiny to bring China to it's knees, to change the
dynamic of 6000 years.  The tariffs will be paid by China
and in the end they will bend to his will.  It makes no difference
that studies from researchers at Harvard, the University of
Chicago, the International Monetary Fund, and the Federal
Reserve all show that the tariffs are hurting the US and
not China.  Even so, Trump has decided to hold off on increasing
the tariffs on China until mid-December, lest they raise prices
before the Christmas shopping season,  No hurt here, Duh!

We are riding the longest expansion in years, and the whispers
of a recession are growing louder.  The rest of the world's
economy is slowing, and the uncertainty surrounding Brexit
is adding to fears of a worldwide downturn.  But Trump will
have none of it, he believes that our economy will prevail and
there is no recession in sight for America. And he has said so
over and over again.  Yet in a campaign rally in New Hampshire -
where according to him he drew a bigger crowd than Elton John -
he told those gathered, and the rest of the country that the only
way to survive the coming recession is to vote for him.  He is
the only one who can save the country.  Double Duh!

Is he delusional?  Or does he truly believe he is the savior the
world needs, the only one who can restore order across the globe.
He has rewritten treaties and scrapped other treaties, he has made
enemies of our friend and friends of our enemies. He is the bully
in the schoolyard, getting his way through threats, both economic
and military.  He is uncultured, unrefined and uncouth, he is
lacking in manners and grace.  But what if he is right?

                       The time has come to talk of many things
                       Of Shoes and ships and sealing wax
                       Of cabbages and kings.
   I'm just sayin'.

An ode to Isurance Companies

                      How do I Love Thee?

   It appears that every time Elizabeth Warren or Bernie
Sanders bring up the idea of single payer insurance,
someone points out that people really love their private
insurance.  Really?   Let's take a good look at the object
of your affection, if you will.  We'll start with a history
of the health industry:

   Early 1900 - Doctors begin to coalesce into to organized
units and the American Medical Association is created

   1912 - Teddy Roosevelt campaigns for mandatory
health insurance for all Americans, but the idea is
abandoned as World War I heats up.

   1920s - After WWI, health care costs increase, and
the middle class is having difficulty affording it.

1930s - FDR signs into law the Social Security Act
without health insurance, due to opposition by the AMA.
They thought it would limit doctor's freedom to practice.
Blue Cross begins selling hospital insurance in some
states.

1940 - During World War II, employers began to offer
 insurance to their workers to compensate for wage
controls.  After the war, Truman proposed National Health
Insurance but it was again fought by the AMA who called
it 'socialized medicine'.

1950 - Tax incentives were offered to employers who
offered health insurance to the employees.  The price of
hospitalization doubles.

1960 - LBJ signs the Medicare Insurance Act and Medicaid
Insurance for the poor and disabled.  The number of
companies offering health insurance exploded.  And by the
end of the 1960s, 69% of doctors were specializing.

1970s - The cost of health care exponentially increases after
Medicare and Medicaid.  Nixon signs the Health Maintenance
Organization Act, creating everyone's favorite, the HMO, to
try and curb medical costs.

1980 - Health care providers move to privatize and consolidate
into ever larger hospital systems.

1990 - The cost of health care rises at double the inflation rate.

2000s - Medicare's sustainability comes into question as costs
rise.  Direct-to-consumer advertising takes off, prescriptions are
being touted to consumers and not just to physicians.

2010 - Obama signs into law the Affordable Care Act, against
the opposition of most conservative legislators.

It has been a one-hundred-twenty-year long journey to get where
we are now, a game of 'which came first, the chicken or the egg'?
Did insurance evolve to help with the high cost of health care,
or did health care costs rise because now people had insurance?
Which ever it was this is where we are today.  And thankfully,
because of the ACA, there are now some standards of minimum
coverage that insurance companies have to meet.  It's how they
meet those standards that we will address next.

     Let Me Count the Ways.....

   * Finding a private plan that has coverage in your area and that
you can afford
   * Or, understanding the plans offered by your employer
   * Enrolling in the plan of your choice for yourself and your
family; forms, forms, and more forms
   * Finding a doctor and hospital that accepts your insurance
   *Getting second opinions
   * Getting prior approval for a proceedure
   * Making sure all medical providers are covered by your
plan, ER, OR, OT, oh my!
   * Paying the co-pay for doctor's visit
   * Paying the deductible for hospitals
   * Calling the insurance company for an explanation of
denial of coverage
   * Having to choose a new insurance company every year
because your insurance no longer services your area
   * Getting laid off or fired and loosing your coverage
   * Moving out of the coverage area

Select any or all that apply to you insurance coverage, this
is the world of private insurance.  They are not here to make
life worry free for you, the insurance companies are here for
the bottom line, and when the actuaries tell them a certain
geographical area is not profitable, or a certain doctor is too
free with suggesting surgery, well then, the company moves on.
Too bad if you live in that area or that is your doctor,

I don't know about you, but I find it abhorrent that someone is
making money from the suffering of others.  Perhaps Blue Cross,
when they started, had an altruistic motive when it was founded
by Justin Kimball in 1929.  He was the Vice President of Baylor
University health care facilities and saw the need for assistance with
hospital costs.  He offered 10 days free hospital care for a six-dollar-
a-year premium.  That simple plan grew into Blue Cross/Blue Shield
and BCBS was tax exempt until 1986, operating as a 501c4, a social
welfare plan. Then in 1994, BCBS allowed its corporations to switch
to a for-profit status.  And in 2010, Health Care Services Corp., the
parent company of BCBS, doubled its profit to $1,09 billion, and
the next four years have been billion-dollar profit years also.  BCBS
is just one company, what the entire industry earns is staggering,
The latest figures available for 2017, show first quarter profits of
the top five insurance groups as $5,785 billion.  That's profit folks,
not income, in the first quarter.  These are companies that claimed
 they would lose money under the ACA.

Now let's look at a single payer system, such as Medicare for all:

   * Automatic enrollment with your Social Security card that you
receive when you are born
   * Universal coverage at any hospital and doctor in the US and it's
territories
   * All members of the family are covered
   * No co-pays or deductibles
   * No forms to fill out, providers collect directly from Medicare
   * Never losing your insurance coverage by moving or losing
your job
   * Supplemental coverage available for purchase to cover elective
procedures

How do we pay for this, you ask?  The same way we pay for Social
Security, thru deductions in payroll taxes, shared by the employer and
employee.  Right now, both pay for private insurance coverage, and you
also pay co-pays and deductibles, currently.  Assign that money to
Medicare instead of the insurance companies.

OMG! What about government bureaucracy. Currently the cost of
administering Medicare is 3% of premiums collected.  That is far
lower than the cost at private for-profits.  And, think of the saving
in advertising.

The AMA says that doctors and hospitals can't operate on what
Medicare pays.  That's a fair complaint, but let's look at the currrent
billing system of most doctor's offices and hospitals.  In most cases,
there are more personnel working in the billing and collections
department than there are medical staff on duty.  And what about
the savings from bad debt write-off?

And that $232 billion insurance profit?  Well that might go a long
way to paying for prescription drugs.

I don't know about you, but I think I'm in love...I'm just sayin'.