All posts by James Daniel

The problem of winning

General

One of the more interesting, if esoteric, issues coming to the fore in the continuing Democratic Primary is just what ‘Winning’ the primary means.  Since the start of May, most, if not all, of the primaries for the Democrats have been Non-Open and proportional in one manner or another.

Since I know the California Primary the best, I live in California, I’ll use it.  To be able to vote in the in the Democratic Party State Primary you need to be registered to vote by 23 May 2016 and you have to register as a Democrat or state ‘No Party Preferance’.  You can’t as some people seem to think register in the American Independant Party.

The next thing is that California is a Congresional Proportional allocation of delegates.  This means that the delegates are allotted by Congresional Congresional district.  With the added fun that who ever win’s the over all state vote gets delegates allotted for the two Senators, (I be leave the number of delegates allowed is the same as for Congresaional district time two).

This means that it is possible for Canidate ‘B’ to win the over all state vote, say 50% + 1, but Canidate ‘H’ to win the lions share of state delegates by wining more Congresional districts.  Most of the Non closed primaries in the last few months have been one for or another non-winner take all primaries.  This is how Berinie has ‘Won’ so many state primaries recently but often as not, not by very much or the way the delegates are allotted are more locally focused so that Hillary either did not loose much ground or the states were small.

California has 548 of the 1052 delegates to allot.  Hillary has 1716 non supper delegates so fare and Bernie has 1433.  To get the nomination either needs 2383 delegates.  This means Hillary need 667 and Bernie needs 950 of the non supper debates to win.  So just winning a state is not enough to win the nomination, Bernie need to Win in overwhelming numbers, on the order of 3 to 2 to take the lead.

What the Donald hath wrought

General, Politics, , ,

For the past few days a great deal has been written and said about Donald Trump’s statement about women who get abortions should be punished, even for murder.  I’m not goi g to debate whether he said  what is being attributed. Personally, I was watching the interview and heard what Mr. Trump said.  So let’s look at the real issue here.  If abortion is made a crime and that persons who perform the abortion can be punished for the act of performing an abortion; where does that leave the person who had the abortion?

To make things simple for our discussion lets go with the hypothetical case where you are a legal person from the moment of conception (not a position I would take but it will simplify out reasoning).  This means that any medical procedure that would result in the death of the embryo- fetus- baby, would be in facade, a type of homicide aka murder.  In fact most abortion procedures now in use would be considered ‘willful and deliberate’, or ‘with premeditation ‘.  In jurisdictions where the death penalty are still used, this would be just the kind of crime the death penalty was intended for. So anyone performing an abortion would be guilty of the worst kind of homicide.

So let’s go with this case:  A person contracts with another person for that person to dire earthly kill a third person.  Would not that first person February just as guilty of murder as the second person who actually committed the merder.  In ever jurisdiction I know about this is the case.  If you arrange for someone to kill another person you are just as guilty as the person who did the actual act.

Therefore, if abortion is an act of homicide and the person conducting the abortion is guilty of homicide, then the person contracting (arranging) the abortion is also guilty of homicide.

Any questions?

Think On It

General, Politics, ,

For the past few days I’ve been following the reaction to what Susan Sarandon has said about Brine, Trump, and Hillary and I just have to put in my two cents worth.  First, I’m not sure if all that is credited to Sarandon is what she has actually said or not.  For my purposes, here, it does not mat as I have heard these things from many sources.  It makes for a good place to start talking.  What I’m about to say is for Liberals, Progressives, and all people who think of themselves as open minded Moderates.  Conservatives, Libertarians, etc.  you can read this too, but it is not really talking to things you really have to deal with in this election.

That said………..

First and foremost; to all those who ‘Feel the Birnie’ who avidly support Sen. Sanders and/or believe in the ‘Revolution’.  To all those who have supported Hillary for years and years, who know that Sec. Clinton as been unjustly attacked for years and years.  To you all, LISTEN UP!  No mater who gets the nomination. They are, both of them, our kind of candidate.  They stand for and fight for the same things we stand an fight for and have for done so for years and years and years.  An to say you will not vote for Brinie/Hillary if he/she is the Democratic candidate is just WRONG.  Ask yourself this do you really want The Donald or the Cruz as president? Because that is what is facing you right now, this very moment.

To those who agree with Ms. Sarandon when she says that Trump as President ‘will bring the revolution’ don’t know what they are talking about.  Look at History for Christ sackes, this is not how it happens.  Just look at the 1920’s and early 1930’s, revolutions all over the place and how many of them ended up with more liberal (free) governments?  China? no.  Germany, Italy, Spain?  No.  Japan?  No. Poland, Yugoslavia?  No.  Only in the USA did anything like a revolution take place and that only happen by our good luck in finding a man like FDR.  Just what kind of country would we have had if Hue Long gotten the nod?  Think on it.  Think on it long and hard.  Just what kind of country would The Donald build? what would Sen. Cuz build? An is it worth it just because the best, I.E. Your, candidate didn’t get the nomination and you, like Ancient Greek hero went and sulked in you tent?

If Senator Sanders or Secretary Clinton does not win this November the responsibility for that will fall on all of the disgruntled liberals who stay home in a fit of peek. Look at how lucky the Democrats are in this election.  We have two outstanding candidates.  We get to choose between best and better and this doesn’t happen very often.  Just look at what the GOP has Bad, Bader, and Blah. We should be happy.  Senator Sanders supporters should be ecstatic, he and they have already made major achievements.  They have gotten the debate on issues, not a debate on the size of their ‘members’.  Secretary Clinton has been encouraged, alright made, to state her positions on these issues and we now have a much clearer feel for what both candidates stand for.  And how well they will do the job.

Think On It

Capitalism and Wealth Redistribution

General, Politics, Socioeconomic, ,

Today I’m going back to logic or the lack of it in our political discussions.  For over a hundred years the ‘Right’ of American body politic has lambasted the Socialist ‘Left’ for being anti-capitalism and pro Wealth Redistribution.  For anyone who is pro Capitalism, in all it’s myriad forms, to be against the redistribution of wealth is flatly illogical.  Capitalism is the foremost wealth redistribution economic system.  It is all about moving in wealth around from one place or person to another.

“WHAT????? That’s not possible.  It’s Socialists and Socialism that wants to take wealth from the rich and give it to the undeserving poor.

An your right, Socialism is interested in moving wealth from the wealthy to the poor.  But that does not mean that Capitalism doesn’t move wealth around.  In fact classical ‘Adam Smith’ Capitalism was/is all about moving wealth from the landed nobility to the much poorer tradesmen and craftsmen. Capitalism is a system of moving wealth from one person to another in such a way as to reward the hardworking and innovative person and to punish the lazy and stick in the mud person.  Unfortunately the society that enables Smithian Capitalism hasn’t existed for over a hundred years.

The kind of Capitalism that exists now, what I call Mega-Corps Capitalism is not anything like Smithian Capitalism.  The Capitalism we live with now is still interested in the moving of wealth, but unfortunately it is moving the wealth from people in the middle class to the top 1%.  This is still wealth redistribution, it’s just not trying to spread it around, it is trying to concentrate it more and more.

So next time someone says you’re supporting Wealth Redistribution, smile and say yes, I’m a Capitalist.

Nehemiah Scudder LIVES!

General, Politics, ,

If_This_Goes_On_ASFFor those of you who don’t recognize the name Reverend Nehemiah Scudder is a character from the Robert A. Heinlein,’s novella “If This Goes On—“.  The story takes place in the 2nd American Revolution and Reverend Nehemiah Scudder is the last elected president under the old constitution and the ‘First Prophet’ of the theocracy that takes it’s place.  What interests me is that the story was first published in 1940 when totalitarianism was riding high.

People who know me now I use the phrase “Nehemiah Scudder LIVES!”  When I think I see the rise of a totalitarian leader in the U.S.  Unfortunately I see that possibility rising it’s ugly head in this election, at least on the GOP side.  The GOP, for all practical purposes , is down to one of two candidates; Donald Trump, and Sen. Ted Cuz. Both are extreme candidates and both are Authoritarian Leaders. Both could lead to an Authoritarian, Totalitarian USA.  I won’t both with listing all of the possible ways and forms the USA can come to this fate.  I will talk about the two distinct forms each of the candidates could create.

 In some ways, the Totalitarian state that Donald Trump wining the Presidency could lead to is the lesser of two evils.  It most likely not be based on any political or social ideology, rather it would be based on self aggrandizement.  It would also be one of the most corrupt administration in U.S. History. It most likely no survive Trump not being based on anything other than the cult of personality for Donald Trump.

A Cuz state is much more likely to go on long after ‘Ted’ Cuz has left the scene as Sen. Cuz is much more ideologically driven.  Just from his speeches and writings Sen. Cuz be leaves and practices a political/theological ideology.  From my own personal research I would wager that Sen. Cuz is a strong believer in Dominion Theology.  I would fully expect him to do everything in his power to move the USA in the direction of his vision of a Christian Nation and that vision will be based on his personal beliefs. This could easily lead to USA that Heinlein envisioned in his story.

So, come Nov. 1st, remember to VOTE because if you don’t vote you just might get the government you voted for.

How far right can the Republican Party move?

Politics

One of the fun things Polical Science wonks are doing right now is comparing our current election with the 1964 AuH2O/LBJ election.  For me one of the more entertaining things pointed out that while many many people in the GOP thought and said that nominating Goldwater would many the end of the GOP, just like what is being said now.

For me is a much more interesting question from looking at the 1964 election and it’s effect on the GOP.  As we all know now, the loss by the GOP in 1964 was quite stunning and traumatic but it didn’t destroy the party.  It did drive it more to the right and it did remove all of the liberal/moderate Republicans from the party in the next 12+ years. The election also had a big effect on the Democratic Party, in 1964 the old Confederate States (the ‘Solid South’) was Democratic.  By 1984 the ‘Sold South’ was Republican. Since then the GOP has just gotten more conservative in it’s base and rhetoric.  So I’m just wondering, if the GOP picks Trump (or Cruz, for that mater) and looses big and doesn’t break-up will it move more to the right.

Of course the GOP Amy not move at all, it may move more to the left, center.  But I find it much more likely that the GOP will move to the right.  Why?  Because the both the GOP and the ‘Conservative Movement’ have the tools and methods to move the GOP more to the right.  More over the base of both the GOP and the ‘Conservative Movement’ have the mind set needed.  For the last 15 years when ever something the Base wanted didn’t work the were able to find a justification to apply more of the same thing. A great example of this is Tax Cuts.  Back in the 80’s tax cuts that strongly favored the wealthy were supposed to give more money in the hands of the ‘makers’ and the wealth would ‘trickle down’ to the rest of the Economy.  When this didn’t happen the GOP said it was because we need more and bigger tax cut

So what does this mean?  Well, if extrem right ideas so the pass 16 years doesn’t get you elected it is time to have even more extrem ideas.  This is what I call a ‘bad thing’.  It is a ‘bad thing’ not because in will keep the GOP moving more and more extrem positions, it will keep conservative thought in an ‘infantete loop’ of ideas and theories.  An we need new and innovative ideas from conservatives.

What’s with the Anti-Trump

General, Politics

I’m Back!  I shan’t bother to issue any of standard apologies people make in this situation and just say I had my reasons and I’m sorry it took me so long to get back.

It has been a week since Supper Tuesday and I’ve got my ear to the ground and watching what is happening.  I fear we, the USA electorate, are living thru the Great Chinese curse “May you live in interesting times and people in high places know your name.”  But more of that latter.  On to what is happening.

First and foremost there is the “Stop Trump” and/or the “Anybody but Trump” agitation in the media.  Late me be clear, I am a California Democrat.  It is almost a total certainty that I will have no say in who the GOP selects as it’s candidate.  First, because there is no chance this side of Hell that I’d switch parties before June.  Secondly, California comes last for the GOP and therefor will most likely it will be all over but the shouting.

I have been aware of politics on the Presidential level since 1964 when one of my classes, American history if my memory services, had us color in a map of the states showing who won what states. (I used gold for Goldwater). By 1968 I was vitally interested in the election as by that time I had already lost two friends to Nam and was turning 18 next spring.  I was passionatly patriotic and passionately anti-war.  Being so confused I naturally became a Demicrat, all though I was ‘Clean for Gene’.   I have never looked back.

So what does this have to do with Trump?  Everything.  Since I first voted for President I have voted three times for the Republican candidate.  An all three times it came down to the same basic reason; the Republican could do the job better.  I was wrong only once, the first time when I voted for Nixon.  I new he was a ‘crook’, but I thought he was a ‘smart crook’.  He wasn’t.  I won’t go into the “why and wherefores” of the Fall Of Nixon, for me it was all about hubris.  So what I have to say to all of you out there is simply this ‘when you vote please look carefully at the candidates and think’.

Remeber that your vote is more than just a protest.  It is more that shouting “I’m mad as hell and won’t take it any more.”  The person just may be the next President and we will have to live with that for the next four years.  Just what kind of Presidentcy will we have with Trump in office?  Remeber this is a Promoter, a showman, with no expreance with having to get along with people to get things done.  Think about the kind of people who will support him in the House and Senate and do you really want them controlling your life.  Think about the kind of White House he will build (his staff and advisers) and what will happen in an administration where all failures will be the fault of an underling and all success’ go to Trump.  Don’t think about ideology yet, first look at what kind of Predident the candidate will make.  Then if your lucky you’ll end up with one or two candidates who look good and now look at their ideology.  Remember, no mater what the ideology of the President, he/she still has to work with the Congress and the Court.

“That’s are line!”

General, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, ,

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/george-will-sexual-assault-statistics

This weekend George Will came out saying that “Focus on rape has made ‘Victimhood a Coveted Status.'”  This is funny coming from a movement Conservative. For the entire time I have been aware of politics as ‘The Only Game for Adults’ conservatives have been saying ” The {evil, bad, liberal} {fill in the blank} are attacking us.  We’re the true victims here.”  Will seems to be saying here “For shame, your saying your a victim.  You can’t say that.”

It’s almost as if he thinks that Conservatives have taken out both a copyright and Trade Mark on the word and music.  While I haven’t done even the mildest ‘rigorous’ study it seems to me that for the last six years, more and more, conservatives are taking the view that non-conservatives are making being a victim {fashionable, stylish, coveted…}.  To my way of thinking the is a most egregious case of the kettle calling the pot black.  This is just plain wrong and George Will should be turning bright red with embarrassment have even thought, much less said such a thing.

In the case of RAPE he should hide his face.  By Definition anyone who is reaped is a victim.  Having known a few rape victims I know just how hard, and how much courage it takes to tell anyone they have been raped…much less report it to the authorities.  Our society still makes the victims of rape feel like they have done something wrong.  That they are somehow have done something to be ashamed of.  That they are now, in someway, untouchable.  Until this has changed no one, most especially someone who is a public figure like Mr. Will, should think twice before saying being a rape victim is a coveted status.

More on the GOP/Conservative/Religious Right’s copyright/TM on victim/oppressed in a later post.

Meritocracy vs Capitalism

Philosophy, Socioeconomic, , ,

Lets be clear from the start, Meritocracy is a political philosophy and Capitalism is  an economic philosophy and that means they are not the same thing.  That being said it does not hold that they do not come into conflict.  The point I’m going to make here is that they do, sometime do come into conflict and this conflict happens just because they don’t care about the same thing.  They have different goals.

The conflict I want to point out is that Meritocracy holds power should be vested in individuals according to merit and in the economic sphere wealth can be used to represent power.  Unfortunately Capitalism isn’t the lest bit interested in where or how wealth is vested, only how it is increased, i.e. the rate of return.  See the conflict?  Meritocracy wants to use merit as the measure of where power is vested and Capitalism wants the only measure of merit to be the rate of return on investment.  See the trap?

If you don’t, here is a little thought experiment for you.

You have $1,000,000 to invest and two people have approached you with an investment opportunity for you.  The first person’s opportunity is to start manufacturing ZPM (a source of clean enegry) but the rate of return will take time, 5 to 10 years, to show up and will only be relatively modest 5% per anum.  The second persons opportunity is in Organlegging out of the country of ‘PeopleIDontKnowistan’ where the organs of convicted criminals are sold for transplants (currently the 3rd speeding ticket is a capital office in  PeopleIDontKnowistan) but the rate of return will start next quarter and run at 25% per anum.

See the problem?

According to Capitalism the more meritorious investment is the 2nd even though it’s business model is something many people find fundamentally abhorrent.   Therefor you should invest in the 2nd opportunity even thought the first is more meritorious in more areas of human endeavor.

Now the point I’m trying to make is this, Capitalism want us to only use a one dimensional measure of merit where Meritocracy works best with a multidimensional measure or merit.  So if we want to have a meritocratic society then we can not use just Capitalism’s measure of merit when judging the merits of business decisions.

Thank about it.

 

Party Cognitive Dissonance and Hypocrisy

Politics, Socioeconomic, , , , , ,

Yesterday we had a wonderful example of cognitive dissonance causing the GOP to take on the appearance of hypocrisy.  Ca. House Reps. Keven McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), Devin Nunes (R-Tilare) and David Valadao (R-Handford) are calling the current drought ‘man-made’.  (read what Rep McCarthy and Rep Nues have posted)  This just days after others in the GOP are decrying  the myth of climate change and any connection with actions by man.

Back in the 60’s, when I was a teenager and knew everything, this kind of action by a political party was why we called them ‘Hypocrites’ (in case your wondering it was the Democratic party we were directing this charge).  Now to be fair, the good Congressmen were talking about actions taken by the ‘Radical Ecologist’ movement and not the burning of oil/gas.  The problem facing the Congressmen is that they are saying “Yes, actions of man can effect the climate, but only those action done by people we don’t like.”  Unfortunately this is not how science or logic work.