Trump's not doing well with campaign promises.
To his credit though, Trump is assiduously sticking to one of his campaign promises: to drain the swamp. Of course, what he clearly meant by that is that as President, he was going to visit, with entourage, as many of his properties as he can fit into his schedule. This means that the draining of the public purse continues directly into his own. The nonsense his staff is claiming about how Trump is trying to keep costs down would be more believable if he kept his butt in the chair that the American Taxpayer is paying for in Washington. Good to know that Trump can, sorta, a little, if you tilt your head to the left, squint, and hum "Mares Eat Oats" to yourself, fulfil his campaign promises.
0 Comments
The saying goes "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".
So, the head of the FCC has declared that he's going to "scrutinize" a course joke told, by a comedian, during a late-night live broadcast where he normally tells rude jokes. Rude jokes are not illegal, even on TV. We could find lots of examples of that. Take for instance, the time the sitting president confessed to sexually harassing women. Not a joke, not during late-night TV but rather on the news, and heard by my children. Nothing bad happened to him. In fact, he got elected President (even if it was only an electoral college win and not the popular vote). Might just be me here, but this looks decidedly like Trump didn't like the comment, and asked the FCC to "send a message" to comedians. By the by, this authoritarian approach to government is exactly why Trump is unfit to be President. For the record, I'd donate to Colbert's defence fund as I happen to agree with him, in full, on his comments the other day. I'd also donate to any effort to get Trump to pay for his comments, crimes, and misdeeds. Oh, and while we're at it, where are his tax returns? I read an interesting book review the other day:
KARL MARX famously proclaimed that religion is “the opiate of the masses.” As such he was making a functionalist argument about the nature of religion, namely, that it serves a purpose. Thus much like opium can help a sick person, so, too, can religion; with its stories, rituals, and communal structures, religion can help ease the horrors of industrial capitalism. At the same time, however, Marx believed that religion, much like opium itself, clouds the mind and thereby obscures the higher purpose of overthrowing capitalism. It's an interesting observation. If you think about it, through the ages we've had many movements that captures an era's imagination: the crusades, Protestantism, Pilgrims, Manifest Destiny, Colonialism, Slavery, the Industrial Revolution. Up to that point in history, when we needed a break from the harshness of reality, we as humans could generally go receive solace from our religions. However, the thinking that Marx's quote represents must have been wide-spread...as this last century has played out, churches have dwindled, been repurposed, sold off, and religions have regrouped. Seemingly, Churches aren't, currently at least, doing it. They don't provide the required comfort needed to calm the world. If I'm right, then what is the opiate of the masses now? Is it the horror-show of the US presidency? Is it the hate and xenophobia on show there? Is it social media where every single thought is read out in lurid and breathtaking detail? Is it worship of money? Is it nothing more than actual drugs including opiates, alcohol and so on? A significant portion of our troubles might stem from the thought that we feel we have nowhere to go to get away from the horrors of modern life. It would be great if we could find a way to comfort the world that didn't cause people to hate one another, didn't make people kill one another, didn't make people do drugs or ruin their lives and the lives of others. Would our world improve if only we all started going back to church to see what wisdom we can find and apply in our own lives? The religious political efforts have gathered steam, with Trump issuing an executive order allowing churches to endorse and donate to candidates.
In general, religions lay claim to moral high ground by definition. Religions are, by and large, founded upon faith. Upon belief in the unknowable or unprovable. Indeed, the fact that they are unprovable is what, for some people, make religions something they can cling to in an uncertain world. Certainty is not required, merely belief. Sometimes blind, unwavering and unquestioning belief. To each their own, I say. You want to believe in a man who was crucified, died, and then rose from the dead? Fine! You want to believe in someone parting the seas so his people could escape? Great. You want to believe in a flood that swept away all but a remnant of all life? Wonderful, most religions do. I don't think many people who aren't with ISIS would claim that ISIS' beliefs are "good", but they are, still, beliefs. What about the pastafarians who worship the flying spaghetti monster? All of these are examples of religions. There are nearly as many religions as there are people as different people believe different things. The problem I have with this whole thing is that religions disagree. Sometimes in detail, sometimes in the bigger picture...but they disagree. How can you base even a single law on unfathomable, unknowable and unchallengeable belief? How can you base a political role like a Presidency on something like that? How could you possibly run a country's government on nothing more than belief? What about the overwhelming majority of the people who will disagree with you on one subject or another? Where does it end? Thomas Jefferson made himself quite clear: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." This separation is there for a good reason: government must be able to be challenged, and changed to remain relevant to the people who elected it. Not to mention the tax implications. Established and accepted religions are tax exempt. If you create a non-taxed body that can still operate in the political world, you know full well we're going to be seeing "The Church of People Who Want Lower Taxes", and "The Church of Business", and so on. These would be "Churches" formed solely as tax dodges. Base a government on religion and you're creating a government that cannot adapt to meet changing needs, will alienate a large percentage of its population, lose vast amounts of revenue and will, sooner rather than later, bring itself down. Wow, what just happened?
How did we let Congress pass a $600 Billion tax cut for the rich? The Republicans were so desperate to get it through without accounting to back it up, and without public oversight, that they rushed the bill through Congress. A tax cut that will hurt untold millions of United States citizens, potentially far more than the original CBO estimates. The Massachusetts medical field has united to call this "a tragedy". The people who cannot any longer get healthcare through Obamacare will overwhelm the Emergency Rooms of the nation, where care is less effective while being more expensive. The people who were being helped by Planned Parenthood will now face much worse outcomes. Where will they go for help now? You guessed it, the Emergency Rooms. This bill saves rich people $1 today so that the whole country can pay $10 or even $100 tomorrow. It's pure evil. So why was this important to do first, and to do very quickly indeed? Because Trump and the Republicans also want to lower the normal tax bill in addition to reducing taxes here. The Republicans do have a numerical advantage in both the House and the Senate. However it's not completely overwhelming. They have to rely on parliamentary tricks to get their way. At the end of this fiscal year, they lose some of their advantage, making future changes hard. If they get the ACHA through, it's a massive, if hidden, tax cut, magnifying the tax cut the rich will get when they push tax reform through. At the end of the day, this is all about the filthy lucre, and nothing else. The rich want to get richer at the expense of the poor. Any congressman who voted for it deserves to be booted out of office in no uncertain terms. This is nothing less than the government declaring war on the poor. When even evil bastards won't meet with you.
Donald, I think we need to have a talk. We've felt this way for a long time now. We've been trying to make things work, but sometimes you just have to admit it wasn't meant to be. It's time we broke up. Went our separate ways. This is wrong for all concerned. For the benefit of all, we're through. Just remember: It's not us, it's you. |
AuthorEngineer, Dad, Concerned Citizen. Watching the America I love fading and eroding before my eyes. Archives
November 2018
Categories |