The Wall

2/24/2017

There has been much talk of a wall here in the United States. We all know it of the separation of our southern border from Mexico.But that is not the wall I speak of here today. There is a very large wall here in the US. Tall strong and effective. This wall  is not physical but ideological and I would argue more effective than brick and mortar.

It is a wall that has been built over time brick by brick. A belief system that has been nurtured and laid the foundation for this wall that America must stand on opposite sides. . You are on one side of the wall or the other. There is no room for negotiation.What is crazy is that ideology changes within each side but it rarely makes a hole in the wall. In fact the wall is put there because we do not want to even see the other side. How did we get here?

To use a very recent example t below is a quote from Marco Rubio

"I've heard the people," Rubio continued. "I ran for office, I told everybody I was against ObamaCare, I told everybody that I was in favor of the things that I was in favor of.""I'm going to do what I told people I'm going to do. How unfair would it be to the people that voted for me to now change my opinion?"

Now I agree that Senator Rubio won fair and square just as President Trump did. But this pesky wall keeps getting in the way. I agree that Senator Rubio should take into consideration of those that voted for him. To not do so would be a break of trust. I get that. But I think Senator Rubio and I only am using him as an example as his statement triggered this thought line. What about the other 48 percent that did not vote for you? Do you not represent them as well,or do you only represent your party?

Now I will not say that this was some cathartic moment on reading the article on Rubio.This is something I have observed over time from Conservatives and Liberals, Democrats and Republicans, Red and Blue parties. I do not blame any one side more than the other. Both sides built this wall.

One of the most outrageous things I have ever seen in politics was Nancy Pelosi with the rather large volume of the American Care Act and declaring “We have to pass it to see what’s in it”

Fantastic way to govern dont you think? Both sides do it just like that.

We have gotten to a point where we would rather shout over those that don’t agree with us rather than listen. We would rather list problems than offer solutions. We would rather be on our side than entertain the other. There is no room for debate no room for compromise and no joint decisions. And we can’t see the other sides point through this wall.

This is American Politics today and sadly it seems many Americans are following their party like there is only one way. If there are two divergent parties and only one way there will always be a divide.

It does not have to be like this however. I can remember hearing a story about Bob Dole locking a bi partisan committee in a room. I am not sure what the issue was nor the result but the message was clear. Bob Dole told them that that had to work it out and come to a decision. He did not care what party it favored. The message was this you work for the American People and they deserve a decision that is best for them.

You see often an agreement is made and both sides are unhappy. I can remember my brother always saying those were always the best agreements.You see if one party is more happy than the other it was most likely not fair, If they are both unhappy both sides had to give in to demands they did not like it might not be 100 percent fair but will be certainly close to it.

It is impossible to come to an unhappy fair decision without listening to the other side and negotiating.  This cannot be done if you stand on opposite sides of a wall and refuse to look toward the other side. Understand their position and even empathize with them on some points.Just as President Reagan implored to Mr Gorbachev famously in Berlin, I am asking you to tear that wall down. I think it is time has come for us to agree to disagree and be on the same side

The Ryan Tax Plan

The Ryan Tax Plan

This one is really a beauty. Trump promised tax reform and the Republicans have always advocated this. So no surprise Republican maverick President and wave election majority Republican House and Senate are going for it. In comes Speaker Ryan with a plan

Cutting taxes increases wealth and at the end of the day increases tax base through a more affluent consumer who the spends the money. This mantra once known as trickle down economics drawn up on a cocktail napkin has been the love child of Republicans since Reagan.

No real surprise it is back. There have been the detractors that claim with statistics the it often helps the more wealthy and not so much the middle and lower classes. Others claim proof it works

Well alternate facts be damned as this time the veil is off. With tax reform is a 20% border tax across the board. Let me repeat that not a .002 percent not a .02 percent but a whopping point two.

Given our current trade deficit which will not change overnight we are supposed to accept as consumer. A 20% increase on ALL imported goods. Of course we the consumer will pay for this.

I am no economist however how is this even being entertained? Paul Ryan is asking Senators to keep their powder dry. What the fuck is that supposed to mean anyway? Of course they should keep it dry to shoot down this stupid idea.

Anyway you slice this border tax it is consumed by the public in a revolting way. When I say revolting I mean it. This is not Government for the people nor is it by the people This is a big fuck you to the people.

Mr Ryans way of giving us a break is to give us some change for our pocket while they take dollars from our wallets.  What happened to Conservatives? The Republicans shield themselves in this cloak but real Conservatives seem a thing of the past. No Conservative would propose such a deal.

20 flipping percent? Fuck me, get your head out of your ass and your hands out of my wallet if you would Speaker Ryan

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/319588-ryan-tries-to-save-tax-plan

American Democracy under siege.

2/13/17

General Flynn, the Russian Hack,The Clintons and Alternative Facts Voter Fraud

I think there is no question that this was a misstep. I do not think this will be the last. However if anyone thinks Flynn is stepping down I would think they are mistaken.

Now I do not think that this is the first time the a incoming administration had discussions with a foreign power prior to the inauguration. I am sure it happens all the time. To think that they talk about their children and the weather is simply foolish. Of course they will discus the incoming Administration and their goals moving forward. Why wouldn't they? Or more to the point why meet at all then.

What I find interesting is this persistent story about an election hack. Again I would point to with our free press there have always been stories on the presidential election. The October Surprise is almost scheduled for because we know it is coming. This year we had a Cocktober Surprise that was new.

Does anyone believe that the source of these "scandals" are never foreign born. That over the last 56 Presidential elections that this was the first time another Nation tried to influence it? That would be easy to disprove. Common sense would dictate that you know it is true, foreign governments try to influence our elections. This is not new.

I have said it before and I will say it again Hillary was a bad choice. To myself and many Americans the most damaging information did not come from email leaks, wikileaks, or the FBI. It came from Bill Clinton. It is outrageous that during a Presidential election that the candidate's spouse and former sitting US President stops a plane based on his power and clout to board and engage with the current Attorney General. Oh and your wife the candidate happens to be under investigation for losing information of a when we lost and Ambassador and Embassy and at least three other American Citizens.Miraculously within the next week Hillary was exonerated and would not be charged.

That was the most blatant abuse of power I have ever witnessed in the news. They did not even try to hide it. They did in public for the love of Pete. And it was probally not necessary and foolish on Bills part. They were never going to prosecute Hillary for this anyway. Huge blunder.

And we are worried about how wikileaks through the Russian government provided information on Candidate Clinton? I wont even go into how sloppy the democrats were with their information. How stupid they were to put damaging information into emails. I am not surprised as I think both parties frankly are that stupid. The Flynn deal right now proves it. The Republicans are not that bright either.

The Russians did not influence the election nearly as much as Mr and Mrs Clinton did to themselves over time. I don't think the American people see the Clintons as honest. How this persistent Russian hack keeps coming back into play is amazing to me. It is as if the Russians were in the voting booth which they were not.

Now if were proven that the Russians influenced the polls and were the source of bad information now that would be mind blowing. I think the false polls kept many from voting as the election was in the bag as it were. That misinformation had real effect on hurting Clinton my view more than anything else. Why is that not being looked into?

The Trump administration seems to want to keep this subject alive which is beyond foolish. There was no widespread voter fraud. This alternative fact simply undermines something that should be protected.

American Democracy seems to be under fire from both the Left and Right of our own United States that we do not have fair elections.

My question is why?

Edit wow I got this wrong  dude was canned within twelve hours of me writing this

The Trump Travel Ban

So the Statue of Liberty states in the New Colossus by Emma Lazurus.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

But has that ever really been the policy of the United States? Do we have a record of taking whomever when ever in an open door policy? Well not really. Between 1790 a mere 14 years after our Nation's Birthday and 1882 four years before the dedication of the Statue of Liberty there were 10 pieces of legislation on Immigration. Now between 1790 and 1870 all of these are to what end makes a citizen. It is not until 1875 we start to see exclusionary legislation. In fact that is what we see from that date moving forward is exclusionary legislation our amending exclusionary legislation.

1875 we legislate we want no criminals, prostitutes or Chinese contract workers

1882 we ban convicts lunatics idiots persons likely to be public charges

The Chinese exclusion Act, a  ten year ban on new immigration for Chinese,  blocks their path to citizenship

1886 The Statue of Liberty is dedicated at Ellis Island. Between 1886 and 1903 when the plaque of the New Colossus is dedicated below the Statue of Liberty we have four pieces of legislation on immigration all exclusionary

1888 the Scott act or Chinese exclusion ban. If you are Chinese and you leave the US you are not allowed back.

1891 Bureau of Immigration is formed and part of its duty is to deport those that have come illegally and deny entry for polygamists, mentally ill and any with contagious disease.

1892 the Geary Act now requires a permanent resident card for the Chinese and another ten year ban on becoming a citizen

Ellis Island opens for processing immigrants.

1903 Congress passes the Anarchists exclusion act which bans immigrants based on political beliefs.

The New Colossus is dedicated on the Statue of Liberty on Bronze Plaque.

Since 1903 to current day another 25  one or more pieces of legislation have been implemented during different years.It is about a split between resrtictive and non restrictive legislation.

Source of this information below

http://www.infoplease.com/us/immigration/legislation-timeline.html

So I think we can conclude that open door immigration has not been a policy since 1875. While we are a Nation of Immigrants Congress and the President have agreed to restrict access for any number of reasons, region's, mental state, wellness state and political affiliation. Right or wrong the precedent is long and rich. Not only do we have in place such laws new ones have been formed as political climates have changed over time.

So does trump with an Executive Order have the right to act in such a way?

Yes in fact the President not only has the power but the duty to protect American Citizens and soil from foreign threats. That would include a travel ban from unfriendly countries.

However this was done very sloppy from the outset. Intent is a huge part of law. Yes he is calling it a travel ban from countries that are a threat. But there are serious holes to this order from its onset.

First he called for a Muslim Ban on the campaign trail after the American born citizen and his legal immigrant wife shot up a holiday party in San Bernardino.

The travel ban is implemented.

Rudi Giuliani brags on Fox News on how he helped formulate a plan on how to make the “muslim ban legal" and how he and a team helped formulate it. This is after the ban is ordered. Video below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGOwEOTYfuE

Both of these are damaging in a colossal way. No immigration legislation ban has ever been on religion. There is no precedent as it is most definitely unconstitutional

Next let's look at the countries that are missing and have obvious long history of exporting terrorism  Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria I could go on with the list but don’t see the point. Why are these areas and more of danger not on the same list?

This is a huge misstep and the Trump Administration in his own words of he will fight it to the end is a fools  game. At contention is whether or not this is a religious ban or a travel ban. There is enough innuendo based on Trump’s own words during the campaign and Giuliani's national media misstep on a “friendly” network that this indeed was a ban of a religion in intent.

Trump and his advisers mishandled this. It was not well thought out nor implemented in a way that makes sense. It is crazy to have folks in the air with legal papers turned around or held. This plays poorly.  

I for one have little problem with a more robust vetting process. Nor that a travel ban from unfriendly countries is a bad idea. This could have been done with little fanfare had the Administration implemented in such a way that made sense. Had a clear description of what was wrong with the current process. What was being done to improve it and why we needed ninety days to train and implement new regulations. Exemptions or a speedy exemption process in place. A warning to those with plans that you might be turned back with a short deadline of when the ban was ultimately to take place. No guarantee that your current papers are sufficient. Clear orders to Embassies, Customs and INS on how to move forward.

Instead they rubber stamped something overnight without thinking of its consequences. Nor were there clear orders on how to implement it.

How the court will rule will be interesting but anyway you slice it this show of Executive Power will damage this administration moving forward in the eyes of many Americans and the world.

November 7th 2016

November 7th 2016

I have always hoped that more people would take part in the political process. Educate themselves be able to have meaningful dialogue as far as which direction our city our state and are country should go in. I am now witnessing the most watched and popular presidential elections of my lifetime. I always thought that would be  a good thing. Now it just scares the hell out of me

I do not mean like fear I am afraid to go outside. Or even fear of speaking my mind. I do not see that day ever coming. I am afraid of what I observe and what we have become. There are lines drawn in the sand and public sentiment concluded from a 30 second video or a meme. I see polarization of thought that cripples both side into a stand still. Just like water left to standing one place for too long it begins to turn. Bacteria begins to grow It becomes unclean stagnant and eventually it stinks.

Our leaders take money and do not give meaningful leadership. Our congressmen and senators disappear into 60 square miles of a fantasy land that has no meaning to most Americans. They worry about what party they are going to whether or not they can get some funds for their next election. Strategize how to thwart the other side. They do little or nothing to help the country and then point to the other side of the aisle and proclaim see I told you so its THEIR fault.

One claims it big businesses fault.  The other claims it's big government corruption. When the truth is they are in bed together and screwing each other in an orgasmic mixture of power and money. Meanwhile we the people  just get fucked.

No wonder the Country is slipping. Our representatives do not represent. We have a media we no longer trust to report the news fairly. We have two candidates for president that have said nothing positive substantial of how they are going to lead the country. It's either going to be Great or we are Stronger Together. WTF is that supposed to mean? I hear appeals to emotion but no appeals to intellect and reason.

I think it would be great if after this election no matter what side you are on that you make a meaningful effort to find common ground with the other side. To check the source before you post that article that states exactly what you feel. To look at it with a critical eye and doubt its validity.

If we want to be great and strong maybe it's time we step out and attempt to understand the problem rather than shout there is a problem. Perhaps it is time for healing after this awful fight that has divided us.

White Privilege

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societalprivileges that benefit people identified as white in Western countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.

What about white privilege? It is something I did not ask for, and quite honestly never knew I had. I decided to look into it and was rather appalled how rampant it is. It is something I can't really give back as it is a social anomaly that was born centuries ago. Its relevance is felt today. Ok so your white you have never had it right?

Go here and read this.

https://www.deanza.edu/faculty/lewisjulie/White%20Priviledge%20Unpacking%20the%20Invisible%20Knapsack.pdf

Don't cherry pick it apart and spit out seeds. Overall in concept does this apply to you?

Below is a well done rebuttal to white privilege.

http://time.com/85933/why-ill-never-apologize-for-my-white-male-privilege/

I think the piece by the Princeton student lays out an excellent depiction of why we as white people have no such privilege. It speaks well to what many think and Mr. Fortang does an excellent job describing it. He paints a picture of self realization,  hard work, sacrifice and success. Once again we love these stories. It is part of the fabric of America. It reaffirms that if you have the right stuff you can succeed. No need to apologize for your own success. And I agree. But it has little to do with the issues of white privilege.The author I believe misses the concept. So for in his part I find nothing to refute in Mr. Fortgang’s perspective save that it draws from a narrow well. It misses what white privilege is. It is a global concept that one has to simply look at some statistics to find evidence of it. It has nothing to do with the success of one family.

You see white privilege is not something you can simply check at the door.

I am a little surprised actually that an institution such as Princeton is not smart enough to see this. I am not college educated so maybe I missed something by not going through the rigors of the system. How does one check a perspective at the door? Oh yea I have a belief or in this case have something i never knew I had and do not understand it but yet  I am going to suspend in time put it by the front door and grab it as I leave. Mr Gallo why are you back? Oh I left my white privilege at the door and left without it I might need it later so I came back to pick it up.  

White privilege as I see it you cannot just wash off. There is no switch that can be turned and it suddenly goes away. This weave is tight and the fabric is olde and strong.I think Mr Fortang is right it is almost invisible if you are white and chose not to see it. No so much if you are black. The filter lens our black brethren see through  here in American society due only to more melanin in their skin genetically gives them a much different view.  

Uncomfortable stares. People not looking you in the eye. Avoidance of contact. Fear in their eyes just at your presence and sometimes loathing.Dis-preferential treatment in restaurants and bars. Feeling generally not welcome. Does this happen all the time? Of course not but often enough that it has effect.

But white privilege does not stop there. It is evident from statistics that if you are the same income and buying the same thing if you are black chances are you will have a harder time getting the loan and you will pay a higher interest rate.

It does not stop there either when applying for a job If you have a “black sounding name” as opposed to a white sounding name the chance for interview are greater for a white sounding name

So with that I also would add what it is not. It is not a free meal ticket to the front of the line. Nor is it a get of of jail free card. Although it is relevant as I stated above it is not a driving factor in all society all the time. It is a hurdle to be sure and one that does not need be cleared if you are white. But at the same time it is thrown around too loosely and my view as a term. It is a factor but not the factor for success or failure in my limited view.

Free Speech

I saw an article with one Milo Yiannopoulos and for lack of a better word a riot that shut him down from speaking.

Here are some of the quotes from protesters

But UC Berkeley sophomore Jonathan Gow, 19, rejected Yiannopoulos’ insistence that free speech took a hit.

“The whole reason we’re here is for free speech,” Gow said. “Milo’s hate speech is not allowed here. When it’s hate speech, our free speech is to shut him down.”

UC Berkeley junior Fatima Ibrahim, 20, who clutched a “resist fear” sign with a red fist, said the timing of Yiannopoulos’ scheduled appearance stung.

“As a black Muslim woman, all three of those identities have been targeted throughout (Trump’s) campaign,” Ibrahim said. “To have someone like (Yiannopoulos) come into my campus and affirm those people’s beliefs, it’s very, very hurtful.”

I am saddened that these students from a prestigious university do not grasp the concept of free speech. This disturbing view of both Gow and Ibrahim sadly seems to be more the norm than outliers.

How did we get to this point? Now Breitbart and their alternating facts is not news and a good example of shock journalism in my view. Let me elaborate I don't think it's Journalism at all nor is it good reading. I put occupy democrats in the same class. Both are terrible diatribes of mixing fact and fiction under the pretence of news and heavy on agenda. I find both offensive and an insult to my intelligence.

But free speech allows them both to publish. It gives us a chance to examine views not of our own. To provide a window if you will to a world we might find offensive and even hurtful to broaden our own perspective. Free speech is not free it comes with a price. You have to be accepting of letting those that you do not agree with express thier views. If you want to shut yourself in a bubble you are welcome to do so. Dictators love a populous in a bubble.

These freedoms in the past have allowed many far more offensive than  Milo Yiannopoulos speak at universities across United States and time to express their opinions. This is healthy for free thought. It can be offensive and hurtful but allows all of us to enjoy the same freedom and right to express our opinions in public.

I do not disagree with Ms or Mrs  Ibrahim assessment of Milo and Breitbart. I find Milo offensive or even extremely offensive. I do not disagree with her right to protest peacefully. In fact I encourage it. Very much part of free speech.

But when you come to a point that you want to censor that person from speaking at a place of learning I must disagree. That is exactly the type of voice you should hear. Offence can be taken but recognising that they have the right to speak. It can hurt to be free at times and a price I am willing to pay.

Mr Gow certainly gets none of the concept of free speech. Shouting over someone so they cannot speak is juvenile and dangerous for our society. We must allow the opposition in so we might understand them. If you disagree engage them in debate and if they refuse point out their shortcomings. Or even try to find some common ground and explore it. Find the point that your differences and try to overcome them. Or agree to disagree and move on if their is no common ground.

I would urge if I could Mr Gow and Ms or Mrs Ibrahim and any who hold their views to reexamine their position. Free Speech is a pillar of our Constitution and a value that predates it. It is one of the greatest rights for the Human race. Sequestering speech will never make the world a better place. What can be said what can be thought should not be constrained. Buck up and pay the price that has been fought for by greater men than me. Defend free speach by listening to someone offensive to you and accept their right to be heard.