THE UNITED STATES OF DYSTOPIA

DYS-TO-PIA

A dystopia is a community or society that is undesirable or frightening. 

An imagined state or society in which there is great suffering or injustice, typically one that is totalitarian or post-apocalyptic.

Go outside right now. You will not see scores of zombies congregating in the streets getting ready to eat your brains. There is no Zombie Apocalypse here. You will not see alien pods waiting to snatch your body or anyone wearing a hockey mask and holding a bloody butcher knife.

Neither will you see the Covid-19 novel coronavirus, ready to enter your body, ready to cause a cytokine storm, ready to infect your lungs and starve your blood of oxygen. Yet this is more frightening, because it is real. It has already caused great suffering and death, and it is not going away.

People love fictional Dystopian settings. Think classic books like Brave New World, 1984 and Farenheit 451. More recent titles include The Handmaid’s Tale, Hunger Games and The Road. There are also books like The Stand and The Andromeda Strain which deal with deadly microorganisms.

 Hollywood entertained us with such disparate futures as in Blade Runner, Minority Report, Divergent, Rollerball, Escape From New York, and Soylent Green, to name a few.

It can be gratifying to sit back in the comfort of a recliner to watch or read about the challenges humans face and their struggles to overcome and survive under dire conditions. Many of these dystopias mirror real possible futures for society and stimulate serious thought about important issues. Some like Brave New World and 1984 have become veritable clichés for extreme government control. Others are just pure excitement like the Mad Max series.

In reality, there is often little awareness that a dystopia is evolving. Take for example 1920s to 1930s Germany. The evolution of the Third Reich and Nazi power is horrifying; a political dystopia unfolding like a slow motion car crash.  Many people were sucked in and could not see where it was going until it was too late.

Today the world is faced with multiple Dystopias, real and possible. Climate Change is the obvious example. Many people see Environmental Destruction happening but ruling powers are not willing to make the sacrifices today to save the world of tomorrow. The consequences will be enormous.

Dystopias of Government Control and Religious Control are prevalent in many countries around the world. Think the Middle East to find a few. North Korea, China, Russia and other autocracies also fit this category.

Dystopian Technological Control is becoming more and more widespread; reliance on social media, facial recognition software, AI, drones, robots, and more.  Widespread cloning and bioengineering are practically around the corner as governments and Mega-corporations keep track of the populations with giant data farms.

In 2020 a dangerous New Dystopia has arrived; one that can affect the comfort of the comfortable and exacerbate the pain of the most vulnerable. The New Dystopia is a deadly virus on the loose; a pandemic that wreaks havoc in population pockets around the globe.    

Many countries have used science and discipline to control the virus’ spread and minimize the case and death counts. But in the United States partisan politics and chaotic leadership have taken an enormous toll.

“Wear a mask. Social Distance. Wash your hands.”

This mantra of healthcare professionals is recited every day, and is ignored by millions. Some view it politically. Some view it as impinging on their Freedom. Some think it just inconvenient or uncomfortable. Some feel immune or invulnerable because of their age or fitness.

The virus doesn’t care. It is out there ready to find new hosts.

Here’s what scientists do know: Covid-19 in the United States is more likely to be worse for people over the age of 60 (45 million). It’s worse for people with chronicled health conditions, including diabetes (34 million), obesity (70 million) and heart disease (100 million).

There is comfort that a certain level of income sustains. Indoor entertainment and food; hobbies and other solitary or family activities. A suburban family can go out in their yard or drive to a park. They can shop in a large supermarket. An urban family, especially one in a high rise apartment, has to be conscious of who is in the elevator with them and if the buttons are disinfected. Are parks and mass transit facilities dangerously crowded? Closed or limited are theaters and sporting events; bars and clubs. Dating, birthday parties, weddings, funerals; Things of the past? Holographic hugs may be the Future. Skype and Zoom are the Present.

The danger from the novel corona virus Covid-19 is real. It has infected millions of people and killed hundreds of thousands. Six months into the pandemic, experts say a vaccine could still be six to twelve months away. But it could really be much longer. There is still no vaccine for HIV or AIDS more than 30 years after these diseases were discovered. And a therapeutic or cure? It’s being worked on but is not a certainty.

We are still in the first phase of the pandemic; less than six months since it began. And many people behave like it is over, which just makes the spread worse. It’s like the horror movie where the killer’s phone call is coming from inside the house.

For many people the possibility is frightening and for those infected and their families there is great suffering. When Economies are curtailed or shut down, there is even more pain and suffering, particularly for those at the bottom. This fits the definition of Dystopia.

No fictional zombie apocalypse. No pods of body snatchers. Just the actual daily news of case counts, hospitalizations and death; with full color charts and graphs, sanitized for your viewing pleasure. Dystopia.

The Primary Debates

With the first set of Democratic 2020 primary debates June 26 and June 27, I thought it was time to write about their purpose and effect, and what I am going to look for in particular.

The 120 minutes of air time each night averages to twelve minutes per candidate, all things being equal, which they never are, and not subtracting commercial time, which there will be. Comparatively a Trump rally speech is 70 to 90 minutes and a single candidate town hall is an hour. The Lincoln – Douglas debates, of which there were seven, had no moderator, each opened with a one hour speech, followed by an hour and a half rebuttal, and finally a closing half-hour response. So how much depth and information will be imparted in 10 to 12 minutes, usually in 60 to 90 second segments, from each of the candidates?

“The debates are the first chance for voters across the country to tune in and compare the ideas of the contenders, and I’m honored to have the opportunity,” said Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. (NY Times article 6/14/2019)

If by chance one of the candidates proposes an idea or policy that goes beyond a slogan (Medicare for All, Green New Deal, Guaranteed Minimum Income, etc.) and tries to describe it, how it will be implemented and how much it will cost, and accomplishes all this in 90 seconds, will there be an actual debate about the idea involving all the candidates? Obviously not. Will the media take it upon itself to replay this in its coverage of the debate? Not likely unless there was some gaffe or controversy involved. What if each candidate wants to talk about just healthcare, climate change, and gun regulation? How would it be differentiated and covered by the press? It doesn’t matter because it won’t happen that way. The questions by the moderators will be the most provocative and controversial, trying to pit the candidates against each other as if in a verbal cage match. And don’t forget the Elephant in the room. How much time will be wasted talking about Donald Trump?

“Your biggest goal has to be to be likable and acceptable,” said Newt Gingrich, adding that a successful night might involve getting “two, or at most three, memorable one-liners out.” – (NY Times article 6/14/2019)

The predominantly corporate controlled media loves this type of debate. It brings them millions of eyeballs and clicks which are subsequently monetized. To them it is just another form of sports and entertainment, polititainment. It is a compelling, prestigious, low cost and profitable drama.

“Spanning the globe to bring you the constant variety of sport! The thrill of victory, and the agony of defeat! The human drama of athletic competition.” ABC Wide World of Sports intro.

The main action of this sport is not athletics; it is also not the competition of ideas. It is the Zinger Competition: who can land the best one-liners and sound bites that will be played over and over again throughout the campaign? Who can land a knockout blow like Chris Christie did to Marco Rubio in 2016 destroying his viability? The media loves this, focuses on this, replays this, and has panels of pundits and expert analysts to endlessly pontificate. They speak about what it all means, mostly in terms of how it affects the “horse race.” The thrill of victory; the agony of defeat; for the candidates. Not the agony of the country; the fate of the world.

Picking a candidate by who performs best in an essentially entertainment milieu is how TV “star” Donald Trump was chosen. His outrageous iconoclastic behavior was irresistible; his lies, insults, xenophobic proposals sucked up much of the coverage. Reactions to this substituted for actual policy discussions. It was entertaining the same way a WWE heel is entertaining. And just as profound.

Candidates are prepping furiously for this Democratic Primary debate, knowing they have to have a bag full of one-liners and zingers so they can throw one out when needed; show how clever they are. This may get them valuable airtime, but is it the best way to pick a candidate? Obviously not.

Personally what am I going to look for? I’m going to look for the very best Scotch whisky in the house and then drink too much of it.

 

:>Howard Flantzer

Historical Pitfalls for 2020 and Cutting the Field to 10

“Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.” – George Santayana.

 

There are some remarkable similarities between the Political Now and that of fifty years ago. I hope we can learn from the Democratic failures of Then and not repeat the mistakes.

In 1968 Democrats ignored the young, activist Progressives and nominated for president a former Vice-President who the party leaders felt was most electable. Although considered a liberal, Hubert Humphrey was part of an administration identified with a divisive war; a war extremely unpopular with the young who were being sent to die in Vietnam by the thousands for reasons that made little sense. Although the voting age in 1968 was still 21, young people were inspired by and worked diligently for candidates Bobby Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy who both promised to end the war. After Kennedy was assassinated on June 6, the anti-war movement was all in on McCarthy; he did well in the primaries and activists hoped he would get the nomination. But the party insiders and power players went for Humphrey. At the convention in Chicago all hell broke loose; police riots, kids being beaten up in the streets, and teargas everywhere. Not the best way to inspire a nation to vote for the Establishment candidate.

 

In 2016 the Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton over her main primary opponent Bernie Sanders. She was favored by the Democratic establishment who felt it was her turn and she should be the next President. She had liberal positions on most issues but a vote from 13 years earlier to authorize the Iraq War was not forgiven by many, despite her admitting it was a mistake. Hawkish views on Libya and Syria plus Wall Street ties also negatively influenced many Progressives against her. Yet she was viewed as a safe candidate. As a former First Lady, former Senator and former Secretary of State, she had the exemplary resume to be the first woman president to follow the first Black president.

Bernie Sanders, an Independent Democratic Socialist was very far to the left yet he was supported by the young and the Progressives with extraordinary passion. He did not take corporate money, promoted universal healthcare, and higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy. The Sanders supporters felt the nominating process was rigged against their candidate; leaked emails showing that indeed there was bias and unfair actions taken by the Party. There were protests throughout the convention and even a walkout. At the end there was little enthusiasm for Progressives to support what they felt was a corrupt establishment candidate. Many sat home or voted third party in what turned out to be a very close election.

 

In the 1968 general election, Richard Nixon ran on “law and order” emphasizing inner city riots following the murder of Martin Luther King. He also ran on a secret plan to end the Vietnam War; and of course to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court which had turned liberal under Chief Justice Earl Warren.

Humphrey ran on civil rights and continuing Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. As Vice President he did not speak out strongly against the War.

Nixon won. Many Americans continued to die in Vietnam. Divisive street protests persisted as the war was expanded. Little was done to advance the cause of Civil Rights. He appointed to the Supreme Court Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist.

Forty-eight years later Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, running on ending wars, being tough on crime and immigration, and appointing conservative Supreme Court justices. Many people wanted to shake up the Establishment and boy did they ever.

 

After the fiasco of the 1968 Democratic convention, the rules were changed to emphasize the importance of primaries over the influence of insiders. Grass roots anti-war activist support enabled George McGovern to capture the 1972 nomination over moderate establishment favorite Edmund Muskie. He ran on a platform of ending the War and instituting a guaranteed minimum income for the poor. As described in Wikipedia, “the Republicans successfully portrayed him as a radical left-wing extremist incompetent to serve as president.”

Even with the newly lowered voting age to 18, the election was one of the most lopsided in US history with Nixon taking 49 states and 520 electoral votes, McGovern winning only Massachusetts and Washington, DC.

 

Now, 48 years later, we again have another very consequential election. The Democrats have an Establishment candidate in former VP Joe Biden and a populist left wing candidate in Bernie Sanders leading a large field of 24 at the moment. What can we learn from history to prevent an incompetent, corrupt, and most unpresidential President from being reelected?

We learned that an establishment candidate without the enthusiastic support of the most activist party members will lose to a demagogue with a strong base. We learned that the country will not support a candidate they believe to be far left, even against a corrupt and criminal incumbent.

Looking at the last three elected Democratic presidents, two were Red State governors and one was a senator with a short record from a Midwest state. They were all centrists who advocated change without threatening radical change. There were unique circumstances that enabled election success: Carter followed the ignominy of Nixon’s resignation and Ford’s inflation fueled two years; Clinton had the H. Ross Perot effect and an economy in recession; and Obama had the unpopular George Bush Iraq War and a collapsing economy to run against. Also, all three were relatively young when elected: 52, 46, and 47 respectively.

Democrats are confident that in 2020 they can beat Donald Trump. They also felt confident in 2016 – and lost. Trump is a volatile, unpopular president, except with his base who love him and will turn out to vote. Trump will fight hard in 2020; hard and dirty. Don’t trust today’s match-up polls. Republicans will lie and smear, misrepresent and call names; and dig deep for opposition research. They will have enormous amounts of money, their own propaganda TV network, and all the advantages of incumbency. How someone matches up now is meaningless. It is essential that the Democrats nominate the right person if they are going to win.

There are 24 Primary candidates at the moment; an overwhelming number that needs to be reduced.

The link below is to a guide to the candidates:
https://qz.com/1536793/your-guide-to-the-2020-democratic-presidential-candidates/

 

How do we narrow down the field?  Here’s what I would do.

First eliminate all candidates over 65. We don’t need to nominate a senior citizen. It is time to pass the torch. Younger candidates have a shorter history of mistakes and controversies to emerge. And Democrats have been more successful with younger candidates.

That means letting go of Biden 76, Gravel 89, Hickenlooper 67, Inslee 68, Sanders 77,  Warren 69, and Williamson 66. Now we’re down to 17.

Next, eliminate anyone from a coastal deep blue state. In the general election any of the Democratic candidates would win New York, California, New Jersey and Massachusetts. Larger pluralities do not mean additional Electoral College votes. The purple and centrist states necessary for victory are not looking for revolution and radical change. Being a Blue State Liberal does not impress them. Let’s have another heartland candidate.

Bye-bye Booker NJ, de Blasio NY, Gillibrand NY, Harris CA, Moulton MA, Swalwell CA, and Yang NY. Now we’re down to 10.

Remaining declared candidates:

Michael Bennet 54, Colorado senator.

Steve Bullock 53, Montana governor.

Pete Buttigieg 37, South Bend mayor.

Julian Castro 44, former San Antonio mayor.

John Delaney 55, former Maryland congressman.

Tulsi Gabbard 37, Hawaii congresswoman.

Amy Klobuchar 58, Minnesota Senator.

Beto O’Rourke 46, former Texas congressman.

Wayne Messam 44, Miramar Florida mayor.

Tim Ryan 45, Ohio congressman.

 

What, your current favorite isn’t on this list? You don’t know what some of these people stand for or even who they are? The potentially best president isn’t there?

All of this may be true. But the name of the game is winning. If your favorite is a Senior Citizen or comes from a deep blue state, the chance of winning is reduced. The right choice from this list has a better chance of winning Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin; possibly Ohio, North Carolina and Arizona as well as the Blues.

You don’t know much about them? Use the link above and in five minutes you will know enough to cut the list in half. In another five minutes you can have a top three and that’s all you really need at this point in time.

This is a hugely important election. For the Democrats to win they have to unite behind a candidate they believe can accomplish important policy goals and bring back the respect of the international community. Nominating the wrong candidates a half century ago contributed to election defeats that cost thousands of lives in Vietnam and severely damaged the economy with an inflationary spiral. It allowed a criminal and a demagogue to be the face of America in the world. Now we have climate change and the future of the planet at stake, as well as a multitude of domestic issues and the international world order. Let’s hope we learn from History and choose wisely for the 2020 election.

Be tactical. Be practical. Go Blue!

:>Howard Flantzer

June 9, 2019

NO MEDICARE FOR ALL!

IT’S NOT PRACTICAL. IT’S NOT TACTICAL.

Medicare for all is a great slogan. It implies healthcare for all without giving away all the Devilish details. Most people in this country get their healthcare through their employer; private insurance company healthcare. And most of these people are pretty well covered. They don’t want Medicare. They will be pretty upset, rebelliously upset if told that they would lose this benefit like Kamala Harris implied at a recent town hall.  Hell, many people were upset with the Affordable Care Act which generally made their insurance better. Change is not easy, especially with something as personal as healthcare.  The opposition stoked fear effectively and it would be even more dramatic if you were to take away all private insurance. The tactics of doing and saying this would be an insurmountable obstacle to election nationally, and in all but the most liberal of districts, locally.

Secondly, most private insurance is better than Medicare which covers hospital and doctor visits. With Medicare you need a Medigap plan which can be expensive or a Medicare Advantage plan which is an HMO that limits your choices. The candidates talk like it will now cover everything and no one will have to pay for it. And you know Americans are a suckers for a free lunch. Fifty six percent of the population support Medicare for All, but that number drops to 37% when told that their taxes might go up or there would not be private insurance available.

Practically, the expenses haven’t been worked out. How much will it cost? How are we going to pay for it? Real numbers are not available and comparisons are difficult since there are many variations being promoted. And also the implementation is far from being discussed in detail. Remember the ACA rollout and the computer crash that started it? Big programs come with bugs and unforeseen problems. Does anyone seriously think the whole country could be put on one health care program at the flip of a switch?

Thirdly, I believe in universal healthcare. But we already have a deeply ingrained system. It’s a seriously flawed system but too ingrained to rip out and start over. It has to be fixed, incrementally. The ACA was a start. People are accepting of that now, even after a decade of unjust criticism and abuse. It need some adjustments and improvement that the Republican congress refused to make. But it is on the right track and needs to be expanded.

There are many models for universal healthcare implemented around the world. Google it. A government service model like the UK’s National Health Service is only one type. Some are a combination of public and private insurance. Most work better than our hodge-podge. And in most countries medical costs are better controlled. Ours are at least double anyone else’s. How are we going to change that?

Fourth, there is too much money, too many special interests, too much propaganda invested in the Insurance industry to overcome politically. This would be a Sisyphean task that would doom the party attempting it. Our political system is inherently corrupt as it feeds on money and influence. We the People have to really get worked up to be heard. And we have to have some of the power players on our side like when they tried to take away pre-existing condition protection.

Incremental change is the most logical way of improving our healthcare delivery; expanding it so that everyone is covered. Unfortunately INCREMENTAL CHANGE does not make such an inspiring campaign slogan or bumper sticker. If that’s what you mean when you say Medicare for All, I can go along with it.

Democrats need to win the White House in 2020. That’s the most important thing if anything Progressive is to be accomplished. To promise great changes all at once will scare a lot of people. Call them ignorant; call them gullible; call them deplorable. But remember to call them voters.

I don’t want to relive 1972 where a fine Liberal Democratic presidential candidate was creamed by a sleazy, corrupt Republican crook.

My advice to all the 2020 candidates: Be Practical. Be Tactical. Be Smart.

 

:>Howard Flantzer

 

Our WWE Election

The metaphor I think is most appropriate to Trump politics, his rallies and his supporters is the WWE.

I haven’t watched a WWE event since, well, since before it became the WWE. But as a youth I watched wrestling on TV and am very well acquainted with the cultural phenomenon it has become.

Traditional wrestling is a very competitive physical sport. In WWE it gets scripted, with good guys, bad guys, (heels and heroes), and plot lines that create stories and stir the emotions. Men with sculpted bodies and/or cartoonish strength and agility perform character roles that the fans hate or love. Some use gimmicks to assist their villainy; most use boisterous braggadocio to rile the passions of their fans and the crowd. It’s formulaic but it works, even for those who know it is scripted/fake; and it is very big business.

In 2017 WWE took in $800 million dollars and the top wrestlers each made several million dollars. Entertainment is part of its name and entertainment sells.

 

Donald Trump rallies are also scripted; not the teleprompter scripts that he drones through when pretending to be serious or presidential, but the rallies where he plays his greatest hits like “Lock Her Up” and “Build that Wall.” His heels are Hillary and CNN, among many others; his heroes are Fox and the military, coal and tax cuts.  Most people know he lies and exaggerates; promises things that can never be delivered; but they don’t care. He gets them riled up; he plays on their passions and prejudices; he brings entertainment into politics like Sarah Palin did; the antitheses of suits and insiders with their wonkishness and nuance. He “tells it like it is” at least like they want to believe it is. It is fantasy politics. He doesn’t have a Dream, but insists everyone else’s Dream is a nightmare.

Donald Trump loves the applause; loves the love he gets from rallies. He found the one thing that he is good at, that he enjoys, that strokes his ego, which feeds the narcissism. He is an entertainer. From Miss Universe to The Apprentice he was the Impresario and knew that spectacle and controversy got attention and made money. As a Candidate he said anything that would get attention because that was more important than truth or consistency. Now in the unexpected and exalted position of President, he can tweet thunderbolts at his opponents and create controversy out of thin air. Everything he does, every gut instinct he follows, every expert opinion he ignores is all magnified. And the thousand cuts of criticisms from the mice below sting and provoke the mighty lion who was never one to reflect rather than react.

Where does this leave us or lead to? In the WWE there is always an evolving storyline, a new plot twist, characters coming and going. But it is all manufactured. In Politics, real live shit happens all over the world. Natural heels like Vladmir Putin and Kim Jong Un pretend to change and befriend the President. Traditional boring allies like Merkel, May and Macron (Europe’s 3M’s?) are kicked to the sidelines. And the Main Stream Media goes wild, cheerleading or criticizing with fanatic hyperbole to capture eyeballs and cash in on the game. The Grand Game, 21^st century style.

We can be entertained. We can be outraged. One tribe’s heel is another tribe’s hero. It wasn’t always this blatant, this superficial. It used to be more mundane, more intellectual, and even elitist. Now there is so much information that confronts us from devices we can’t escape.

Will a leader emerge that can bring the tribes together like the Five Nations of the Iroquois? Or will there have to first be a cataclysmic disaster? Are we looking for such a leader? Will the corporate media, the oligarchs and plutocrats prevent an egalitarian bridging of the political, social, cultural, and economic divides in this country? Again, will a real catastrophe, natural or manmade, have to occur first?

All we can reasonably do for now is work within our little circles, our friends, families, colleagues, and social media acquaintances for peaceful dialogue and change. Civility. Let harmony be as important a goal as hegemony. Vote for accountability; vote for honesty; vote for integrity. Vote on issues not on fear and hatred.

Enjoy the fictional WWE, if that’s your thing, but don’t let it be the model for our National Politics.

 

:>Howard Flantzer

An Open Letter to My Congressional Representatives

 

Senator Cory Booker

Senator Robert Menendez

Congresswoman Bonnie Watson-Coleman

Dear Representatives:

According to President Trump, “The economy is doing great.” I agree, though I would give most of the credit to Barack Obama.

My instinct is that when things are going well, that is the time to rectify financial problems created under more adverse circumstances. Personally, during my career, when I would get a raise or a bonus, that was the time to make an extra mortgage or car payment; make sure all my credit cards bills were paid; put money into savings; invest in stocks; replace an old appliance; and yes, take a little something to go out to dinner or put toward a vacation.

In the late 1990s, when Bill Clinton was President, the economy was also flying high. There was a budget surplus and there was talk of paying down the debt. Yet the country chose to elect a Republican in 2000 (actually the Supreme Court elected him, but that’s another story) who promised to give away the surplus (“Give the American people back their money”) in the form of tax cuts, mostly to the already wealthy. There was also a war and paying down of the National Debt was forgotten.

History teaches us that the economy has its ups and downs. So when the Great Recession hit during the George Bush Administration, tax revenues decreased and the deficit exploded.

When the economy is down, as it was during the beginning of the Obama Administration, that is the time to cut taxes, to stimulate the economy. His policies put more money in the pockets of consumers who spent it and created more demand for goods and services. This strategy, with a little help from our Fed, brought an end to the recession and ushered in one of the longest bull markets in our country’s history.

Now that the economy is up, it is time to fix old problems: build and repair infrastructure; decrease the deficit and pay down the debt; make the adjustments necessary to sustain Social Security and Medicare for the long term; maybe find a way to bring about universal health care.

Now is not the time to cut taxes, giving huge windfalls to the most prosperous people and businesses in the country, while adding to both the deficit and the debt. Only a deluded fool or a dupe can believe that there will not be an eventual downturn in the economy. And what happens then, when the debt is already monstrous and the interest payments huge? What happens when revenues fall and more money is needed to strengthen the safety net? Where will the money for stimulus come from? Many are predicting that the cuts will be to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The poor will pay for the excesses of the rich. And the fast talking spinmeisters will be quick to point fingers in the opposite direction; blaming everyone but themselves.

I could get on board with “reform” and even reducing the top line corporate tax rate. But reforms should be to close loopholes, not open new ones. Close the loophole that allows corporations to stash billions overseas without paying any taxes. Close the loophole that allows millionaires and billionaires to park money in offshore accounts to avoid taxes. Close the carried interest loophole for hedge fund managers.

The current tax bills in the Republican Congress are con jobs. The Biggest Tax Scam in History, says Paul Krugman. They steal from the future to fill the troughs of the most avaricious and well connected people in the country. Armies of lobbyists and donors entice and coerce OUR representatives to protect their breaks and lower their rates. And the very wealthiest want to end the Estate Tax and pass on their billions to their children tax free. And how can it be good for our country to punish teachers by taking away the deduction for money they spend in their classrooms? Even worse is the effect on Graduate Students who would be taxed on their tuition waivers. Why the war on Education and Healthcare by the Republican majority?

The process is shrouded in secrecy and haste. There is no attempt to work in an open bi-partisan way to craft a logical framework for the betterment of the whole country over a long period of time. To the victor go the spoils is the old saying and the big donors are going to reap big returns on their investment. Call it corruption or call it plutocracy; it is clearly party and power over patriotism.

I don’t think there is are easy answers to all our problems, but we should start with common sense; with looking into the future with focus and honesty, not with rose colored lenses and fantasy projections. We need to work from the bottom up, helping those with the least, to enable the demand that will produce investment and supply. “Trickle Down” has been empirically shown not to work and We’re Not in Kansas Anymore. We need to work together to find fair, honest, effective solutions and not just listen to the squeakiest wheel.

There are a lot of smart people in Congress. It would be great if they were motivated to accomplish something besides their own reelection; to work as a team for the good of the country. That is the message I hope to convey to my Representatives and for them to carry to their colleagues.

Thank you.

Howard Flantzer

Kendall Park, New Jersey

Cc: My Facebook Page and a few friends

RIGGED ELECTION!

The 2016 presidential campaign is anything but presidential, sweeping the gutter for all the dirt and muck that has lain dormant for decades. I predicted it would be ugly and full of smears so I should not be surprised, yet I am still disappointed that my cynicism has been realized.

The only people who really should love this election are the comics, where their jokes are practically growing on trees, and the pundits whose columns almost write themselves. I contribute a few Facebook memes and share some articles, but find it challenging to come up with anything new and insightful anymore.

Lately Donald Trump has been going around the country saying the election is “rigged”. The media have been enumerating why it is not and cannot be rigged, mostly focusing on the decentralization of the election process and the rarity of in person voter fraud.

But is the Political System “rigged”?

MORE REPRESENTATIVES TO THE PARTY WITH LESS VOTES

From Vox about the 2015 Senate composition after the 2014 election:

“…the 46 Democratic caucus members in the 114th Congress received a total of 67.8 million votes in winning their seats, while the 54 Republican caucus members received 47.1 million votes.”

From Bill Moyers about the 2012 House election:

“In 2012, the first congressional election after the last round of gerrymandering, Democratic House candidates won 50.59 percent of the vote — or 1.37 million more votes than Republican candidates — yet secured only 201 seats in Congress, compared to 234 seats for Republicans. The House of Representatives, the “people’s house,” no longer requires the most votes for power.”

The Senators that comprise the Senate actually were elected over six years in three different election cycles so the national political circumstances were undoubtedly different; yet it is also the large state / small state divide that contributes to this disparity. Of course that was the intention of the Framers as they put into the Constitution a system where one chamber gives equal weight to each state independent of population. One can argue whether this is Democratic or not but it is the system we have always had. So in that sense it is not rigged.

The House is a different story. When Elbridge Gerry signed a bill in 1812 to redistrict Massachusetts to favor one political party, a time honored procedure was established to actually “Rig” the system. One hundred years later, in 2012, Republicans received 47.6% of the total votes yet won 53.7% of the total number of seats.

From Wikipedia:

“By moving geographic boundaries, the incumbent party packs opposition voters into a few districts they will already win, wasting those extra votes. Remaining districts are more tightly constructed, with the opposition party allowed a bare minority count.”

I maintain that this is unfair, unnecessary and undemocratic. It is also as outdated as the old Spoils system before Civil Service.

From the Washington Post:

“…as long as humans are drawing the lines, there’s a danger of bias and self-interest to creep into the process. There is another way, however: we could simply let computers do the drawing for us.”

The maps below are based on the 2010 census data. The computer map is based on an algorithm that “draws districts that respect the boundaries of census blocks, which are the smallest geographic units used by the Census Bureau.”

The computer draws smooth, uncontorted lines to determine districts solely on population and without regard to partisan politics.

ELECTORAL COLLEGE

The Electoral College, another byproduct of our constitution, can also be viewed as unfair and undemocratic. In our nation’s history there have been four elections where a president was elected without winning the popular vote:

1824 John Quincy Adams

1876 Rutherford B. Hayes

1888 Benjamin Harrison

2000 George W. Bush

There are Pros and Cons of the Electoral College System and it seems like reforming or changing it is a subject that comes up every four years, but technically since it is the system we have, it is not something that is rigged. So far there are two states that allocate Electoral College votes proportionally instead of winner take all: Nebraska (5) and Maine (4). If all states did this it would change the elections dramatically, probably to the detriment of the big Blue states.

THE MEDIA

Oy vey! Everyone wants to kick the media, including me. Especially me. It is powerful, influential, more corporate oligarchy than ever and not accountable. Its reports are dumbed down, distracted by the latest shiny object, focused on the lurid, the sensational and the celebrity. Rare is the intellectual rigor to cover political issues and rife are the snarky narratives that boil complex ideas into bumper sticker slogans.

There have been numerous studies of media bias, but like in economics studies, they disagree with each other; critical of  models and methodology. Not surprisingly:

“Research into studies of media bias in the United States shows that liberal experimenters tend to get results that say the media has a conservative bias, while conservatives experimenters tend to get results that say the media has a liberal bias.”

In some ways it doesn’t matter which way the bias goes as the country has divided itself where most conservatives only watch/read conservative media and liberals do likewise with liberal media. It is an unhealthy and anti-intellectual echo chamber where ideas are not sufficiently challenged, and compromise or consensus is rarely achieved. Whatever happened to the idea of the Hegelian Dialectic where there is a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis (resolution)?

Sometimes the lines cross where one candidate has a disproportionate amount of the media either for or against him/her, even across the political spectrum. This is currently true in 2016; it was also true in 2000, though more through negative false narratives and not as overtly.

The current media has strongly focused more than ever on the horse race, endlessly commenting on and analyzing polls about who is ahead, who is behind, with what demographics and in what locations. This, and the various gaffes and endless accusations predominate the coverage of the election. The creation of “Politicotainment”, to get the most eyeballs and biggest profits has become a circus; a spoon feeding of form over substance; glamor over knowledge; superficial beauty over truth. The Candidates are the stars of the show while the pundits are the clowns acting out of a false sense of sincerity. We are in the seats watching; some of us getting sick on the cotton candy.

MONEY

The money factor is another way in which our system could be considered rigged. An in-depth analysis with charts and graphs can be found at link below. The bullet points show where it is going.

The Top 10 Things Every Voter Should Know About Money-in-Politics

• Money follow power
• Incumbents nearly always win
• Most Congressional races are not competitive
• Small donors make good press; big donors get you reelected
• Interests behind the money are predictable
• Donors seek a long term relationship
• The fundraising never stops
• Enforcement of campaign laws is weak
• All hell broke loose in the 2010 election
• They don’t have to be crooks

So again one must ask: “Is the election rigged?”

The answer as far as I’m concerned, is Yes. Our Electoral System is rigged. The money factor means we will usually have candidates that are corrupt or at least somewhat subservient to special interests. The gerrymandering means we may get a House of Representatives that do not reflect the Democratic mandate of the voters. The Electoral College means that the President also may not reflect the will of the People. And the media supply the propaganda for the candidate that best meets their corporate desires.

Voting at the polls is not a problem (disclosure: I am a poll worker). But our whole system of government, our representative democracy, is based on everyone having an equal voice, an equal vote. Yet because of money and gerrymandering in particular, and the outsized influence of the media, this is not what we are experiencing today.

TPP

The Trans Pacific Partnership. Oh boy.

Thinking about international trade is…well, it is a great cure for insomnia. Seriously.

Yet somehow I’ve reached the point where I should take a more informed position on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. I have no intention of reading the over 5000 page document but provide a link to the full text for anyone so inclined.  More likely is that I will use the Wikipedia explanation among other resources. Also valuable is the government U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) information pages dealing with important specific issues.

I also have no intention of becoming an expert on the complex subject of trade and tariffs.  The Free Trade Debate in all its esoteric glory over the last two plus centuries, full of charts and equations, philosophers and economists, is still a topic high on the yawn list.

What I would like to do is get some understanding of the basics that are involved and somehow separate the special interests, political and economic, and the bombast from what serious people are saying.

The person who I have heard speak most eloquently on the subject has been President Obama. In a joint press conference with Singapore Prime Minister Lee:

“This is an opportunity to grow our economies and write the rules for trade in the 21st century in a way that’s equitable.  It gives us a chance to advance American leadership, reduce economic inequality, and support good-paying jobs — all while strengthening critical strategic relationships in a vital region.”

Who can dispute that we should use our leadership to grow economies with fair and equitable trade rules? That we should strengthen strategic relationships in an important area of the world?

Well, Bernie Sanders can:

“The Trans Pacific Partnership is a disastrous trade agreement designed to protect the interests of the largest multi-national corporations at the expense of workers, consumers, the environment and the foundations of American democracy.”

As the old expression goes “the devil is in the details” and with 5000 pages of details a lot of people have taken to dispute the wisdom of this pact. There is contention over environmental standards, pharmaceuticals, labor standards, and provisions for Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). Even about fish imports. Very smart people with lots of letters after their names can be found on different sides of these issues. Understanding the nuances and evaluating the hypotheticals among all the shouting by politicians and special interests is mind numbing.

LAYING IT OUT – SOME OF IT ANYWAY

Will it cost American jobs? It depends on who you ask. A study from Tufts University projects a loss of nearly 450,000 jobs. On the other hand, according to Peter Petri, a professor at the Brandeis International Business School, overall incomes, exports and GDP would grow.

“Some industries grow, and some industries don’t grow as fast they would otherwise under a trade agreement,” Petri said. In that process, “some people have to leave jobs and find other jobs.”

In this respect it is almost certain that many individuals and whole communities will be adversely affected. It should be a top priority that the government make provisions to help those out in a massive way.

Will TPP harm the environment? According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative:

”TPP includes the most robust enforceable environment commitments of any trade agreement in history. TPP requires countries to play by fair environmental rules if they want to send their goods to the United States”

Criticism of environmental impact is generally centered on the ISDS provision. Basically this is just an international arbitration process to resolve conflicts, avoiding state-to-state conflict. Speculation is whether companies will go to arbitration to get around environmental laws that adversely affect their profits. In The Real Danger in TPP, critics of ISDS such as Jeffrey Sachs, Joseph Stiglitz, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, among others assert that

“…with ISDS, foreign companies don’t have to follow those rules. When government action — even action taken for a legitimate and important public purpose — hurts foreign companies’ economic interests, those companies can sue the government for their lost profits.”

The White House responds to this criticism with the facts that ISDS in various forms is a part of thousands of trade agreements; it protects American companies doing business in other countries; and that the US government has won every single case brought against it to an ISDS panel. This fact sheet answers a lot of the questions that critics pose about ISDS.

On the issues of Human Rights, Labor Standards and Governance (bribery and corruption), the TPP is indisputably an improvement over the WTO and current practices in many of the countries involved. It may not live up to certain ideals, but it is definitely a step forward.

For those of you still awake, that leaves the related issues of Intellectual Property and Pharmaceuticals.

According to the U. S. Trade Representative government fact sheet, TPP requires parties to:

• Ensure the availability of mechanisms to effectively enforce intellectual property rights, including civil and administrative procedures and remedies, and criminal enforcement.
• Establish criminal procedures and penalties for trade secret theft, including by means of cyber theft.
• Adopt strong copyright and patent protections.
• Promote access to medicines by facilitating not only the development of innovative, life-saving drugs and treatments, but also the spread of generic medicines.

It is about this fourth point, generic drugs, of which Doctors Without Borders, expressed in November 2015 that they were “extremely concerned about the inclusion of dangerous provisions that would dismantle public health safeguards enshrined in international law and restrict access to price-lowering generic medicines for millions of people.” Progressive American politicians such as Bernie Sanders also condemned these provisions as they would “expand the profits of big drug companies, keep drug prices artificially high, and leave millions of people around the world without access to life saving drugs.”

The USTR contends:

“The TPP includes additional specific rules related to biologic medicines, reflecting the growing importance of these cutting-edge technologies. These commitments are intended to promote innovation and promote access to affordable medicines in developing countries.”

Also fighting vociferously against the TPP is Elizabeth Warren. Speaking in February 2016:

“A rigged process produces a rigged outcome,” she continued, blasting the composition of advisory committees that were made up of industry executives and the cloak of secrecy that surrounded the negotiations. Warren specifically called out the TPP’s Investor-State Dispute Settlement, or ISDS, provisions.”

There were over 20 advisory committee reports, most focusing extensively on various industries covered in the agreement. As one would expect, each were comprised mainly of executives from those affected industries with a smattering of labor leaders. Also, as expected, they expressed approval of the TPP with regards to how it affected their particular industry. Labor representatives were opposed and issued their own 124 page advisory report.

I have no objections to negotiations being held in secret. Otherwise there would be chaos and nothing would ever come to agreement. I also have no objection to industry executives making up much of the advisory committees. This thing is about business and they know the most about their businesses. Of course they want favorable terms that will make their companies more profitable. But overall, it is about expanding trade to reduce costs for consumers and produce more products we can more easily sell abroad. Thriving, profitable businesses are good for the country.

From Wikipedia:

“The literature analyzing the economics of free trade is extremely rich with extensive work having been done on the theoretical and empirical effects. Though it creates winners and losers, the broad consensus among economists is that free trade is a large and unambiguous net gain for society.”

It’s actually pretty amazing that something this comprehensive could be agreed upon by representatives of so many countries (12) and industries. An enormous amount of time and effort was expended; people from many countries around the world working cooperatively to create an agreement they believed would contribute to increasing prosperity and long term international harmony.

Personally it’s not going to greatly affect me. I’m retired and don’t live in a one industry community. Yet I do like to favor policies that I believe are good for the country and good for the world in the long run.

With or without this trade deal, automation and AI will continue to eat at jobs and we will still need to get better at dealing with dislocations, whether through retraining or CCC type programs or even outright subsidies for people affected. Also, the agreement makes at least some incremental progress on the environmental and labor standards fronts. Many of the other areas, even the experts don’t agree.

My inclination at this point is to favor passage of the TPP. So many people worked so hard, so long, so cooperatively, it seems pretty wasteful to outright reject it for what appears to be political squabbling about things that are not even understood. I also trust President Obama. I believe he has done a pretty good middle of the road job, with a lot of integrity, truly cares about the People and the Country, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. It could be a big factor in his legacy.

:>Howard Flantzer

RETIREMENT AND THE END OF FANTASY

FANTASY

When I was a kid I used to fantasize about being rich, famous, and athletic. In fact I had that same fantasies well into adulthood. Yet I knew that wealth wasn’t likely to happen outside of the remote possibility of a lottery win or a casino jackpot. When I had a few bucks I took some speculative risks in the stock market alongside more conservative investments, but the safe bets were the ones which almost always turned out more profitable. Fame? With piranha-like paparazzi and a voracious internet, fame these days is more of a pain in the anus than a delight.  Athleticism I improved with hard work, but never to the point of playing high level sports with young or even old men. Watching football on a Sunday afternoon with beer in hand, jerking with every cut, tensing with every hit, I imagined how cool it would be out on the field with those guys. I worked out consistently for many years, going to gyms, jogging, and even learning martial arts, with modest results. Yet the daydreams and the fantasies always promise more than the gene pool allowed.

Recently I realized that it just wasn’t going to happen. I wasn’t going to be rich, I wasn’t going to be famous and I wasn’t going to be an athlete. It took a while but sadly it’s for real. Heavy is the burden of maturity.

Now, it’s all about the real things I need to think about.  I even write them down to remember.

RETIREMENT

Every working stiff close to retirement is asked the questions, “Whatcha gonna to do with all that time?” “Won’t you get bored?”

Like an empty closet or drawer somehow fills up with junk and/or treasures, each day of retired life also fills, sometimes frustratingly fast, with things to do, even if it’s just relaxing on the porch watching the traffic pass or catching up on your DVR recordings.

Retirement time simply breaks down into four categories:

• Things you must do
• Things you should do
• Things you can do
• Things you want to do

Things you must do

Like it or not, one thing you have to do is shop; certainly for food, sometimes for clothes, presents, and other stuff. You are no longer limited to evenings, weekends and online so getting around to stores can take several hours a week. More if you like. Unless you are off the grid hunting, gathering and bartering, this is a must.

You must also pay your bills. Whether you do so on-line or by writing out checks, this has to get done along with appropriate record keeping. A lot of people are aided by Quicken.

You’ll find you have a lot of appointments to keep. There are doctors (more than there used to be), car maintenance, hair care, and tax preparers for example. Even lunch or breakfast dates with friends and fellow retirees. There always seems to be appointments.

You must protect yourself. Not only is personal safety a concern, but computer security, identity theft, and the scores of scammers who specialize in preying on the elderly. It doesn’t hurt to be a little paranoid and a lot careful.

Things you should do

Most important is taking care of your health. And that means exercise! Every day some exercise; several days vigorous exercise. It keeps your heart strong, your weight down, your muscles from atrophying and your mind positive. It is a bulwark against disease. It can promote better sleep and better sex and keeps you looking good. Don’t take my word: listen to the Mayo Clinic; or the CDC; or WebMD.

Another part of your health is diet, not as in “going on a diet” but as in “eating a healthier diet.” You don’t have to be all vegan to be healthy, but you should eat less meat, more fruit and vegetables, more whole grains, less sugar, and watch your portions. Here are 14 keys to a healthy diet. I’m good for around seven of them.

You also need to take care of your finances. Make sure you live within your means so that your means will last as long as you live. There are a lot of professionals willing to advise you, often for a fee, but you can start with AARP. Know what you have and how much you need.

You should also clean your house periodically and keep it in good repair. The lawn needs mowing and the walks need shoveling in season. And make sure the smoke detectors are working properly.

You should keep your car running well; you don’t want to get stranded. You should also wash it once in a while.

Things you can do

You can work part time. Depending on your skills, be a consultant; or teach a college course; or tutor. If you really just want a few extra bucks you can work part time; there is often a Walmart greeter position available somewhere. And don’t forget, being a poll worker on Election Day pays good money for mostly sitting down all day.

You can start your own business. There are so many possibilities from making a product to selling crap you’ve been accumulating for years to having a service people need.

You can volunteer. There are a lot of opportunities but you have to evaluate what you want to accomplish for yourself and for others. This article lays out some considerations, as does this one.

You can hang out at a Senior Center. Many towns have them where retired people gather to socialize, play pool, work out, take classes, listen to lectures and generally enjoy being around people their own age. A Senior Center usually has professionals available to help with governmental or personal issues seniors typically encounter.

There are always projects around the house from fixing things up to remodeling or decorating. Many people cultivate a garden where they enjoy pulling up weeds and cursing the animals that eat their plants.

You can have a pet. Dogs and cats require attention but return love. And you can make videos with them for the world to enjoy.

You can take a nap. Even if you weren’t up at the crack of dawn an afternoon snooze, especially after some afternoon booze, is this retiree’s guilty pleasure.

You can prepare for life after death and take care of all the things that need to be arranged for when you will no longer be around. Morbid but thoughtful, because if you don’t do it, someone else will have to.

Things you want to do

My list includes: read, write, spend time with friends and family, watch TV, watch movies, hike, bike, kayak, check out some museums; enjoy good tasting but unhealthy food (in moderation, of course).

I want to visit distilleries in Scotland and Ireland, sampling what they produce. I want to climb Machu Picchu, but that’s not likely to happen; I want to bite off more segments of the Appalachian Trail which will happen. I want revisit Amsterdam and Paris; Montreal and London.

I want to go on another cruise. Got one scheduled for next April already. Maybe a river cruise down the Rhine or Danube someday.

I want to go to a casino and win money. The going part is easy. The winning part takes luck.

I want to be young again. Hahaha, don’t we all!

You should make your own list. It might be longer than you think. It might also be the answer to the original question, “Whatcha gonna to do with all that time?”

 

So what became of the faded fantasy to be rich and famous and athletic? The reality is: I’m already rich with friends and family and somewhat famous within that group. Athletic? Not bad for my age as the hard work paid late dividends. If I do what I should and take care of my health, and do what I want and write this little blog, and do my travels and watch my diet and enjoy my food and drink, when it becomes time to prepare for my afterlife, there will be a lot of fine water under the bridge. I’m good with that. How about you?

:>Howard

 

 

EVIL WOMAN?

American woman, stay away from me
American woman, mama let me be
Don’t come hanging around my door
I don’t want to see your face no more – Guess Who?

 

I got a black magic woman
Got me so blind I can’t see
That she’s a black magic woman
She’s tryin’ to make a devil out of me — Santana

 

The “Lesser of Two Evils” is not really about evil. “It is the principle that when faced with selecting from two unpleasant options, the one which is least harmful should be chosen.” It is a strategy, like Hobson’s Choice; or Sophie’s Choice if you are so inclined.

True Evil is probably best used to describe terrorists, torturers and murderers. Dictators like Hitler and Stalin. None of the candidates in this Presidential election is literally “Evil”, yet Evil has become the go to hyperbolic word in the current election season, often used to malign Hillary Clinton.

 

WHEN DID SHE BECOME EVIL?

Without getting into “The Bad Seed” scenario and the events of her childhood, let’s stipulate that Hillary Rodham was an okay, normal, intelligent young lady when she went off to Wellesley and Yale Law School.

As a student in 1970 she was providing free legal advice for the poor in New Haven and handling cases of child abuse. She also researched migrant worker problems in housing and education.

Maybe it was in 1971 when she started dating Bill Clinton that an evil spell first appeared. Supposedly he was very charming and might have slyly gifted her a talisman.

It couldn’t have been in 1972 when she worked on George McGovern’s campaign. George was Liberal, one of the good candidates. She also spent time undercover in Alabama  to fight discrimination in education.

In 1973 she wrote an often cited scholarly article for the Harvard Education Review defending children’s rights. Hillary’s first job out of law school was with the Children’s Defense Fund, and one of her first tasks was going door to door investigating why so many children were missing school. She found that parents were not sending their children because schools did not accommodate disabilities.

In 1974 she was a member of the House impeachment staff investigating Richard Nixon. Could she have caught a corruption virus? There was a lot of it going around.

In 1975 Bill put the marriage ring on her finger and they moved to Arkansas. She joined a powerful law firm but still worked pro bono in child advocacy.

In 1978 and 1979 she speculated in land and commodities and made a lot of money. This could be it! As they say, “money is the root of all evil.” Yet accusations and investigations by two Republican Congressional Committees and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr about Whitewater found nothing incriminating Clinton.

In the early 1980s, as First Lady of Arkansas, Hillary fought for reform of the state’s public education system. She fought for curriculum and classroom size standards and for preschool.

As a prominent and influential attorney she served on many boards from the Children’s Defense Fund to Walmart. Wikipedia states: “Once there, she pushed successfully for Wal-Mart to adopt more environmentally friendly practices.” Maybe it was from proximity to the Walton’s that she caught the evil bug.

As First Lady of the U.S., Hillary developed the Clinton Healthcare plan which required employers to provide healthcare to their employees. This was certainly evil, at least in the eyes of Republicans and the insurance lobby. Consequently, “Hillarycare” went nowhere and her popularity took a big hit. Working with Ted Kennedy she continued pressing healthcare issues and in 1997 the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) became law. Millions of children have been protected due to her efforts.

Hillary helped to create the Office on Violence Against Women at DOJ. She also initiated the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act.

Travelling around the world as First Lady, Hillary voiced concern about the plight of women. She was one of the first prominent people to speak out about the Taliban treatment of Afghan women. Most famous was her 1995 speech at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing where she said to delegates from over 180 countries:

“It is no longer acceptable to discuss women’s rights as separate from human rights…If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights, once and for all.”

Elected to the Senate in 2000, Hillary is generally acknowledged to have worked hard and built relationships on both sides of the aisle to get things done. After 9/11, she was instrumental in securing funding to help rebuild New York. She also instigated the investigation into health issues faced by the first responders.

Then she made a big mistake. She got sucked into voting for the Iraq War Resolution in October 2002. She later admitted it was a mistake and apologized for her vote. The vote was five months before the war actually began. She wasn’t the Commander in Chief. There was plenty of time to allow the inspections to run their course using the authorization as a diplomatic tool. But Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld wanted war and the responsibility for it falls on them. But now Hillary is getting blamed.

There are a lot of other votes and issues that took place during that time period. Some are controversial such as the Patriot Act (she voted in favor) and the Bush Tax Cuts (she voted against) but nothing that could rise to the level of truly Evil.

As Secretary of State she traveled the world, met with world leaders, and generally improved the favorability of the United States from that of the disastrous Bush II years. Until the Arab Spring.  While the protests in Tunisia led to an orderly change in government, the situations in Egypt, Libya, and Syria did not go so smoothly. US support for regime change might have been made in a sincere attempt to bring democracy and a better life to the people living under autocrats, yet religious fanaticism, tribal rivalries, and other factors resulted in the situation beoming chaotic.

As unwise and counterproductive as these actions were by the Administration, it is quite a stretch to say any of it was done with evil intent.

On the positive side, in 2012 she helped negotiate a cease fire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, and she worked on the agreement that halted Iran’s nuclear program.

 

WHERE IS THE EVIL?

There are a lot of issues that Hillary Clinton had positions on during her 40 or so years in the public spotlight. No one will  agree with all of them. Positions sometimes changed; maybe honestly with the times; maybe some for political expediency. People say that she does not have any core principles.  Yet there is a constant theme that seems threaded throughout her public history: she has always tried to help people. As shown above, she has fought to help children, the disabled, women, minorities, the sick, and the oppressed. She was a powerful voice within the establishment for people that had no voice. She effectively worked to make the system fairer for everyone. She worked hard and got things done.

During her career there were many Pseudo Scandals. Republicans used their power to launch investigations, eight about Benghazi alone, using millions of dollars in government funds to damage her reputation. Politically motivated, they were throwing crap up against the wall to see if anything stuck. The media, with their “he said / she said” false equivalence reporting enabled the Big Lies and phony narratives. If there is any evil to be found, it starts with a big “R”.

Every election is important but this one more than most. The disparity in qualifications between the major candidates is higher than ever. If Hillary Clinton loses the election this November to Donald Trump, it will certainly be a Pyrrhic Victory for her political opponents and the people who dislike or hate her. And it will be a sad day for the country.