Cruz vs. Zuckerberg
The View from the Middle
If you were lucky enough to miss yesterday’s Senate questioning of Mark Zuckerberg, I can only say, “Congratulations”. That’s four hours of your life you did not flush down your life toilet. What you missed was 60, 70 and yes even 80 year old Senators reading questions obviously prepared by 20 or 30 year old staffers. Half the time they couldn’t even get through the question without a bumble, and even when they did, Zuckerberg swatted them away with his technical expertise or with his, “yes, we need to do better” mantra.
Unfortunately for me, I had the time and inclination to watch the entire four hours worth of dribble, which I will not be able to get back. But since I made the commitment, let me give you the reader’s digest version of the day.
The Senators spent most of the day trying to make the point that virtually no one using Facebook actually knows what Zuckerberg’s behemoth company is tracking, storing and selling to other companies, other edge providers or even political parties. To be truthful, I didn’t even know what an “edge” provider was until yesterday. Here’s a hint for you, Facebook is an “edge” provider.
Zuckerberg shot down all of these questions by constantly suggesting that his Facebook customers are in total control of everything. They know, he suggested, everything that can and will be shared with other entities and have complete control of what that information is and who it is shared with. This, of course, is a pile of hooey, but the Senators never got through Zuckerberg’s “awe shucks” answers to get to the real issue of the privacy question. And that real issue is that Facebook needs to clearly and simply explain to their customers what is being shared and give them an easy way to “opt out” of that sharing. Zuckerberg, of course, doesn’t want any of that. He doesn’t really want his customers to understand what Facebook is storing and sharing, because that would scare the crap out of their users and he doesn’t really want to make it easy for them to opt out, because they will do so in huge numbers. That is why their explanation of services is about 300 pages long. So, no progress in the whole privacy situation. Win for Zuckerberg.
But the real story came a little more than half way through this grueling saga. Ted Cruz finally broached an even more important issue than privacy, in my opinion, and that is censorship. Zuckerberg had admitted that Facebook was going to be on the lookout for terroristic efforts, fake news and hate speech. And of course everyone said, “good for you” to that. Except me, of course, and Ted Cruz evidently.
Cruz asked exactly who is going to be defining this “fake news” and “hate speech”? The answer is – Facebook, who currently has fifteen to twenty thousand people doing this. We all, however, should be asking what the standards are for blocking people for fake news and hate speech. Cruz then gave about 20 examples where Facebook has made some questionable blocks on conservative leaning people and groups including Diamond and Silk who they have called “unsafe for the community”. Zuckerberg could give no examples of left leaning groups or people being blocked by Facebook.
Do we really want Zuckerberg defining “hate speech”, especially if Facebook has already classified Diamond and Silk as some form of it? What about “fake news”? Any real examination of the facts would suggest that “fake news” is at least bi-partisan if not a left leaning practice. I’m guessing, however, that Zuckerberg and his team of 20,000 liberal, free-speech-squelching goons will see it differently, and that should bother all of us but especially conservatives. Unfortunately, I don’t trust our bloated, corrupt, inept federal government to do it either. If any of you have any suggestions on who could do this in an honest, efficient and unbiased manner, let me know. I’ve got some time!
Thursday, April 12, 2018
Wednesday, April 4, 2018
Is Trump just a "Rude" Reagan
Is Trump Just a “Rude” Reagan?
The View from the Middle
I will argue that the greatest President in my lifetime was Ronald Reagan, and I would be in good company. According to C-SPAN’s survey of Presidential historians, Reagan already ranks as the 9th best of all 44 Presidents we have had since 1789. This puts him above every President of my lifetime except John Kennedy, which Reagan should pass in the next survey if trends continue. This will put Reagan behind only the historical titans like Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson and the Roosevelts.
Why do these historians rank Reagan so high? As I inspected the criteria these scholars used to rank these giants, I have to believe that the economic results of the country during his leadership had to play a big role. After extinguishing the Carter recession, Reagan lead the country to six years of phenomenal growth with annual GDP (Gross Domestic Product) growth averaging 5.2%!! For Perspective the country’s average since 1929, when this measure was first utilized, has been 3.2%, and Obama’s last seven years averaged just 2.1%.
He did all of this with a strategy that included lower taxes, reduced governmental regulation and a strong military. Sound familiar to anyone? His military build-up delivered what he promised – “Peace Through Strength’. Iran immediately released their American hostages after Reagan was elected. Russia took a backseat to the US in terms of global influence and was forced to “tear down” the Berlin wall. And Muammar Gaddafi, Libyan terrorist dictator, dismantled his nuclear weapons program after Reagan put a few cruise missiles in his ear. His tough but compassionate approach lead to one of the few war-free Presidencies since 1900 (Granada doesn’t count as a war, does it?).
The Gipper also shared a cynicism of the federal government that matched that of the common person in those days. He famously said that the 10 most dangerous words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” Outside of the military, he wanted to shrink government to get it out of the way of the American citizens. He believed that personal freedom, responsibility and motivation would deliver the American dream to more people than any governmental program. Would he be trying to “drain the swamp”? Absolutely, so that Americans wouldn’t have to get bogged down in it on the road to that dream.
But most importantly he united the country behind his unapologetic, patriotic love for this country. He believed in “American Exceptionalism” and planted a positive vision for all our citizens as he declared, “It’s morning in America”. If he would have said “Let’s make America great again”, he would have done it with a twinkle in his blue, Irish eyes and a warm smile on his face. He rarely, if ever, publicly spoke poorly of others and especially not of members of his own party. Because of his respectful attitude towards even his political opponents and the authentic fondness he had for the average American, he ended his Presidency with the third highest approval rating since they created that measure, behind only FDR and (you guessed it) Bill Clinton. His average approval for all eight years of his administration was five points higher than media darling Barack Obama.
So, here’s the good news for Donald Trump. His policies are very similar if not identical to Ronald Reagan’s. He has already delivered a tax cut that is driving consumer and corporate confidence and more normal growth in our economy. He has slashed government regulations and that is encouraging business investment from around the world. Plus, he has just signed a $700 billion package for our military (while holding his nose, he says) that will not delight Russia, North Korea or Iran. This should start to give us the “strength” we need to deliver the “peace” that Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un are so desperately trying to prevent.
The problem for “The Donald” is that he doesn’t seem to know how, or have the desire to unite the American people as Reagan did. It’s not that he doesn’t have passionate followers. He does. But they are matched by extremely ardent opponents on the other side. We are becoming so polarized that it is almost impossible to have a respectful discussion of the issues. Now, Trump is not the only person adding to the toxic environment that has been created. Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton love pouring gasoline on this ideological fire, but Donald IS the President and I believe he needs to turn down the temperature of the political rhetoric.
Immigration seems to be the perfect place to start. The path to citizenship for almost two million dreamers was a very generous offer that the country seems to support. I have recently heard the President state categorically that the wall doesn’t have to be from the Gulf to the Pacific, but only about 700 miles. That again is reasonable and something that most Americans will support. And who wants chain-migration to include someone’s twelfth cousin’s neighbor’s barber. There is room to maneuver here, and we need a leader like Reagan to bring the parties together. Come on Donald! Be a Ronald!
Post article trivia bonus – In the first paragraph of this article I stated that there have been only 44 Presidents of the US, including Donald Trump. That is not a typo. He should be wearing a baseball cap with the number “44” on it. Why? Because Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd and 24th President of the United States. He is the only President to serve two non-consecutive terms. Two terms, but just one person!! This should really be on jeopardy.
The View from the Middle
I will argue that the greatest President in my lifetime was Ronald Reagan, and I would be in good company. According to C-SPAN’s survey of Presidential historians, Reagan already ranks as the 9th best of all 44 Presidents we have had since 1789. This puts him above every President of my lifetime except John Kennedy, which Reagan should pass in the next survey if trends continue. This will put Reagan behind only the historical titans like Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson and the Roosevelts.
Why do these historians rank Reagan so high? As I inspected the criteria these scholars used to rank these giants, I have to believe that the economic results of the country during his leadership had to play a big role. After extinguishing the Carter recession, Reagan lead the country to six years of phenomenal growth with annual GDP (Gross Domestic Product) growth averaging 5.2%!! For Perspective the country’s average since 1929, when this measure was first utilized, has been 3.2%, and Obama’s last seven years averaged just 2.1%.
He did all of this with a strategy that included lower taxes, reduced governmental regulation and a strong military. Sound familiar to anyone? His military build-up delivered what he promised – “Peace Through Strength’. Iran immediately released their American hostages after Reagan was elected. Russia took a backseat to the US in terms of global influence and was forced to “tear down” the Berlin wall. And Muammar Gaddafi, Libyan terrorist dictator, dismantled his nuclear weapons program after Reagan put a few cruise missiles in his ear. His tough but compassionate approach lead to one of the few war-free Presidencies since 1900 (Granada doesn’t count as a war, does it?).
The Gipper also shared a cynicism of the federal government that matched that of the common person in those days. He famously said that the 10 most dangerous words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” Outside of the military, he wanted to shrink government to get it out of the way of the American citizens. He believed that personal freedom, responsibility and motivation would deliver the American dream to more people than any governmental program. Would he be trying to “drain the swamp”? Absolutely, so that Americans wouldn’t have to get bogged down in it on the road to that dream.
But most importantly he united the country behind his unapologetic, patriotic love for this country. He believed in “American Exceptionalism” and planted a positive vision for all our citizens as he declared, “It’s morning in America”. If he would have said “Let’s make America great again”, he would have done it with a twinkle in his blue, Irish eyes and a warm smile on his face. He rarely, if ever, publicly spoke poorly of others and especially not of members of his own party. Because of his respectful attitude towards even his political opponents and the authentic fondness he had for the average American, he ended his Presidency with the third highest approval rating since they created that measure, behind only FDR and (you guessed it) Bill Clinton. His average approval for all eight years of his administration was five points higher than media darling Barack Obama.
So, here’s the good news for Donald Trump. His policies are very similar if not identical to Ronald Reagan’s. He has already delivered a tax cut that is driving consumer and corporate confidence and more normal growth in our economy. He has slashed government regulations and that is encouraging business investment from around the world. Plus, he has just signed a $700 billion package for our military (while holding his nose, he says) that will not delight Russia, North Korea or Iran. This should start to give us the “strength” we need to deliver the “peace” that Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un are so desperately trying to prevent.
The problem for “The Donald” is that he doesn’t seem to know how, or have the desire to unite the American people as Reagan did. It’s not that he doesn’t have passionate followers. He does. But they are matched by extremely ardent opponents on the other side. We are becoming so polarized that it is almost impossible to have a respectful discussion of the issues. Now, Trump is not the only person adding to the toxic environment that has been created. Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton love pouring gasoline on this ideological fire, but Donald IS the President and I believe he needs to turn down the temperature of the political rhetoric.
Immigration seems to be the perfect place to start. The path to citizenship for almost two million dreamers was a very generous offer that the country seems to support. I have recently heard the President state categorically that the wall doesn’t have to be from the Gulf to the Pacific, but only about 700 miles. That again is reasonable and something that most Americans will support. And who wants chain-migration to include someone’s twelfth cousin’s neighbor’s barber. There is room to maneuver here, and we need a leader like Reagan to bring the parties together. Come on Donald! Be a Ronald!
Post article trivia bonus – In the first paragraph of this article I stated that there have been only 44 Presidents of the US, including Donald Trump. That is not a typo. He should be wearing a baseball cap with the number “44” on it. Why? Because Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd and 24th President of the United States. He is the only President to serve two non-consecutive terms. Two terms, but just one person!! This should really be on jeopardy.
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
The Rebirth of the Blue Dog Democrat
The Rebirth of the Blue Dog Democrat
The View from the Middle
As we look backwards at the results of special elections and look forward to the 2018 midterms, there is a storyline being pushed by Democrats and the mainstream media, but I will suggest to you that their narrative is off target. The bloodhound media has peppered its own trail to the real story and is just hoping that “we the people” won’t notice when the real story surfaces in November. The good news is that the real story, a shift to the center by both parties, will be good for the American people.
Let’s take a look at the first domino to fall – the election of Doug Jones in Alabama. The media would let you believe that Jones was an Elizabeth Warren supporting, Nancy Pelosi loving liberal Democrat. The real story was, first, Roy Moore was a poor, damaged, questionable candidate. Second, Doug Jones was a self-described gun owning, 2nds amendment supporter. He ran on lower taxes and a strong military and against undisciplined spending that leads to deficits. He sounded more like Trump than Hillary. After his victory, he proclaimed that he was NOT going to be a rubber stamp for the ultra-liberal platform in Washington. He’s not an idiot. He knew that he was going to have to run again in November and would probably not get another Roy Moore type candidate in this very conservative district.
Next, let’s look at Conor Lamb in Pennsylvania’s 18th District. He was a major in the Marine Corp and a formal federal prosecutor which would lead you to believe he is a real law and order guy. He also admitted that he would not pass the litmus test for the far left Democrats in DC. He ran as a pro-life, low tax candidate that supported Donald Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum. Again, he’s not stupid. He was running for Congress in steel rich Pennsylvania. Just to make sure that the people of Pennsylvania got the message, he insured them that he would not support Nancy Pelosi for the Speaker of the House if Democrats took over that House in the 2018 midterms.
Finally, let’s talk about Claire McCaskill who’s Senate seat in Missouri is up for grabs this fall. She recently denounced the statements Hillary Clinton made while on her recent trip to India. Hillary suggested the people in America, outside of California and New York, were backward, pessimistic and even feeble. PS to Hillary – You just insulted over 100 million people, including all of the people of Missouri. Later in this same speech Hillary also insulted half the women in the United States by suggesting that they have no minds of their own and just voted as their husbands directed. Claire not only condemned those statements, but admitted that she even understood why many people in her state voted for Trump. That’s not a bad thing to say in a state that Trump won by almost 20 percentage points.
THIS is the story that no one is reporting – the revival of the blue dog Democrat. But what is even more important is the move of the Trump administration to the center. Hopefully, he can drag the entire Republican to the middle with him.
From the beginning, Trump has supported the idea of a huge infrastructure package that most likely has more support from the left than from the right. Why this wasn’t the first legislative effort by his administration is still a mystery to me, but it should reminder all of us of Trump’s past connection to the Democrat party and his moderate potential.
Since he has been in office he has modified his position on both immigration and gun control. Who would have thought that just a year after taking office that Donald Trump would propose a path to citizenship for almost two million dreamers as part of his immigration plan. Not only does this plan triple the number of people covered by DACA, but it jumped right over legalization, a logical compromise position for the right, and offers an actual path to citizenship. My guess is that Democrats will not be able to ignore this offer much longer.
Finally, while Trump says he supports the 2nd Amendment, he has proposed a very moderate if not liberal plan on gun control. You could argue that his plan centers around hardening up soft targets like our schools, but it also proposes to increase in the age to buy a gun, expanded background checks, elimination of bump stocks and confiscation of guns prior to due process. I guess when the NRA and Democrat party are both criticizing a plan, it must be pretty close to perfect.
To me, all of these moves are positive. By November we will find out if my hypothesis is correct. If it is, we may see more compromise and progress in 2019 than ever thought possible. We can only hope that I am seeing something that everyone else is ignoring.
The View from the Middle
As we look backwards at the results of special elections and look forward to the 2018 midterms, there is a storyline being pushed by Democrats and the mainstream media, but I will suggest to you that their narrative is off target. The bloodhound media has peppered its own trail to the real story and is just hoping that “we the people” won’t notice when the real story surfaces in November. The good news is that the real story, a shift to the center by both parties, will be good for the American people.
Let’s take a look at the first domino to fall – the election of Doug Jones in Alabama. The media would let you believe that Jones was an Elizabeth Warren supporting, Nancy Pelosi loving liberal Democrat. The real story was, first, Roy Moore was a poor, damaged, questionable candidate. Second, Doug Jones was a self-described gun owning, 2nds amendment supporter. He ran on lower taxes and a strong military and against undisciplined spending that leads to deficits. He sounded more like Trump than Hillary. After his victory, he proclaimed that he was NOT going to be a rubber stamp for the ultra-liberal platform in Washington. He’s not an idiot. He knew that he was going to have to run again in November and would probably not get another Roy Moore type candidate in this very conservative district.
Next, let’s look at Conor Lamb in Pennsylvania’s 18th District. He was a major in the Marine Corp and a formal federal prosecutor which would lead you to believe he is a real law and order guy. He also admitted that he would not pass the litmus test for the far left Democrats in DC. He ran as a pro-life, low tax candidate that supported Donald Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum. Again, he’s not stupid. He was running for Congress in steel rich Pennsylvania. Just to make sure that the people of Pennsylvania got the message, he insured them that he would not support Nancy Pelosi for the Speaker of the House if Democrats took over that House in the 2018 midterms.
Finally, let’s talk about Claire McCaskill who’s Senate seat in Missouri is up for grabs this fall. She recently denounced the statements Hillary Clinton made while on her recent trip to India. Hillary suggested the people in America, outside of California and New York, were backward, pessimistic and even feeble. PS to Hillary – You just insulted over 100 million people, including all of the people of Missouri. Later in this same speech Hillary also insulted half the women in the United States by suggesting that they have no minds of their own and just voted as their husbands directed. Claire not only condemned those statements, but admitted that she even understood why many people in her state voted for Trump. That’s not a bad thing to say in a state that Trump won by almost 20 percentage points.
THIS is the story that no one is reporting – the revival of the blue dog Democrat. But what is even more important is the move of the Trump administration to the center. Hopefully, he can drag the entire Republican to the middle with him.
From the beginning, Trump has supported the idea of a huge infrastructure package that most likely has more support from the left than from the right. Why this wasn’t the first legislative effort by his administration is still a mystery to me, but it should reminder all of us of Trump’s past connection to the Democrat party and his moderate potential.
Since he has been in office he has modified his position on both immigration and gun control. Who would have thought that just a year after taking office that Donald Trump would propose a path to citizenship for almost two million dreamers as part of his immigration plan. Not only does this plan triple the number of people covered by DACA, but it jumped right over legalization, a logical compromise position for the right, and offers an actual path to citizenship. My guess is that Democrats will not be able to ignore this offer much longer.
Finally, while Trump says he supports the 2nd Amendment, he has proposed a very moderate if not liberal plan on gun control. You could argue that his plan centers around hardening up soft targets like our schools, but it also proposes to increase in the age to buy a gun, expanded background checks, elimination of bump stocks and confiscation of guns prior to due process. I guess when the NRA and Democrat party are both criticizing a plan, it must be pretty close to perfect.
To me, all of these moves are positive. By November we will find out if my hypothesis is correct. If it is, we may see more compromise and progress in 2019 than ever thought possible. We can only hope that I am seeing something that everyone else is ignoring.
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
I Can Only Imagine
I Can Only Imagine
The View from the Middle
For those of you who have been following my blog, you would probably have to admit that I have become a cynic of Washington, politicians, our federal government and maybe even the world in general. I question whether we have been lured away from doing what is right by the pervasive and insidious temptation for self-absorption.
Just when I was bouncing on the bottom of the barrel of pessimism, I went to a movie that reminded me not only of the good in the world, but of the source of that goodness. If you have not seen “I Can Only Imagine” you must go and see this film immediately and take the people you care most about with you.
If the measure of a movie is its ability to arouse your emotions, this film may be the best movie ever made. J. Michael Finley, the actor who played Bart Millard, is amazingly versatile. His acting skills and powerful voice will surprise you, although they should not. He did play in Les Miserables on Broadway.
But make no mistake, the star of the movie is Dennis Quaid. Far from the tough guy, handsome lead parts he has played in the past, Dennis plays the completely hateable father of Bart Millard. He is detestable, pitiable and noble all in the same movie. If the Academy Awards actually rewarded great performances instead of condescending conformity, Dennis Quaid would walk away with the Best Actor award for 2018.
Please accept my counsel and go and see this film as soon as possible and tell everyone you care about to do the same.
After reading almost every one of my articles where I suggest that we need higher integrity in our politicians and media or smaller government in Washington, more personal responsibility and a higher level of civility in our discourse, my wife Brenda reminds me that there is really only one thing this world needs more of. This movie will remind you of what (who) that “one thing” is.
God bless, AND GO SEE THIS MOVIE.
The View from the Middle
For those of you who have been following my blog, you would probably have to admit that I have become a cynic of Washington, politicians, our federal government and maybe even the world in general. I question whether we have been lured away from doing what is right by the pervasive and insidious temptation for self-absorption.
Just when I was bouncing on the bottom of the barrel of pessimism, I went to a movie that reminded me not only of the good in the world, but of the source of that goodness. If you have not seen “I Can Only Imagine” you must go and see this film immediately and take the people you care most about with you.
If the measure of a movie is its ability to arouse your emotions, this film may be the best movie ever made. J. Michael Finley, the actor who played Bart Millard, is amazingly versatile. His acting skills and powerful voice will surprise you, although they should not. He did play in Les Miserables on Broadway.
But make no mistake, the star of the movie is Dennis Quaid. Far from the tough guy, handsome lead parts he has played in the past, Dennis plays the completely hateable father of Bart Millard. He is detestable, pitiable and noble all in the same movie. If the Academy Awards actually rewarded great performances instead of condescending conformity, Dennis Quaid would walk away with the Best Actor award for 2018.
Please accept my counsel and go and see this film as soon as possible and tell everyone you care about to do the same.
After reading almost every one of my articles where I suggest that we need higher integrity in our politicians and media or smaller government in Washington, more personal responsibility and a higher level of civility in our discourse, my wife Brenda reminds me that there is really only one thing this world needs more of. This movie will remind you of what (who) that “one thing” is.
God bless, AND GO SEE THIS MOVIE.
Wednesday, March 14, 2018
Trump's Terrible Tariffs
Trump's Terrible Tariffs
The View from the Middle
Before we even begin to discuss the potential impact of Trump's proposed tariffs on steel and aluminum, we need to understand the backdrop in front of which they must be judged. First, the media and opponents of Trump are going to be hyperbolic and reactionary. Remember Paul Krugman, the NY Times Nobel Prize winning economist? He predicted that the world would go into a global recession "with no end in sight" if Donald Trump became President. Not only was that forecast wildly extreme, it was dead wrong. Sweden may be calling to get his Nobel Prize back.
Nancy Pelosi said that the Trump tax cuts would be "Armageddon" for our economy and the US markets. Of course, just the opposite has happened. And we have all witnessed politicians in Washington predict that the "sky would fall" if our incredibly inefficient and corrupt government ever shut down. The Obama administration even tried to make the 2013 shutdown as painful as possible and we all know what happened. Nothing! The sky remained over our heads and the country's economy continued to plug along at its then mediocre at best pace. The point is, people will try to tell you that the world will end from a spiraling trade war that will ultimately drive us to a nuclear holocaust if we establish these new tariffs. Don't take the bait. The media and politicians have been wrong before, even when they predict cataclysmic results The only shocking thing is that no one holds them accountable for their "crazy as bat guano" prophesies.
The other thing to keep in mind is that Donald Trump is constantly negotiating. Remember the original corporate tax rate he suggested for his tax bill - 15%. Where did it end up? 21%. Look what he has offered in his immigration bill - a path to citizenship for 1.8 million dreamers. That is three times the relief that Obama offered with his DACA executive order. That's to get the other provisions he wants, like the wall. Unless you understand this about Trump you will constantly be missing the opportunity to negotiate back and get things done.
So, with this backdrop, let's do a realistic and sane analysis of what the Trump administration is proposing. Is he recommending the 25% tariff on steel and 10% tariff on aluminum for the jobs they will create? Not really. There are only 83,000 steel jobs in the US today, so even if we quadrupled that business, it would only deliver about 250,000 jobs. Now, those jobs would be good paying manufacturing jobs, but that is not a lot of jobs especially when it would take years to deliver them. I believe this is a national security concern for the administration.
In 1948 the US controlled 40% of the world wide steel production. Today, that share is down to just 5%. In 1972 we produce 32% of the global aluminum volume. Today, that number is down to just 4%. Is this an industry where we want to depend on countries like China, who currently controls about 50% of the world's steel, if something like war puts us in a desperate situation? I say no.
But we must consider the reaction of other countries to these tariff increases as we prepare to invoke them. Will this cause other countries to retaliate with import tax hikes of their own? I think that is unlikely. Currently, we not only have the world's largest economy, but we also have the largest trade deficit of any country at 800 billion dollars. Our exports to China represent about one half of one percent of our economy, while their exports to us represent over four percent of theirs. Virtually every developed country has much more to lose through retaliation than they have to gain.
Plus, our average tariff on goods imported into the US is about half the global average, which says we have plenty of room for increases to even catch up to the rest of the world's average. If we actually applied the concept of reciprocity to the taxation of US imports, we could double our taxes before we even rise to level of average! The likelihood of retaliation is small.
Finally, I believe the Trump is using this increase in tariffs as a negotiation tool, especially with Canada and Mexico. He has already suggested that we will exempt both of these friendly countries from these tariffs if they "treat us fairly" in the new NAFTA agreement, which they are currently in the final stages of developing.
Now, will the cost of goods go up as a result of these tariffs? Of course! Any tax will cause the American shopper to pay more for what they buy. But somehow we don't seem to care, or at least notice, when our federal government is the culprit like when we tax gasoline, cigarettes or large cokes. Even an increase in our federal income taxes will raise the cost of everything we buy (in effect) because it allows us to keep less of what we make. Even if prices don't change, everything is relatively more expensive because we have fewer dollars available to purchase things. We all need to be skeptical when our government taxes us as well as when it chooses to tax foreign governments.
The good news is that these new tariffs might raise the cost of a can of beer by about a penny and the cost of a car by only about $175. Is that too much to pay to insure a safer United States of America?
The View from the Middle
Before we even begin to discuss the potential impact of Trump's proposed tariffs on steel and aluminum, we need to understand the backdrop in front of which they must be judged. First, the media and opponents of Trump are going to be hyperbolic and reactionary. Remember Paul Krugman, the NY Times Nobel Prize winning economist? He predicted that the world would go into a global recession "with no end in sight" if Donald Trump became President. Not only was that forecast wildly extreme, it was dead wrong. Sweden may be calling to get his Nobel Prize back.
Nancy Pelosi said that the Trump tax cuts would be "Armageddon" for our economy and the US markets. Of course, just the opposite has happened. And we have all witnessed politicians in Washington predict that the "sky would fall" if our incredibly inefficient and corrupt government ever shut down. The Obama administration even tried to make the 2013 shutdown as painful as possible and we all know what happened. Nothing! The sky remained over our heads and the country's economy continued to plug along at its then mediocre at best pace. The point is, people will try to tell you that the world will end from a spiraling trade war that will ultimately drive us to a nuclear holocaust if we establish these new tariffs. Don't take the bait. The media and politicians have been wrong before, even when they predict cataclysmic results The only shocking thing is that no one holds them accountable for their "crazy as bat guano" prophesies.
The other thing to keep in mind is that Donald Trump is constantly negotiating. Remember the original corporate tax rate he suggested for his tax bill - 15%. Where did it end up? 21%. Look what he has offered in his immigration bill - a path to citizenship for 1.8 million dreamers. That is three times the relief that Obama offered with his DACA executive order. That's to get the other provisions he wants, like the wall. Unless you understand this about Trump you will constantly be missing the opportunity to negotiate back and get things done.
So, with this backdrop, let's do a realistic and sane analysis of what the Trump administration is proposing. Is he recommending the 25% tariff on steel and 10% tariff on aluminum for the jobs they will create? Not really. There are only 83,000 steel jobs in the US today, so even if we quadrupled that business, it would only deliver about 250,000 jobs. Now, those jobs would be good paying manufacturing jobs, but that is not a lot of jobs especially when it would take years to deliver them. I believe this is a national security concern for the administration.
In 1948 the US controlled 40% of the world wide steel production. Today, that share is down to just 5%. In 1972 we produce 32% of the global aluminum volume. Today, that number is down to just 4%. Is this an industry where we want to depend on countries like China, who currently controls about 50% of the world's steel, if something like war puts us in a desperate situation? I say no.
But we must consider the reaction of other countries to these tariff increases as we prepare to invoke them. Will this cause other countries to retaliate with import tax hikes of their own? I think that is unlikely. Currently, we not only have the world's largest economy, but we also have the largest trade deficit of any country at 800 billion dollars. Our exports to China represent about one half of one percent of our economy, while their exports to us represent over four percent of theirs. Virtually every developed country has much more to lose through retaliation than they have to gain.
Plus, our average tariff on goods imported into the US is about half the global average, which says we have plenty of room for increases to even catch up to the rest of the world's average. If we actually applied the concept of reciprocity to the taxation of US imports, we could double our taxes before we even rise to level of average! The likelihood of retaliation is small.
Finally, I believe the Trump is using this increase in tariffs as a negotiation tool, especially with Canada and Mexico. He has already suggested that we will exempt both of these friendly countries from these tariffs if they "treat us fairly" in the new NAFTA agreement, which they are currently in the final stages of developing.
Now, will the cost of goods go up as a result of these tariffs? Of course! Any tax will cause the American shopper to pay more for what they buy. But somehow we don't seem to care, or at least notice, when our federal government is the culprit like when we tax gasoline, cigarettes or large cokes. Even an increase in our federal income taxes will raise the cost of everything we buy (in effect) because it allows us to keep less of what we make. Even if prices don't change, everything is relatively more expensive because we have fewer dollars available to purchase things. We all need to be skeptical when our government taxes us as well as when it chooses to tax foreign governments.
The good news is that these new tariffs might raise the cost of a can of beer by about a penny and the cost of a car by only about $175. Is that too much to pay to insure a safer United States of America?
Friday, February 16, 2018
School Shootings - Of Hearts and Guns
School Shootings - Of Hearts and Guns
The View from the Middle
Did you know that a 30 second commercial for this year's Super Bowl cost five million dollars? That's over $166,000 per second. Now why do you think these companies are willing to pay that much money to send such a short message about their products to the Super Bowl audience, half of which are probably going to be making a sandwich while it's running? The answer is that they expect to persuade the viewers to spend even more than that amount on tortilla chips, beer, cars or laundry detergent as a result of that investment. You might think this is an odd way to start a conversation about school shootings, but hang in there with me.
Each time this country experiences another devastating, senseless act of violence in one of our schools, our politicians' express condolences and offer prayers for about 30 seconds until they start making the same old, tired political arguments about gun control. I'm convinced that these politicians are actually not as interested in having an impact on this issue as they are in scoring political points with their political bases. The argument rages. The bases are incensed, and nothing happens because we don't want to see two of the obvious causes to this epidemic
One of these two causes is the violence in our entertainment industry. If you haven't personally witnessed the realistic violence in the video game industry, I encourage you to get educated. Just check out Manhunt, Postal or Dead by Daylight. If these don't frighten you enough, check out School Shooter: North American Tour 2012.
Now, just intertwine these violent visuals with violent rap music that is becoming pervasive in our society and we get a deadly concoction for children whose brains are not fully developed or for those who are mentally disturbed. These songs glamorize violence and murder and degrade women to the point of disgust as they refer to them as "bitches" and "whores". If Hillary Clinton is looking for real misogyny anywhere in this country, she can look to the rap music industry, but somehow, I don't think she will.
What if companies could figure out how to get millions of young adults to sit in front of a computer for hours on end (not just 30 seconds) and listen to or watch messages about their products. Do you think these companies would expect to influence these young pliable minds? Any person who doesn't expect someone who is inundated with these violent images and music for hours on end to exhibit similar behavior is in complete denial. But there is a lot of money in these games and music, so no one brings this issue up.
Then, on top of pumping our young people's brains with violence and death, we have also decided to take God out of our schools. Why would you want a Christian God, whose laws forbid lying, stealing and murder, expelled from our schools? Why would you want a God, who encourages charity to the less fortunate, demands honesty and kindness and was one of the first and most courageous feminists, driven out of our schools. We pump our children's minds with filth and savagery and intentionally remove messages of mercy, selflessness and accountability, and we are surprised when we get things like school shootings.
I am a gun owner, but I'm OK with legislation that will keep weapons of war outs of the hands of those too young or mentally disturbed to comprehend the consequences of using such devices, but I don't believe that is near the most important aspect of this issue. Even if we eliminate all guns, which is never going to happen, people will always find a way to kill. They'll run over people with cars. They'll stab them with knives or blow them up with bombs. These tragedies will continue to happen until we change the hearts of our people.
In closing I want to add that I totally disagree with Joy Bahar's condescending smear of Vice President Mike Pence. We need more people talking to Jesus, and if he decides to answer, I'm way OK with that.
The View from the Middle
Did you know that a 30 second commercial for this year's Super Bowl cost five million dollars? That's over $166,000 per second. Now why do you think these companies are willing to pay that much money to send such a short message about their products to the Super Bowl audience, half of which are probably going to be making a sandwich while it's running? The answer is that they expect to persuade the viewers to spend even more than that amount on tortilla chips, beer, cars or laundry detergent as a result of that investment. You might think this is an odd way to start a conversation about school shootings, but hang in there with me.
Each time this country experiences another devastating, senseless act of violence in one of our schools, our politicians' express condolences and offer prayers for about 30 seconds until they start making the same old, tired political arguments about gun control. I'm convinced that these politicians are actually not as interested in having an impact on this issue as they are in scoring political points with their political bases. The argument rages. The bases are incensed, and nothing happens because we don't want to see two of the obvious causes to this epidemic
One of these two causes is the violence in our entertainment industry. If you haven't personally witnessed the realistic violence in the video game industry, I encourage you to get educated. Just check out Manhunt, Postal or Dead by Daylight. If these don't frighten you enough, check out School Shooter: North American Tour 2012.
Now, just intertwine these violent visuals with violent rap music that is becoming pervasive in our society and we get a deadly concoction for children whose brains are not fully developed or for those who are mentally disturbed. These songs glamorize violence and murder and degrade women to the point of disgust as they refer to them as "bitches" and "whores". If Hillary Clinton is looking for real misogyny anywhere in this country, she can look to the rap music industry, but somehow, I don't think she will.
What if companies could figure out how to get millions of young adults to sit in front of a computer for hours on end (not just 30 seconds) and listen to or watch messages about their products. Do you think these companies would expect to influence these young pliable minds? Any person who doesn't expect someone who is inundated with these violent images and music for hours on end to exhibit similar behavior is in complete denial. But there is a lot of money in these games and music, so no one brings this issue up.
Then, on top of pumping our young people's brains with violence and death, we have also decided to take God out of our schools. Why would you want a Christian God, whose laws forbid lying, stealing and murder, expelled from our schools? Why would you want a God, who encourages charity to the less fortunate, demands honesty and kindness and was one of the first and most courageous feminists, driven out of our schools. We pump our children's minds with filth and savagery and intentionally remove messages of mercy, selflessness and accountability, and we are surprised when we get things like school shootings.
I am a gun owner, but I'm OK with legislation that will keep weapons of war outs of the hands of those too young or mentally disturbed to comprehend the consequences of using such devices, but I don't believe that is near the most important aspect of this issue. Even if we eliminate all guns, which is never going to happen, people will always find a way to kill. They'll run over people with cars. They'll stab them with knives or blow them up with bombs. These tragedies will continue to happen until we change the hearts of our people.
In closing I want to add that I totally disagree with Joy Bahar's condescending smear of Vice President Mike Pence. We need more people talking to Jesus, and if he decides to answer, I'm way OK with that.
Wednesday, February 7, 2018
The Nunes Memo and Trump Hatred Disorder
Trump Hatred Disorder & The Nunes Memo
The View from the Middle
What are liberal politicians, the lame stream media and the establishment swamp in Washington DC willing to ignore because they suffer from Trump Hatred Disorder? One indication that they are willing to disregard much is that Trump receives only 5% positive coverage from the mainstream media compared to over 40% positive coverage for Barack Obama. Sure, the President brings much of the smearing on himself as he punches down on celebrities, the media and his political opponents, but this kind of distorted coverage seems malicious. Even George W. Bush received almost 30% positive news content, and the media really disliked him. If they honestly reported on the economy and Trump's contributions to it his positives would at least get into the 20's.
And now we have the dueling memos about the FBI's request to surveil Carter Page, an unpaid campaign advisor for Donald Trump until September of 2016. Don't fall for the strawman arguments that this is somehow connected to the Mueller investigation. That storyline is just a distraction to the real story which is about the weaponization of our government agencies to spy on an American Citizen and then, through the unmasking process, to perform backhanded surveillance on an American presidential candidate. We should all be insisting that the FBI act according to its reputation for fair and unbiased law enforcement.
None of us should be willing to overlook the questionable behavior by high ranking FBI officials like James Comey, or Peter Strzok and his lover Lisa Page or Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie who actually worked for Fusion GPS, or Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. If there are no issues with their behavior within the FBI, why are all of these people either demoted or gone?
Who can forget James Comey's schizophrenic televised performance where he indicted Hillary Clinton for her handling of her top-secret emails before he suggested no prosecutor would ever bring charges against her? That thought was quickly refuted by at least two former Attorneys General. Then he admitted to leaking government information to his buddy at Columbia University so that he could leak it to the press. Why anyone is shocked at his removal is mind boggling.
Then you have the bizarre anti-Trump texts between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. If this was totally innocent or normal activity, why did Robert Mueller remove Strzok from his investigative team? And why was Bruce Ohr demoted. There are red flags flying all over the place here, but the lame stream media happily ignores all of these facts and suggests that anyone who questions their actions is simply trying to tear down the reputation of the FBI. I would argue that Comey, Strzok, Page, Ohr and McCabe are the culprits in ruining the honor of the FBI.
And now we have the Nunes memo that highlights inappropriate and likely illegal activity at the highest levels of the FBI in their request for a FISA warrant on Carter Page. The lame stream media and the Democrats are using misdirection to keep the public's eye off of the real issue. First, they claimed this memo would create a constitutional crisis if released. Next, they questioned the motive of the authors. They suggested the authors were just trying to destroy the reputation of the FBI. Finally, they suggested that the Dossier was just a small part of the FISA request vs. the essential role that Andrew McCabe is reported to have claimed. These are all hoaxes intended to keep you from even considering the real problem, but I'm going to reveal the real issue to you right now!!
The REAL ISSUE is that the Steele dossier was part of the FISA warrant request at all. James Comey testified in front of the Senate and told the President of the United States that portions of the dossier were "salacious and unverified". That description is actually generous, since much of the dossier has been proven to be totally inaccurate. Some people will argue that SOME of the dossier has been verified. Yah, Carter Page is a person and Russia is a country. Don't be distracted.
Fortunately for all of us, the FBI has guidelines called "The Woods Procedures" that layout what can and can't be included in a FISA warrant request. These procedures, named after the FBI official who produced them, requires that there cannot be even a single unverified fact presented to a judge in order to get a warrant to electronically surveil an American citizen. Including the Steele dossier in this FISA court warrant request violated the FBI's own guidelines and was most likely illegal. People should go to jail, and I'm not talking about Carter Page.
The View from the Middle
What are liberal politicians, the lame stream media and the establishment swamp in Washington DC willing to ignore because they suffer from Trump Hatred Disorder? One indication that they are willing to disregard much is that Trump receives only 5% positive coverage from the mainstream media compared to over 40% positive coverage for Barack Obama. Sure, the President brings much of the smearing on himself as he punches down on celebrities, the media and his political opponents, but this kind of distorted coverage seems malicious. Even George W. Bush received almost 30% positive news content, and the media really disliked him. If they honestly reported on the economy and Trump's contributions to it his positives would at least get into the 20's.
And now we have the dueling memos about the FBI's request to surveil Carter Page, an unpaid campaign advisor for Donald Trump until September of 2016. Don't fall for the strawman arguments that this is somehow connected to the Mueller investigation. That storyline is just a distraction to the real story which is about the weaponization of our government agencies to spy on an American Citizen and then, through the unmasking process, to perform backhanded surveillance on an American presidential candidate. We should all be insisting that the FBI act according to its reputation for fair and unbiased law enforcement.
None of us should be willing to overlook the questionable behavior by high ranking FBI officials like James Comey, or Peter Strzok and his lover Lisa Page or Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie who actually worked for Fusion GPS, or Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. If there are no issues with their behavior within the FBI, why are all of these people either demoted or gone?
Who can forget James Comey's schizophrenic televised performance where he indicted Hillary Clinton for her handling of her top-secret emails before he suggested no prosecutor would ever bring charges against her? That thought was quickly refuted by at least two former Attorneys General. Then he admitted to leaking government information to his buddy at Columbia University so that he could leak it to the press. Why anyone is shocked at his removal is mind boggling.
Then you have the bizarre anti-Trump texts between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. If this was totally innocent or normal activity, why did Robert Mueller remove Strzok from his investigative team? And why was Bruce Ohr demoted. There are red flags flying all over the place here, but the lame stream media happily ignores all of these facts and suggests that anyone who questions their actions is simply trying to tear down the reputation of the FBI. I would argue that Comey, Strzok, Page, Ohr and McCabe are the culprits in ruining the honor of the FBI.
And now we have the Nunes memo that highlights inappropriate and likely illegal activity at the highest levels of the FBI in their request for a FISA warrant on Carter Page. The lame stream media and the Democrats are using misdirection to keep the public's eye off of the real issue. First, they claimed this memo would create a constitutional crisis if released. Next, they questioned the motive of the authors. They suggested the authors were just trying to destroy the reputation of the FBI. Finally, they suggested that the Dossier was just a small part of the FISA request vs. the essential role that Andrew McCabe is reported to have claimed. These are all hoaxes intended to keep you from even considering the real problem, but I'm going to reveal the real issue to you right now!!
The REAL ISSUE is that the Steele dossier was part of the FISA warrant request at all. James Comey testified in front of the Senate and told the President of the United States that portions of the dossier were "salacious and unverified". That description is actually generous, since much of the dossier has been proven to be totally inaccurate. Some people will argue that SOME of the dossier has been verified. Yah, Carter Page is a person and Russia is a country. Don't be distracted.
Fortunately for all of us, the FBI has guidelines called "The Woods Procedures" that layout what can and can't be included in a FISA warrant request. These procedures, named after the FBI official who produced them, requires that there cannot be even a single unverified fact presented to a judge in order to get a warrant to electronically surveil an American citizen. Including the Steele dossier in this FISA court warrant request violated the FBI's own guidelines and was most likely illegal. People should go to jail, and I'm not talking about Carter Page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)