244. Not just how, but why Clinton is losing ground

Bernie Sanders lost the primary caucus by the closest of margins. But if you watched the post-election speeches, there were different atmospheres in the two camps.

Clinton gave her typical cadence-ridden speech and her supporters laughed, clapped, and smiled. She carefully hinted at victory even before the evidence supported that claim, but more notably she looked relieved. Since Sanders is expected to win in New Hampshire, a loss would have been devastating when less than a year ago she had a very comfortable lead.

Conversely, in the Sanders camp… wow!

Bernie Sanders walked to the podium to the loud chant of “Feel the Bern, feel the Bern!” The excitement, even in a narrow loss, was unbelievable. Sanders could barely get a word in. His commitment to lead a revolution threw the crowd into a frenzy.

While I certainly would vote for Clinton in the general election, as she is probably the most experienced candidate in history, and far better than anything the Republicans can nominate, I have longed for socio-economic reform. I was a big supporter of Sanders even before he announced his candidacy. His message has consistently been spread across decades of service. He is a passionate fighter for the middle and lower classes.

The middle class been dwindling for decades. The standard of living has decreased even as people work longer and harder. Most rely on large amounts of credit. Student loans hang over graduates for years. Our health care system often means one critical illness creates years of debt or even bankruptcy. The minimum wage is not only unsustainable for anyone to survive on, it keeps other wages down.

On the other side, partisan decisions like Citizens United and campaign Super PACs have ensured that our democracy will be at the mercy of the wealthy. The inequality of wealth is shameful for any country, let alone any one that claims to be a Christian nation. The game — that of hindering socio-economic mobility — has been purposely rigged. A health care system out of control not only pours profits into corporate hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies, it also keeps wages down as companies keep paying more of the employee share for medical benefits.

Yet nearly every single candidate over the last couple decades, and probably longer, whether Republican or Democrat, claims to be a fighter for the middle class. How can that be? How can they fail so miserably term after term in improving the lives of the middle class?

The answer is not just partisan politics. They fail because their political careers are directly related to the power of wealthy corporations. And the wealthy are not interested in improving the lives of the middle class. As long as we have just enough to get by and enough credit to buy their products, they are winning.

I believe Clinton has good intentions and is moderately progressive, but she is part of the political machine that is destroying our democracy. She is content to move the country forward slowly. She is unwilling to give up her Super PACs. She once commented she was broke after husband Bill’s presidency, which is ridiculous considering their ability to make millions for simply giving a speech to wealthy corporations. And even though Sanders moved on from her emails, it does bring forth a question about, at best, a terrible lapse in judgement or, at worst, arrogance and secrecy. On many of the issues, she has an authenticity problem.

Sanders wants a revolution. He doesn’t care about his ego or popularity. He isn’t bought by corporate interest nor is he willing to accept meaningless compromises that only appear to help the lower and middle classes. He is willing to take on powerful industries and the one percent, which are negatively affecting both our economics and democracy.

When Sanders announced his presidency, I immediately proclaimed support. Many people on Facebook and other social media laughed at my backing. Sanders is a “socialist,” has no chance of winning, and too old, they said. From the beginning, I knew his campaign was a longshot but relished that his message on one of the country’s most important issues, that of wealth inequality, would finally be heard. In that respect, he has already won and his popularity is moving Clinton left. And, more so, his young supporters have heard his message and may offer help move the country forward as they get older.

Trump supporters say they like that he tells it like it is and is using his own money to finance his campaign. The trouble is Trump’s message. Sanders speaks the truth with principle and message. His passion is the American people and the most important issues affecting their lives — such as income equality, national health care, and the democratic policy.

243. Vacationing in the land of the inglorious past

My wife and I recently returned from a wonderful vacation, one that took us from this country’s capital to the days of yesteryear.

We started in Washington, D.C, and National Harbor, visiting the Capitol building, Library of Congress, and Arlington National Cemetery. From there we visited George Washington’s Mount Vernon on our way to Richmond and the old Confederate White House. Next was the city of Charleston, S.C., and two amazing plantations, Boone Hall and Mongolia Gardens. Finally, we ended in Savannah, Ga., briefly touring the historic and popular city.

While the sights were often breathtaking and colossal, we are enamored with the history and the story of it all. Our trip, inclusive of tour guides and museums, took us back in time from the Revolutionary War through the Civil War. Depending on place and perspective, is was a romantic time — and while simpler, perhaps, it was much more difficult.

This country, from its declaration of independence to the civil war (and beyond), has morally battled social etiquette, religious teaching, and economic interests. The most ominous part of our visits were the old slave homes that still stand on some of the plantations. To see and imagine what life was like for millions of slaves, who upon capture had their lives and those of future generations changed forever, is a soul-searching question of the limits of human brutality.

There is enough dread in slavery, and cruelty in the treatment of Indians, to forever dismiss any moral superiority that we have come to proclaim and stand upon. While the Revolutionary War was a fight for freedom and against colonialism, there was never a time — from then until now — that all men (and women) are considered to be created equal. The founding fathers were brilliant, but many of them were also hypocrites. How could they start a revolution about freedom, individual rights, and the injustice of taxation while at the same time enslaving an entire race of people under miserable conditions?

The trip across the Atlantic alone was more than anyone deserves in a lifetime. The boats were loaded to capacity, with space limited to a couple of feet per slave. They were abused, raped, and a large percentage died on the trip. Others committed suicide.

Those who survived were sold like cattle, striped and branded. Families were often separated. Slaves were expensive, many estimates in today’s dollars are more than $40,000. Work days were from sunrise to sunset. At Mount Vernon, it was noted that the slaves rarely ate meat, and when they did, they got the heart or intestine of an animal. The fortunate slaves lived in small rooms, often by the dozen. It became a criminal act to teach them to read, and those who tried to escape became a harsh example.

I often hear that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. It is sort of a technicality, open to interpretation, and varied by region and even individual. The South regarded it as a second revolution, to break away from the overbearing Union as the colonies broke away from England years before.

However, even if the issue was not the moral judgment on slavery, it was the economic impact of slavery. Slavery made a lot of people very, very wealthy. And, for competitors in non-slave states, it was an unfair competitive advantage. Plantations were large, beautiful, nearly self-contained communities — and only possible with slave labor. Southern cash crops such as rice and cotton bought land owners great wealth but also required intensive labor. Indeed, when slavery was abolished, many a plantation fell.

It’s the same economic system we have seen throughout history and practiced today — nothing has changed. Corporations seek the least expensive labor costs available to create large profits for their shareholders. It’s the principle of minimizing labor costs, giving the working class just enough to get by to prevent protest and uprising.

And, of course, many times that cheap labor force is practiced today as outsourcing. Instead of bringing the slaves here, now our corporations go to them.

242. War and terrorism breed war and terrorism

In its simplest definition, terrorism is “the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” In this respect, terrorism can cover a lot of situations and motivations, and only slightly differs from war, which is defined as “a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.”

There seems to be a fragile moral distinction between the collateral damage, that is the American term for the death of innocent civilians in a war between countries, and the innocent killed by terrorist organizations. The latter seems to kill far fewer individuals, but incites panic and instills fear in not only the general citizenry but also prompts well-supported national retaliation. Intentionally, there is something more terrifying about unsuspected violence and knowingly being part of a country that is being attacked.

For example, the Al-Qaeda attacks on the United States led to more than 3,000 deaths. However, the civilians violently killed in Afghanistan in retaliation numbered 26,000 according the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University. The same report lists Iraqi civilian deaths at 165,000 for a war started after the 9/11 attacks but still without reason.

As someone who loves my country, and has nothing but the utmost respect and appreciation for our courageous soldiers, I have difficulty reconciling the amount violence and death this country has engaged in, supported or funded over its relatively short history. An unbiased review of American history is troublesome.

To understand the real story behind the country’s founding and subsequent protection of American interest, I would strongly recommend two books: A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn and The Untold History of The United States by Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick. They are intense and lengthy reads but so powerful in refuting much of the propaganda in traditional text books.

“What struck me as I began to study history was how nationalist fervor--inculcated from childhood on by pledges of allegiance, national anthems, flags waving and rhetoric blowing--permeated the educational systems of all countries, including our own. I wonder now how the foreign policies of the United States would look if we wiped out the national boundaries of the world . . . Then we could never drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, or napalm on Vietnam, or wage war anywhere, because wars, especially in our time, are always wars against children, indeed our children,” wrote Zinn.

American hypocrisy started upon our arrival as colonists to this country were perhaps the original illegal immigrants. The soon-to-be Americans steadfastly took this land from the Indians though brutal wars and broken peace and land agreements.

Zinn noted the atrocities, “Angered when fellow Indians were induced to cede a great tract of land to the United States government, Tecumseh organized in 1811 an Indian gathering of five thousand . . . and told them: “Let the white race perish. They seize your land; they corrupt your women; they trample on the ashes of your dead! Back whence they came, upon a trail of blood, they must be driven.””

Obviously the white Americans were not driven from this land and with them they brought slavery and some of the most despicable forms of human treatment ever endured on this planet.

“African slavery lacked two elements that made American slavery the most cruel form of slavery in history: the frenzy for limitless profit that comes from capitalistic agriculture; the reduction of the slave to less than human status by the use of racial hatred, with that relentless clarity based on color, where white was master, black was slave,” Zinn wrote.

Perhaps the most justified war was World War II, in which the United States was brought late into the war and helped the Russians finish off the Germans and take revenge on Japan. However, the United States, for all the talk of nuclear weapons, is still the only country to drop an atomic bomb—doing so unnecessarily on two Japan cities, killing hundreds of thousands of individuals.

“Most American view World War II nostalgically as the "good war," in which the United States and its allies triumphed over German Nazism, Italian fascism, and Japanese militarism. The rest of the world remembers it as the bloodiest war in human history. By the time it was over, more than 60 million people lay dead, including 27 million Russians . . . ,” wrote Oliver Stone.

Prosperity can be fragile and United State governments, whether run by Republican or Democratic administrations, have been, and continue to be, fully committed to protecting American interests around the world. That protection has included the overthrowing of defiant governments, instilling revolution against those governments or providing arms to those already in rebellion. The amount innocent deaths in the protection of interest are perhaps incalculable.

Zinn likewise comments, “We are not hated because we practice democracy, value freedom, or uphold human rights. We are hated because our government denies these things to people in Third World countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations. That hatred we have sown has come back to haunt us in the form of terrorism.”

The concerning issue for me is that the United States has been responsible, since its origin, for a terrible number of deaths, including of millions of “collateral damage.” I’ve not even included any consideration of the Vietnam, Korean or many other American conflicts. The war in Iraq has been a global embarrassment, not only by the unnecessary deaths but also the trillions of wasted tax-payer dollars. Yet American patriotism lacks perspective and behaves arrogantly, with some sort of moral superiority, projecting stereotypes and racism on others—as though killing for a distorted view of religion is worse than killing to protect economic interest.

At some point, the world—not just the United States—needs to evolve. War and terrorism just creates anger and inspires more war and terrorism. While war on dedicated terrorist organizations is unavoidable, it should not come at the expense of civilian fatalities. And wars to further economic interests, whether directly or indirectly, to preserve the greed of the wealthy at the expense of the poor in third world countries or otherwise is never acceptable.

Life is precious and should not be discarded so readily. The number of deaths on a report doesn’t tell the story of broken families and shattered hearts.

241. GOP debates have been a bit of a fiasco

I think it was John Kasich who said in one of the earlier debates that some of his Republican counterparts were living in a fantasy world. He might be right.

I have watched all of the Republican debates thus far and it’s been a bit of a fiasco. From Trump’s repeating rants to the whole lot of them complaining that the questions were unfair, the debates have made for good reality television.

As I mentioned previously, my choice for president is Bernie Sanders. If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, I will probably vote for her. But I am still interested about who will win the Republican nomination. They could earn my vote, but I also want to know where the country is headed if one of them is elected president.

Despite my strong values and opinions, I enjoy the discussion of important issues. I get to test my beliefs and sometimes even change them. I like considering the arguments.

But some of the arguments. Sheesh.

Most want to repeal Obamacare, but other than a “free market system,” nobody seems to offer a solid alternative. A free market healthcare system is ridiculous—this system is so big, convoluted, confusing and intertwined with the protected interest of so many powerful organizations and the government (Medicaid and Medicare) that it could never work. There is only one rational alternative and that is national healthcare. It’s not perfect, but my preferred option.

Of course, any talk of the government getting bigger segues to socialism, a favorite topic in the debates. I am pretty convinced that Republicans still don’t understand what socialism really means (Carly Fiorina kept using crony capitalism and socialism in the same answer) and their political exaggerations only damage the conversation. Several candidates want to cut the size of government (and presumably put lots of people out of work) by cutting departments like the IRS and Chamber of Commerce, while increasing the size of the military.

The military talk is quite frankly a bit frightening. Only Rand Paul called out the conflicting notion of conservatism and small government while increasing defense spending. The “tough talk,” is getting annoying, plays on the fear factor and it seems like further conflict is inevitable. With a military budget that dwarfs the rest of the world (four times larger than China, the next biggest and about eight times the size of Putin’s Russia), I am not sure how much bigger it needs to get.

Taxes. Republicans understand the flat tax as well as they understand socialism. In a flat tax system of 10 percent, clearly it is comprehensible that paying $5,000 on a salary $50,000 has far more of a quality of life impact than paying $1 million on $10 million in earnings. Surprisingly to some, our progressive system is much more fair, everyone pays the same amount of taxes based on earnings—there are just too many loopholes and too low a tax rate on high wage earners. A three-page tax form is a nice thought, but more fantasy—it’s never going to happen. Lower taxes are a great message, I would love less taxes with the same government services—trouble is, as usual, the disagreements are about what to cut.

As for the candidates themselves, the stump speeches are getting repetitive. Donald Trump, who got off to a strong start and has a dedicated base, is clearly starting to stumble. He is vague and rude, and probably lives in the biggest fantasy land of them all. Billions of dollars can do that to a man. He’s becoming a farce and would have done better with a short primary season. I am disappointed in Jeb Bush and sometimes feel sorry for him in the debates. He seems out of his element. For someone so connected and who had two immediate family members serve in the White House, he is surprisingly ambiguous. I would expect that he would lead the conversation with details and experience—as John Kasich has done.

Ben Carson is an interesting person with obvious intelligence. But he also believes some weird stuff and there are legitimate questions about his past. The line about asking what he said in tenth grade was great and applicable, but he still makes me nervous. The vetting process is going to get much more intense. I thought Chris Christie would be more of a factor, but his obsession with Hillary Clinton means it is time for him and the others on the preliminary stage to drop out.

Carly Fiorina may have some talent, but I don’t think she has the demeanor or qualifications to be president. She would do well with some time in a lesser elected position before running for president. Ted Cruz seems to be improving but is another with some weird positions. I think Rand Paul is the most consistent, though conservative, of the candidates— and I respect that.

My prediction is that the nomination is going to Marco Rubio. Although there are some concerns, he has the charisma and preparedness to win the nomination. He reminds me a bit of Barack Obama and his quick rise in the Democratic party. Sometimes less is more and that Rubio doesn’t have a lengthy record to defend might help him. Others are starting to attack him, so he seems to have gotten their attention. As the field shrinks (and let’s hope it does), Rubio is going to get more time to speak and I think will outshine the others.