Is the Trump Derangement Syndrome valid?

 If you are progressive or even politically neutral it is very difficult to avoid really serious criticism of Donald Trump and his gang.  They shrug and dismiss it all as merely "Trump Derangement Syndrome" meaning the critics are all deluded.  Their supporters nod in agreement.  On my side of the table this is outrageous.

 It is implied that any criticism is irrelevant.  Democracy doesn't work that way.  We don't want a king or dictator to make all our decisions. 

Rather than using carefully thought out policy ideas Trump seems to prefer mocking people and ideas that stand in his way.  Lying is a tool to make his points.  Being provocative seems to appeal to a segment of his audience who find him entertaining and serious policy debates boring, if not offensive.

After his victory in 2016 he said he loved the "poorly educated" and now we learn he wants to close the Education Department.  To my progressive nature it seems obvious education is the key to progress.  Most poor people realize they would be better off if they had more education, however there are also many who resent educated people who seem to boss them.

Rather than debate policy issues he prefers to mock in an attempt to de-humanize.  He has nicknames for some of his strongest opponents---Kamala Harris (Laffin Kamala), Joe Biden (Sleepy Joe), Elaine Chao (Coco Chow), Liz Cheney (Low IQ Warhawk), Hilary Clinton (Crooked Hilary) and Jack Smith (Deranged Jack Smith).  Outsiders might find these derogatory addresses are a poor way to develop trust. His supporters look forward to what innovative insults he comes up with.  Breaking the law has no consequences for Trump, but his precedents bode ill for our future.

Catering to prejudices with such remarks as "shithole countries"  and "very fine people on both sides".

Many of his actual policies are harmful.  Climate change is real and guaranteed to get worse, but Trump has aligned himself with the fossil fuel financial interests.  He feels the very rich are hard done by and it would be better if they paid less in taxes and so what if the poor lose tools to improve their lives.   He expresses support for international abusers of democracy (some who kill their opposition).

I am sure that most of the people in my choir can think of many (many) examples how the voters have been abused and that "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is a pathetic defense of his actions.  Thank you, however few you might be to let me rant.  Maybe Hilary Clinton was not wrong.

More on what I consider essential--education  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2011/11/education-and-our-future.html

Politics Not Your Bag? Not interested?

As we approach a presidential debate  many people perk up and decide maybe they should pay some attention, but some still don't pay heed. There are enough non- voters to change the results and for those who do vote, but pay little attention make mistakes against their best interest.

Too bad if you are not interested in politics as there are smart people wanting to pick your pockets and change your life style.  Some of it will be very subtle, some might be a news item on some media platform and some might be in the rarely read fine print.  There is also even more likely to be loads of misleading and falsified information readily available.

Have you heard some leaders, especially of the conservative variety promise to do away with regulations.  Perhaps you have no problem identifying rules that bog down businesses.  Have you also heard about environmental rules being dismissed?  How about gun regulations that fail to slow down mass shootings?  Many of the regulations are really protections that businesses find hurting their profits.  See  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/11/when-public-that-means-you-are-lied-to.html 

Did you think the Trump tax reductions had no harmful effects?  Two effects should be noted:  first it increased inequality and second increased the national debt.  Why?  So rich donators could save huge amounts of money and the government would not be able to spread their money for the benefit of the masses (who helped them make their fortunes)

Ronald Reagan said the government is not the solution, it is the problem.  What is needed is educated co-operation to solve real problems.  He also did away with a Fairness policy that the media was supposed to adhere to.  He also was quite proud of beating down a union.  A bit of an explanation:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2024/05/monopolies.html

The Russians and Chinese are very slick and feel just dividing Americans (and other westerners) weakens their opposition. To learn more about Russian influence check http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2022/10/freezing-order.html and check the links for more supporting information.  To learn more about Chinese influence check:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2022/04/china-unbound.html

Electoral systems are critical to gain power.  As the American declaration of independence was being worked out rich slave owners realized they could be outvoted by the northerners.  The rich, white northerners needed these southerners to strengthen their own fight against the British so they agreed to some of the demands.  They wanted black slaves to count as 3/5 humans allowing a high count for the House of Representatives with each state having two Senators regardless of population.  They also wanted an electoral college to be set up that gave them greater leverage than their population merited.  The result was the first presidents (except for John Adams) were southerners.  In the past couple of decades the higher voter percentage has lost to the electoral college (witness Al Gore and Hilary Clinton).

You may have heard of "divide and conquer" the great strategy of colonizers.  They always tried to divide their opposition.  The FPTP (first past the post) system gives the advantage to the plurality winner against the majority.  It is not necessary to get 50% so it can be strategic to try to persuade some segments and ignore others.

The electoral system decided on by those able to do so affects everyone.  A lot of decisions like to go to war or not are binary.  But in reality there are usually more than two views on most issues.  Those who obtained power on the current electoral system will resist change, they in effect have a conflict of interest.  Divide and conquer is a tested method of dealing with opposition and money/power. 

To me climate change is THE mortal threat to mankind and requires sacrifices by everyone to make life bearable.  Far too many ordinary people see only the short term, while some of the wealthy see an opportunity to increase their profits.  Dealing with this problem requires political involvement.

Taxes are resented by all.  In effect they enable the government to provide an infrastructure that benefits everyone, but also they do spread the wealth.   If the resources of the poor are reduced they cannot afford to be profitable consumers and most would expect higher compensation for their labor and many fledgling businesses would never get started.   

How should the responsibility for taxing be divided?  If not perceived as fair many will rebel.  Modern governments realize that people need some sort of minimum to survive and taxes should reflect that wealthier people (who in some ways benefit more from government expenses) can afford to pay a larger share.  Some wealthy people advocate a flat rate meaning the poor would pay a higher percentage of the overall taxes.  Capital gains affect both poor and rich, but honestly the wealthy are more interested.  They argue that investments must be encouraged for society to advance and I agree.  Poor people have improved their lot by investing their resources.  An element of progressive rates should be seen as fair.  It is much more difficult for the poor to spare money for investments and everyone should be encouraged to invest.  Many of the wealthy are able to make most of  their income from capital gains.  When taxable capital gains are added to other income it would be subjected to graduated tax levels.  Dividends offer similar issues with in some cases poor people or charitable institutions relying on them to survive.  A complicated concern to be sure, but if you ignore politics the rules are slanted by those who study politics a little bit more.  Check out some of the links:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2023/06/the-role-of-taxes.html

Another way of looking at politics is to see it as entertainment as it has most of the elements of your favorite tv. shows.  There are good and bad people, attempts at humor, misleading information, maybe even a little romance.  Bear in mind they are trying to get your vote and you should ask if they deserve it.  Check:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/02/politics-as-entertainment.html

Politics certainly can be complicated and some people feel their interests are best served if fewer people pay attention to the details.  If you still don't see any merit in paying attention to politics you shouldn't be surprised at the results.

Compromised

 There are a lot of anti-Trump books and I thought I had read enough of them, but then he is still free to rant egotistical madness to audiences.  Peter Strzok had a good case, but it was distracted because of an affair and opinionated texts he had.  He uncovered evidence that should have added to the case against Trump and needs to be heard.

We tend to think where there is smoke there must be fire.  There has been a great deal of smoke regarding Russian intrusions into American politics including a long history of Trump dealing with Russia and numerous contacts from his team with Russian insiders.  Paul Manafort was a campaign manager who had worked in Ukraine to bring about a pro Russian administration at first successful, but eventually overturned.  It was noted that the only effort by the Trump team to effect official Republican policy was to eliminate financial aid to Ukraine who was fighting off a Russian invasion.

The reading is slow and more detailed than one might want and I would describe the tone as "defensive."  But that lends to credibility.  There is much information withheld because it is classified.  The affair that distracted from his mission is only referred to near the beginning with the explanation in the interests of his family he will not be explaining it.

We learn that Peter has a long history in international affairs.  At age 8 he watched his father burn sensitive documents in Tehran at the time of the Iranian Revolution.  After that he was taken to Burkina Faso and Haiti where he came to understand the abuses of autocratic dictators. 

Involved with investigation of Hilary Clinton's emails.  Concluded there was a lot of mishandling (common enough), but no criminal intent and not essentially different from other politicians  Resented resources devoted to that while more serious investigations starved for resources.

He had been involved with Russians infiltrating American society.   Some of the Russian tactics are recounted with one of the key ones being they seek to gain what they called "Kompramat", but what we might think of as "Compromised."  Once they are able to find some dirty secret the Russians feel they can force such an individual to do what they want.  We actually do know some compromising information about Trump, but suspect a lot more.

The Soviet undercover agents Strzok uncovered ended up being part of a prisoner exchange with the Russians.  Peter notes that one of the Soviet "traitors" involved, later was a victim of a poisoning attempt using known and unique Soviet methods.

During his campaign Trump declared he had no business connections to Russia while we have learned he was having Michael Cohen negotiating for a Russian Tower.  Probably would not have deterred very many of his supporters, but the Russians held back, perhaps because they had more serious secrets and wanted Trump to win. 

One interesting detail was that Russians look for birth certificates of people who died young.  In one case they dug up Canadian records (probably a trifle harder to trace in America) used in one of the counter-intelligence cases.

The so called Steele Dossier attracted a lot of excitement, but according to Strzok it was not as big a factor to open an investigation as reports of George Papadopoulos bragging about Russia offering election support.  The striking bit about a "golden shower" may or may not be true, but Trump's reaction was strange--he did not deny, but was offended that it was claimed prostitutes were involved and then asked what year it was.  The author speculates that Trump thought he was famous and powerful enough not to have to deal with prostitutes and that the year (2013) implied there might have been different incidents on different years. 

Most of the solid information that the FBI was able to assemble concerned staff members and not Trump directly.  It is hard not to wonder how these contacts would be unknown to Trump.  One key connection was when Paul Manafort and Rick Gates provided detailed polling information to Konstatin Kilimnik.  We do know Russians were very skilled at directing social media where it could be most effective.

Trump found ways to get rid of pesky bureaucrats like Comey.  The next day after firing Comey he forbade the media while he talked with Russian diplomats in the White House

Peter had made some texts that conveyed some of his political thoughts and once they were uncovered it led to his being taken off the Trump investigation (for the Mueller Report) then to losing  accessibility and he endured threats to him and his family and finally was fired.  Public servants are entitled to personal opinions, but can also be expected to maintain an objective approach to their jobs.  Trump several times called Peter a traitor.  It was part of Trump's campaign to discredit the Mueller Report that Peter had contributed to. 

The Mueller Report was taken by Attorney William Barr who reviewed it and provided a summary that in effect misled.  I also believe that several classified sections may well have hidden incriminating evidence.  Peter testified both behind closed doors and in public and noted that in public politicians seem more interested in grandstanding than in determining the truth.

It does seem strange that after decades of the Republicans castigating Russian efforts that Trump welcomed their contributions to their campaign and the self-righteous power hungry Republicans went along with it. 

Trump still has supporters.  To me Hilary Clinton was not far wrong when she declared they were "deployables" in many cases, racists (at the very least tolerant of racists), shallow celebrity worshippers and otherwise resistant to necessary change.  Hopefully this book will at least arm sane people with the logic.

Links to other anti-Trump posts  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/06/house-of-trump-house-of-putin.html

http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/11/fear-another-anti-trump-book.html 

http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/08/the-trump-campaign-from-journalist.html

http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/02/hillary-clintons-what-happened.html 

http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/03/the-death-of-truth-by-michiko-kakutani.html

Susan Rice: Tough Love

Originally the thinking was she might be a vice president candidate or a cabinet minster, but with the tight Congress she would be a lot of grief getting approved.  While writing she is being offered a position not requiring Senate confirmation.  BUT she is a worthy subject for what she has done and how.  Her book gives some very interesting insights and after reading I believe she has been unfairly besmirched and  offers herself as a worthy American advocate.

Coming from a tight knit family she relates the background of not only great and grand parents, but also aunts and uncles.  There is a bit of multi relations and some of her relatives are lighter in color than others and there is some discrimination within them.  One common feature is a respect for education that was pushed with lots of sacrifices.  Susan is tough on herself with personality and physical flaws that are more than self-deprecation.

She and her brother lived through their parent's tempestuous marriage that ended in divorce.  Although they loved both parents they had to resist a legal manoeuvre to force a decision with the help of some legal responses of their own.  

Grew up in Washington, DC and attended Stanford where she met her husband, Ian Cameron  and later studied at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar.  After graduation she accepted a job with McKinsey and Company a management consulting with a branch in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.  Her  boyfriend Ian just returning from the London School of Economics lined up a job with C.B.C. Television producing a nightly news program.  Ian proposed to her and she accepted, but then developed cold feet and called it off.  While Ian was in South Africa dealing with apartheid she heard on the CBC that Ian's boss, Barbara Frum, had died.  It created a moment of clarity for her and she phoned Ian to break the bad news, but also to say she now was willing to marry him.  Barbara had been one that had encouraged their engagement.  Barbara Frum was someone I used to regularly listen to on her radio program and later on her newscasts. and now I enjoy listening to her conservative son, David Frum.  

Her first government position was with Richard Clarke.  As Clinton began his presidency he ran into a problem with Black Hawk Down which scared off Congress inhibiting many future options.  Then the Rwanda genocide which Clinton thought of as his biggest regret.  Africa had been her Oxford thesis and she found herself involved with the continent that Obama had given more priority to.

Later Susan was given a promotion for Africa working as an assistant to for the State Department.  Sudan being linked to terrorist activities she wanted a trade boycott, but was stymied by Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey who wanted to protect imports of gum arabic, an essential ingredient in pharmaceuticals that were manufactured in New Jersey.  South Sudan was created with American encouragement but shortly displayed corruption and mismanagement.

Eight years out of government, but helped with campaigns and a variety of concerns.  Being a wife and mother took a higher priority until Barack Obama ran for president.  She had had some contact with him, particularly with foreign affairs advice and decided to support him instead of Hilary Clinton.  She spoke on his behalf as a surrogate and gave foreign affairs advice.

With the Obama  administration she first was given the post of Ambassador to the United Nations and later National Security Advisor and in both roles ran into numerous international issues.

To her Afghanistan seemed ungrateful for American deaths.  She dealt with Hamid Karzai and reached a similar evaluation as from Sarah Chayes.  Chayes had much to say about the role of corruption that seem very relevant;  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/07/thieves-of-state.html

The so called "Benghazi scandal" was manufactured and I suspect, not only to hurt the Obama administration, but specifically to hurt Susan Rice who was seen as a formidable adversary.  Ordinarily Hilary Clinton would have been called to make the attack announcement, but Susan merely read off the C.I.A. approved information with a careful caution that it was only preliminary.

On the Cuban project Susan  worked with Ben Rhodes to open up relations behind media and Congressional view.   It has been for decades a very delicate issue as Florida has many bitter exiles that have demonstrated they can help tip an election.  My view is that Cuba had a Revolution to get rid of the Mafia and the 1% holding power.  It turned out the Communists were a viable tool in that regard.  My thoughts on Cuba  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/12/obama-and-cuba.html

Another major project was the nuclear agreement with Iran, that was more recently broken by Trump.   Susan helped in the negotiations and recognized the goal was nuclear disarmament which could form the basis for dealing with further irritants.  My thoughts:http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/05/alarm-bells-on-iran.html

Daily she dealt with a variety of assaults on the American Government, but her book does more than cover many of the global crises, it also comments on the procedures to deal with the problems. 

Rice was responsible for setting up and chairing Principals Committee that included Obama and cabinet ministers.  It was intended to identify priorities and how best to tackle them.  Each participant was on a tight schedule and very likely had already set up their next appointment or travel plan for right after meeting.  Sometimes they would get riled up and need to be calmed down or steered to a more productive tack.

Trump's presidency has been a blow to her, but she has boosted Democratic efforts and played a small role in advising on foreign affairs.

She and her husband are open minded enough that their son, Jake has been president of the Republican Club at Stanford.  Their daughter Maris is of a more progressive bent, but they all love one another. 

I am looking forward to reading Barrack Obama's book knowing that Santa has been searching to get me a copy.   I would also recommend Susan's book to better understand the many power struggles in the world.

THE EDUCATION OF AN IDEALIST

It is illuminating to understand how some admirable people got pointed in a direction we have come to admire.  Samantha Power reached my attention as a worker with Barrack Obama which automatically makes her a person to be admired.  But she didn't reach that status without a lot of twist and turns.

She is candid about relationships with Obama and other politicians that often involved not getting her way.  She also writes about the problems of a mother of young children trying to have influence with the government including breast feeding while overseas with and without her daughter.

Born in Ireland, she was more interested in sports than studying, but did enjoy reading.  Her mother overcame many obstacles to be a medical doctor.  Her father was a dentist, but spent too much time at a local pub where he also took his kids.  Her mother was distraught over her husband's alcoholism and developed a relationship with a doctor and moved to America.  She was able to gain custody of her two children.  Samantha felt very guilty when her father died, but had developed a good relationship with her mother's husband.

She lived in Pittsburgh and Atlanta and was very active in sports.  While attending university she had gone home to Atlanta to intern with a tv station.  For one game she had been asked to note about an Atlanta Braves game off a tv. screen.  At a studio surrounded by many other tv screens she got distracted by events at Tiananmen Square and was stunned.  It changed her focus to politics and world events,

She went on a trip to Europe with a boyfriend and further opened her eyes to international tensions.  After graduation she taught English in Berlin and became aware of Bosnian refugees  Working with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace she managed to get herself a journalist pass and went to Bosnia.  She spent a lot of time in combat zones and made friends that she kept in contact with.

While Barrack Obama was Senator, Samantha developed a relationship with him as he seemed to enjoy batting ideas around with her.  She had been concerned with the Balkans, Rwanda, Sudan but the conversation veered in many different directions.  When he made the decision to run for president she eagerly joined the battle.  Unfortunately in the midst of it an eager reporter picked up something she said about Hilary Clinton that forced her resignation.  Later, after an apology to Hilary they worked effectively together.  Before and during this crisis she had met another Obama supporter, Cass Sunstein and while away from the campaign they got married.

I thought I had seen that name somewhere and it turned out he co-authored a book I had stumbled on and was impressed enough to write a blog:   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/08/misbehaving-makg-of-behavioural.html 

She got involved with many important issues and left her mark.  She campaigned to make public announcement acknowledging the Armenian genocide with limited success.  Involved with the Russian negotiations regarding Syria's use of chemical weapons.  Formed relations with other ambassadors, especially women, but also notably Vitaly Churkon of Russia.  One issue she was successful  was getting support for LGBT issues despite Russian opposition.  During the Ebola crisis she traveled to Africa to the most affected areas.  Another issue (of many) she was involved with was Libya.

One of her goals was to influence Obama's announcements working with Ben Rhodes who helped her understand the constraints trying to deal with many different international concerns.   Sometimes the input was very slight and only arrived after much wrangling.  See more on Ben;  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/06/the-world-as-it-is.html

Near the end of her book and of her term as UN ambassador she recounts her experience with the 2016 election.  She had invited several women ambassadors to watch the election results thinking it would be an  historical moment.  Some of the women lived in dictatorships and had not really seen a democratic election before.  Unfortunately Donald Trump who promised to undo many of Obama's accomplishments won and spoiled the moment.  He is still a blot on American democracy.

Many ups and downs and some disappointments.  It is well worth reading to appreciate the persistence necessary to influence policies starting from an idealist base.

I would like to end with her ending "People who care, act, and refuse to give up may not change the world, but they can change many individual worlds."

COLLUSION OR FRAUD

The Trump administration is on a victory tour, shouting they have been TOTALLY vindicated, although the Mueller Report has not been examined in public.  Trump, himself has already determined to obliterate more of Obama's legacy.  His policies are in major ways against the best interest of his voters.  To me it seems likely his supporters are either at least tolerant of racist views and/or are upset over progressive social freedoms.  If a lie is repeated enough it is believed.

My understanding of collusion is vague.  It has to be proved that there was a criminally coordinated effort to bring about a result.  Of course all successful election campaigns involve coordinated efforts, but if we like the end results the efforts are acceptable.  In the carefully worded summary it was concluded there was no collusion with the Russian government.  Michael Cohen had already pointed out that Trump didn't feel the need to be direct in order give direction.  The summary did concede that obstruction has neither been proved or disproved.  Apologists state that since there was nothing to hide there couldn't be any obstruction which of course is nonsense.

Like most people I am dependent on what is brought to my attention by media and reinforced by how other people react to it.  None of the points I will raise are new, but they have not been denied.  If they don't mount to the legal definition of collusion I would shift my focus to the charge of fraud.

Well after the election we were told that Trump had been negotiating for a Trump Tower in Moscow, even though it had been strongly denied.  He is entitled as a businessman who quite likely thought he wouldn't win the election to carry forward his business.  One major problem is the lie about it.  Nobody can be sure of what really happened, but it seems this effort might have been all the Russian government needed to get some concessions.  Obviously Russian authorities were aware of this multi million dollar transaction and could understand that perceptions of significant numbers of American voters would be negative.  After the official denials of Trump all they needed to do was threaten to reveal the truth.  Possibly they had other points to operate with.

Paul Manafort as a campaign manager (with a history of supporting Russian interests specifically against Ukraine that wants stronger relations with the West) gave polling data to an associate of Putin. There was no point to the effort if this information was not going to be used.  Apparently the Russians used several tactics and seemed to be aware of leveraging situations.  Efforts were made to switch Democrat inclined voters to third party choices.   That was by itself instrumental in shifting the Electoral College to Trump.  Naturally they amplified Trump's rhetoric and likely targeted it. 

This is not meant to be all inclusive of Trump's ties to Russia.  It could be argued that Trump was just duped by Putin.  Putin is very openly expanding Russian influence.  He strives against NATO, the EU as well as democracy in Venezuela and Syria.  Trump's behavior is definitely unusual and mostly supportive of Putin own grievances.  Trump's ego is oversized and to a great extent is admired by too many.

The Republicans have used tactics to diminish accusations and innuendo.  Commonly they deny and when caught, spin. As more facts come out it seems there were very significant contacts.   Many, but not all Conservatives are overlooking a great deal about Trump, but realize they have an opportunity to  do things mostly opposed by the population such as lower high end taxes, cut social programs, and in some cases tighten up and abolish abortions. 

The Washington Post took up the challenge of tracking the lies of Donald Trump.  It is such a large and growing number that most of us don't bother getting the exact number.  I plead guilty, but recall it is something over 8,000.  You could quarrel with the definitions used, but even Trump supporters concede he likes to lie, but it is all in a good cause.  In my humble (?) opinion these lies were not for a good cause, even for many who thought fervently they were.   Muslims, Mexicans, blacks and gays are not responsible for their lot in life.  The greed of the 1% and automation are much more serious.

Climate change is real and Trump has brushed it off with distortions and misinformation.  He lied to coal miners, but they wanted to believe him rather than Hilary Clinton who pushed for job retraining.

Tax cuts were supposed to benefit everyone, but the very wealthy gained the most in absolute terms.  The cuts most certainly didn't pay for themselves and in fact are already ramping up deficits that Republicans know will have negative effects.  They also suggest cuts to safety net benefits and government services will solve any deficit concerns.  The rich got their rewards.  An earlier blog on dark money explains http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/07/dark-money-by-jane-mayer.html

When someone has been conned they resist admitting it.  When someone is accused of unsavory motivations they deny it.  To most of us it is obvious Trump did not deserve to win and has been a very divisive and incompetent president who could lead to disaster of one type or another.

What can be done?  At the moment calmness is critical.  Avoid the Republican traps, while avoiding unnecessary concessions.  The Republicans under Trump are over reaching.  The more outrageous the Republicans efforts are the more likely they are to generate questions from those who have been lied to.  Unless they can gain public support enough that Republican politicians fear for themselves impeachment rhetoric should be curtailed.  The Mueller Report, if ever revealed in reasonable totality is likely to provide many points that will put Republicans on the defense, but may not be enough for immediate action.  That leaves the 2020 election.  The Democrats already have the policies that most Americans prefer on health care, abortion, infrastructure, gun control, etc. and importantly more credibility.

The Constitution is not serving the interests of the Americans.  Twice the Electoral College has delivered a problematic regime which will take decades to undo--thinking of the judiciary system and America's international reputation.  For many other nations there will be a fear that a subsequent administration can undermine whatever progress a new administration can offer..

One thought after hearing constant justifications for the 2nd Amendment is that something similar should be articulated for education.  Early on the American government without a national army realized they could be attacked when they were unprepared.  Some would argue the second amendment was enacted to protect the citizens against the government, but I contend more important was a concern for national defense.  Today it has been interpreted with help of lobbyists that Americans must have access to military level weaponry.

On the other hand what Americans need much more to preserve real democracy is education.  It seems conservatives are always ready to cut public education, especially perceived non job skills.  Not sure what concrete proposals should be included, but budgets and non political supervision are critical.  If the Americans prefer to believe Trump, the selfish, egotistical entertainer then it must be admitted they deserve him, but the rest of us (I am proud to be Canadian) don't deserve him.

Just a review of those who helped put Trump in position:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/07/trump-enablers.html

"That's what she said" a book worth reading.

First learned about Joanne and her new book from her appearance with Fareed Zakaria.

The title comes from remarks overheard at a business meeting.  A male was given credit for something that had first been brought up by a female.  This all too common scenario is one of the events that inspired Joanne to write the book.

Joanne very early on explains this book is not about man shaming.  She recognizes gender equality will never be truly reached without the involvement of men. Fortunately many men are helping.  Women are also a part of the problem as they have too many unconscious notions of women's role.

Many women think the way to succeed in a man's world is to adopt male interests such as sports, dirty jokes, etc.  Sometimes it works, but other times they are thought of as unfeminine.  Asserting authority, even when they have it has a higher price than suffered by males.

Boys are raised to be competitive while girls are taught to be co-operative and deferential.

One critical, but contested fact is that diversity boosts productivity.  Our country has been run by white men and even now it is hard to break the mould.  Companies in different fields have found their profits increased as women more involved in decisions.

An early example was Tupperware.  It was invented by Earl Tupper, but he didn't really appreciate that his principle audience found it difficult to understand.  Brownie Wise had her efforts to achieve management level after being the top sales person were rejected.  She convinced Tupper to go the house party route and it turned the product around.

Diversity training has become more common, but Joanne found that it is relatively ineffective and often counter-productive.  Unconscious bias awareness seems to be more effective.  Google was an early pioneer as they were concerned that they were not hiring or retaining women to levels they thought would be beneficial.  Everyone is at least a bit sexist and a bit racist among other inapropriate thoughts.  Another blog that discusses the critical role of the subconscious is:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/08/what-choice-do-you-have-some-thoughts.html

Deutch Bank became concerned that they were losing too many women to their competition.  They learned that the women were reluctant to ask for promotions and raises and assumed they were in a dead end situation.  After this was discovered more women were offered promotions.

Respect is a key concept.  Women are more interrupted than men, even at the Supreme Court level.  One example is that male doctors receive more respect than females and conversely male nurses are not as respected.  Transgender studies have demonstrated that transgender males gain more respect than they received as females.  Transgender females lose respect after their transition.  

Speaking up is key.  Some companies encourage their staff (male and female) to point out bias even to the boss.

In the 2016 American presidential election Donald Trump expressed his anger loudly and gained respect, but Hilary Clinton was criticized for "shrillness."  Although there were a myriad of factors undoubtedly for many voters a female candidate didn't command enough respect.  During his administration Obama tried in many ways to close the gender gap, but Trump has rolled back many of the efforts.

Blind auditions for musicians gave women more orchestra and band positions  It has been extended to fields where talent could be evaluated without identifying a person.

Maternity and paternity policies are common in much of the world, except very limited in the United States.  Some companies are realizing to retain women long term they have to develop policies that acknowledge women will be concerned about child rearing.  One suggestion was to give them projects that would keep them in the loop.  Eventually their children grow up and they are free to  apply their talents.

Mentoring has always been an effective way to nurture and develop new employees, but early efforts to bring senior males with junior females had lots of problems.  One solution at the social level has been to include spouses and even children. 

She concludes her book by admitting that women are still living in a man's world, but that each day more men reach across the gender divide.  There were thousands of men in the Women's March, the day after the 2017 inauguration.  Men and women evolved to survive in a dangerous world, but as conditions change we need to develop new understandings and new habits to cope with new dangers and new opportunities.  Lots of suggestions are provided.

A bit more about Joanne:  http://joannelipman.com

"The Red Army" and Russian hockey

I am not a hockey fan, but "Red Army"  (2014) brought back memories and an appreciation of how great hockey can be.

I remember the buildup to the first Summit Series vs the Russians in 1974.  They had only played against amateur teams and were sure to be humiliated when they played our pros.  In fact the result was close to the reverse, the Canadians were humiliated in the first few games on Canadian soil.  

Bobby Clarke deliberately injured Valerie Kharmalov, a dangerous scorer which in the end might have been the difference.  The Canadians, woke up and played much better on the Russian part of the tour.  Paul Henderson made the most famous goal in Canadian history and the Canucks pulled it off.

Showed a clip of Don Cherry expressing that the Russians should not be allowed to play in the NHL   Harold Ballard was famous for not letting any Russian play for the Leafs.  They were not alone, some of it no doubt for anti Communist sentiments then common, but others I think were afraid of the competition.

The film reminded me why I lost interest in hockey and why the Russians revived my interest.  They were very skilled at passing and stick handling and a joy to watch.  As a Canadian I had mixed feelings.  I wanted Canada to win, especially at our national game, but I liked the way the Russians played, better than the NHLers.  

I watched one televised game with co-workers which I remember not so much for the excitement as I had a few alcoholic drinks  My job at the time was working with newspaper carriers and the game took place when the kids were in school.  When I got back to work I realized I was in no condition to talk to kids about anything.  Since then I have avoided drinking during work hours.

One of the benefits I got out of it was that the Russians were humans.  They had relationships, although often the coaching made life difficult for them.  The film really made more of that when some of participating Russian players  (and wives) got to explain themselves.  I was also surprised to learn of some coaching politics. Anatoli Tarasov was replaced by Viktor Tikhonov

Russians did make a success in the NHL, lots of them helping to win Stanley Cups and become all stars.  It opened them up to capitalism.  We love to be entertained.  I remember hearing Hillary Clinton commenting that Alexander Ovechkin was more popular than most politicians in Washington.

The Soviet players were regarded as national heroes and were treated as such by the authorities.  Although eastern bloc countries had to contend with defectors in different sports, the Soviet hockey players for the most part were very content.  That changed in 1989.  Alexander Mogilny was an outstanding young (honoured as best junior hockey player in the world) prospect who had already played at the top level. After the 1989 world championships held in Sweden he disappeared and found his way to the Buffalo Sabres who had earlier drafted him.

There were a wide variety of interviews, but the main spokesperson for the Soviet side was Vlacheslav "Slava" Fetisov who had a disdain for the interviewer.  Fetisov, a defenseman was a key  person in a group of five players who were very difficult to stop.  He wanted to be able to negotiate with the NHL and although threatened with the end of his hockey career or a demotion he was able to gather a few others and forced the issue.  Part of their salary was to be returned to Russia and they were to play for the national Russian team.  This opened the floodgates and turned out to be very successful.  Fetisov earned two Stanley Cups as a player and one as an assistant coach.  He insisted to Gary Bettman that he be allowed to take the trophy to Moscow.  Despite a total refusal at one time he was able to accomplish this feat.  Fetisov is now involved with the Russian hockey program.

One enlightening moment was when Fetisov was  asked about his younger brother after bragging about how much potential he had.  It turned out that he had died from a car accident.  Then it was admitted that he, Fetisov had been driving.  Another clip with his wife Lata Fetisov explained how she felt ostracized by other NHL wives who treated her as an outsider.

Scotty Bowman, considered one of the best hockey coaches ever was a great believer in Russian players and coached over time, 5 Russian players who helped him win three Stanley Cups for the Detroit Red Wings.

Another interviewee was Vladimir Tretiak who developed a lot of fans in Canada.  He never played in the NHL, although a primary target by the league.  He is now involved with Russian hockey.

There was a lot of politics, captured on archival resources.  Starting with Joseph Stalin who made the decision to make hockey a higher national priority.  Nikita Kruschev and Mikhail Gorbachev each got involved with the hockey program  The KGB was used to minimize chance of defection.  On the other side there was a brief clip of Ronald Reagan and one of Jimmy Carter when he declared the United States would not participate in the Moscow Olympics.  Alan Eagleson was shown as an organizer of the Summit series.  As it happened I had arranged for Alan to be declared the first to be honored on a Wall of Fame for former newspaper carriers when I worked for the Etobicoke Guardian.  Also arranged for a photo at his office and an interview with one of my carriers.  When his fraud was uncovered  I was already gone from that job.

The Soviets had a system and a national feeder network.  That was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed and when players left for the NHL. Russia (and their former states) still turn out exciting hockey players and the world is better for it.

Gabe Polsky was writer, director, producer and  interviewer.  This film won audience awards at film festivals in Chicago and Zurich.  He produced "Bad Lieutenant: Port of New Orleans" (2009) which was directed by Werner Herzog.  He also was nominated for an Emmy for the television series, "Genius" (2017).

Werner Herzog, a prominent documentary maker was an executive producer on this film.  He had been a producer, director actor "and writer.   "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" (2010) and "Grizzly Man," (2005) were two of his noted works.  More on Werner:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/08/werner-herzog.html

Christophe Beck born in Montreal worked on music for "Frozen" for which he shared an award.  He also was awarded a Prime Time Emmy for "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (1997).  He worked on the music for "The Hangover," (2009) "The Muppets," (2011) and "Ant-Man" (2015)  During this research it dawned on me that there are many people involved in the music--not just the composer, or someone who writes a song, but ask producers and co-ordinators.  Leo Birenberg also worked on "Frozen" as a score co-ordinator.

Cinematographer Peter Zeitlinger had worked with Werner Herzog on "Bad Lieutenant:  Port of New Orleans," and "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" and "Grizzly Man."  The second cinematographer Svetlana Cvetko had worked "Inside Job," (2010) "Merchants of Doubt," (2014) and "Inequality for All" (2013) for which I included in another blog: http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/10/capital-in-twenty-first-century.html

As with music and cinematography with two people listed there are also two editors.  As the film took place in North America and Russia the work load  needed to be spread around.  Eli B Despres had written and edited two outstanding documentaries, "Weiner" (2016) and "Blackfish" (2013).  Kurt Engfehrk, the other editor had worked with Michael Moore on  "Bowling for Columbine" (2002) and "Fahrenheit 9/11" (2004).

If you are a hockey fan you will enjoy this film and if you are not you will appreciate there is a lot of beauty in the game.

I have bolded the movie titles that I have actually seen.

TRUMP ENABLERS

We can rant all we want about Donald Trump's misdeeds, but somehow he got into power.  An increasing majority of American voters now realize a horrible mistake was made.  Can we go forward somehow?  The problem is, the status quo suits some people.  In my head there are a number of enablers who bear responsibility.

Number One:  The electoral college.  You might think this is trivial or something that can't be changed.  The origin of the electoral college goes back to the Constitution negotiations.  The southern colonies (especially the elite) that owed their economic wealth to slavery were very concerned they would be out voted and were able to obtain some protections.  Even though they thought Africans were sub human they were able to insist that a slave was worth 3/5 of a human which enabled them to build up their population base.  This was eventually discarded, but the electoral college has been maintained.  It assures that small states can have disproportionate power in presidential elections.  In cold hard facts Hillary Clinton won almost an extra 3 million votes than Donald Trump and she never contested the electoral college.  Obviously if you want to win you have to play by the rules and the Trump camp took advantage of the rules.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/12/the-half-has-never-been-told.html  The rules need to be changed.  Remember George W. Bush lost the popular vote, but was able to win the electoral college.

The Media that is now mostly upset played a significant role. Trump knows show business and attracted a notoriety that greatly boosted his platform.  As always the media was more interested in their own ratings than discussing the issues and the credibility of the candidates.  Climate change should have been a much higher profile issue, but the media mostly ignored it.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/02/trump-and-media-or-media-and-us.html

The evidence is piling up that not only did the Russians want Trump to win, but were deeply involved.  Hillary Clinton had been critical of a recent Russian election and honestly earned the scorn of Vladimir Putin.  Trump has in the past been helped by Russian mobsters.  The Republicans had their own motives, as usual taxes and regulations that were very concerning to the 1%.  They knew that a social agenda would help draw in evangelicals and many low education voters willing to vote against their economic self interest.  It is hard to keep up to date, but read the link for a good perspective on Russian activities.  https://www.juancole.com/2017/07/trumps-russian-akhmetshin.html

The education system is uneven with many parts of the country investing more than others.  It seems ironic that Trump did best with the low education voters.  At the same time many of the wealthier better educated voted for their economic self interest.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/02/reign-of-error-what-direction-should.html

Big money was not only able to contribute massive amounts of money for their interests, but because of laws passed by conservatives and supported by conservative elements in the Supreme Court, could keep much of it secret.  Elections should not be decided or influenced by big money.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/07/dark-money-by-jane-mayer.html  The big and dark money enabled gerrymandering that ensures Republican congress members fear their home base more than the Democrat opposition.

Ultimately the voters.  Did they really think Donald Trump was going to represent their interests?  Did they think he understood the complexities of the modern world?  Did they feel putting such an immoral man in charge of their nation was ok, because he would somehow do the "right" thing?  Unfortunately, despite losing the popular vote the Trump agenda will get its chance to set the country back and maybe much worse.http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/06/the-american-iq-test.html

Democracy allows one to get what one voted for.  Some hope that after this experience the voters will wake up and vote more reasonably.  Hopefully they are right.

The photo is of a non voter, Sabre, but I like him much more than the enablers.

Post Mortem

There is a lot of anger today.  Ignorance and bigotry have triumphed.  Perhaps I am just part of the intellectual elite (definitely not part of the economic elite).  The whole process may well have been illusionary and perhaps Donald Trump as I suspect will govern a little differently than his rhetoric.  He cannot be restrained by the Democrats, but perhaps some Republicans and big money will steer him to a less harsh course.

A few months back I blogged about the election being an IQ test:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/06/the-american-iq-test.html Anything less than a decisive rejection of Donald Trump's Republicans is a very disappointing result.  The taxes on the rich will be lowered significantly which in the end results in less money to be spent for the good of the people.   That in turn means more inequality.  The Supreme Court will be dominated  by those favouring the Citizens United decision as well as more restrictions on freedom (except for those with money).  Who can predict how someone sympathetic to Russian desires and spews divisive hatred will impact the Mid East and the rest of the world.

There is legitimate anger, but I believe it has been misplaced.  Inequality has been encouraged by Republican policies and that will not change.  Donald Trump walked away from several bankruptcies with millions of dollars.  Trade deals have taken away high paying jobs while replacing some elsewhere, but a bigger culprit has been and will be automation.

As a foreign observer, my views do not count for much and maybe miss some insight only available to those inside the situation.  Donald Trump out and out lied and although his followers didn't believe them all, they all saw something they really identified with.  For some it was bigotry and an explanation for their own poor status.  For others they were drawn to a conservative social agenda including anti-abortion,  anti-LGBT.  Others heard a drop in taxes for the rich and an emphasis on de regulation and smelled more profit for themselves.  Some admired his toughness from his reality show.  Still others it was good enough that he was a Republican and not a dreaded Democrat.  The combination was more than enough.

Republicans have succeeded in attracting voters who lose under their economic agenda by catering to social conservative agendas and besmirching their opposition.  It still works.  Donald Trump has gone this far by appealing to baser instincts as opposed to a set of  reasoned policies that would actually solve or mitigate problems they are so angry about.

It has not been difficult to learn facts that would disqualify anyone else.  His business dealings have not been friendly to the little guy, in fact he is often pictured as a con man.  His racism has been blatant--strongly insulting Mexicans, denigrating Black Lives Matter, painting Muslims as terrorists.  He has been very misogynist  in very vocal manner.  His blustering about knowing more than all the generals.  Climate change did not project as much as it should have, but he appeared very ignorant about it.  His Russian ties are mostly speculative but there have been Russian friendly policies introduced to the official Republican program.

How could it have happened? There is no one cause, but many to examine.

One culprit is the corporate media.  They recognized Donald Trump as a big boost to their ratings and gave him a lot of free time often on very trivial matters.  Admittedly he can draw a crowd.  The focus was mostly on the horse race aspects rather than which policies offered the best value or had the most credibility.  Bernie Sanders offered reasoned solutions to the problems that angered so many working class people, but he was pretty much ignored and dismissed until it was too late.

The corporate media was very harsh on Hilary Clinton who being human (an ambitious one) was less than perfect.  But she was most definitely not the monster projected by the Republicans and carried forth by too much of the media.  So many of the accusations hurled against her were very trivial, but repetition created an unfair image, compounded by her defensiveness.  The email issue was a course chosen by many others and in fact fairly logical at the time.  The critics overlooked serious non found emails from the George W. Bush who was caught off guard at 9-11, later decided he had a case to invade Iraq and still later involved in a scandal involving the firing of district attorneys who apparently failed to live up to conservative expectations.  Benghazi was another made up controversy overlooking far more deaths at embassies during George Bush's time, not to mention the thousands who died in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Ironically Obama appointed James Comey, a Republican to head the FBI.  An investigation failed to uncover anything they felt could be prosecuted, but he added that she was very careless.  After that died down a bit (but with much sniping) they apparently found something through another investigation that they felt was relevant.  Normal policy is you do not announce investigations until after some concrete evidence is found.  A bit later, after saying it was unlikely there was enough time to give a conclusion they finally did declare there was no evidence.  Meanwhile they decided not to announce about uncovering evidence of Russian hacking as it was too sensitive before an election.

Democrats have to accept some of the blame.  Several years ago they realized they had to compete against Republicans to get money for election campaigns and like the opposition they found nothing comes for free.  During Obama's time as President he was mostly faced with opposition determined to block anything, even if it was normally acceptable to them.  Personally I was disappointed they didn't seem to vocalize what they were up against.

Trade agreements are difficult things to negotiate.  You want access to another market, but they want access to your market.  They want jobs as well.  Investors want to get cheap labour and fewer regulations.  Theoretically consumers get better pricing for goods and have more cash to spare to spend on things and services that provide jobs.  Fair trade sounds better than free trade, but you need willing partners and some leverage.  Republicans like the access to other markets, to cheaper goods and profits from exploiting third world countries.  Protecting American jobs and retraining displaced workers need to be a high priority.

We all are ignorant, but few of us are aware of it.  Too many voters relied on media celebrity and simple solutions to complex problems.  Others were resentful of minorities or even repulsed to the point it clouded their judgment.  Education needs to be a higher priority.  It has been a strength of Americans, but lately has become controversial and expensive.

I cannot predict which of Donald Trump's many promises will be kept, but a few seem very likely.

The Supreme Court will soon get a new conservative judge to be followed by possibly two or three more.  This means Campaign Finance Reform will not happen.  Minorities will lose out.
Obamacare as it is known will diminish and not likely to be replaced with anything better or cheaper.
Relations with many countries will cool off a bit and possibly others will heat up a bit.  De-regulation will increase dramatically in all fields including energy, finance, and manufacturing.  Gun control will further loosen with untold consequences.  Climate change will become more noticeable, but it will be quite some time before the denialists get on board, even when the public demands it.

Thank you for letting me vent.

OCTOBER SURPRISES

As we edge towards a final vote in the States there have been a few developments that threaten to heat up the atmosphere even further in an unhealthy direction.  They are mostly non consequential in relation to real issues.

The increase in Health Care premiums for many is jumped upon and exaggerated.  It is not everyone who is going to be hit with 50% increases and the poorest have been given some protection.  The Republicans have steadfastly tried to undo it while offering nothing to replace it.  They have had plenty of time to do so and this time they are consistently negligent in suggesting how they could handle it better.  No one seems to get excited that most advanced nations offer their citizens a longer life span and at less cost.

The FBI statements under James Comey might be relevant.  Again the Republicans are jumping on it. They act like they have clean hands--they don't.  When there was a real scandal involving Attorney Generals appointed and fired by Republicans in the George W. Bush era there was not very much response from Republicans about missing emails.  It is only casually mentioned how other Republicans destroyed their email trail such as George W. Bush, Mitt Romney and Colin Powell. but there is a hint of politicization with the announcement that the FBI had uncovered some emails that prove that Hillary committed a crime.

Hilary has been victimized by countless scandals for years, yet they all amount to next to nothing.  But they all leave an odor.  The worst are the rumors that never reach public scrutiny.  The problem is that she is perceived as an uppity woman.  A last minute "scandal" has a better chance of catching on.

Transparency is an ideal that is not always practical.  Negotiating with the enemy or with anyone with vested interests is made more difficult if not impossible if every word can be broadcast.

Fundraising is a difficult project.  Personally I avoid many pleas for charity (there are dozens every day).  My charitable giving usually springs from funerals as a respect for the deceased wishes or something that really hits home.  The Clintons set up a Foundation that has harnessed goodwill to help make life better for literally millions of people around the world.  I am sure there are many informal exchanges that result in them getting more money for good causes.  Is it very strange that other people benefit?

A good case study is Donald Trump himself who uses his Foundation blatantly for self benefit.  Incidentally Trump faces court cases for both fraud and rape that have been delayed until after the election.  He has many people accusing him of cheating them with respect to their work.  He also has many women claiming he took unwanted liberties with them  His character seems forgiven by many.

Really important issues are climate change, inequality, healthcare reform, campaign finance, international hostility, nuclear risks, reducing gun violence, automation*.  Donald Trump has displayed his ignorance countless times--he knows more than the generals, climate change is a Chinese hoax--Mexicans send us drug dealers and rapists (with the assumption also a few good people), Mexico would pay for a wall, etc., etc.

A Canadian example of last minute "revelations" was when ten years ago the RCMP stated they were going to investigate a Liberal insider crime.  The investigation led to nothing (a government employee was fined), but the Liberals lost power for the next ten years.

The truth is that social conservatives care about social issues while fiscal conservatives (more accurately those who support the 1%) support fiscal issues and will use any tool to get what they really want.  Nobody can predict what will happen, but it is a bad omen when misleading information forms opinions.

*automation added in, recognizing it as key factor in declining jobs

POLARIZATION AND THOUGHTS ON THE FINAL DEBATE

Much as I pretend to be rational, there is an element of dogmatic thinking in my brain. How about you?  It is very hard to understand how others can be so crazy, but maybe there is a reason that can be respected.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/02/the-righteous-mind.html was a very humbling blog for me.

As a partial counter, I offer some positive thoughts on the opposition, in this case Republicans under Donald Trump.  For some there is only one issue and it might be abortion, gun rights, ISIL etc.  Much as I might disagree I have to respect your views.  I do respect the conservative Republicans who feel humans need incentives, but would temper that with a need for equal opportunities.  I can see why many Americans think the Democrats are soft on terrorism, although I believe the critics are short sighted and even counter productive.

There really are different mind sets and in many cases they complement one another.  In other cases they differ to a point of antagonism.  At the same time it is likely they can coalesce around something in common and perhaps develop in different directions.  The rest of this blog is mostly pointing out critical differences, but with the hope that somehow we can bridge the gap and develop a more rational view that serves everyone.

Rigging is a dangerous notion.  Unfortunately Trump takes it to an even more dangerous level.  He is suggesting his supporters keep an eye out for ineligible voters.  In open carry states this could be especially intimidating to visible minorities.  The suggestion that the final count is rigged could lead to  violent polarization.  The media--yes there has always been bias-as a distant observer it seems that has been slightly to the right.  In this particular campaign Trump initially got an inordinate amount of coverage that he exploited to hit what he identified as his core supporters.  He was definitely given a pass on vetting during the primaries.  He is such an egotist that he reacts to the smallest slights.

Climate change has not been nearly talked about enough and is still ridiculed by conservatives.  The U.S. military has identified it as one of the most critical concerns for national security.  Insurance companies are not fooled by deniers.  But there is not much discussion which must suit the opposition financed by powerful vested interests.
.
Gun control is another emotional issue.  One side wants an open ended second amendment while the other side suggests a few restrictions.  I believe international statistics back up the merits of some limitations.

Abortion is for many the most emotional issue.  Few Democrats see abortion as a positive thing, but see a lack of choice leads to misery in many different forms

The Israel/Iran situation causes heartburn for many conservatives.   American politicians seeking power seem to bend to the will of Israel with only token words for the Palestinians.  Iran is mistrusted by Israel, Americans and much of the rest of the world, but Iran has a case.  They have had a democratically elected leader deposed in a coup organized by the Americans and British.  They have had a passenger plane shot down with only monetary compensation and no apology.  They have had secret police organized by Americans terrorizing their citizens.  They have had an Iraqi invasion supported by Americans.  Still I think the average Iranian is more sympathetic to America than those in power.  The Iranian deal that was delicately negotiated over several years (with some positive input from Hillary Clinton) should be respected.  To force Iran to some humiliating concessions it was necessary to gain co-operation of other nations including Russia and China.  The so-called "ransom" was really an unpaid debt that Americans used as leverage.  There will likely be some very significant trade actions that benefit all parties.  There are ethnic and religious factions that create a lot of tension, but if we do not waste this opportunity such tensions can mellow with benefits to everyone including America and Israel.  If everyone is not satisfied that they squashed Iran sufficiently they should be advised to look at the overall picture and seize the opportunities that are now available or find their prophesies self-fulfilling.

International trade is again another emotional issue with Donald Trump being very vocal about lop sided trade deals.  It is easy to point to displaced manufacturing workers, but overlook how consumers have more money to spend and choice often resulting in jobs that are not directly linked to the trade deal.  And you now have some trading partners with more money to spend as well.  Others would also point to environmental concerns.  Corporations have more power than labourers and environmentalists.  Protectionism is not the answer but fair trade is better than free trade.  Displaced workers often overlooked by corporate negotiators  need to be considered and retrained.

Inequality leads to a vicious cycle of poverty that is negative for everyone.  As usual one party favours giving more money to the "job creators" who in the past have invested elsewhere.

The election does force one to take sides.  Canada has multiple parties that do have an influence and reflect a variety of opinions.  Torn between ranked and proportional--many criticize that proportional would lead to minority govt which is really a check on political power.  Take money out of the equation and more opportunities to reflect the true opinion on Americans will be revealed.

Unfortunately each of the two main sides cannot understand any merit in the other.  Education is part of the answer, but in reality we all have to understand better where the others are coming from and rather than stop at criticism try to develop connections.

Did you see the debate?  Who do you think had the better temperament?  Who do you think made the most sense?  The rational thing is for Americans to vote for the most rational choice.  The rest of us will be watching.

The photo is a partial mural by a favorite artist, Lester Coloma

DOWN TICKET CHOICES

Donald Trump has galvanized voter attention.  To too many, he can do no wrong, but fortunately he is energizing those who realize he would be a disaster.  Many are reluctant to vote for Hilary who has been victimized for over 25 years with mostly disproven accusations.  Hilary was a strong feminist when many politicians resented them.  Others would prefer to vote for a third party.

This is being written after the Vice President debate.  Tim Kaine was seen as an interrupter (which he was) and nervous while Mike Pence was calm and prepared.  A day later more people are commenting that in fact Mike Pence helped  perpetuate all the lies and hateful statements actually made by Donald Trump.  All in all it looks like Hilary will emerge as president in November.

It is true the president has more power than any individual,  It is not true that they are omnipotent.  Both the Senate and the House of Representatives have clogged up progress and are in a position to perpetuate their obstruction with fatal consequences.

This election illustrates the power of money.  Most voters spend minimal time assessing the merits of each candidate, but are hit with literally millions of dollars worth of targeted ads.  Too many of the ads are negative and too few give an honest assessment of any issue.  Big money can shift their money where it can have the most impact.  Republicans spent their resources wisely back in 2010 giving them the power to determine district boundaries, called gerrymandering.  This has enabled them with fewer votes to gain real power in the House of Representatives.  Between campaign finance abuses and gerrymandering they have entrenched themselves to be able to resist a progressive agenda.  The Republicans actually have more to fear from their primary voters than the people they are supposed to represent.

For gun rights, the issue spills across both sides of the aisle.  The NRA makes it clear they will target any one who dares to oppose any of their rights.  They have successfully blunted the majority of voters who wish some reasonable curbs on dangerous abuses.  They pretend to protect the Second Amendment and to be interested in public safety, but they suppress any efforts that would curb gun revenue.  The Democrats have some common sense gun control ideas that do not infringe on majority gun rights.

After over 25 years of mudslinging that used up valuable money and time. Hilary unfortunately became more defensive which also seems to count against her.  If she were perfect perhaps that would overcome her reputation among ill informed voters, but who can claim that?

At the moment the Senate has brought to a standstill efforts to replace a Supreme Court judge that leaves many issues fogged up.  The House of Representatives stymied efforts to combat Zika and have clogged up efforts to boost Medical health insurance.  Climate Change requires a serious effort, but Republicans  (financed in large part by the fossil fuel industry) are proud of being deniers.  Racial harmony is being assaulted.  Social security is resented by the 1% that finances the Republican resistance. They would like see abortion abolished, campaign finance loosened, minority protections lessened, gay marriage abolished, gun rights expanded, and more changes to keep the 1% entrenched.  Obamacare would be repealed.

Donald Trump didn't come out of nowhere.  He is articulating a lot of what was coded before.   Republicans have long realized few would vote for their economic policies so they have courted social conservatives and to many of us it seems like bigots who resent "others."

For many voters it is easier to vote the same party at the bottom of the ticket as they have at the top.  Rich people like Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers have made a shift to protect their selfish interests.  They are supporting very conservative candidates for the Senate and House.  This means that the average voter will not have to endure as many Trump ads, but will be bombarded with messages, often very misleading why thy should not vote for the Democrats.

Net result, it may not matter a lot if Hilary does win.  She could find her efforts blocked.  The election is not just about two diverse personalities, but about philosophies that affect everyone.

Information and the American Voter

Super Tuesday has come and gone, tightening up the primary season.  It will be difficult to change trends that have been set in motion.  For some of us self appointed analysts it is difficult to understand how so many people can ignore their own best interests.  For some of us who follow differences of policy the choices are almost obvious, but the vast majority of actual choices do not seem to reflect careful thought.  Perhaps I am being self-righteous.  Feel free to judge.

The truth is the average person, even more than the average voter doesn't have the time or inclination to examine the many different policies that would affect them in one way or another.  Maybe they shouldn't have to, after all life can be a struggle and there are many more things to enjoy.  The problem comes in where people with vested interests are able to take advantage of apathy and stir up emotions for their own benefit.

How many of you had heard of Bernie Sanders two years ago?  How about John Kasich or Jon Huntsman?  Or switching gears how about Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump?  Of course my readers are ahead of the curve on these names, but we should also consider that there are many capable conscientious people who do not have the resources or name recognition and give up the battle before any voter realizes they have already lost a choice.

For those who don't really care very much, the media is their resource for identifying people they should pay attention to.  Hilary Clinton has earned a lot of attention and in fact has done or at least tried to do some worthy things.  Donald Trump inherited wealth and some business smarts and built his name with real estate and reality tv.  Hilary has been able to attract significant amounts of money from people who share at least some of her aims and Donald has been able to attract a big amount of notoriety partly through his television involvement.  Along the way he has learned what gets attention.

My choice would be Bernie Sanders and I have admired him for at least two or three years.  My knowledge comes from watching him speak on tv shows with relatively low ratings.  He made a lot of sense and when checking his background his character commanded a lot of respect.  Unfortunately his speaking platform is not as impressive as his policy platform.  He deliberately avoids attacking personalities and rejects financial donations that will tie his hands.  His biggest concerns seem to be inequality and campaign finance.  He has a solid background of supporting human rights for racial minorities, Muslims, women and gays.  He recognizes climate change needs urgent attention, but sees the first two priorities (inequality and campaign finance) as obstacles.

You may have noticed that Donald Trump dwarfs all other candidates in media attention, amounting to a lot of free advertising.  Bernie, despite drawing the biggest crowds gets very little media attention.  There are at least two reasons for that.  Donald is great to build ratings.  The more outrageous he is the more people tune in to get more.  Offending people, even war heroes and making huge exaggerations just draw more attention.  Bernie tries to avoid attacking people, preferring to explain his policies accurately.  In other words he is boring.

The second reason is more serious.  Bernie's policies are not what big money donators want to be heard.  He is easily dismissed as a whining socialist of little consequence.  As critically, he is not what the media owners want either.  Aside from wanting to tax wealth at higher rates Bernie's ideas on campaign finance mean that the media would not get as much revenue from political campaigns.

I admit sometimes the candor of Trump has astounded me.  His criticisms of George W Bush not keeping us safe were right on.  The whole presidency of the younger Bush has been sugar coated and at least some Republicans were happy to get over that hump and pleased to criticize the establishment that has failed to deliver what they wanted.

Donald Trump often spouts things that are true and revealing.  "I love the poorly educated."  If someone is allowed to vote it should be our collective responsibility to encourage them to think as clearly as possible about the responsibility.  Education is just another budget item subject to cutting, except when emotions can be stirred up.  Anti union rhetoric is one tool used.  Another is the influence of religion.  For some, religious education means promoting what they believe and in many cases it means distorting the curriculum to reflect their beliefs.  Bernie seems radical for advocating free university education, but in fact university education in the job market is the equivalent of high school education a few decades ago.  Besides in a competitive global marketplace education is vital.  And to top it off education is what a responsible voter needs.   Some earlier thoughts on education: http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/02/reign-of-error-what-direction-should.html

For those whose highest goal is the pursuit of wealth they gravitate towards policies and rationale to support their greediness.  But they are smart enough to realize many of these policies are counter to the interests of the average person, so they have to find away to disguise their goals.

Emotional factors sway voting choices.  Many people vote against their economic self interest and often knowingly.  The best example might be abortion.  Almost everyone would agree that abortion is a horrible practice.  Other sub groups feel that promiscuity is also unacceptable.  Emotions are stirred up and they become the primary criteria for a voting choice.  Hopefully some people can take a practical view and look at the consequences of making abortion totally illegal.  Like drinking alcohol, when forbidden abortion will go underground.  This means rich people or those with connections can resort to it when they feel threatened by an unwanted pregnancy.  But others either do something desperate sometimes with fatal results and others end up with unwanted children and a change in their life projectory.

If the bad consequences don't make them re-think, perhaps these one issue voters might consider what policies could help avoid or at least minimize abortions.  Two things spring to mind.  The first is sex education that gives information to help prevent pregnancies and also promote the idea of consent.  The second is to make contraception more accessible.  The problem with both of these ideas is that they promote promiscuity which is also unacceptable.  The discussion of these factors is difficult, but part of the information needed to be shared.

An undercurrent in America (and the rest of the world for that matter) is racism.  We all identify with our ethnic background, but for some people merely preferring your own kind is not enough--they hate  and fear the "other."  Many rational politicians have tapped into this.  Everyone has some idea of political correctness boundaries, but a few subtly cross them and Donald Trump not so subtly. Recently he received an endorsement from a former prominent Ku Klux Klan member and after some "confusion" disavowed it.  Racists have a good idea who favours their view of the world.

The real issues that impact the average person (the 99% in other words) are not very prominent in the mass media.  The horse race aspects are emphasized and provocative personal taunts or gaffes are more often headlined.  The media, once called the Fifth Estate is supposed to protect the public from the hidden doings of the powerful, but instead are advancing their own concerns.

The reaction of the media to Super Tuesday is of course mixed.  One blog commentator pointed out that according to the media Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have a chance to upset Trump, but that Bernie is all finished, although the numbers are not dissimilar.  To me that promotes heavy advertising from the Republican race and hoping to dampen a candidate they don't want.

TRUMP VS SANDERS

The U.S. primaries are starting to thin out the also rans.  New Hampshire will force some voters to re-assess their choices and some investors (and donators) trying to infuence the outcome will re-calculate where their money will have the best impact.  On the surface it seems we could end up with a contest between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, although there are a lot of dynamics that could change that.

Many commentators have suggested that both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have tapped into the feelings of anger. more effectively than the other candidates.

This year there is a lot of discontent among potential voters.  The important thing is to identify the real cause.  Some have identified it as too many Mexicans, too many Muslims, too many gay rights, Obamacare, the climate change hoax.  I hate to give them any credence, but obviously many do abide by such suggestions.

I boil it down to the status quo not being what it used to be.  The rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer with a big void developing in between.  Of course this is a bit over simplified, but the basic idea is encompassed in the statistics that demonstrate while productivity has gone up, the profits have not been shared proportionately.  Furthermore the people at the top are starting to assert themselves.  They believe they just have to be unshackled and everything will be ok.  They should not have to pay such a high percentage of their well deserved income, nor should they have to tolerate regulations that hem in their ability to generate more profits.  There are a lot of people trying to get a bigger piece of the pie or at least hang on to what they have.

Money talks.  Most of the viable candidates for president literally have a billionaire backing their efforts.  Donald Trump may well be a billionaire and can be self righteous about it.  In fact wealth can do great things; Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy are just two examples of wealth benefitting the masses. But it seems some billionaires think not only that they should have a right to pursue their dream of even more wealth, but that they should be able to tell others to do without.

The Media has a stake in all this.  They love to see expensive tv ads and a close race promises lots of those, especially when backed up by loose campaign finance laws.

Donald Trump certainly knows how to draw an audience.  I am astounded at how gullible people can be.  Shout a few derogatory remarks and many hold him in awe.  He doesn't take much trouble to explain himself, but easily assures people he is the best and can handle any difficulties very simply.

Bernie Sanders is not accepting Super Pacs or large donations.  Some of what he says is mocked by the establishment, but most of what he advocates such as single payer medicare and free tuition is accepted by other industrialized countries.  Basically he is fighting for the little guy, but in the end his approach might well be better for everyone.  No reflexive military response to international problems.  No abandoning people who can't afford an emergency.  Pay attention to what scientists have learned.  Our future is with youth being educated.

They each still have competition and could fall by the wayside.  Bernie just has one competitor,  Hilary Clinton but she has more connections.  Donald Trump has the advantage of a split opposition that still has a lot of egos that aren't ready to quit even if supporters tell them they should for the sake of the country.  One problem with the primaries as each candidate inevitably criticizes their opponents and some of that will carry forward and lot of bruised feelings will hamper future efforts.  So the longer they drag on the primary battles the harder it may be to win the grand prize.

One of my fantasies would be for Elizabeth Warren to endorse Bernie which I think would be a huge (and logical) step to the first Jewish president in American history.  He could reward her with Vice President or Treasury Dept, either of which might launch her to be the first female president of the United States.  Timing is important as decisions are being made and to some extent locked in.  But of course there is a risk as an endorsement might offend the other candidate.