Dark Money by Jane Mayer Threatens us All.

Most people have been suspicious of the power of money.  Jane Mayer has compiled a great deal of research that uncovers some of the plots so our speculations are justified.  It is well researched and written.

Joseph Stiglitz is quoted "Wealth begets power which begets more wealth."  Almost all of us want more of it.  A few are amazingly lucky.  Some have talent that without specific effort result in rewards.  Some work longer hours, some study and specialize to get more money per hour.  Others invest carefully and maybe take a calculated risk.  Some steal or deliberately mislead.  Many of the masses believe that any one who amasses large fortunes must have done something illegal or more likely unethical.  A bit unfair, but "Dark Money" casts light not only on a lot of dastardly deeds, but strong organized efforts to not only cover it up, but also make more of it legal.

It is easy to understand that lowering a tax rate or reclassifying an income steam to a lesser rate benefits whoever can pull it off.  Some of the very rich want more than that.  They resent the government taking their well deserved income and furthermore resent any restrictions on their ability to make money.  Do you ever wonder why if Americans in polls seem to prefer Democrat policies there is gridlock in Congress that impedes progress?

Before the Koch Brothers hit the spotlight they had made some early unsuccessful efforts to gain political power, but after each loss they learned more.  Developing data bases and polling were key instruments gradually getting more sophisticated

The very rich can be hypocritical and self-serving.  Initially the infamous Koch Brothers opposed the government bailout, but reversed themselves when they learned the financial problems threatened them.  After Obama got in office he wanted to start a stimulation program, but Republicans forced him to reduce  the amount and to transfer 1/3 of the remainder to be tax deductions.  Their large donors were behind the votes.  Another example of hypocrisy cites Paul Singer, a hedge fund manager and Koch associate likes to buy up foreign debt and then get government to pressure payments.

Regulations are always painted as a bureaucratic string to hamper legitimate pursuit of profit.  The market is supposed to police abuses, but far too many people have been stung either by paying too much for shoddy goods or suffering their health or even risking their life.  Regulations are set up to control abuses.  See http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/10/regulation-how-we-protect-ourselves.html

Climate change policies were a big concern of the Koch brothers.  Actually George W. Bush at one time agreed climate change was real and he would do something about it.  Dick Cheney who worked for Halliburton was able to reverse trends.  Big Oil money, including Dark Money diminished support for action.  Climate Gate seemed to tarnish the motives of scientists and helped reverse some legislative progress.  Mitt Romney made a strong effort to court the Koch family--reversed stand on climate change

The Affordable Care Act infuriated a lot of people who see it as socialistic and a drain on the budget.  Yet countries with socialist health care plans all seem to have better results at lower costs.  Although not a priority of the Koch brothers they were pleased to add more muscle to their overall strategy.

The Tea Party is usually thought to have spontaneously developed from dissatisfied voters.  Jane points to a lot of background activity.  Racism played a major role with some members, but the Koch Brothers saw an opportunity to push their agenda.  Big Oil got involved.

After Ted Kennedy died in 2009, money from out of state gave the Republican choice a significant money advantage that was used to change the balance of power in the Senate with the election of Scott Brown.  Much of the money came from out of state.

Big money sought more leverage and over 2009-10 they were able to win a victory 5-4 known as Citizens United that allowed unlimited money to be used in election campaigns under the idea it was necessary for free speech.  Obama found himself caught up in the need to raise money to compete.  Denounced Citizens United decision.  "I'm swimming in the same muddy water."  The Democrats with many wealthy supporters had to temper their pitch so as not to offend Wall Street.

The 2010 election marked a strategic effort to gain control of state legislatures and has many senators and House of Representatives.  The Republicans gained control of mapping political districts for the majority of states.  Another project was ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) where legislature favoring big money interests are packaged and presented in state houses.

As 2012 approached, Republicans manoeuvred to get the big money that was now legal.  

Sheldon Adelson cared mainly for Israeli security and put his money towards Newt Gringrich as he felt he was the most reliable for his number one concern.  Eventually Mitt Romney was able to gather more money and become the nominee.

2012 Republican big money failed to win the Presidency, but won control of the House of Representatives with fewer votes than the Democrats.  Next election in 2014 they won majority status in the Senate.  This makes a progressive agenda next to impossible.

Other accomplishments of big Dark Money includes forcing a shut down by refusing to compromise (at the order of their donors).  Outside money allowed Scott Walker to survive a recall election and continue his crusade against union rights.  John Boehner forced to resign.

Jane and her boss at the New Yorker received a threatening email about to expose her.  It turned out to  be sloppy research (on their end not hers) and was easily repudiated.  She can't be sure who actually did it, but notes that she had done a critical article on the Koch family.

Koch Industries are on a major public relations campaign to position themselves as friends of the environment and benevolent employers.  They do have a legitimate charitable history and I noticed they are a major sponsor of the magnificent Museum of Natural History in New York City.

Along the way they have learned respect for polling, data bases and objective analysis.  They are sophisticated enough to develop better presentations of their ideas.

For 2016 the Koch network had planned to spend $889 million, but with Donald Trump they may change the emphasis more to senators and house representatives. Hilary could get in, but find herself fighting even stronger gridlock.  John Kasich's positive stand on Medicaid ousted him from Koch favour despite the fact that he was generality conservative.

What can be done?  Campaign finance laws must not only restrict the amount any individual (or corporation) can donate, but also that large donations must be public.  It would be best to have total public financing, but that would also require some sort of standards for those who qualify.  You can be sure that big dark money is already at work trying to expand their base and impose a very conservative Republican agenda.  Although big Dark Money can overwhelm many voters, how about you?

the Media and the American Election

Some of you may be sick of another political article from me.  I apologize as I had not intended to blog about the American election quite this closely, but the results from last night's primaries have really narrowed the opportunities and I think very counter productive to the best interests of everyone.

Everyone knows that money makes a difference in an election.  But another element is communications that sometimes can overcome money.  When you combine big money and the main stream media it is hard to battle.

A few elections ago I became conscious of the power of the media.  The Democrat Howard Dean got off to a roaring start by being an early adopter of social media and raising money without relying on traditional big donors.  His platform appealed to a lot of people who paid attention.  However there were other contenders some of whom had greater name recognition and were able to tap into big money and he started to lose some of his lustre.  What really did him in was a screaming rant that was not intended for media exposure that nevertheless was caught on tape.  It was played it seemed almost every time his candidacy was discussed in the media.  He never recovered.

Undoubtedly the media has played a role in many elections, but I didn't notice because the issues weren't of big concern or my favourites got in anyway.  I worked in newspapers for about twenty years at a time when people were becoming conscious that newspaper ownership was becoming more concentrated.  Here in Canada one consequence was that fewer towns had a correspondent in Ottawa for their local paper and that seemed to affect voter turnout.   To get more details on newspapers and Canadian politics:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/04/kill-messengers.html

The same process was well underway for television and radio.  In the U.S. it was discovered that profits could be made off news if it was packaged in a more entertaining way.  That meant sensationalism, short clips and punditry.  At the same time Americans have loosened laws regarding election spending to the point that many politicians have found fund raising a critical part of their re-election efforts leaving less time to actually do their job.

Big money is influential in countless ways.  Data analysis, transportation to hopscotch around the electoral districts, and advertising all cost money.  Much of that money comes with obligations and almost all of it with expectations.

In the last two decades alternatives have developed through social media.  This is where alternative ideas can reach the public, but even here big money has intruded.  Social media has become a platform for all sorts of ideas, some of hate.

All this to say is that I think the American public has been given a raw deal by the media.  There certainly is cause for anger amongst most people, but big money has had a lot of success in steering that anger.  In the not so distant past the media played a more significant role in informing voters.

After Obama won his historic victory back in 2008, many hoped he would be able to deal with the problems inherited such as the Iraq war and a major recession.  But others were upset that their world was changing in frightening ways.  Part of it was undeniably racist with Mexicans taking low level jobs away from Americans and of course a black man in charge.  A bigger problem was increasing inequality.  The truth is that some at the very top benefited from outsourcing jobs to other countries, from hiring cheap Mexican labour under the table and from laws that enabled them to keep more of their "hard earned" money.  As I understand it the Tea Party was at least partially motivated by the fact that most of the ones responsible for the financial disaster escaped with virtually no punishment.  Somehow that natural anger got diverted  to the awfulness of Obamacare, environmentalists and regulations hurting jobs plus terrorism.

The real cause of unhappiness is inequality.  An enabler of that is campaign finance laws (courtesy of big money influences).  Three realities we all have to face are automation, climate change and too much hate.  A lot of intelligent and educated people have an understanding of that, but they aren't enough to win elections.

Donald Trump has hosted a reality show and drawn a lot of fans.  People think he is tough and smart and to some degree I agree.  But I would add that it is all self serving.  I don't think that he really believes (or cares) that Obama was born in Kenya, but realized that that suggestion drew him a lot of attention and reinforced some negative views of many Americans.  He is very strong on some notions such as building a wall that will be paid for by Mexicans, slamming the door on Muslims and reviving torture, but is very vague about practical details.  Many of us don't really care about the details.  Lately his antics have been alarming, resulting in actual violence.  Many of his facts are unproven.  For my views of the consequences of torture:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/12/torture.html

Mostly unseen by the media has been Bernie Sanders.  He doesn't fit in.  He is proud to call himself a "democratic socialist" which scares a lot of people (especially the 1%).  When he was drawing bigger audiences than most politicians he got very little media attention.  His explanations got even less coverage.  Those who heard his message really liked it, but more attention was given to the outrageous.  Donald Trump got more free media attention than all the other candidates put together, but yet he was seldom, if ever pinned down to a serious explanation.  Networks all prefer Trump's boisterousness to Bernie's explanations.

Bernie points out that the "corporate media" as he characterizes it, is most interested in the criticisms of his opponents (Donald Trump is famous for that) and social gossip.  They do not really get involved in important issues.  They benefit from an interest in the horse race aspects of an election.

Bernie is pointed out as a radical, but here in Canada many of his ideas are already taken for granted.  We already have and would fight to maintain a single payer healthcare system.  Our campaign finance laws could use some improvement (and more enforcement) but they are ahead of America.  Free tuition for qualified students to university has been done in other countries and could make a real difference to global competitiveness.  Climate change, although denied by special interests is gaining public acceptance and by refusing fossil fuels funds Bernie has credibility like no one else.  He has a long time record of human rights including some jail time.  He is not against military action, but was one of the few to vote against the Iraq War.  Having said all that he is also too boring for the networks.

Bernie does see the real problems Americans should be concerned about and has proved over a long period of time he is sincere.  Pretty much everyone else is very careful what they say to avoid offending their donors or their base.  He has mostly exercised good judgment sorting through what he thinks is best for everyone.  He is not just an idealist as he has quietly improved much legislation through amendments.

What is in the media's best interest is high ratings so they can charge more for advertising.  What is not in their best interests is challenging the 1%. The rest of us are losers.

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.

Iowa, the process begins

As a Canadian I have no say in the American Presidential campaign, but the whole world has a stake in the final result.  The final result is more than just who becomes president, and includes the makeup of the Senate and the House of Representatives.  Together they will set the laws and even determine who interprets the law.  They can all have a huge impact on the rest of the world.  I don't pretend to understand all the details of the process, and I suspect few Americans do either.  As with anything similar, a lot of preparation has gone on for this contest and will continue with adjustments.

Iowa seems a strange place to begin the formal process.  It is more rural, less diverse and apparently has a higher percentage of evangelicals than most states.  All these factors colour the result, but more importantly help set the wheels in motion.  Farm subsidies are a bigger issue than elsewhere and candidates have to address this concern.  Interestingly the big Republican winner, Ted Cruz is against subsidies to the ethanol growers, but tempers it a bit by refusing subsidies to other energy providers to even the playing field.  Less diverse people and more evangelicals puts greater emphasis on the issue of abortion and same sex marriage.  Candidates often find themselves locked into positions that might not carry as much weight in subsequent elections.

Being the first chance to gain attention the Iowa caucuses can be critical to many politicians.  The outstanding example is Jimmy Carter who was basically an unknown former governor of Georgia.  He identified Iowa as critical to gain public awareness and build momentum.  Far ahead of the Iowa caucuses he devoted a great deal of time to understand what Iowans were concerned about and cultivated contacts.  He also was able to boast about his zero based accountng that was demonstrated early in his campaign.  Although he didn't win Iowa he got national attention and was able to build on it.  It hasn't always worked out that way for everyone as many have been able to overcome losing in Iowa (even badly) to win the final prize, but it is now seen as a necessary credibility step.

This all gives Iowa greater power than their small size would normally give.  Many citizens take the responsibility seriously and candidates are forced into  explaining themselves to large numbers of small groups.  They offer what many consider an archaic process that differs for Republicans and Democrats.  I don't totally understand it, but was struck by what I know about the Democrat caucus system.

Each candidate is given a space that others can go to register their support.  There is even a spot for the uncommitted.  After each candidate has a representative speak on their behalf the assembled voters get to make a choice.  Any group that has less than 15% overall is broken up and forced to go to another group.  Sometimes the uncommitted are able to dominate, but they also are split up if they fail to reach 15%.  Many of us in multi party systems end up voting strategically, but in reality we are guessing with skimpy information.  In Iowa it is pretty clear amongst the Democrats which candidate is dominating and which might benefit from some support.  After some jockeying a decision is made and I think in some instances it must be more satisfying than attempts to strategize votes in other jurisdictions.

With the results in, the dynamics are changing already.  Although the rest of the race to the White House has different rules it is normal for some losers to give up.  Behind the scenes some financial donators are making decisions as well.

There were a few surprises, but not totally out of line with predictions.  In many ways I am very unimpressed with the voters response, but then they probably don't think much of my reasoning.
Donald Trump to a great extent coasted on his tv reality show and some bombastic declarations.  He was defeated by a narrow minded focused, Ted Cruz who understood the importance of hard work and organizing.  As a Canadian I would like to interject that Trump's assertion that Cruz might be disqualified for his Canadian birth was very unfair.  That little bit of doubt probably encouraged some marginal Cruz supporters to look elsewhere.  I think originally the Constitutional requirement of natural American birth was to protect the new democracy against foreign born aristocrats. Nonetheless it is a stupid law that hurts everybody.  All voters deserve to get the best person available.  Also don't forget the Constitution left out women and slaves as voters.

The establishment was relieved to learn one of their favoured candidates, Marco Rubio finished third.  This will allow voters and financiers to consolidate their efforts and resources against the outsiders Trump and Cruz.  A year ago it was assumed by many that Jeb Bush would be able to represent establishment Republicans, but I think the Iowa results make that much more difficult.  Others will soon be weighing whether it is worth the effort.  Becoming president isn't the only motive as national attention can result in a political appointment, a tv contract a lobbying position or selection as the Vice President nominee.

The Republicans were able to tap into a well of fear and ignorance.  That is compounded by the size of the field meaning that each candidate tends to try to outdo their opponents in sensational claims.  It is true that the American economy is a big letdown for many voters and that international conflicts are scary, but they overlook who is responsible for that and who has been mopping up the mess much better than his predecessor.  In eight years a lot is forgotten, but the origins of much that is wrong in America was brought about by policies, decisions and people that associated with Republicans and which they wish to continue.  Obamacare, a big step in the right direction is denigrated (I think that is the right word) and too many people accept the Republican view.  A decision to go to war with Iraq was one of the most stupid and deceitful decisions ever with very long lasting consequences.  Giving rich bankers and investors less regulations resulted in a major disaster for which others paid the price.

There is more to the economy than just regulations or the lack thereof.  The global economy  works best for rich investors who can shift money and manufacturing facilities easily to co-operating jurisdictions for more profit.  We are also at a point where machines can produce more goods than people can.  For some investors they are able to take advantage of this and for the most part seem unconcerned about who they are displacing.  There have been small attempts to adjust, but they are resisted by those at the top of the food chain.

Over on the Democrat side it became obvious they have a two way race, casting aside Martin O'Malley, an intelligent individual but without a national profile  He never really had much of a chance to make himself and his ideas known on a national scale, but at least he made it to the debating platform.  Others dropped out and others decided not worth the effort.  Senator Elizabeth Warren and Vice President Joe Biden are out of the running, but may get a significant appointment if their party wins.

There is not as much difference between the two remaining Democrat candidates as there are between either one of them and the Republicans, but there is a difference.  Bernie Sanders is characterized as an idealist and it is unusual for an idealist to make it this far.  Usually they have to compromise more than Sanders has so far.  Like Trump he is also tapping into a great discontent in the American population, but I think he has identified the causes better than anyone.  He may not be able to implement his ideas, but likely would bring us closer to a fairer society.  Clinton positions herself as practical.  She knows that Congress will be difficult to work with and promises she will get results incrementally.

Perhaps as the fields narrow down the important issues will be discussed in a more reasonable manner.  Republicans reflexively deny climate change, a stance that still carries a lot of weight, but is slowly fading.  Obamacare needs to be improved not abolished.  Immigration (including refugees) needs to be reformed.   Inequality will inevitably get worse until there is either a violent revolution or a collapse of society.

Campaign finance over rides everything.  No prospective politician will get very far without large amounts of money.  They will have to spend a great deal of time and effort to get the money and perhaps even more critical, compromise.  One example is Marco Rubio getting money from a casino owner who is demanding favourable treatment for Israel which may not be in America's best interest.  Energy companies are huge donators who want to maintain their status quo.  Investors donate to give themselves favourable treatment.  It seems most of those willing to contribute to a campaign want something that is not in the best interest of the rest of us.

The media sees the whole process as an opportunity.  The news creates interest and they tend to treat it as a horse race or a platform for sensationalism.  Most importantly they can get a lot of advertising revenue.  They certainly can and do often distort things.  CNN highlighted a weak moment of Howard Dean that helped undo his campaign, but had little to do with what he offered the country.   If they would just highlight candidate distortions and falsifications they would be rendering a public service, but they tend to just skim over the issues.

Will the Americans end up with the best result under their system?   We may never know what dedicated servant who is knowledgeable and exercises good judgment under stress would have come forward if it had been easier.  We can get only those who muster the resources to put on a good show.

The idea of starting with Iowa is not all bad as it forces candidates to talk to more actual voters.  That gives hard workers a chance to create awareness.  Part of the problem is the length of the voting, starting with the primaries and also including the national campaign.  It is a huge country and it takes time to cover it all, but there is another dynamic that cuts that down.  Many states already give the appearance of giving their voting delegates to one party or the other which means both parties feel little need to cater to them instead putting their resources where the outcome (as determined by history and polls) is undecided.  There is a trade-off between the expensive time required to make a case and the scope of the voters concerns.  There is no perfect system, but it is due for a study.

The American Primary Debates

Unlike in Canada the Americans really stretch out an election campaign, specifically the Presidential election.  As soon as one election is resolved organization begins for the next election four years later.  The situation intensifies two years in, especially after the midterms.  Although my bias is for the Democrats I feel there are concerns that bode ill for any political aspirant and for the voters.

By itself this is an expensive proposition which automatically eliminates many prospects.  It also encourages a lot of investigative efforts to uncover any flaws in a particular candidate including their families also discouraging for some worthy prospects  It is good business for media and marketing people.  A number of candidates are able to neglect their jobs in the pursuit of a higher office.  It rewards those who are best able to leap through all the hoops, but not necessarily the best candidates.

My great fear is that the Democrats are conceding too great a broadcast platform to the Repubicans.  A lot of speculation that as part of a pro Hilary Clinton campaign they are limiting the number of debates and making them at unpopular awkward times.  Hilary has hard to beat name recognition value.  The only other two left are Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders, both capable men who would benefit from greater exposure.  A celebrity once said you can say anything you want about me, but spell my name right.

The last time around the Republicans did hurt themselves with a long drawn out campaign that seemed to force candidates to out yell and out threaten each other.  They have cut down the number of debates, but started with a longer list of candidates and were forced to do outrageous things to get attention.  In reality they have to appeal to a difficult to please base before they argue their merits in front of all the voters.

Getting our attention is the goal of every aspiring politician.  The debates are only one forum for this, but potentially a very good opportunity for the voter to understand their choices better.  But it is not quite as clear cut as it seems.  Squeezing in time for a large number of egoists is difficult for a media who sees this as an opportunity to boost their advertising revenue.

When I list the issues, it is perilous to ignore any of them and they are all inter-related.

I agree inequality is fundamental.  The Republicans keep proving their loyalty is to their donor base Those at the top get to decide for the rest of us.  They seem focused on allowing freedom to exploit those not fortunate enough to have more power.  Opportunities are restricted from birth and there is no painless way to alleviate that.  The government has power to facilitate the optimal mix, but they are too often beholden to special interests before even tackling the difficult choices.

Climate change, an issue critical for our future in some ways illustrates the inequality.  Those who  are entrenched with fossil fuel resources feel threatened.  I am sure some are learning to hedge their bets, but know clearly that when the consumption and price of oil goes down so does their fortune and their power.  It seems amazing that many voters prefer the opinions of those with vested interests over relatively neutral and earnest scientists, but that is still reality.

International instability is a very complex issue.  First one has to accept that no one nation, not even an exceptional one like America, really controls the rest of the world.  The international players are  threatened by inequality, climate change and ignorance of each other.  The Republicans scoff at the idea that climate change has anything to do with national security.  Many of them are intelligent enough, but more concerned about maintaining their own  power.

Campaign finance affects everything else.  Getting your voice heard costs money and with a long campaign, money becomes an even bigger issue.  A major concern of every elected politician is to get re-elected.  Raising the necessary money now takes up more of their time and ties their options.  They used to spend time sorting out the factors of decisions they were elected to make and to discuss with other perspectives.  Billions are being spent to sway your vote, not necessarily for your best interests.

Human rights are too often a wedge issue.  If the majority is prejudiced against a group they feel it is their right to discriminate and ignore the merits.  In some ways this is an inequality issue, but goes beyond income.  Politicians have learned by using code words and sometimes blunt language they can get votes at the expense of minorities or of some people violating other people's religious beliefs

The voters get most of their information through the media.  Although many have pre-set notions others are open to facts and intelligent opinions, but bear in mind that the media has its own agenda.  Basically they are in business to make money and sometimes that means sensationalizing the format and/or the content.  They tend to minimize the issues to cover the horse race aspects.  The more powerful media outlets may have their own preferences and can advantage one side or the other.

Everything is stacked against the middle class, but most of us are unaware of how we are being manipulated or are made to feel helpless.  As a counter balance there is the inter net and word of mouth.  Most voters have access to alternative opinions and facts.  Bernie Sanders, my favourite has been able to draw large crowds, mostly I suspect sympathizers, but is not able to get nearly the time on major media outlets as someone like Donald Trump.  He has the disadvantage of not being favoured by the establishment.  Part of his appeal comes from avoiding special interest donations that go against his platform.  Others are willing to compromise their agendas to get the necessary money.

It is easy to be self-rightious, but nothing can be done unless a politician is able to get elected.  Really what we have is a representative democracy, meaning we trust others to make the decisions that we do not have the time to understand.  In many ways we do not have the time or even motivation to understand who can be trusted to represent our best interests.

The American primary procedure illustrates the problems.  Hopefully as more people become aware of the distortions something can be done.  This blog is really only indicating some problems, but is not in a position to implement any helpful suggestions.

The photo is from a trip taken to Las Vegas a few years ago.

With all the Donald Trump nonsense Bernie Sanders is being overlooked by the media

When one writes about a political figure it might be fair to declare your own bias.  I like to consider myself liberal and progressive and confess an admiration for Bernie Sanders.  That doesn't mean that I would automatically agree with every thing or nuance he declares and I hope to retain some objectivity.  In some ways he seems to be fading from serious contention with Hilary Clinton over-whelming, but Bernie in many ways is much more admirable.  Loud mouth Donald Trump is getting much more media attention, but people ought to realize Bernie is their real champion.

He has been consistent over a longer period of time.  He actually marched with black civil rights groups.  He actually voted against the Iraq War.  He is the main candidate who understand climate change is a key issue.  He has consistently voted for sexual equality and fairness to tax payers and doesn't check polls to decide what to say.  He was caught off guard by Black Lives Matter, but seems to understand their concerns.

In western democracies, especially in the U.S. the real rulers are wealthy.  Donald Trump is not only a very wealthy man, but adept at getting attention through the media. His expressed views placates the fears of important masses.  The sort who feel that blacks and Mexicans are robbing them of their culture and that any Muslim could be a terrorist.  The other candidates understand these fears, but are concerned about what they must do to win over the general population with bigoted factons..

Bernie Sanders wants to get elected, but is not accepting money from lobbyists.  He  wants to focus on the real issues instead of entertainment.  Inequality is his biggest concern and campaign financing which allows the very rich to distort and lie their way to further inequality.  Listen to him and you will appreciate he makes sense and is on the side of the middle class.

Is he perfect?  Probably not, but getting rid of or at least diminishing the power of the wealthy to inflict their views on the rest of us is critical.

A concern of mine is Palestine where he says the right things, but doesn't get involved with details.  As a Jew he shows concern for the Palestinians, but seems reluctant to get very involved as he has with other issues.  It is a touchy subject with many Jewish voters.  A very key issue that is long overdue a revamping.

One can anticipate tactics used against him.  A CNN moderator made it sound like Bernie went on his honeymoon to Russia because he is a socialist, when in fact it was an official event decided before he became mayor of Burlington, Vermont. The word socialist is an abused word conflated with the "dirty Communists."  Americans applaud individual achievement and occasionally one hears it is the society that allows that.  The connection between the society and achievement is not always clear, but in reality it is a critical factor.

The biggest weapon being used against Bernie is ignoring him.  The media ignores him in favor of those more friendly to the corporations that run them.   When he is talked about the point is always made that he is a socialist, but few really understand that is different from Communism.  In fact he had drawn some of the largest crowds of the whole campaign and most polls show his ideas are more accepted than many of those getting more publicity.

There are polls show not only that Hilary Clinton has a lead and has added to it on the Democrat side.  She put on an impressive demonstration at a Congressional hearing on Benghazi that should not have been allowed to drag on.  I have heard of some polls that say she has problems on the national scale convincing enough voters she is trustworthy.  Bernie's problem seems to be a lack of name recognition and the aura of a bad word, "socialism."  Big dollars will assure that the media will be inundated with lots of distortions of the truth.  Bernie seems the man really needed.

"This Changes Everything "deserves major attention

Naomi Klein has earned a reputation for tilting her lance at the establishment.  She attracts a lot of sympathy for her stands, although other people think she is naive.  Mostly the average person is unconcerned about her issues.  Bad mistake as she in my opinion is pretty good at pinpointing problems we all need to be concerned about.  Inequality, climate change, pollution, too much corporate power.

In "This Changes Everything" she sees climate change as an opportunity to change the establishment as well as a serious crisis demanding a global co-operative effort.  She discovers that some conservatives are more concerned about the threat to their idea of a free market.  They want no regulations or be forced to share their profits.  Some also feel insulated from the bad effects of climate change and others feel they can adjust.

They are right to fear that forces that want to protect the environment are dangerous to the status quo.  Naomi sees that wealth (and power) will have to be redistributed to solve the problems that affect all humanity.  One concern she has is to somehow deal with campaign finance laws that allow the wealthy to promote their interests at the expense of everyone else.

The need to harmonize with natural forces is given credence with a wide variety of examples of how vested interests have abused their power to maximize their wealth.  Technology in extracting energy and other natural resources may seem innovative, but to Naomi they seem like desperation from fossil fuel addicts.

Trade agreements work against local buying which is one strategy to reduce environmental stress. They represent the needs and wants or corporate interests at the expense of ordinary citizens.  Infinite growth is seen as the core of the free market.   Trade agreements often restrict renewable energy efforts in various ways

The Green movement has been infiltrated by fossil fuel interests.   She gives examples of Richard Branson, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and T Boone Pickens who have all used environmental rhetoric, but have according to Naomi perverted the claims.  They are interested in looking for replacements, but not in root causes.

Geo engineering is favored by many who do not want to change their life style.  Some have used volcanic activity as proof how we can cool down the earth, however Naomi points out they overlook the bad effects of the same volcanic activity.  Other schemes share a great risk of the unknown repercussions.

Time is changing.  Many of the older generation feel buying green and changing a few habits are all they can do.  Young people are more activist and do not rely on buying eco friendly products or donating to green causes as they get right out and protest specific projects.  They are being joined by others who are finding that as extraction and transportation projects spread they impinge on their life style and more importantly their health.

Indigenous groups, most of whom are a lot more attuned to nature have had their legal rights recognized.  White middle class environmentalists are realizing that combating entrenched corporations requires not just money, but legalities.  Aboriginal people are often trapped in their poverty and feel inadequate to use their full legal rights to protect their land.  Alliances are developing, but there are counter pressures.

"The Shock Doctrine" an earlier book which I bought tells how political ideologues impose their ideas on the masses when a catastrophe occurs.  Naomi is suggesting these opportunities can also allow changes from the grass roots up instead of the top down.   Social movements have been more successful in human rights than addressing economic issues, but there is hope (in need of organizing).  Slavery was abolished in Britain, but one of the prices was reparations to the slave owners.

During the writing of this book Naomi made a concentrated effort to become pregnant and finally succeeded to her goal of motherhood.  Along the way her awareness sharpened with regard to fertility.  Species do not necessarily become extinct because of killing, but often because of issues of fertility.  Researching the Gulf Oil Spill she realized the greatest damage was not to mature animals, but those at the embryonic stage.  Her research uncovered many connections between chemical pollution and infertility, birth defects and miscarriages.

The problem will not be solved by those at the top who have vested interests in the status quo, but can only be the result of resistance from the bottom.  Those whose wealth depends upon not finding a solution will have to be dealt with and they will not co-operate unless under great pressure.  A lot of angles are covered in "This Changes Everything" and it also attempts to explain the counter arguments which in all fairness are losing their credibility.  This book sums up the most serious concerns of our time very well--everyone should read it.

MID TERM RESULTS

The U.S. mid term election results were very upsetting to us liberals.  Can American voters really be that dumb or that apathetic?  They very clearly voted against their own self interest, unless the individual was in the 1% crowd.  The media has to bear some of the blame as they were not at all forthcoming with keeping politicians honest.

It is not true that the Democratic economic policies were ineffective or that the Republican agenda would be an improvement.  It is not true that Obamacare was an abysmal failure.  It is not true that the White House screwed up the Mid East after the previous administration had gotten it under control.

It is true that the Republicans very deliberately  did everything in their power to block Democrat policies and to distort the results.  It is true that the Republicans did what they could to represent the interests of the 1% at the expense of the bottom 90%.  It is true that by denying climate change they are dangerously delaying any remedy.   It is true that Republicans spent a great deal of time and money stirring up false scandals instead of seeking workable compromises.  It is true that under Democrats the economy did improve significantly and that health care dramatically improved for millions of Americans.

Unfortunately we live in the "interesting times"  referred to in a Chinese curse.  Solutions to the many problems require a delicate balance.  Instead we are about to have the rhetorical heat edged up a few notches.

How did they do it?  FEAR, GREED and IGNORANCE.  It is easy to stir fear and greed amongst the ignorant.  People naturally want more out of life and fear a lot of things.  We all have a tendency to think short term, but decisions made today affect everyone for a long time, including our descendants. Everything affects our neighbourhood, but we need to look at a much larger picture.

I would like to run down a few issues to help explain my disappointment.  It may seem a bit disjointed as I should admit I am not in a good mood nor as coherent as I would like.

DEBT is not a good thing.  Yes, spending someone else's money is easy to do and can easily get out of hand.  Waste needs to be targeted, but also priorities within our limited resources need to be determined.  There are many problems that should be dealt with listed elsewhere.  Taxation is not a dirty word.   As others have said it is the price of civilization.  There are more than enough resources to give all the people a better opportunity to contribute and share the rewards.  The very rich benefit from a robust infrastructure, educated population, pollution free atmosphere, legal framework that prevents abuse, defence against our enemies and much more and if they are unwilling to pay their fair share we will all suffer.  Contrary to many perceptions the Democrats handled debt much better than the Republicans.

JOBS are important.  We all need to understand that jobs are generated by consumers, not just investors and innovators.  Not only are the jobless a drain on the economy, unable to support business, but idleness does create bad habits and resentment.  The government is really a facilitator.  Government workers help facilitate their country in countless ways.  Regulations may seem onerous and can certainly be overdone, but without them there would be a dog eat dog world.  We shouldn't be living to work, but we should be working to live. In the future, automation will make it possible for more people to contribute and to enjoy life.  We don't need greedy profiteers steering our future.

INEQUALITY is not just an abstract notion.  If gone too far it has negative impacts on everyone.  Eventually it can lead to revolution and violence.  To some degree it is inevitable, but at some point is unhealthy.  One solution is progressive taxes.  Everyone is entitled to necessities, but those who have benefited from society need to share some of the cost.  A delicate balance.

$4 BILLION CAMPAIGN EXPENSE  This ensures a number of negative things.  More time spent on fundraising than on resolving difficult issues.  More obligations to special interests. There is a need to understand the issues and how they connect, but currently that is all obscured with negative campaigns and manipulating data.  Debates to some extent are artificial, but offer an opportunity to thrash out the issues.  Too many candidates avoid debates and hard questioning.  Each serious candidate should have a platform to explain what they have to offer and why they are the best choice, but ideally this platform should be relatively equal so voters can make an objective choice.  Not likely to happen.

CLIMATE CHANGE:  Who do you believe?  Those with an interest in the status quo or those who have studied the issues in an objective atmosphere?  It requires individuals, but more importantly global co-operation.  We cannot expect the other guy to act first, but need to lead by example and by intelligent argument.  We are all losers if we don't soon come to grips with the problem.  Governments, even though some think they are the problem are necessary to co-ordinate an international response.  What is fair for those invested in current system and what is fair for those not so fortunate?  What are we leaving for future generations?  Some  serious delicate negotiations are required and soon.  Climate deniers need to get with it.

OBAMACARE--this is the most ironic of all.  The path chosen is one originally touted by Republicans.  Americans need to look at the rest of the world--medical costs and medical benefits are much more satisfactory in other developed countries.  Medical problems are not the major cause of bankruptcy in other nations.  Healthcare is essential for the economy and defence of a country.  It is amazing how ordinary people have been fooled on this one.  Republicans show a disdain for making it better.

INTERNATIONAL WAR AND PEACE.  The world can be a dangerous place.  There is distrust and fear that leads to violence.  Ignorance of different countries and cultures is unhealthy.  Americans would benefit from being more multi-lingual.  It seems likely the American posture will be more belligerent.

SOCIAL ISSUES are with some groups so powerful they overcome economic self interest.  Abortions and gay rights still seem to be wedge issues with some segments.  Abortion is the unhappy solution to what some people feel is a problem, an unwanted pregnancy.  Some die and others are rendered sterile in the effort and others end up in poverty.  Sex education and provision of contraceptives have proved to be effective, but are opposed by those who reveal their real motivation is that promiscuity should not be allowed.  That also seems to be a factor for those upset over gay rights.  Why should we reward people for having sinful "fun."  The world needs more love and less hate.

Racial attitudes seem unhealthy.  Many dismiss the "race card" but fail to acknowledge there are racial inequalities in America that go back centuries.  Racial injustice hurts all of us and perhaps this mid term is another example.

WHY?  who really gains from the election results?  The 1% must have gained something because they donated a lot of money for the result.  Surely the other 99% must realize it wasn't much to their benefit.  All of us are guilty of not making enough time and energy to study the issues and to vote our conscience.  The politicians have used their resources to take advantage of us.

I don't mean that one party has all the answers, but we need to examine which one is going in the direction we need.  What needs to change to go in that direction?  Campaign finance, fair voting districts, fairer voting regulations and perhaps most of all a mechanism for truth.  Democracy still seems like a great idea, but last night the American example is a bit tarnished.

MID TERM ELECTIONS ARE IMPORTANT. LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD

The choice is clear and the stakes are high.  Some powers are intent upon imposing obstacles between some American citizens and the ballot box.  But for some, voting is not worth the effort.  Fear and greed are the two most powerful weapons against rational thinking and that is another obstacle in the way of setting the American government on a better course..

Representing the interests of the 1% you have those who mock scientists, are dead set against health insurance coverage for the masses, .  You can argue that the other side don't do much to help the common man, but you would be overlooking they are handicapped.  It is also true that nobody gets elected without a lot of financial support that in fact ties their hands a bit.  Politics should not be a horse race, but rather a forum of ideas.

Barack Obama has his hands tied by Congress and his own obligations to those who finance him.  What is a voter to do?  Don't trust those who blame him for the problems.  Obama has offered solutions for the benefit of the common man and tried to surround himself with people who can help boost the country, but he is pretty well stymied.  Still the facts support he has done a good job and the attacks on him are mostly unworthy.

Affordable Health Care (socialized medicine if you prefer) has been an idea accepted by most of the developed world who have discovered that it is more cost effective than most of the alternatives.  Obama selected a plan that originally had been developed by Republicans and works within a market system.  It had been tried in Massachusetts with no major problems and many benefits ironically under a Republican governor who again ironically renounced  it while currying favour with Republican power brokers.  Since its partial implementation has proved itself capable of saving money as well as boosting health.  Republicans still rant against it, but their logic should not be accepted.

Foreign policy is always a delicate affair.  At one time a super power could impose its views on any dissenters.  Armament manufacturers do provide jobs and wealth and have pressured government leaders to use weapons to protect their interests.  The world is a complicated place with countless points of view and somehow we need to learn how to get along to solve global problems that can do us all in.  The Republicans took advantage of 9/11 to invade a country not connected to the event.  They thought they could force foreigners to their will, but found taking sides and deceiving people is not a good plan.  It is far better to take the time to understand the situation than to jump in.  Obama has been more cautious and long term in his thinking.

Immigration is another dicey problem.  Many businesses and individuals see it has a chance to get cheap labour.  Others feel their jobs threatened.    Still others distrust strangers with different cultural values.  The Republican rhetoric concentrates on sealing the border.  Their tough stance indicates that they think they can use this as a wedge issue where prejudice and fear make people irrational.  At the same time businesses like to have cheap labor and see immigrants as another way to minimize worker choice.  America has been made great by immigration and there is every reason to think they will actually benefit from future immigration.  There will have to be tough decisions, but they should not be based on prejudice and exploitation.  Obama seems to be more understanding.

Climate change is laughed at by Republicans who claim it has not been proved.  There has been an overwhelming conclusion by the global scientific community that this is the major problem in the world.  (I would just add aggravated by overpopulation).  Republicans have fossil fuel money and religious conservatives demanding the rejection of any plan to deal with the future disaster.  This alone is grounds for voting for an alternative to the Republicans

Inequality concerns are brushed off as envy.  Most Americans are unaware of just how much the 1% controls in their country.  Republicans claim the wealthy are job creators, but that overlooks outsourcing, union bashing and other practices.  The true job creators are consumers, but the bulk of Americans have less money and job security than in the past.

The Republicans are obstructionists.  What does that mean?  Instead of compromising and working together they vote against Democratic proposals on principle.  There may well be legitimate principles, but if they really want to serve their constituents they should be working to create laws that work.  There is a lot of money that could help fix the deficit and get Americans working, but the Republicans are far more interested in protecting their rich supporters.

The Presidential election stirs a lot of attention, however too many voters underestimate the importance of mid term elections.  The President certainly has a lot of power, but cannot accomplish what he promised without Congress.  At the moment the American Congress is very obstructive and ignoring the common man in favour of their rich donators.

Campaign financing has come to distort the discussion platform and if anything most Republicans would tilt it even further.  Corporations are not people, but are allowed to influence the outcome. At bottom campaign finance laws should be altered to limit the influence of money.

It is true that a lot is stacked against a single voter.  Those who have the most to gain by a Democratic victory seem to have the most hoops to jump through.  Those who are wishy washy will be bombarded with a lot of distortions.  Gerrymandering means single votes might have very little impact.  Even though the rules allow a party to dominate with fewer total votes the party with most votes does gain some moral leverage. Single votes do add up so make sure your vote is part of the equation.  You can be sure many others with different priorities will make it to the voting booth.

AMERICAN POLITICAL PRIORITIES

As an unwelcome outsider I see that the American media is dominated (or at least the political portion) by scandals.  Three of them, dealing with Benghazi, the IRS and AP are examples of excessive attention.  One commonality that they share is that they are petty in comparison to the real problems faced by the nation.  Some people would prefer to argue over the details, but the more you probe the more you realize that as important as they might be, they are distractions from real life and death concerns.

Republicans act like every mistake (often manufactured) proves the Democrats are unfit for office.  Their own sorry record is ignored.  It is hard to imagine bigger scandals than the manufactured justification for an invasion of Iraq or the Iran-Contra affair or the fiscal mess for which they made the key decisions.

There are serious problems being ignored.  It is hard to determine how all the real problems should best be dealt with, but Republicans are focused on how they can regain power and force their agenda on an unsuspecting America.  As I list what I think should be priorities you will notice that Republicans are for the most part counter productive.

Climate Change is acknowledged by most of the world as real.  Republicans are financed by those who likely would lose some of their relative wealth after some of the logical corrective actions are taken.  With their wealth and expertise they could be planning how best to transition to the new realities, but for the most part they are manipulating every way they can on how to maintain their wealth and leverage.  I don't think Republicans are blind to science, just willing to look the other way when it serves their perceived interests.

Jobs was a promise the Republicans used to win elections in 2010, but soon proved to be dishonest.  Anything that could help boost jobs seemed to be tied to a social agenda and Republicans soon pushed in other directions.  Job solutions were often linked to lessening taxes and regulations for job creators (who meanwhile have been avoiding taxes anyway they can and shifting jobs to low wage and regulation jurisdictions).  To my mind I would borrow from an economist, John Maynard Keynes, (hated by conservatives) who felt the purpose of any economic system is the betterment of all mankind.  Those with wealth to protect see things differently and can be very indignant and self righteous in their justification.  If jobs were a higher priority the average person would be better off and so also those better positioned.

The world has a number of troubling spots, but possibly the Mid-East is one that could explode.  I agree that there are some zealots who hate America and much of that hate is unreasonable.  Unfortunately in following their own narrow interests (Canada and the rest of the West is mostly in step) Americans have sided with dictators to obtain scarce natural resources.  In fact industrial interests (such as those tied to the internal combustion engine) and those who control natural resources are tangled in.  I remember during the Cold War at one point Americans and Russians and later Chinese took part in cultural exchanges.  They seem superficial, but in fact they help us to understand and respect each other more.  Arabs and Muslims have much to offer and we Westerners could benefit from more contact.  Impediments include Guantonamo, Palestine, interference in Mid-eastern countries and loudly expressed ignorance.  I don't mean to diminish the importance of other global trouble spots, some of which could be apocalyptic.

Although politicians of all parties seem to be adjusting another very critical issue is campaign financing.  Americans are unique in their ever lengthening campaigns for political office.  Instead of dealing with real issues politicians spend a lot of their time fund raising which often seems to involve demonizing the opposition.  It might be better to spend time trying to understand those who see issues from a different perspective rather than attempting to overpower them.  Ideally those who can serve the people should have an equal platform and should be equally accessible to the people.  All we can hope for is to move towards that ideal instead of further away which we are doing now.  The current setup works to the advantage of wealthy people and the media, but not anyone else.

Democracy is what everyone claims we already have, but in fact Americans have locked themselves into a system that is far from ideal.  The Constitution is sacred to many and I agree there needs to be an impartial base for everything.  Times do change and it would not hurt to reflect on some of the realities of negotiating the original American constitution.  Small states were afraid of losing their power to large states who naturally had a different perspective.  To get them to join in to form a greater power some concessions were made and had a philosophical justification most of us can appreciate.  Slavery is something Americans claim to be over, but at the time was a major consideration in how the Constitution was set up.  Religious considerations were handled fairly well in the sense that there was a clear separation of church and state with a reasonable toleration for others.  Interpretations and practices have changed.

United States has evolved into a two party system (third parties require an enormous amount of money to have an impact) and each of the two parties has adapted to Constitutional realities.  This means if one party can leverage the inequalities better than the other they can gain power.  One lever that works has been racism.  That is oversimplified, but they have also found ways to bundle their narrow economic concerns with social agendas.  All it requires is small states with two Senators and a base of three electoral votes to aggregate and they can overcome majority interests.

It is common for many countries to have coalition governments.  This is frowned upon by Americans, but really they much better reflect the concerns of the majority of people.  Coalitions happen normally because of a system that allows each voter to have a strong say in the final outcome.  Your vote still has meaning even if your choice doesn't garner the most votes.  In United States (and Canada) if your candidate falls short by even one vote they do not get any power.  In proportional systems, recognizing that every voter has unique interests the candidates pool their votes over a bigger system and are granted some power.  Often this means things don't get done because it is more difficult to get agreement, but each candidate (or more accurately each political party) has to appeal to a larger base if they want to have much leverage.  In the United State many states are so pre determined in their preferences that neither party feels the need to spend time appealing to them.

If you can't get your way it seems logical to compromise and get as much as you can.  It might even prove the merits of your ideas.  Republicans have concluded somehow that they can get a lot more if they make the Democrats look incompetent or better still, evil.  They could provide some needed balance, but have opted to be obstructive.  They have enough power to paralyze the government and stop any constructive efforts that might be attempted.

Nobody has all the answers, but in the United States they have created a monster labyrinth where when serious people are trying to enter they are distracted by other people more concerned about increasing their power no matter what.  Reality is that no one even knows the answers and no one has enough power to do enough and no one has the time to try to understand the many variables.  Republicans are entitled to their views and in fact have enough power to force compromises, but feel they can leverage their power to get a much bigger piece of the pie.

Lobbyists do deserve more appreciation

Lobbyists have a bad rap.  Probably much of it is deserved, but the essential underlying role they play is crucial for society to survive and thrive.  The key phrase used against them is "special interest." Sounds terrible, but each of us has our own special interests and few of us have the resources to make sure our special interests are understood and respected.  When you break down your special interests they include your job, age, ethnic background, location, medical conditions, gender, sexual orientation, hobbies, environment, etc. etc.  There is someone advocating for some of your interests or maybe against them all the time.

A lobbyist is really a salesman representing an idea.  A good idea deserves a hearing.  Too many good ideas do not really get a fair hearing and we all lose when that is the case.  

Your political representative uses or should use your geography as their base of concern.  Most jurisdictions are based on geography whether elected or bureaucratic and we do share concerns (special interests) with our neighbours.  In addition to your narrow concerns you should be concerned about the rest of the world, because whether you understand it or not it is all inter-related to what you do value.

Each special interest needs advocates or they will not achieve proper attention.  An elected representative cannot be an expert in all the fields that affect their constituents.  There are many new and/or unknown issues and opportunities that should be advocated.  It takes a lot of effort to get a new idea adopted that can benefit a wider audience.  A good lobbyist (salesperson) is responsible for progress.  The elected politician needs to analyze the factors of any issue and make a logical fair decision.  Sometimes they do not calculate right and in other times they give more weight to one side perhaps because they are rewarded for doing so.

The bad image is deserved to the extent that a lobbyist has disproportionate influence.  This usually comes from money but sometimes from traditions that have an overdue grip on us.  Money creates a problem because it can sway decisions that affect people who don't have more than a vote once every few years to affect that decision.  In most modern democracies it takes money to get elected, lots of it. A politician needs money to draw attention to themselves, to find out what the voters will vote for and to present themselves most favorably.

The more successful lobbyists seem to give big donations to political parties and candidates.  No one likes to say the donations affect any outcomes, but they certainly seem to open up access.

It has come to the point that most politicians spend much more of their time fundraising than they used to.  This of course dips into the time needed to actually serve their constituents.  They need to study issues from all angles, they need to discuss with others to better understand reasonable compromises.  Political donations come with a price.  At the very least that price includes time away from their real duties.

To get elected is much more complicated than having the best policies that benefit the most people. There are so many different issues that when narrowing your vote down to only two choices (theoretically more in many jurisdictions) how the policies are packaged and presented is critical.  Of course there are the general categories of conservative and liberal, but that doesn't always work for most of us).  As one general example none of us really want to pay taxes, but we all expect as much service as possible.

The ideal is to have a level field for an election.  Admittedly that Utopian ideal is inconceivable when you think hard on the matter.  But we need to work towards it and a big factor is tied to money.  Why should it take a colossal amount of money to get elected?  Why can't candidates be given an equal platform to present and debate their policies?  One problem I admit is that the voters are not all committed to making an open minded effort to evaluate all the different issues that impact on their society.  Politicians of course know this and try to use all the resources they can command to get their message out to voters in such a way a prospective voter will feel an emotional resonance.  Un- fortunately politicians have learned that negative messages about their opponents can also influence the results.  Distortions are all too common.  Politicians avoid being pinned down--personally I sympathize with that, but they should be able to convey their general philosophy and run on some kind of a track record.

Money requirements are supposed to eliminate frivolous candidates, but it also eliminates many earnest competent people.  I would add that before someone is eligible for the higher offices, they should have some experiences at lower offices.  This is not intended to eliminate successful people from other fields, but force them to gain some government experience before given a chance to manage at a higher post.

For a level election it is obvious to me that each candidate should have equal access to the voters. We could put resources to better use by avoiding ad wars.  Only individuals should be allowed to contribute small amounts.  An elected official cannot really be forced to listen to everyone, but at least voters should have the option to vote for someone else.  A smart politician will listen to everyone--even those they do not agree with or whose association would be criticized.  What a politician can accept from a lobbyist should be very strictly limited.

A big loser in my proposal would be the media.  There might be a slight shaking out and rationalization of how they use their resources to attract an audience.

Lobbyists should be registered and their salaries made public (maybe including their expenses). There should be no shame in their success as long as based on merits.  There are at least two sides to every story and you have to give some credit to the person who presents their case more effectively. If you happen to be on the other side you need to find a more effective way of presenting your case. What distorts this procedure is bribery.

Bribery might be difficult to pin down and one can be sure efforts will be made to bend the rules.  As a salesman I understand the benefits of giving someone a sample to test.  If something is expensive the test should not include ownership.  A lot of room for interpretation, but the start towards true democracy is to diminish the role of money, not the honest function of a lobbyist

An excellent movie that illustrates the problem lobbyists is "Miss Sloane."  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/09/miss-sloan-under-rated-movie.html

Hurricanes, Taxes and Elections

Hurricanes don't usually reach up to Canada, but when they do they can be very disruptive.  Tied as we are to the States we are also very conscious of the damage inflicted on Americans, particularly in the south.  As we like to travel to the US, buy American products and enjoy American culture we are concerned.

It is unusual that such damaging weather can impose itself on the electoral process.  Many have already voted and their opinion will be reflected in who attains office.  They are missing the opportunity to see how both the president and the Republican candidate handle the challenge.  It is an opportunity for the President to look "presidential" while Mr.  Romney can look thoughtful and supportive.  At the moment both campaigns have to move away from the east coast, even though it contains a few swing states.

It is also an opportunity for the voters to reflect on the role of government, including how it can work for everybody and how it is paid for.

Working for everybody includes adding a seriousness to being prepared, supporting evacuation efforts of states and municipalities, providing timely financial support and communication when needed and being available.

The destruction of a major weather event affects everybody and we should all help to restore things back to a healthy normal.  When you go back to scratch or nearly scratch, it illustrates who all benefits from infrastructure.  As part of the 99% we need to get back to normal as quickly as possible to amongst other things restore our income and get our living structures viable.  We want to travel around to get to work or school, for medical attention, shop and visit friends.  The 1% wants us to get to work and to shop and of course they want to get around themselves.

A question might be how do we pay for this?  We all benefit from a restoration, but do we benefit the same?  If workers can't get to work, things don't get made or services don't get performed.  If consumers can't get out to shop or delivery trucks can't stick to their schedule some budgeted projections won't be met.  If workers don't get paid for the disrupted time some bills won't get paid.

In some ways a weather disaster just brings us down to the core basics.   Just like the first settlers to North America or becoming an independent country.  Everyone is in it together.  If we use our resources wisely the damage can be managed, but if we fail to be wise everyone will suffer, although not necessarily equally.

All that is to illustrate some of the logic behind a progressive tax system that some people want to flatten.  In aristocracies, those at the top didn't pay any taxes, but society as a whole did not benefit from this arrangement.  When we work together and pool our resources smartly everyone benefits including at both ends of the spectrum.  When those at the very top contribute their fair share they enjoy greater opportunities and security.  Those at the bottom survive and some of them will go on to not only improve their lot in life, but also contribute to the rest of us.

It is human nature to justify whatever you do (of course you wouldn't do anything immoral) and many of us assume those at the top earned it and those at the bottom deserve their lot in life.  Probably there is some truth to those assumptions, but not everyone got the same opportunity or has the same talent.  Many of us abuse others to either maintain our position or to improve it.  None of us has much control over such things as the weather, the stock market, traffic, disease and many other factors that impact our lives.

A weather disaster is of course unique both in consequences and in causes.  Emergency measures will be taken to mitigate the effects.  The weather is natural and for most of history not always predictable.  A common notion is we all need a "rainy day fund" to help us deal with any emergency.

Weather is still unpredictable, although we have gotten much more sophisticated it still seems a long term forecast has to be changed occasionally.  Scientists  have gradually understood how weather works and are able to measure changes to affect its predictability.  Some developments include the effects of carbon dioxide, methane and other gases on our atmosphere.  Increasing heat affects ice at the poles and water temperatures in hurricane forming waters like the Caribbean.  Some types of pollution actually counter the heat retaining gases while at the same time causing their own problems.  Is any specific weather event proof of climate change--not necessarily, but more likely a factor.

All of us (100%) are part of the problem.  Everyone affects the atmosphere mostly in ways that are relatively insignificant.  Using energy derived from fossil fuels or buying products that are processed through fossil fuel energy is obvious.  Eating meat also adds to the problem.  With an increasing population there is even more pressure.  Thousands of years to reach where we are today, but most scientists who have studied the matter have concluded that we are finally getting close to a tipping point.

The average person is at the mercy of those in power.  We also to some extent are at the mercy of those who claim to be experts on climate change that include those who vote on legislation, corporate powers, scientists, and our friends, neighbours and relatives.  Who do you trust?  How much can you ignore or belittle so you can go about your life the way you have gotten used to?

The good thing is that we have developed better expertise to understand how our planet operates.  The bad news is that some people have entrenched interests that flow against what needs to be done.  I should be honest and recognize that all of us have entrenched interests.  I don't want to change my mode of transport, especially if it will cost more and cut into my standard of living--how about you?  I also realize that most of us with some sort of pension investment are tied into fossil fuels one way or another.  Imagine how someone who has made literally billions from fossil fuel feels about the issues.  Then there are those in the corporate structure who depend on avoiding disruption.

Elections are very much affected by money.  The average voter (really all of us) has limited knowledge of all the factors involved and frankly we would rather spend our time doing what we like doing and what we feel we have to do.  In the meantime those with large piles of money do recognize a threat to their power and will fight back.  From Watergate a popular saying was "follow the money."  It is true that some people do recognize a problem as an opportunity by adopting green energy and a more sustainable life style and can even make a lot of money by these efforts.  Some fossil fuel brokers see an opportunity to join this bandwagon.  However many of those tied up in fossil fuels clearly feel they need to fight back anyway they can.  You can be sure that a good hunk of the $2 billion raised for the two major campaigns is to help maintain the role of fossil fuels.  Canadians and Mexicans also have vested interests in fossil fuels.

The result is a lot of hypocrisy and exploiting other people's ignorance (again that is most of us).  The only defense is to become as knowledgeable as practical and identify core problems and discard prejudices and biases as much as feasible.  You make decisions on an hourly basis that have tiny effects, but that accumulate with other people's decisions and perhaps more importantly set an example.  In the free world, adults have a vote and certainly there are many factors involved to determine the wisest vote, but we need to prioritize what is most crucial.  It is easy to vote for those things that have a perceived positive benefit to us, but more difficult to think long term not only for ourselves, but for future generations.