21st Century Republicans/Conservatives are Anti-Federalists

The Federalist Society ... and modern Federalism ... is a sham.

Federalism (e.g. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay) believed in a strong central government that took a generous interpretation of the powers granted to the federal government for the purposes of governing a nation.

It was anti-Federalism (e.g. Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and James Monroe) that was suspect/jealous towards federal power and put state/individual concerns and rights above centralized/national interests.

The Federalists begrudgingly agreed to discuss a Bill of Rights after the Constitutional Convention … that came about at the demand of anti-Federalists who distrusted a federal government exercising powers without explicit protection for states and citizens; and stipulated a Bill of Rights as a condition for signing onto a Constitution to supplant the Articles of Confederation.

So, it is ironic that 21st conservatives embrace Federalism, when in fact they are anti-liberal and anti-Federalist in their beliefs and practice. 

Trump is an Obscenity and the "Family Values" crowd couldn't care less

I might care less if the alleged party of family values (Republicans) weren't so hard on President Bill Clinton in the 1990s (to the point of seeking impeachment), who said Clinton's private marital infidelities compromised his public pursuits, public trust and public commitments. The religious right - Falwell, Dobson, et. al., were all on-board with impeachment in the name of moral values.

Fast forward 20+ years: Now, Republicans apparently couldn't care less about family values, infidelity or much of anything else for that matter. Otherwise, they would not have supported the current miscreant POTUS in droves the way they did ... demonstrating that their allegiance is first to their political party rather than any notion of genuine "moral" values.

Let's be candid ...

Trump appears to have colluded openly with Russia ("Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily." - July 2016); the same day Russian hackers obliged Trump's request.

Trump also boasted about being a sexual predator (with his "grab them by the pussy tape") that the family-values crowd appeared not to be disturbed by.

In office, Trump willfully and cruelly separated children from their parents.

He incited/incites violence at his rallies. And, he regularly threatens the free press.

He has called for imprisonment of his political opponents ("lock her up").

He is an avowed and proud white nationalist (if not an outright racist like his father). See: Charleston.

He is a serial adulterer. His history of womanizing speaks for itself.

He attacks our system of justice and law enforcement - before and since being POTUS.

He has attacked members of our military, including a Gold Star family. He has said John McCain was a loser for being caught as a POW in Vietnam.

Trump stands against everything the common consensus of humankind holds to be right, just, honorable, and deserving of grace, kind regard, and Christian charity. He is not a president but an obscenity.

You cannot un-see the revealed darkness inside Family and Friends

The Trump presidency shall pass, of that I am sure.

What I'm really worried about is the aftermath. The long-term consequences on our culture, our discourse, our civility, our trust and our institutions.

There also the matter of "loss of innocence." What I mean exactly is Trump having revealed to us the dark hearts inside those whom we have called good friends and family. That is not something you can un-do or un-see.

I'm reminded of a PBS documentary I saw years ago, showing a video clip of a good, decent God-fearing family leaving church on Sunday morning ... to watch a public lynching.

It is a shocking moment - that reveals how little words matter ("value-voters," for example): when you realize even the pious are quite capable of revealing their black souls in an unguarded moment of brutal honesty.

Situational Patriotism and the "scoundrels" who abuse It

David French, writer for the "conservative" National Review recognizes the bogus-ness and danger inherent with "corporate" patriotism. No doubt Mr. French will receive flack for his "unorthodox" view of American values. But, nevertheless, he is spot on. Patriotism is not a feeling. It is an investment in the values of freedom. Waving a flag is easy. Getting caught up in the moment of flag waving is easy. Fighting for the values the flag represents is rarely easy, especially in moments of national "crisis." Kudos to Mr. French for bucking the trend of flag/military worship and getting back to basics. As, an aside, I still remember a secretary coming to my office after 9/11 offering a mini-flag to fly in my office. When I declined, she was aghast. But, that's only because she didn't realize that I had been flying that flag on my office door long before she jumped on the bandwagon of "patriotism." https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/national-anthem-protests-and-the-self-reinforcing-cycle-of-intolerance/

Burning the Flag of the USA !!!

I love my country because its freedom is so vast that I have the right to burn my national flag. Would I ever do it? No. But the fact that I could makes me love my country even more.

The NFL Chooses the Cowardly "Solution"

Today, NFL owners passed a rule that could not be more cowardly. Their out of sight, out of mind - shut up and play - approach completely misses the point.

And then to effectively incentivize teams to punish those who dare come onto the field and protest ... by threatening them with heavy fines ..., is disgraceful, shameful and pathetic.

I've never seen such a whiny group of crybaby, cupcakes as these NFL owners and their fans.

Compelling allegiance or patriotism is meaningless. Meaning comes from it wanting to be done voluntarily. And, it is not un-American for some Americans to not have their heart in it when they feel their race, gender, sexuality, religion, etc. is being attacked by the nation they are a citizen of.

Lastly, the owners are sending a very bad message to the bully in the White House, who will be further emboldened to intimidate people into doing things his way ... or else. Very sad state of affairs.

Jonah Goldberg's new book: "Suicide of the West"

So, Jonah Goldberg has gotten religion and is prepared to tell partisan hacks and naked ideologues how to be moderate, listen and seek solutions together? If so, good for him.

But, first, I hope he confronts his own role in the rise of mean spiritedness and personalizing differences of opinion.

I remember Goldberg (and his mother) from the Clinton Years, where they were part of a right-wing cottage industry that made money from bashing non-right-wing people, writing screeds/books, inventing conspiracies; and otherwise being ugly human beings.

I was going to order Goldberg's book after I heard him on Morning Joe. He impressed (or duped?) me into thinking he has grown up and matured beyond those years of riling up animosity between the parties and their members. Looking at the title of his last book on Amazon (2008), he seems to have not let go of his monetizing divisiveness even ten years after Clinton left office.

Maybe in the ten years since his last book, he has evolved. But, what I don't know - and what he didn't say - is if he accepts some responsibility for the state of divisiveness today; and what he has or will do to make amends for those years of stoking the kind of bile that poisoned the well; and has brought us to the sad state of hardcore divisions and paralyzed government we have today?

Can Republicans be a Little Less Whiny?

Heard a White House representative today decrying the slow pace of considering Trump's nominees for various posts because of "obstructionist" Democrats. Never mind that Republicans control the White House and both chambers of Congress. Sounds like passing the buck/blame to me.

Anyway, this is what I really want to say about this BS:

It is so laughable coming from a party that stood for nothing but obstructionism, conspiracy theories, birther-ism and outright hate towards Obama for 6+ years. Obama wasn't happy, but he took it like a professional. His ego wasn't so fragile that he felt the need to reciprocate or respond.

Contrast that with snowflake Republicans who can't take it when the shoe is on the other foot. As is often the case, loudmouth bullies can dish it out, but aren't so great at taking it themselves. Sad. At the very least, can Republicans be a little less whiny and a little more professional?

As to Republicans whining about Democrats putting up roadblocks to Trump's nominees, cry me a river. They did the same thing with Obama, with the peak of their obstructionist ways per the refusal to even consider Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court.

As far as putting "party before country," that is again something Republicans are masters of. The very reason they continue to sit by silently as Trump attacks 242 years of institutions, a free press, the rule of law, the justice system, decency, and decorum is because they don't want to lose the election in November by pissing off Trump. In other words, their own careers and the success of the party is more important than standing up for American values and institutions.

As for Republicans using patriotism as a blunt instrument, this is nothing new. "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." And, if nothing else, Republicans are scoundrels.

The Inverse Relationship between Ignorance and Confidence

The very definition of ignorance: "You don't know what you don't know."

It should be obvious. But, unfortunately it is not. In fact, it seems to be glorified and promoted as if it were a badge of honor. Except, it is medieval and antiquated and unsuited for the 21st century.

Only education and experience can inform people about what they don't know. Education is also humbling because the vast universe of human knowledge unfolds before you and you become awed and humbled by how little you actually know.

Cock-sure people are merely those who don't know better. The doubters are those who have learned enough to realize how little they know.

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." --Bertrand Russell

Trump Fellates Putin while U.S. Intelligence says, Nyet!

Timeline ... based on reality / video footage ... so, nothing fake about it.

Today, Trump blames Obama for Russia meddling.

A. Obama imposed sanctions against Russia in response.
B. Obama booted Russian diplomats in response.

(http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-new-sanctions-against-russia-over-hacking-2016-12)

Obama, being the do-gooder that he is, didn't do more for fear that he would be accused of interfering with 2016 election.

But, people need to stay focused because this is just a diversion.

Trump has been president for over a year, and he has done nothing on Russia. He completely denies what the intelligence community unanimously agrees on -- that Russia meddled in our 2016 election. (https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/13/politics/intelligence-chiefs-russia-2018-elections-target/index.html)

But, Trump has done even worse than nothing. Congress passed legislation to prevent the president from rolling back Obama's Russian sanctions (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-sanctions/trump-administration-holds-off-on-new-russia-sanctions-despite-law-idUSKBN1FI2V7).

But, Trump simply ignored the legislation, even though he signed it!

At some point, you really need to ask why there is so much deference to Russia and so much animosity towards our own intelligence services that have been warning about the Russia threat since at least 2016?

At a recent Congressional hearing, those intelligence agencies re-confirmed Russia meddling, with an added qualification that the evidence is incontrovertible (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/374352-mcmaster-evidence-is-incontrovertible-that-russia-interfered-in-2016).

Nobody is saying anything about if it was done in favor/against a candidate or if there was collusion. And, indictments handed out so far impact a few people associated with the Trump campaign/administration (Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Rick Gates and George Papadopoulos). https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/whos-charged-russia-investigation/index.html

And recently 13 Russians. https://www.npr.org/2018/02/16/586500591/grand-jury-indicts-russians-linked-to-interference-in-2016-election

But, there hasn't been any evidence, thus far, of collusion by a presidential candidate. The only one obsessing about collusion is the man sitting in our White House. Why is that?

America's Crazy Gun Violence Algorithm

while (Insanity == true)
{
    Have_a_massacre_using_military_grade_automatic_weapon();
    
    Issue_sentiments_about_thoughts_and_prayers();
    
    Say_too_soon_to_talk_about_the_problem();
    
    Lower_US_flag_at_half_mast();

    while (Story_still_in_headlines) {
        Allow_time_to_pass_while_doing_nothing();
    }
    
    Still_too_soon_to_talk_about_it();

    Never_a_good_time_to_talk_abou_it();
    
    Status_quo_inaction_achieved();
    
    // http://fortune.com/2018/02/15/nra-contributions-politicians-senators/
    Elect_the_same_NRA_bought_politicians();
}
    

The Effectiveness of a Wall and Mexico Paying For It

Taking Donald Trump's southern border wall proposal at face value, I haven't heard anyone make a rational case for how the wall would work and actually be effective (and worth the money) in the long run.

Has there been a study on this? I'm serious. As a taxpayer, I don't want my tax dollars being wasted on something that isn't going to achieve its purported goal of stopping drug dealers and illegal aliens from sneaking in.

And this is even before getting into how Mexico is going to pay for it, assuming people who voted for Trump actually hold him to his campaign promise. If he tries to do it via an import tax, that won't help as the price of goods coming into the USA from Mexico will simply be increased, passing the cost on to the American consumer.

The Thankless Job of being a Negative Nabob

Too many engineers suffer from "technology is always good" bias. I see it all the time in my line of work. There are very few "devil's advocate," when it comes to weighing the pros/cons of technological ideas. The fact that no one thought to consider the pool of ALL users before deploying this "map" shows the bias and/or lack of imagination.

Of course, engineers who are the voice of "but what about" are not popular in meetings where engineers are fawning over each other for the "greatest idea." Companies don't award engineers who avoid problems that never materialize because of their foresight.

The Positive Power Of Negative Thinking Paperback – September 3, 2002 by Julie Norem (Author)

https://www.amazon.com/Positive-Power-Negative-Thinking/dp/0465051391

First Term Presidents Expect too much Credit for their first year

I ignore ALL presidents who claim any economic credit (or receive blame) in their first year.

A president doesn't submit his own first budget until later in the year (~October) of his inauguration year. So, it isn't even logical to think a president's inauguration year has anything to do with economic improvement or decline.

Furthermore, the recent tax cuts (for Trump) that just kicked in January 2018 and won't actually be realized/recognized until February at the earliest ... so there really isn't any way to tie cause-and-effect except to make a general statement about people possibly behaving differently based on expected future tax savings.

Which, even if valid, is not measurable and therefore isn't something that could be touted if one were being honest. But that won't keep shameless Trump from taking credit.