Realism: Manufacturing Jobs Aren't Coming Back

Nobody can bring blue-collar jobs back - assuming you don't force companies to come back or stay here. And, I doubt a free-market proponent would be in favor of government coercion in capital choices. But you never know. Republicans were against deficits (Clinton), before they were for them (Bush) before they were against them (Obama). Also, what about the irony of Trump going after free-trade that his own party has been selling for the last 30+ years? Sure, triangulating Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, to his everlasting shame. But, by and large, free-trade has been a cornerstone of modern GOP economics. And many of the same people voting for Trump are the same ones who voted for candidates of that very same GOP!

The only way companies would voluntarily choose to come back is if there were incentives in place that would reduce their COGS (cost of goods sold) - which would require reducing COGS such that they were less than what they would be overseas. The chief component of COGS is often labor - and that translates to lower wages, which is not what America needs. What America needs is to become more competitive in the higher-paying white-collar jobs -- e.g. engineering. This means re-training former blue-collar workers into those higher paying jobs; or re-training them for labor-intensive jobs that are on the forefront of technology - e.g. solar, wind energy design and installation. America also needs to prioritize STEM education (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) because those are the cornerstone of high-paying jobs. Why have those jobs filled by Indian or Chinese workers when we can focus on our own citizens pursuing STEM careers? But all of this requires forward-thinking and investments that a reactionary Congress seems incapable of focusing on. They are missing the forest for the trees by staying entrenched in their ideology - or their need to be right - or their hostility to the occupant of the White House, etc. The world is going to pass America by if America does not get its act together and starts behaving like the super-power it is, not just militarily - but with investments in its people and its infrastructure. Progress is not cheap. But, leaders must be willing to make the hard choices when deciding where to invest and how much. Right now, the US has no such leadership.

Was Mother Teresa a Saint?

According to Pope Francis, Yes. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pope-francis-proclaims-mother-teresa-a-saint_us_57cc0153e4b078581f136836?section=& I have my doubts. I'm sure Ms. Teresa did many wonderful things and I'm not going to undermine that by saying she added no value to human existence. She did. Her tireless toil was unmatched. But, at the same time, by perpetuating Catholic teaching against family planning and contraception, she needlessly spawned new generations of poverty by burdening families with children they could not properly educate, clothe or feed. If your only "moral" goal is to procreate, she was a stunning success. If your goals also included ensuring children are loved, cared for, sheltered, clean, educated, healthy, etc. maybe not so much. Ms. Teresa was "old school" in many ways - and I can't fault her for being a product of her times (that makes her human - not a saint). But, I can foster skepticism towards the accolades being unfurled upon her.

Compassionate Drug Companies

Per the "EpiPen" outrage stirring in the news recently, I had to chuckle at the company's (Mylan) efforts to "remedy" the situation: "the company would not cut the price of the injectors, but would increase the maximum it would offer to families in its copay assistance program from $100 to $300." This gesture is not compassion or meaningful. It's a loophole drug companies now use to continue to receive the same jacked-up payment from insurance companies. In other words, drug company revenues are not affected and it keeps all of our insurance premiums high. Drug companies may create an illusion by offering "assistance programs," but those are written off in other ways that benefit the company in terms of their bottom line (net earnings- read: profit). I know. I used brand Lipitor for years and when my insurance companies tried to bring costs under control by promoting generics, Pfizer started an "assistance" program ... which had virtually nothing to do with customers who could no longer afford their products. What it did was ensure Pfizer continued to receive the same whole-cost payment from insurance companies - who would still pay for named brand ... but expect the insured to pay the difference between brand/generic, which Pfizer would now (mostly) cover with "assistance". It's another loophole the elite in Congress have created to keep the profits of the insanely rich protected, so they can continue to fund that political elite, helping them keep their jobs. It's win-win for the rich and elite. For the common folk, not so much.

Subsidizing Health-care is Smart and Effective

When people show up at the Emergency Room without health insurance, we're all paying for it. Unless, you believe for-profit hospitals eat the cost of services provided to people without health insurance. Hint: They do not. They pass it on to those of us who do have health insurance by raising the prices of drugs, services, equipment, fees, etc.

So, unless people think laws should be repealed and permit denying health services to those in need of it (something doctors could not oblige given their Hippocratic Oath), there is no getting around the fact that those of us who can afford taxes/insurance, will subsidize (one way or the other) the healthcare of those who cannot afford it.

In terms of cost effectiveness, the Affordable Healthcare Act (a/k/a Obama-care) is an improvement in that it allows people to get annual physicals and receive preventative healthcare advice, which is far less expensive than going without and showing up at an emergency room with a condition (e.g. a heart attack) that could have been prevented altogether had the person been getting annual check-ups.

Actions Speak Louder than Words

I'm reminded of a PBS documentary several years back, showing American bible-belt Christians leaving their churches on Sunday morning with smiles beaming from their faces ... making their way to watch/cheer a public lynching.

It apparently had entertainment value for followers of Christ. If only they correctly interpreted his inspired words, they wouldn't have been so horribly wrong (again). Where's that Holy Ghost when you need it?

It should teach us ALL one thing: Words don't amount to squat no matter how many flags or holy books they are wrapped in. ACTIONS (where life is) is all that matters. 

It's where the rubber meets the road. The rest is noise and distraction ... that politicians use - to great success - to get themselves (re-)elected.

No More Faux Patriotism

I remember after 9/11, when flag-wavers came out of the woodwork offering me a flag to put on my office door, even though I had one there long before it became fashionable to "wave." Then, these situational patriots had the nerve to question my patriotism when I didn't jump onboard the Bush War Train.

Patriotism isn't waving the flag when everyone else is. It's waving the flag in your heart that nobody sees during moments of peace. Like religion, patriotism does not need to be worn on one's sleeve to make it genuine. In fact, I'd argue the opposite. Faddish and situational patriotism is shallow.

The American Way of Using Religion as a Stick

So, it has become known that the DNC had it in for Bernie supporters, just as his supporters suspected.

Which tells us that even Democrats are not beneath GOP-tactics of using religion to undermine a candidate.

Jew, agnostic, atheist, who cares anyway? I mean, don't actions speak louder than words? Words are cheap. Actions are where life is.

I've seen some pretty bad things done by those who carry holy books around or profess faith in a deity; and I've seen some pretty good things done by those who are not religious or may be agnostic (not-knowing) about the whole theism thing.

The point isn't to say anyone has a monopoly on "goodness." It is to say one's position on religion or theology is irrelevant to one's public behavior.

Thomas Jefferson was attacked for being an atheist, for daring people to "dare the existence of God" in the name of enlightenment.

Thomas Paine is all but forgotten, because he chose to write The Age of Reason, which undermined organized religion (even though Paine's Common Sense was a huge broadside in pushing the American Revolution forward).

It's always been the lazy politician's (or wonk's) approach to undermine a candidate by accusing him of not conforming to the majority's belief system.

Shame on those in the DNC who went down that route. And shame on the party leaders (DWS and HRC) for not calling them out and shaming them, if only internally.