That word? I do not think it means, what you think it means...

 "Oh those RINOs and NEO-CONS won't do anything... we have to purge the party of these spineless unprincipled traitors"

It's kinda funny... I generally find most who use the terms neo-con or RINO, except ironically or as a joke, to be unable to define either in a meaningful way.

Much as George Orwell wrote about the term "fascism" in "Politics and the English Language",   for almost everyone using the terms, "RINO" and "NEO-CON", are just signifiers for "things and people I don't like".

Thing is... The only current Republican members of congress (both house and senate) who can fairly be called "RINO", are Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Brian Fitzpatrick, Chris Smith, John Katko, and Jeff VanDrew (who actually was a democrat until last year).

Everyone else, is absolutely within the "normal spread" of positions for Republicans... That includes Ben Sasse, Pat Toomey, Fred Upton, Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, and most of the other congresscritters (not on the RINO list above) that voted to impeach Trump.

In fact, several of those that voted for impeachment, are notably far MORE conservative than Trump... The first couple I mentioned above have lifetime ratings over 90%  from the American conservative union, and almost always vote with the party (they're available online from  http://acuratings.conservative.org/acu-federal-legislative-ratings/ )

The first major mistake many make, is in thinking that loyalty to, or agreement with, Donald Trump; is any kind of criteria for being a Republican, or a conservative... Since Trump was and is, neither of those things. Trump is an ACTUAL Republican in name only, and always has been... He was officially a democrat, until he needed to be a Republican, at which point he officially signed up to be a republican... but he never actually changed anything other than the initial beside his name. 

The second, and fundamental mistake however, is in thinking the republican party is actually conservative, or in fact has EVER been conservative, by any meaningful definition of the term (except perhaps, relative to the actual left). 

The Republican party is, and since reconstruction mostly has been, a moderate centrist party about MOST things... Generally averse to change and risk, and generally collegial in reality, regardless of the rhetoric fed to the base for fundraising purposes. 

Even Reagan wasn't ACTUALLY conservative... He talked a good game, but in reality, he was as much a "neo-con" as Bill Kristol.

Barry Goldwater was the closest thing to an actual conservative in the post war Republican party... and he was really more libertarian than conservative by modern sensibilities (though he of course considered himself to be conservative, and was mostly thought of as such in his time). Before Goldwater, you need to go back to Coolidge to get an actual conservative.... and before that... Ummm... 

.... Yeah... Look at the history... The Republican party is NOT conservative, and never really has been. 

Historically speaking, post reconstruction, the majority of the republican party, has been in the mold of Bush the elder, Nelson Rockefeller, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower, and Herbert Hoover... RELATIVELY conservative compared to "progressive" leftists in the democratic party, they're still for Big Government, just not AS big as Democrats. They're still just as paternalist as Dems, only about different things in different ways. They're in favor of plenty of control, intervention, and regulation, on both social and economic issues... because everyone has their "special" cases, and those "special pleadings" add up. 

Reagan was a near literal revolution in the party, and he wasn't even actually that conservative... He was RHETORICALLY conservative, but in fact he governed as what most who identify as "conservative" today (who, mostly, are very definitely NOT conservative in any meaningful way), would call a RINO... Or if they actually knew what the term means, pretty close to a neo-con. He was a free spending, massive debt accumulating, heavily interventionist in domestic affairs, heavily interventionist in foreign affairs, massively intrusive, NON-conservative; by anything like a reasonable definition of the term. He just TALKED about being otherwise... and how that was better.

... Which it IS... but he didn't even try to actually govern that way...

In fact, the Reagan administration and Republican congressional leadership, essentially made what some might consider a "corrupt bargain" with the Democratic senate majority leader Robert Byrd (for the first and last years of his term... the Republicans had a narrow senate majority for 6 of Reagans 8 years) and Democratic speaker of the house during his presidency Tip O'neil (all but the last few months anyway); wherein the Republicans got most of THEIR spending priorities passed through congress and signed by the president, and in exchange, so did the Democrats... and both knew that was happening, so they were able to freely posture, to raise money off "fighting for their constituency", while in reality, there was always a deal to be made.

Which ACTUALLY meant that the government was doing FAR MORE than it had ever done since WW2... And not coincidentally SPENDING far more than it had since WW2, and accumulating FAR MORE DEBT than it had since WW2. 

The fact is, Goldwater and Coolidge were major outliers, and exceptions to the general run of Republican candidates and presidents... and were largely unpopular within the party because of it. 

For that matter, Reagan was also unpopular within the party, until he placated the southern religious social conservatives after his brokered convention loss in '76 (which happened in the first place, because he offended said southern religious social conservatives, in an attempt to gain broad centrist appeal, by selecting a more liberal Republican running mate, and saying a few things the leaders of that block didn't care for...   Had he not pissed off the southern faction of the leadership, Reagan would have won the nomination in '76... but probably lost the presidency).

The social conservatives have never actually been a majority in the party... Only a plurality... A little less than 40% at peak... but they're a very LOUD plurality minority... and those opposed to them are very LOUD too, about how big and bad the social conservatives are; making them seem like they were and are much more powerful and consequential than they actually are... or for that matter, much more conservative, and much more principled and consistent than they actually are. 

... But every national candidate in the Republican party has to make the southern religious social conservatives at least tolerate them, because said southern social conservatives have enough power and mass to BLOCK someone. They can't actually MAKE the king... as I said, they're less than 40%... but they can keep someone from being crowned, and no other single block is able to do so, because no other single block is more than about 25% of the party... Nor is any other single block motivated and organized enough to do so. 

But that doesn't make the party actually conservative, or actually socially conservative, at the national level (local is an entirely different story... State and local level politics are a totally different beast). 

One other thing the party has very firmly NOT been, along with "actually conservative" is POPULIST... In fact, they've GENERALLY been rather the opposite, at least when it comes to national and international issues and policies (local is a different matter entirely). 

Until Trump that is... 

Or at least the Republican party hasn't been populist since the FIRST Roosevelt... who was VERY firmly a populist progressive (Hoover wasn't a populist by nature, but he took some seemingly populist... and quite harmful... actions based on some truly epically bad advice from his cabinet and congressional caucus)... 

Actually, TR would have been a quite "progressive" democrat in the post WW2 period up through the late 60s or so, and he had a disturbing tendency towards fascism (seems to have run in the family).

Hell... TR could easily have been LBJ, or his cousin Franklin...

...He wanted strong social safety nets set up and paid for by government, with socialized pensions and healthcare. He was for strong protectionist tariffs and strongly against free trade. He was pro-union and anti-corporation to a shocking degree, and he was pro-government regulation of almost everything. Read "The New Nationalism", and it's like postwar democrats fantasy platform...

...except that TR was personally moral and ethical, unlike the thoroughly unethical, amoral, and frankly evil, racist rapist that LBJ was.

So... if you're an actual conservative or libertarian or "conservatarian", guess what... YOU are the one who is a Republican in name only.

If you're one of those who is using RINO as an insult to describe Republican party members who aren't at all conservative, you've got the perspective reversed, because THEY ARE THE PARTY; not the conservatives and libertarians, who generally VOTE republican, because they are less awful than the realistic alternatives.

... If you think about what the party actually is, as opposed to what you think it SHOULD BE... Well... RINO... isn't an insult, or at least it shouldn't be. It's kinda like that line "Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer". 

The ACTUAL number of guns in public hands in the U.S.

The numbers often reported for how many guns were in civilian hands in the U.S. ... variously between 240 million and 400 million, depending on who reported on it when etc... are entirely and completely fictitious.

They're based on some polling data from the 80s, updated again in the mid 90s, and then extrapolated out.

They may have updated it again in the mid 2000s, I haven't been able to confirm either way... but even if they did, it's still a complete fiction.

This is also true of the estimates of the number of gun owners, and households with guns by they way... Which are also complete fiction (and I know they DID update those numbers in the last 5 years... for equally... or likely far MORE fictitious numbers).

Why do I say that? Simple... the numbers in question, are entirely based on self reporting, from a small sample size of self selected respondents... and they arent even broken out or controlled for by state, by rural or urban residence, political opinions or affiliations etc...

They called a few hundred people up on the phone, and asked if there were guns in their household, and how many. From there they made some statistical assumptions, and then multiplied out.

So... If you're a gun owner, and someone from a gun control lobby, or the government, or some random polling agency... who may be a criminal trying to scope out targets for all you know... called you up and started asking questions... Exactly how likely would you be to tell them you owned guns at all, never mind exactly how many guns you owned?

For that matter... How accurate have polls been about politically sensitive topics the last... forever really, but particularly the last oh... 23 years? The last 15? The last 8?

Mostly, they have been reporting something like 300 to 350 million... and they have been reporting something close to that as the number since the late 80s... Except in that time period, we've actually made and sold more firearms than that just domestically, never mind the tens of millions we have imported.

The real numbers are impossible to accurately determine, but at least as far as the total number of firearms, it is almost certainly at least 3 or 4 times the highest estimates I've seen reported.

We manufactured 14 million guns in this country for the civilian market last year, and imported 4 million more... as well as manufacuturing about half a million for civilian market export.

That's 18 million guns added to the marketplace in a single year.

We also manufactured between .5 and .7 million small arms for our own military and government, and another 1.7-2.4 million for military/government export (it's unclear as to exact numbers, because such contracts are spread out over multiple years) to friendly foreign powers.

There hasn't been a year since 1968 (when detailed statistics started being kept) that we haven't manufactured at least 5 million firearms, or imported less than 2 million... adding at least 7 million firearms to the market.

... over the almost 5 years in question, that would account for the total of reported estimates, all by itself... But actually, the numbers are FAR higher.

There hasn't been a year since 1994 that we haven't added at least 9 million guns to the market.

There hasn't been a year since 2001, that we haven't added at least 12 million.

Since 2009, it's been at least 14 million a year.

June 2020 update: The FBI reports there have been appx. 350 million NICS checks since the end of 1999, and every year since 2013 has been 20 million or more, every year since 2015 is 25 million or more. NICS checks numbers only capture approximately 40% of total sales... they don't include personal transfers in most states, they don't account for multi-firearm transactions (approximately 15% of all NICS transactions are multi-gun transactions), nor for transactions that don't require a NICS check (many states don't require NICS checks for people who already have concealed weapons permits, or for active law enforcement officers etc... 

And of course, that doesn't include the hundreds of millions that were manufactured between 1899 and 1968 (under most circumstances, the federal government doesn't consider guns made from the beginning of time, through December 31st 1898 to be firearms... though firearms capable of firing modern ammunition have been made since the 1870s...

Some states may vary, and there are special rules for machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, guns that don't look like guns and the like, as regulated under title II of the national firearms act of 1934).

It also doesn't include the tens of millions of former military firearms that the government decommissioned and sold to the civilian market (m1911 .45acp pistols, 1903 Springfield and m1 garand rifles in .30-06, and m1 carbines in .30 carbine mostly).

Guns don't "go bad" with age, or generally wear out in ways that aren't easily fixed, so long as they are properly stored and maintained.

I personally own guns that old... 1891 that is, so 125 years old... that work just fine thanks.

... Clearly, we've added more than 350 million new guns to the public marketplace, in just the last 20 or so years, never mind all the firearms made and sold in the 100 years before that. 

So, like I said... the real number? At least 800 million on the conservative side, and I'm inclined to believe it's closer to 1 billion... maybe as much as 1.2 or 1.4 billion.

Dantoniste et Girondiste

Something I wrote about 4 years ago... Seems pretty relevant right now:

Is it just me... or are the mainstream Democrats and Republicans, just the Girondists and Dantonists, and the Social Justice Left and the Alt-Right, the Montagnards and the New Cordeliers?

You remember what happens next right? 

Hint... it isn't good...

Patriotism, Criticalism, and the Left

You dont have to be conservative or libertarian to be a patriot... You don't have to be "rah rah everything my country does and is is always great", and still love this country, and what it stands for.

John Fogerty... without doubt writing from a left perspective...  wrote "Fortunate Son", about people who use false patriotism as a cover for their hypocrisy, while abusing and exploiting others..  I actually think it's a very patriotic song.

Its holding America to the standard of what we are supposed to be, and saying "we arent doing what we are supposed to do... we aren't being what we are supposed to be, and we need to fix that, and we can and will fix that".

Unfortunately, I no longer believe that is the spirit that animates most of the american left... Their motivating thoughts about America seem to be more like...  "Everything you are supposed to be is fake and evil and we need to destroy you and build something better".

...And some of them may even honestly believe that's patriotism... But it isnt. Not even close...

What it is, is criticalism... Gramscian criticalism in particular; the philosophy that says if something isn't unfailing perfect then it is irredeemably corrupt and wrong, and must be destroyed and replaced with perfection.

A philosophy that caused the deaths of at least 100 million people over the last 120 years....For that matter, the earlier basis for it, is what killed a few million from 1789 to 1799.

What we are seeing in our streets right now...  some of it is motivated by genuine grievance... But some of it is that same philosophy and spirit that created the rein of terror, and the killing fields... And that, is something we can never allow to take hold.

Denial, or just not paying attention?

Anyone who doesn't understand the riots this past week are not natural and spontaneous, and are being deliberately agitated, accelerated and escalated, by professional bad actors; in order to deliberately make things worse, so they can take advantage of the situation... Is either truly spectacularly in denial, or just not paying attention.

The Arrest, Caused The Arrest

It is critical to understand that it doesn't matter that the ultimate cause of death was cardiac arrest... because it was the positional asphyxia and the lack of treatment and the 8 minute delay after falling unconscious before receiving any kind of intervention, that were the proximate cause of, and  resulted in, George Floyds death. Had Floyd not been improperly restrained and negligently mishandled while restrained, he would not have suffered cardiac arrest.

Yes... The ultimate cause of death was cardiac arrest. The proximate cause of the cardiac arrest, was the positional asphyxia and lack of appropriate response to it.

The official autopsy findings did not contradict or counterindicate that. They simply noted that the ultimate cause of death was cardiac arrest, and that there was no indication of TRAUMATIC asphyxia... meaning his hyoid bone wast broken, and he didn't have ocular or facial petechiae or distinctive contusions indicative of violent manual or ligature strangulation for example.

Choke holds and other restraints which may occlude or obstruct the airway may or may not produce these signs, depending on technique, body positioning, and whether the subject violently resisted.

Side chokes and "sleeper holds" for example... effectively a large part of what happened to Floyd (the other part being suppression of respiratory function by compression of and heavy weight remaining on, the chest and back)... occlude the blood vessels to the brain, but do not break the hyoid bone, and generally do not produce distinctive bruising or petechiae.

Oh and Kelly by the way, is the number one instructor for EMS services EMTs and paramedics, in the country. He actually literally wrote the book... in fact, several books... on how EMS should respond to cases like Floyds.

Literally everyone's ultimate cause of death is cardiac arrest... the question is what caused it... and in this case it was the arrest that caused the arrest.

But they can't admit it...

"I think people are stupid and gullible and irresponsible and bad, and they will be swayed by other bad people, and they will do bad things... Not me because I'm better and smarter than those other people and I won't be swayed, so I should be able to make decisions for those other people, because otherwise bad people will, and I want them to be forced by men with guns to do what I think they should do, because I am good and right and my thoughts and preferences and decisions are good and right"

-- Everyone who wants the government to restrict rights... but they can't admit it

Say what you mean, and mean what you say... Definitions MATTER

If you mean "it's to be expected that X happened" or "it's unsurprising that X happened", say so.. Don't say its "Understandable that X happened"...

Understandable means that you empathize with the action, or sympathize with it, or can find it reasonable, or excusable, or justifiable... or at least understand and find reasonable that others might.. If that's what you mean, then OK... that's what you mean. But if it isn't, then use the right words and constructions to convey the right meaning.

This isn't just meaningless wonkery... it's a very important distinction.

Definitions matter. Words matter. Communication depends on these things. Misunderstanding and conflict are generated and perpetuated based on getting them wrong.

Institutions, Transformations, and Insurrections

When you believe that your opposition, is in fact your mortal enemy, is fundamentally evil, and will stop or destroy everything you want and believe to be right... Well, then you can justify absolutely anything to yourself, in obstructing, resisting, opposing, damaging, and trying to remove or destroy that opposition. 

We have been in an escalating cycle of this for decades... Since LBJ at least... Maybe even since FDR... and we are at the point now, where the left believe that literally anything is justifiable, in order to give themselves the power to do what they believe is right... Including literally beating people in the streets. 

This was the goal of the critical school, and Gramsci, and the comintern operations against the capitalist west for the last 100 years... and it has succeeded in creating a completely unhinged left, and the failure and destruction of societal norms and institutions... Most of which the left have been gaining increasing control over for decades, and they have had essentially complete control over many of them since the late 90s. 

This is the point at which the criticalists and Gramscians, believed that they could induce the total collapse of the western capitalist order, and that the people would inevitably flock to socialism... They literally believed it was a scientific and historical inevitability, that socialism was functionally the next stage in the "perfection" of man and society. 

Except that's not happening... leaving aside a relatively small minority of zealots and idiots... Because most peoples lives are actually pretty good, and getting better not worse... Though if you listen to Democrats and the media we live in hell manifest on earth... Unless they're in charge of course.

Instead what is happening, is the majority of people are disconnecting from the institutions around them, and just trying to live their lives, which leaves the institutions to the zealots and the deluded... Until those zealots impinge on the peoples lives in ways they find intolerable, at which point they fight back... witness Virginia... 

This is not a good or stable state to be in... But it's also not the tinderbox of near civil war many believe it to be. It could progress to that, but only if either things actually get to be as bad as the zealots say it is, or those now corrupted and failed institutions attempt to impinge too far on normal peoples lives in ways they will not tolerate, and will violently fight back.... At which point, there should be a big collective gasp for air, and realization that something is seriously wrong and has to change.

... That's the point where we either get a mass reform movement of our institutions, or we get a civil war... which itself is such a mass reform movement, resorting to violence because the people believe it is the only way to effect the necessary change. 

If you look at the policies of the major parties... 

One side wants to completely change everything about this countries culture, institutions, and economy, because they believe the way things are is so bad and wrong that it must be changed completely... and they will precipitate that literally apocalyptic event (look up what the word apocalypse actually means) rather quickly if they can... because their zealots believe they will win (they won't, but zealots never believe they won't win), and then get to rebuild the nation in their chosen image... 

...The other side... not so much...

Title 2 Regulation Isn't Net Neutrality... but it IS Warrantless Wiretapping...

Since it's coming around again...

...STOP SPREADING THE DELIBERATE FRAUD THAT TITLE 2 REGULATION IS NET NEUTRALITY...

It isn't. It has literally NOTHING to do with net neutrality.

Net neutrality is the SELF GOVERNING principle, that all network traffic between service providers and their customers, is the same. Traffic is traffic regardless of the content... except that certain types of latency sensitive traffic can be prioritized, and certain types of low priority non-sensitive traffic can be deprioritized, for network and bandwidth management purposes, and hostile or harmful traffic can be throttled or blocked, to prevent service degradation and the like.

This has, until recently, always been self enforced. Recently, some very large service providers have attempted to double dip, by trying to charge some very large content providers like Netflix, who use up LOT of bandwidth, but are not those ISPs direct customers for their primary data centers etc... That's double dipping, because those ISPs already charge peering interconnect fees, to the ISPs that Netflix already pays for their internet upload capacity.

Again, up until recently, if an ISP tried to treat any other ISP or organizations traffic worse than everyone else, the other ISPs would do the same for that ISPs traffic... thus nobody broke the rules for very long. That is still MOSTLY true MOST of the time... But a couple of the huge mega ISPs are SO big, that you cant do that anymore or you would slow down very large fractions of ALL internet traffic.

Title 2 regulation does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent that from happening.

Title 2 regulation allows for two main things... The FCC can set the rates large ISPs charge each other for interconnect peering, and it REQUIRES ALL TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE COMPANIES (including email and VPN providers according to the Obama admin proposed regs) TO COMPLY WITH WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING AND METADATA COLLECTION, which is the real reason the government wants it.

The FBI cooked up a plan to collude with other federal agencies, and an at the time cooperative and power grabbing democrat controlled FCC, to rebrand warrantless wiretapping, as net neutrality... which actually is, and always has been, something else entirely.

If you believe in phony net neutrality, its probably not your fault... you have been, and continue to be, deliberately defrauded about the issue.

The Same Lie Since 1932

The mean hourly wage in the United States, in 2019, is $24.34.

The daily food intake recommended for the mean weight male... 198lbs... is appx 2180 calories.

100 years ago, in 1919, the mean hourly wage, was appx. $0.56 per hour... appx 1/44th todays wage... which works out to about $0.0093 per minute... less than a penny.

2019s $24.34 average wage works out to about $0.41 a minute.

In 1919, that daily recommended calorie count in say... diner cheeseburgers... would have cost you about $0.45 (not including tax)... or about 49 minutes of work. Honestly... not that bad. Better than one might expect really.

Today, in 2019, the same calorie count in say... Mcdonalds triple cheeseburgers... is about $12 (not including tax), or about 29 minutes...

... Less than half an hour, and only about 60% of the labor it would have taken in 1919.

... But, perhaps cheeseburgers are an anomaly... after all, food prices have actually fallen in relation to income significantly more than say... housing, or energy costs... right?

Well... general consumer pricing adjustment for purchasing power parity...

$1 u.s. dollar of purchasing power in 1919, is equivalent to approximately $15.26 in purchasing power in 2019.

So... parity in wages with 1919 would be $8.55... but the ACTUAL mean wage in 2019 is $24.34... that's 2.85 times as much... Rather a LOT better.

... And yet, somehow,  the left are always claiming that the average american is worse off than they used to be... that only the rich are doing better... that  "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer"... which is utter an complete crap.

... Ok, well... that's 100 years ago... what about say... 50 years ago in 1969?

That's a particularly good example, because it's when the left claims that the poor and middle class started losing ground the fastest. They love calculating the minimum wage from 1968 for example, because 1968 and 1969 are the highest the minimum wage has ever been in terms of purchasing power, and it is the last year of the great post WW2 wealth creation and expansion boom.... and just before the mass inflation of the 70s hit (it actually started in late '68, but didn't really ramp up dramatically until 1971... then went into over drive with the '73 oil crisis).

Ok... mean wage 50 years ago, in 1969... $3.04 usd

$1.00 usd in 1969 purchasing power, is appx. $7.07 in 2019 purchasing power. That would make parity wage $23.26... but the actual wage is $24.34... making 2019s wage about a 5% increase in actual purchasing power.

Not a lot... but remember, 1969 was just off the peak year in the biggest boom in history.

Oh and just for fun... let's compare minimum wage purchasing power, from the literal highest point of purchasing power the minimum wage has ever been... at $1.30 in 1969. 

Parity minimum wage in 2019 would be $9.12... a fairly significant increase over the current minimum wage of $7.25...  

...Except that 1968 and 1968 were massive historical anomalies... Congress had actually just passed a 30% increase in the minimum wage. Only two years before, the minimum wage has been $1.00... which, funny enough, when parity adjusted, is just a few cents less than the minimum wage in 2019. 

If we look at the minimum wage when it was first passed at $0.25 in 1938, the parity minimum wage in 2019 would be $4.49... Just 62% of the actual minimum wage. 

Oh and the mean hourly wage in 1938 was appx. $0.84 an hour... about 3.35 times the minimum. Lessee... $7.25 time 3.35 is $24.29... amazing... just 5 cents less than todays mean hourly wage... Funny how that works out.

... So much for the myth that the minimum wage is supposed to be a living wage. It wasn't under FDR, it never has been, and it was never intended to be...

Ok... well, how about 40 years ago, in 1979?

Mean U.S. wage 40 years ago, in 1979... $5.55 usd

$1.00 usd in 1979 purchasing power, is appx. $3.69 in 2019 purchasing power. That would make parity wage $20.48... but again, the actual wage is $24.34... making 2019s wage an almost 16%  increase in actual purchasing power.

... Ok... 30 years ago?

Mean U.S. wage 30 years ago, in 1989... $9.73 usd

$1.00 usd in 1989 purchasing power, is appx. $2.08 in 2019 purchasing power. That would make parity wage $20.23... but again, the actual wage is $24.34... making 2019s wage an almost 17%  increase in actual purchasing power.

... One more shot at being even slightly true... 20 years ago... 1999.

Mean U.S. wage 20 years ago, in 1999... $14.74 usd

$1.00 usd in 1989 purchasing power, is appx. $1.53 in 2019 purchasing power. That would make parity wage $22.55... but one last time, the actual wage is $24.34... making 2019s wage about an 8%  increase in actual purchasing power.

So... the left, as is almost always the case, has lied entirely and completely about the economic situation of the American poor and middle class.

Yes, for a few years, starting 50 years ago, purchasing power did fall... from the end of the biggest wealth creation boom in history, through the worst peacetime inflation in U.S. history for 16 years from 1968 to 1984... It fell almost 12% over those years in fact, and stayed mostly flat another 10 years or so, until between 1992 and 1994.

However, from 1994 or thereabouts to today, it has been steadily increasing again (even including the 2009-2012 recession. Wages and purchasing power didn't fall at all in that period... though employment did fall, average wages still increased).

ALL Americans.. poor, middle class, and rich... are better off than they were 100 years ago, better off than 50 years ago, and 40 years ago, and 30 year ago, and 20 years ago... and even 10 years ago... 

... Of course, democrats can't actually win, if they don't convince you that the poor and middle class are worse off, and the rich are gaining at everyone else expense...

It's been the same lie they've been telling since 1932... and probably will be telling for as long as the democratic party continues to exist.

The Logical and Epistemological Derivation and Progression of Rights

Here's a post I started writing about... two years ago I think? Maybe three? In response to a question about what rights were, and how we know they are rights etc... but I never finished it. The same question came up today, so I figured I'd finish the post. 

... It's still not QUITE finished... I need to do a bit more of an edit... but it's MOSTLY finished. 

By the by... if you think something is circular, or a tautology, you're reading it wrong. There are no tautologies here, there are only derivations from first principle, with reference to falsifiability, and non-contradiction; presented as logical and consequential proofs.

Meaning that all derivations FROM first principles in the progression can be derived back TO first principles, without contradiction or falsification... and that many but not all of them have, in order to illustrate this. 

As sentient beings, of sound mind, able to make our own choices and direct our own efforts; and to accept the requirements, obligations and consequences thereof; we have fundamental and inherent rights, which pre-exist and presuppose any society, state, collective, or other entity.

Rights exist because of self ownership, not because of society, or the state, or collective agreement or consent.We own ourselves, in the entire... rights, benefits, obligations and consequences.

We are not the property of others, or of society; and society (or the state, or any other collective or individual) is not the grantor of rights... though if legitimate, society, or the state, should be a guarantor of rights.

This is generally colloquially referred to as the propertarian principle of individual rights, or the principal of self ownership.

To my knowledge, it is the only logical derivation and progression of individual rights, as and from fundamental first principle, which does not require outside appeal to authority (i.e. faith, God, society, the state, the monarch etc... though conveniently, it also does not contradict most concepts of faith in God either)... though there may be others I am not familiar with.

This is a nearly universally recognized (if not necessarily universally accepted) principle, by those who actually study such principles (philosophy and philosophers), and the nature of principles, knowledge, and truth (epistemology... a field of philosophy which asks "how does one know anything at all, and within such knowledge, how does one know what is true and what is not).

It is generally accepted as the foundational first principle of the enlightenment... and critically it IS, clearly and explicity, the fundamental principle of the constitution of the United States... and of the nation defined by it.

Rights are not granted or provided by the constitution, or the state, or society... our rights are fundamental, inherent, and pre-existing... they are recognized, and protected by the constitution, by the state organized and formed by it, and... hopefully... by the society living with that state.

First, to get it out of the way right up front... lets talk about God for a minute:

1. Some believe there is no such thing as property, nor can there be... only stewardship
2. Some believe that we are Gods property

There can be conceptions of rights without property, including without self ownership, or even without individuals, as we think of them... but they are entirely different from conceptions of rights where there can be and is property... Generally granted by "tradition", or "honor" or "god" or "gods" etc... They are not derivable from any logical first principle, but instead require appeal to authority (even if that authority is "honor" or "tradition").

In most Christian and Jewish theological concepts which include people being God's property, this is morally and ethically indistinguishable from self ownership in the context of the propertarian principle; except internally, to your own moral judgement and conscience, of your stewardship of Gods property (as delegated to you, the individual...though certain Christians theorize and promulgate more explicitly collective stewardship as well).

In Islam, you are owned by God, and are in total submission to God... That is the literal meaning of Islam. You are owned by, and submit to the will of, God, in all things, at all times. Anything you or anyone else has, is Gods property, you only have temporary posession, use, and stewardship of it... including yourself. You have no rights, nor does anyone else... only privileges granted by God, as God wills it.

This piece is not about the epistemology of faith however, it is about the epistemology of rights.

So next, lets get the other common concepts of "rights"... which by the individual conception of rights are not truly rights at all... out of the way.

Some believe that there are superior beings, who have rights inherently (or granted by God, or society, or position etc..); and inferior beings, who do not, or whose rights are inferior to others (unless granted superior rights by those who posess them), and who can be the property of another, or can be subject to another. This is the fundamental principle of nobility or monarchy, and of certain types of oligarchy, and other explicitly hierarchical societies.

Some believe that people... or at least our bodies, and the fruits and products of them, and their efforts (wealth, profit, property etc...) are the property of "society" or some other collective entity or construct. If you believe that individuals are societies property... then you don't believe in rights at all... though you may call them rights, they are not: They are grants of privilege, immunity, entitlement, license, or franchise. They can be given, taken, and modified, as society decides. This is the fundamental principal of most collectivist societies.

It is also the fundamental presumption most people seem to have, in most societies around the world today... including, sadly, most people in America. They THINK they believe in rights, and in individuals... but they believe that rights are grants of society, or the state, or the constitution; and can be granted, modified, or revoked, as the needs or preferences of society require them to be.

They THINK they believe they are individuals, and own themselves... but they believe that society decides on rights... and if society decides, then you don't actually own yourself, society owns you.

What about right and wrong?

In either of these alternate conceptions; as the superior individuals, or society as a whole, are the arbiter of rights, then there can be no standard of right or wrong, except as determined by those superior individuals, or by common consent; and when society changes its mind, then what right, and what is wrong, also change.

There are no right and wrong... only allowed or not... Which, sadly, is what all too many believe.

If there ARE individual rights, beginning with property rights, then at least some things are inherently and objectively wrong... with or without society, even if society says they otherwise... Specifically those things which violate the rights of others, by force or fraud.

Oh and, if one knowingly does this wrong, by choice, then one willingly consents to their rights being abrogated as a consequence... We respect each others rights, so that others respect ours, and if they violate ours, we don't have to respect theirs... though we still should, and we shouldn't disregard their rights to any degree greater than required to compensate us for the violation of our rights, or to prevent further violation or abrogation of others rights.

THAT is the ACTUAL social contract by the way...

...Not some BS about society and altruism etc... etc... etc...

A contract, is valid consideration, offered for valid consideration in return; voluntarily accepted, with valid exchange and acceptance of said consideration, according to specified terms.

This equal offer of consideration of rights, fulfills all requirements of a contract; both as individuals, and collectively... as all so called "collective rights" are not... they either do not exist, or they are rights delegated to the collective by others.

... Remember... I said this was a full logical derivation and progression... 
Might makes right?

Three other important things to get out of the way...

1. Just because someone, or some society, or some state doesn't know about or recognize or accept such rights, doesn't mean they don't exist

2. Just because someone, or some society, or some state, is violating or abrogating such rights, does not mean they do not exist.

3. Just because someone, or some society, or some state, has the power, or has granted themselves the authority, to violate or abrogate such rights, does not mean they do not exist.

To "think" otherwise, is to make the same logical error, as thinking that because people violate the law, there is no law; the same logical error as thinking that because people do wrong, that there is no right or wrong.

This is the difference between licit, and legitimate authority and force. Licit, is that which is allowed by "authority"... be it society, the state, the monarch etc... Legitimate is that which respects both law, and rights... and the law itself must be licit and legitimate to be right.

Rights cannot be disposessed of, only respected, violated, or abrogated; whether by force, fraud, or willing consent.

... Willing limitation of rights, competition of rights, and intersection of rights in such contexts are MUCH more complicated questions...

Proof?

As I said above... The propertarian principal of individual rights, provides for a logical derivation and progression of rights, from first principle, without external appeal to authority.

So... here is the logical and epistemological progression and proof of individual rights; from, in reference to, and in the context of; the propertarian principle of individual rights, or the principle of self ownership.

First, our assumptions, and statement of principle...

Sentient individuals exist.

Property exists.

Rights exist.

Property may be held privately, by sentient individuals.

Sentient individuals may not legitimately be property of other individuals or entitites.

If we are sentient individuals, not owned by society, or any other superior individual or entity, then we must own ourselves.

Now, we derive our progression of rights...

If we own ourselves, then there must be rights, inherent to our nature as sentient individuals... These rights begin with, and proceed from, the right of self ownership; because without rights, there is no ownership... only possession.

If there is an inherent right of self ownership, and we are sentient beings, then we must have the right to freedom of conscience.

If we own ourselves, and have freedom of conscience, then we cannot be dispossessed of our rights even by willing consent; as self ownership and freedom of conscience cannot be dispossessed of without negating sentience and individuality.

If we own ourselves, have freedom of conscience and cannot be disposessed of our rights, then our rights can only be abrogated or violated by force, fraud, or willing consent.

If we own ourselves, have freedom of conscience, cannot be disposessed of our rights, and our rights can only be abrogated or violated by force, fraud, or willing consent; then all sentient individuals have the same rights, and no individual can have any rights that are superior or inferior to the rights of any other individual.

If all sentient individuals have the same rights, which cannot be superior or inferior to any other, then no sentient individual can be superior or inferior to another.

If no sentient individual can be superior or inferior to any other, then no individual can own any other or be owned by any other.

If we own ourselves, have freedom of conscience, and cannot be dispossessed of our rights, then we must have the right of private property, which consists of the rights of posession, determination, use, exclusion, disposal, and benefit of such property (including our selves in the entire).

If we own ourselves, have freedom of conscience, and have the right of private property, then we must have the right of defense of self.

If we own ourselves, have freedom of conscience, and have the right of private property, then we must have the right of self determination.

If we own ourselves, have freedom of conscience, have the right to private property, and the right to self determination, then we must have the right of association.

If we own ourselves, have freedom of conscience, have the right to private property, the right to self determination, and the right to free association, then we must have the right to form contract.

If we own ourselves, have freedom of conscience, have the right to private property, and the right to self determination, the right of association, and the right to form contract; we must also have the right to form voluntary collectives of individuals and to delegate certain rights and powers to them.

If we can form a voluntary collective of individuals, all individuals have the same rights which cannot be disposessed, no individuals can be superior or inferior to any other, and no individual can own or be owned by any other...

 ....then no collective of individuals can be a separate entity unto itself with rights separate from the rights of the individuals making up the collective, nor can any collective of individuals be superior or inferior to any individual, nor possess or exercise rights not posessed by all individuals, or which are superior to those of any individual.

... Thus, we are able to have societies, and states, which respect and protect individual rights, and which do not violate or abrogate them; without requiring collective rights, or collective ownership.

That's the epistemological progression from the propertarian principle, through to the existence of societies and states, with the exclusion of collective rights, and collective ownership... It is a complete chain of reasoning, derivable from and to first principles... progression and regression.

All things which are ACTUALLY rights, as opposed to grants, franchises, etc... can and must be logically and epistemologically justified within this progression, or from this progression. All things which cannot be logically and epistemologically justified within or from this progression... as dervied from and in the context of the propertarian principle... are not, and can not be, rights. They are something else, that are not rights.

But Maybe It'll be Different THIS Time... Right?

There's a frustrating paradox... People understand that corporations will generally act in what they believe to be their own best interest... as will the people who make up those corporations...

... but then think somehow that government (which is made up of the same people who make up corporations) will not act in IT'S best interest...

... and further, somehow people don't understand, that the best interests of government, are NOT the best interests of the people.

Of course they're not. If they happen to coincide, it is a happy accident, or its because they are catering to a specific interest, to gain support, power, and resources.

Somehow, people seem to persist in this utterly irrational set of beliefs, that government is "looking out for them" against its own interests, no matter how much evidence there is... basically the entirety of history... to the contrary.

Even when they acknowledge that this was "sometimes true in the past", or sometimes they think "now it is anyway",  they blame outside factors like "corporate corruption" and "special interests"; rather than seeing and accepting, that the government simply acts in its own interest, and that when it doesn't, it's an exception, not the rule.

Somehow, they keep convincing themselves, that the "right people" will really "fix it", and  "look out for them".

Somehow, they keep thinking "this time, if we just get people who are good enough and smart enough... this time, it will be different".

No... it won't be.

Never mind the proof presented by all of history, it won't be, because it can't be.

What do I mean by that?

Well... this is going to take a while... but let's simplify as much as possible, and start with breaking down some core assumptions and fallacies.

Like this one...

"The government acts in the interests of the people".

It doesn't. And it's not because of "corruption" or "corporate money" or "special interests"... or at least not as most people think of those things.

The false dichotomy of "Corporations and special interests vs. Government, acting in the interests of the people", is so obvious, I really don't understand how anyone can possibly believe it at this point.

But they do... in their millions and billions.

The problem at core, seems to be that people confuse and conflate the government, with the nation, and the people as a whole, as if they were one thing, or at least always aligned together collectively.

This is entirely false.

They then believe that somehow "corporations" and "special interests", are some kind of other thing, acting against "the people", for which "the government" is their champion, advocate, and defender.

This is also entirely false.

These false notions, completely ignore the fact that the corporation itself, is a special creature of government, created and protected by the government. That without special status granted by government, and the special protection of government, corporations are nothing but a voluntary collective of individuals (theoretically acting in common or aligned interest), with no power or protection greater than any individual.

... That's also what a government is supposed to be right, except the "common interest" is supposed to be "the common interest of all the people", right?

Of course, that's also what a union is supposed to be right? Or a political movement? Or any other voluntary collective institution, which is granted special status and protection by the government. They're collectives of individuals, acting in common or aligned interest. They are in fact protected interests, as much as they are institutions or corporations etc...

... and this is where the fallacy breaks down completely...

Of course, by creating, protecting, and then catering to these protected institutions; the government, and those within it, secure their own positions, and gain power and control. With this power and control, they then create more protected interests and institutions, cater to them, and receive even more power and control in return, in a self reinforcing cycle.

"Corporations" are not opposed by government.

Protected institutions and interests, such as corporations, are creatures of government. Neither can exist, or thrive, without the other. More importantly, neither are acting in the interests of individuals outside of themselves... nor should anyone expect they would... their purpose is to act in the interests of those who make them up.

That's the very definition of "special interests" by the way.

So.. that's corruption right?

No, actually, it's not. It's corruption if there is a quid pro quo of cash or similar value, in exchange for a specific vote... But mostly that's just what politics IS.

People have interests, they gather together in groups, those groups act to further their interests; be it a political party, or a town historical society, or a private club, or a business, or a union. They try to get the government to act in the way they want, and competing interests try to get them act in the ways the competing interest want.

That's politics.

Here's the thing though... Government is just another corporation... another specially protected institution, and "special interest"... composed of the same people who make up every other corporation and "special interest". They are just another institution acting in their own interest, like all institutions do.

Yes, that's right, the government itself, is just another "special interest".

And the government, acts in its own interest. Not yours, or mine, or "the peoples"... It's own.

No-one is acting in the interest of "the people" as a whole, or of individuals, but those individuals themselves; and the voluntary collectives they form and join, in order to specifically act in those interests...

Those would also be "special interests" by the way...

So... how can two "special interests" created by, protected by, supported by, and supporting, each other; be truly opposed to each other, except in competing for power and resources with each other?

How can one "special interest" be acting in its own interest, and the other "special interest"... the government itself... be acting AGAINST its own interest; by instead acting in your individual interest, or in the interest of "the people" as a whole?

It should be obvious that it can't.

Now... here's the even bigger issue though... and this itself seems to be the core conceptual problem:

"The People" don't actually exist.

There is no such thing as "the interests of the people"... because there is no "the people", who all have the same common interest, beyond some very basic concepts and platitudes like "safety" "survival" "prosperity" "happiness" etc...

"The people" is a convenient fiction, to represent all the individuals within "the nation", all of whom have their own interests; sometimes aligned with the interests of others, sometimes opposed to them, sometimes competing with them.

"The Nation" as a whole can have unified interests, such as advantageous foreign policy, and national defense, and the overall safety and prosperity of "the nation" is in the common interest of all the people... but that's not exactly equivalent. In fact, often, what is in the best interest of the nation, is not in the best interests of many of the people.

So, it's not actually possible for ANY government, no matter how well run, no matter how well intentioned, and no matter how well structured, to act for "the people"; except in the broadest possible terms.

Yes, really... no government, of any kind, ever.

That's not a "broken system" or a "perversion of the system"... that's how any system will always be no matter what, because it cannot possibly be other way. There is no other way.

No matter what, that's the way it is, because there is no other way.

As an individual, at best, government can be a disinterested third party... or if you are very lucky, its interests can be aligned with yours for a time, on a particular issue or set of issues.

Often, government is just another "special interest" colluding with other "special interests", against your interests; lying to you about it, and stealing from you to pay for it.

At worst governments interests... or the interests it is catering to against yours, in order to gain more power and control... require you be made powerless, or removed; and it strong arms, bankrupts, imprisons, or kills you... And along the way,  maybe it steals everything you and your family had, and labels you as an enemy of all "good people".

Because that's what government is... it's not just a "special interest", it's a "special interest" that has the power and authority, to take from you at gunpoint, force you to comply with its orders, imprison you, and kill you.

Corporations don't have that power. Unions don't have that power. No other special interest has the power to use force against you, without reprisal, except government...

...Or any other interest, that can get government to do it for them. Which seems to be more common than one would prefer...

The true dichotomy, is the concentrated power and force of specially protected institutions and interests... including the special interests of the government itself... vs. the diffuse power and interests of Individuals.

By the by, this isn't some random theory of my own... I'm just simplifying it and stating it in plain language.

In politics, economics, and sociology; these are known as the agency problem, and the problem of concentrated benefit, and diffuse cost. They're inherent to all governments, and in fact in all other collective institutions and efforts, and they cannot be solved, only mitigated at best.

Unfortunately, we can't eliminate either concentrated interests (and concentrated power) in general, or government in particular. Even if we wanted to, it's not actually possible; because individuals with common interest will tend to act together to concentrate power to more effectively act in their own interest etc... etc...

In the extreme, this means that without some countervailing concentration of power to stop them; the strong will always tend to overpower the weak, and the majority will always tend to overpower the minority.

Also, we actually do need a disinterested third party to resolve disputes (courts), to administer property held in commons, and to coordinate collective efforts for the nation as a whole (such as foreign policy and national defense).

So... we can't get rid of special interests, or concentrated interests and powers general, and we can't get rid of government in particular.

Since that is so... Don't you think it would be best if we would give those specially protected institutions and interests, and those concentrations of power against individual interests... as little power as possible?

Because if we give them the power to act in our own interests today... aren't they just going to turn around and use that power to act against our interests, when it's to their advantage to do so later?

I mean... all logic and reason says that's what will happen... and the entire record of history says that's what will happen...

... but maybe it'll be different THIS time... right?

Zero Defect Culture

The goal of the Frankfurt school, Antonio Gramsci, Saul Alinski and the like, was to implant the notion in society, that everything must be perfect without question, or that it was entirely corrupt and worthless without question, and therefore must be destroyed. That something could not be good and true, but flawed. Any flaw or defect required the institution or principle be destroyed, and replaced or rebuilt to "perfection".

They presumed, that if they were successful in doing so, the system would collapse (and thus "western culture" which they loathed, would collapse with it), as everyone would understand that things were not perfect, and therefore everything was corrupt and worthless... and thus would remove their support from the system.

They have, in fact, been entirely successful. The dominant motive emotion... no thought is involved... in society today, is what we call the "zero defect" concept, and culture.

Where the radicals failed... and what has kept "the system" running as it is... Is that they did not understand that most people, have an absolute emotional need for stability and confidence in authority and "the system".

Thus, rather than rejecting the false and toxic notion of the zero defect culture, or tearing "the system" and thus western culture and civilization down with it... as the radicals believed and desired would happen; a large number of people simply refuse to acknowledge or admit any defect... and attack anyone who claims defects exist, as if they were attempting to destroy the country, and society.

Someone Tried to Start a War Tonight in Dallas...

So there's what's right... and there's what's smart.

Someone tried to start a war in Dallas tonight... and I GUARANTEE you, that police around the country are going to react.

Reports are that 11 cops and one bystander were shot... by at least two people with rifles and two more with pistols... and at least 5 are dead right now, with 3 more in critical condition.

At best, police are going to be hyper-vigilant for trouble... Hopefully NOT seeing it where there isn't any and overreacting...

... but it would amaze me if there wasn't at least some overreaction. At least some anger and fear and grief and frustration that spills over into violence...

... and if you don't think there are people who want to exploit that overreaction, you' really don't understand what's going on in this country right now.

Think about it... if you were an enemy of this country... internal or external... If you were a white supremacist, or a black separatist, or an anti-american islamist... Wouldn't it be great if you could get us to start a civil war against ourselves? Set cops against the public, black against white?

... and how much worse will it get if... when... there are more incidents?

Understand... this wasn't a random or spontaneous act of anger or frustration. This was a deliberately planned and executed attack, with pre-planned siting, and a planned evade and exfil, that they executed properly.

That doesn't mean they were professionals, or had any training... but it does mean this was a deliberate act of political violence.

This was a terrorist provocation attack.

The purpose of terrorism is not just to cause direct damage... it is to provoke overreaction from the controlling authority, against the populace, in order to increase internal strife and chaos, and to increase resentment and reaction against the controlling authority.

... and I can't think of any better way to draw such an overreaction right now, than to start killing cops at a black lives matter protest.

Can you?

Smart people... people who really should know better... Are already reaction in anger and fear, and saying things like "this is black lives matters fault', or "the cops deserved this"...

... That's exactly what they want...

... Because that's what terrorism does...

That is the goal, and purpose, of terrorist attacks. It is to create terror, chaos, strife... To draw overreaction and create resentment, that the terrorists can take advantage of.

... and it's working.

So... here's my advice... For everyone, but especially if you are a young black male.

Stay home... ESPECIALLY at night... until next Monday.

It's a heat wave weekend... violence always goes up with heat waves anyway... now this? STAY HOME.

Don't go anywhere there are big crowds. Don't go to protests or vigils or anything else. STAY HOME.

If you DO get pulled over, and you get hassled... don't get visibly angry, don't fight, don't yell, don't scream... DO record the encounter if you can...

...and wait...

Wait until you aren't under the control of an angry scared man with a gun pointed at you... Wait and get a lawyer. Wait, and file a complaint with the Justice Department and the state AG.

Is it wrong... Hell yeah...

But you can't fix it if you're dead.

One Hundred Years Beyond the Rising

100 Easters past, the morning of Easter Monday 1916; with these words, read on the steps of the General Post Office...Padraig Pearse, proclaimed the free and independent Irish Republic:

...We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. 

The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people. 

In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty; six times during the past three hundred years they have asserted it in arms.
Standing on that fundamental right and again asserting it in arms in the face of the world, we hereby proclaim the Irish Republic as a Sovereign Independent State.  And we pledge our lives and the lives of our comrades-in-arms to the cause of its freedom, of its welfare, and of its exaltation among the nations... 

... Signed on behalf of the Provisional Government, 

Thomas J, Clarke
Sean Mac Diarmada
Thomas MacDonagh
P.H. Pearse
Eamonn Ceannt
James Connolly
Joseph Plunkett

That day, elements of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, the Irish Volunteers, and the Irish Citizens Army, took control of various sites around Dublin.

They fought the forces of the British Army and Royal Irish Constabulary... 1,250 men, fighting 17,000... for five days, before being forced to surrender the following Saturday.

66 of the rebels were killed, to 143 of the British... but 260 men, women, and children were killed in the crossfire, most by British artillery and machine guns... Not intentional murder.. but rebellion is bloody business, and in the fog of war, innocent people die.

The day of the rising, the British declared martial law over all of Ireland... It would remain in force off and on for the next five years.

Within two weeks of the surrender, hundreds were imprisoned, and 16 of the republicans (including all of those who signed the proclamation) were executed by hanging, in Kilmainham Gaol...

... The same prison where the British had imprisoned and executed the leaders of the risings of 1798, 1803, 1848, and 1867...

The fighting would continue sporadically until 1919, when all Ireland entered into general civil war for two years; until 26 counties formed the Irish Free state under the Anglo-Irish treaty: December 6th, 1921... and adopted the Constitution of the Irish Free State one year later, December 6th 1922.

Ireland would not be truly free and independent... remaining as a dominion of the British Commonwealth... until December 29th, 1937, with the adoption of Irish Constitution.

Even then, Ireland still officially recognized dominion of the English crown as head of state, until Easter Monday 1949, when the Republic of Ireland was officially declared...

...33 years from the Easter Rising.

Not the best... not the brightest... just the ones who showed up...

So, are these presidential candidates the best that America can do?

No, of course not...

These are just the "best" that were actually stupid or crazy or narcissistic or power hungry enough to want the job, and then put up with the process of getting it.

The last time "the best that America can do" ran for President, his name was Thomas Jefferson.

The best that America can do... don't go into politics. They go into finance, and medicine, and engineering, and construction and development, and the actual moneymaking side of the legal profession, and they build businesses, and they do good works on their own initiative... They don't wait for government to do it.

The best that America can do serve... but they do it as cops, firemen, paramedics, soldiers, sailors, airmen, coastguardsmen, and marines.

The best that America can do, know that America isn't our politicians, and it isn't our government... It's each of us, doing our best for ourselves, our families,our brothers in arms, our companies, our communities...

... And the best that America can do... Don't want to have anything to do, with most of people we send to our capitols, and most of the "business" that gets done there... But they have to, because if they don't, then the people in those capitols won't let them do the best that they can do...

Don't ever confuse our government, or our politicians, with the best that America can do... with our actual leaders... with our communities... with the nation...

They're just the ones who wanted the job so bad they'd put up with anything to get it...

Trump Must be Held Accountable for the Bad Actions of His Campaign

This past Tuesday, Donald Trumps campaign manager Corey Lewandowski assaulted a reporter at a press event with Trump...

...in fact right in front of him... Then he walked Trump out of the room right over the woman he knocked to the ground.

He not only physically assaulted a reporter...

...a FRIENDLY reporter no less... for asking a question he didn't like...

...An assault which was caught on audio tape, as well as witnessed, verified, attested to, and already been written about by other reporters who witnessed it...

...But for the last two days, he has directed the Trump campaigns full resources, first to deny the assault ever occurred.. but, far worse... To  attempt to discredit,  defame the character and professional reputation of, and to otherwise ruin... to destroy professionally and personally... the reporter in question.

To this end, they have made baseless accusations of fraud, professional and personal misconduct, and attention seeking. They have also had their proxies attack her relentlessly online; resorting to vile sexual innuendo, and bald faced misogyny.

Lewandowski did not do this alone... the whole campaign was directed towards trying to destroy this woman, with the full knowledge and support of Donald Trump himself.

These are not the actions of an responsible, honorable, or even sane man.

A responsible man wouldn't have done it in the first place... And were Trump a responsible man, he would have stopped, helped the woman up, apologized, and made sure his man apologized.

An honorable man would have immediately admitted fault, and apologized... and were Trump an honorable man, he would have done so, and ensured his man did so.

Even just a sane man, would have immediately made a reasonable face saving excuse, and a small and quiet apology for the "accident"... a trivial gesture to avoid trouble, as well as just the proper thing to do.

Instead, when caught and confronted with proof... these men spent two days trying to destroy the person they assaulted.

These are not the actions of sane men.

They are the actions of raving malignant narcissists, who must destroy anyone they have wronged, rather than admit even the slightest error, fault, blame, or weakness.

These are not the actions of anyone we should ever even think of allowing, anywhere near the power of the office of President... Or any kind of position of trust or responsibility.

These are men who will do anything... say anything... destroy anything... in their pursuit of power.

If Trump and his people are willing to go all out in trying to destroy a reporter, to avoid admitting a relatively small mistake, and making a trivial apology... What would they do if they made a major mistake... if people died... What could possibly be beyond limits to them?

Lewandowski, and Trump stand equally guilty, and equally responsible. If Trump had apologized or fired him Tuesday, or Yesterday, or today... If he hadn't allowed the smear campaign to happen...he could perhaps distance himself from it... Instead, he chose instead to put his full support into trying to destroy the woman.

And now... they both must face the consequences.

Lewandowski must be terminated immediately, expelled from the Republican party, and barred from participating any Republican party campaign; as must anyone in the Trump campaign, who participated in the attempt to destroy this reporter.

Trump must admit his staff and campaigns bad actions immediately, take full personal responsibility, and apologize personally to the reporter; as well as to the witnesses to the event, their media organizations, and most importantly to the American people.

If he does not, then he must be censured by the party, barred from participating in any Republican party events or activities, and from campaigning as a Republican, or for any Republican position or nomination; until such time as he takes responsibility and makes his public apologies.

If he refuses to admit any responsibility or fault, and does not apologize at all... or worse, the campaign continues these attacks in any way... he must be expelled from the party, and removed from any consideration for nomination for any elective position as a Republican candidate.

This is no longer about a campaign manager being too pushy... This is about the integrity of the American political process; the honor, integrity, and legitimacy of the Republican party; and our honor and legitimacy as a nation.

We cannot allow someone who would do such a thing to represent us, in any way, ever.

We are better than this.

Update: A video has surfaced clearly showing the assault, and Corey Lewandowski has been arrested on charges of Battery, but the Trump campaign has doubled down; now instead of claiming that it didn't happen, that instead, Lewandowski was protecting Trump from assault by Fields. 

A valuable lesson in how not to govern a state

So... if you weren't paying attention... and most haven't been and have little reason to... the state of Connecticut is in serious trouble. They're effectively not just bankrupt, they're in the hole so deep they can't even see the top.

20 years ago, they were in great shape, and looking to get better...

So, what the hell happened?

Basically, Connecticut has been a textbook case for "how to kill your economy with government".

...This is gonna be a long one, because I'm not kidding, it really is a by the numbers lesson of exactly what not to do...

CT is in trouble explicitly because of its government.

This is one that even the liberals can't deny... and if you've read much from regional media, even they are generally placing the blame, at least close to where it belongs.

This all started about 20 years ago...

After some rough years in the 70s and 80s while their legacy manufacturing and fishing industires dramadically contracted, and 10 years where their core insurance and financial aervices industries had plateaued; Connecticut went through a huge economic boom in  the mid 90s (as with most of the country, but as a percentage more than anywhere other than MA, CA and TX)

This was primarily due to massive expansion in the financial services sector; as well as the overall technology boom and .com bubble, and smaller booms... or at least swells... in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, certain elements of the communications, defense, aviation, aerospace, and light manufacturing sectors; and a HUGE boom in the high end commercial real estate and development sectors; all of which CT has traditionally been strong in.

In response to this, the state and local governments very rapidly spent...not just their increased revenue... but decades woth of future revenue as well.

They made revenue and growth assumptions, based on continued growth at that explosive boom rate; creating legislation and programs that depended it... and worse, taking on HUGE amounts of debt, with the assumption that it would be easily paid back with future revenue growth.

At the same time, they made regulations that made it much more difficult and expensive to do business in the state... Because, after all, business was booming, and they could afford it, right?

Well, actually, no.

The state and local governments had increased the burdens of doing business so much, that they made it  nearly impossible for those businesses not in a boom.

They made it particularly difficult for small and medium businesses not primarily driven by discretionary consumer spending; which form the long term economic base of a healthy local and regional economy (about 30% of all private sector employment in this country is from businesses of this type).

Local property taxes and assessments shot up precipitously. Insurance rates skyrocketed. Business to business overheads went up without increased productivity. Legal ahllnd compliance costs went way up. Various individual and business taxes and fees on both the local and state level went up far faster than inflation, or income and revenue growth.

Commercial property costs and new commedical property development went way up in "desireable" areas (even though there wasn't a big increase in demand in most areas). Worse, even though occupancy rates remained stagnant or even crashed, costs still increased significantly in most "less desireable" areas as well.

Similarly,  housing costs and new development shot up in "desireable" areas, even though there wasnt very much overall population growth (CT lost population over the decade), and costs in "less desireable" areas still rose even though occupancy rates fell.

A lot of small businesses, struggling business, and less established businesses just failed. Their costs just became too high for marginal operations to remain viable. At the same time, a number of large legacy business that had been barely viable, became non-viable and finally folded (or in a lot of cases were acquired for short money, then operations were relocated to lower cost markets, contributing both to unemployment and population los).

It became difficult even for established and successful businesses outside of the boom to grow, and very difficult for new businesses outside the boom to get established. The barriers to entry and costs to grow, we're just too high.

In fact,  as early as 1998, it had been noted that in some areas, costs were too high, even in comparison to neighboring or nearby Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey (with few attractions and advantages to offset those burdens).

The government forgot something critical... They forgot that things change, and people and businesses change and move, in response to changing conditions and incentives.

They forgot basic economics.

Businesses need incentives to stay, that are greater than their incentives to leave. They need incentives to start or grow in one place, that are greater than the incentives in another place. Otherwise they're going to go elsewhere. Simple as that.

When your state is more expensive and difficult to do business in than New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and California (every state other than Hawaii in fact)... You're doing something very very wrong.

So, businesses started leaving... or were started elsewhere... or expanded in other states.

The big employers and established big revenue companies were able to leverage their size, power, and government relationships, to get some relief from certain burdens (particularly in the defense, financial, and pharmaceutical industries)... and in general were better able to absorb them... So, for as long as the booms lasted, they were happy to keep doing business. But they weren't actually making sustainable long term business growth and investment in Connecticut.

This of course made the government keep thinking that everything was good, and they kept running up their tab, and tightening the screws on businesses and citizens.

...and then the boom slowed

New and small business development essentially halted. Larger established businesses did not bring more business into Connecticut or grow their operations in the state, and started contracting and relocating operations elsewhere. Businesses outside the state chose not to bring new operations there...

...Unless of course they could wangle a legislative favor and get some incentives and relief...

Which of course the government were all too happy to continue doing... After all, it gave them more power, and more money, and more secure political positions.

And from the government's point of view, all was still rosy...

But those companies still made preparations to move their operations out of state the second anything changed... and they expanded operations anywhere other than CT.

... and then the boom ended.

It actually ended right around October of 2000 or so... though most didnt notice it until mid to late 2001, when both companies and governments, came to the inescapable conclusion that actual realized revenues as of the end of q1 and q2 (as opposed to booked revenues, which may be commonly booked from 30 to 180 days before they begin to be realized... or longer... or in many cases never) were down well below their estimates for 2000, and were tracking lower for the rest of 2001 and into 2002.

... and then September 11th happened...

At the same time, the fed cut interest rates to effectively nothing (anything lower than inflation is actually effectively lower than nothing... which they've mostly been at since then by the way, minus a couple years at "slightly more than nothing" from the end of 2004 to the beginning of 2008. It's been at an actual 0% since 2008), and the property boom that had started in 1996-7 with the .com bubbles halo "wealth effect", suddenly kicked into ludicrous speed.

Between 9/11 and the property bubble... somehow people didn't notice that we were actually in a recession in every sector not dependent on the "wealth effect" or debt driven consumer spending.

After the .com bust and 9/11, most American and international big businesses (outside of certain elements of the financial, mineral extraction, energy, transportation, housing, consumer goods, luxury goods and retail sectors, all of which were riding the bubble), changed their operational patterns dramatically to cut costs and reduce risk (as had happened in the early 70s and mid to late 80s in response to major changes in the marketplace). 

At the same time, small business growth slowed dramatically across much of the country, in response to shifting geographic patterns of development, increased risks, and higher costs of doing business. Small businesses that were not driven by the "wealth effect", were largely stagnant. The startup market collapsed, and outside of a few momentarily hot sectors and minibubbles, became nearly dormant in comparison to what it had been between 1989 and 2000.

Venture capital went into a strange mode where capital pools were building, and risk aversion and command and control mindset dominated... But at the same time, in an effort to drive market beating returns, crazy amounts of money would be pumped into anything analysts thought would be a market maker or primary sector driver, without regard for underlying value... Chasing issues up high and fast, and then dumping them hard once profit taking hit (essentially a legal form of pump and dump).

Everyone's risk tolerance went WAY down, except for those in active bubbles.

Most big businesses started aggressively reducing their exposures to risk, and slashing their legacy and high cost operations, especially in high cost markets like the northeast. High cost low margin operations and businesses were divested or shut down. Big companies got bigger, seeking to leverage scale and reduce risk by acquiring viable but marginal operstions, and small but growing operstions. New development was directed to lower cost, lower risk markets like Texas, Florida, south Dakota, and to a lesser extent Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia.

Meanwhile,  collectively, Americans were going insane, and running up a massive property and debt bubble,  peaking at the end of 2006 and just kinda floating there til 2009, before popping completely, in the banking bust.

... And during this time, the CT government spent even MORE and took on even more debt, and turned the screws even tighter on businesses and citizens...

...all in expectation that the "prosperity" of the property and consumer spending bubble would result in significantly increased revenues.

It didn't.

In fact, the insurance and other financial services industries that had long been the core of Connecticuts revenue base were damn near destroyed between 2005 and 2009.

Discretionary consumer spending driven businesses had massively over expanded in the bubble, and suddenly began to contract, or fail, wholesale.

Most of the legacy heavy industry of Connecticut manufacturing cities was killed off in the previous 20 years, except those dependent on government contracts.

The fishing business had long been non-viable because of poor catch rates, high costs, and crippling regulation.

And of course, the property development business completely collapsed.

Between 1997-9 or so and 2009, most viable medium and large businesses (outside of a boom industry) that could leave... did.

Well... unless they got a special incentive from the government to stay (Pfizer... you wouldn't even believe....)

Basically, the entire states primary industries and major private sector employers; failed, contracted dramatically, fled the state, or got special considerations which made them revenue neutral (or even net negative due to state spending or subsidy comittments).

Between this and the collapse of consumer spending, small business failures and contraction, high unemployment, and all of the other ripple effects; Connecticuts economy has contracted by between 11% and 15% overall from its peak in 2006-2008 (depending on how you calculate it and  whose numbers you believe).

That's the worst in the country by a large margin by the way.

The picture is much worse when you look exclusively at the private sector economy, which has contracted over 20% (it may be more than 25% or even more depending on whose estimates you believe)

Excluding those companies in the financial sector and other large businesses whose revenues are primarily realized out of state, and those with negotiated tax breaks... Who knows...

The states taxable revenue base has certainly fallen dramatically, by any measure.

... but the government kept spending as if the state were growing, while massively increasing state debt year over year. In fact, state employment and state expenditures INCREASED EVERY YEAR since 2006.

After 2009, any sane government would have slashed the burden and expense of doing business in their state in order to promote growth and attract new business. That's exactly what most of the states I noted above did (all but Virginia, which made it harder, but boomed on increased government spending).

After 2009, any sane government would have looked at their situation and said "hey, those big expensive projects and new spending that we'd planned on? Yeah, we have to put that on hold".

Again, that's what most states did, outside of the "stimulus money".

Not Connecticut.

From 2008-2010, Connecticut lost 120,000 jobs... about 8% of total jobs in the state. During those same two years, government sector employment (outside of indian gaming industry employment, which is counted as government employment) ACTUALLY INCREASED BY 9%

In the face of total collapses in private sector employment and revenues, and an already overwhelming debt burden, Connecticut actually INCREASED spending, and acquired MORE debt... Counting on state and federal government spending to "stimulate the economy" and Kickstart growth.

It didnt.

Then... and this is my favorite bit....

....when some folks both at the city and state levels, finally woke up and tried to restore some rationality and sanity to the situation... cut spending, layoff non essential staff, cancel new programs, reduce scheduled spending increases, put pending projects on hold etc...

THE GOVERNMENT SUED ITSELF, IN ORDER TO FORCE ITSELF TO KEEP SPENDING MORE MONEY THEY DIDN'T HAVE.

That's not a joke... look it up... and it's not just once either... the absurdity of it would be hilarious, if it weren't tragic.

Now they have the worst debt to revenue ratio in the country... and it's not getting better anytime soon.

Regardless of what Connecticuts government officially says (they concluded they had 0.6% net economic growth in 2014), they are facing what everyone honestly examining the situation knows to be net annual outflow of private sector jobs, income, economic output, and population; with resulting decreasing revenue, and increasing debt load. They're in a coffin corner.

In the next two years, large job losses at GE, Pfizer, General Dynamics, and Sikorsky, are going to stagger the states economy even further

... and rather than stop the bleeding and make it attractive to stay in or come to CT, they have doubled down and continued making it worse.

Rather than cut their regulatory and tax burden, making an overall lower cost to do business for ALL businesses, they are desperately trying to o woo specific large employers to come to the state, with tax and regulatory breaks.

The employers weren't biting, because CT did that before and then screwed those companies 4 to 12 years later.... And besides, there's really no advantage to doing so.

Even if they offer a company 100% corporate income tax free operations, and free land to build their facilities (I did mentione Pfizer earlier didnt I?); CT can't give employers the advantages they get in Texas or Florida:

A government they know actually is pro business, and a generally low cost of doing business; lower total tax burden, lower regulatory burden, lower property costs, lower development cost, lower insurance and benefit costs, lower legal costs and risks; and most significantly, a much easier time (and therefore much lower cost) attracting and retaining quality staff at substantially lower cost per employee (because in addition to lower overheadsm these states have a much lower cost of living, much better weather, and much less constrained lifestyles, providing a considerably higher effective standard of living for a given salary).

Of course,  Connecticuts government somehow never got the lesson, that if you took the same breaks from the ridiculous tax and regulatory burden you were going to give to a company promising to bring 5000 jobs into the state.... and you gave them  to EVERY company in the state already... you wouldn't have to beg big companies to come in, and then have to pander to fhem for decades... Small and medium businesses would flourish again, while costs to everyone for everything in the state would go down, and the economy would not just recover, but soar.

... because they just don't think that way...

It's not command and control, it's not collective, it's not a single big thing they can take credit for, it's not one guy they can cut a deal with, or one guy they can control...

... it doesn't fit the narrative...

But... It actually works...