Transparency, at long last.

This is the last post for 2016, and the first since the election, so I need to do a little housekeeping here.

First, I just need to log my advice for the Democratic National Committee. It is simply this: If you do not want a Donald Trump to get elected, do not bring us a Hillary Clinton.

I really don't know what to expect with Trump. He did not show any trump cards in the run up to the election, which was probably smart, given who he was running against. I think he could accidentally be a decent president. Not a top ten president, mind you, but he could do some good. Plus, he doesn't have to be all that great to make the top 25. Really, the less he does, the better his chances. My pipe dream is he cancels all the executive orders from the last 250 years, and appoints a couple of smart people to the supreme court. Then he can retire and play all the golf he wants, as far as I'm concerned. Of course, if he would be so kind as to eliminate the DEA, the DoEd, the DoEn, DHS, and a half a dozen other D's I'd be all right with that, too. Then play golf. Oh, and put an eviction notice on the UN, and secede from NATO, and ..., well, maybe he would need a second term to get all that done. No reason to get ahead of ourselves.

What worries me is Trump will instead double down on the executive branch abuses of picking winners and losers. If he does, it will continue to distort the economy and create other imbalances to be dealt with only down the road. He could make trade killing tariff deals and make things worse for everybody -- except the special interests. Frankly, I don't lose any sleep over it, but the economy is the most important basis for freedom and liberty, and it's so damn easy to get it wrong. I finally, resignedly, hope he doesn't do any more damage than the average president.

Anyway,  he wasn't my candidate but I do wish him well.

What else is on my "to do" list? Ah, yes, the fake news phenomenon. Sure, I've seen some fake news. It's impact is negligible. It's fakeness is obvious and inconsequential. What's interesting is to see all the mainstream media outlets now try to co-opt the term fake news to mean everything they don't want you to see. It's pathetic, reeks of desperation, and can only mean it's the end of the road for most of them.

Hacking elections. Obama said his would be the most transparent administration in history. It was true in the sense that it was pretty obvious what he was up to all along, even if his administration did its best to obfuscate everything. Finally, when a bucket of truth is poured onto the last embers of his term, there is very little left to learn. That the bucket of truth comes courtesy of Wikileaks instead of the White House should not change the value of the truth.

The administration whose state department had their server in the bathroom closet should not be the ones who get to comment on cyber security. That's like putting Dodd and Frank in charge of bank reform.

Of the 10 or 20 million people who were previously clueless about Hillary's servers and the inner DNC workings, it's possible that several million voters went a different way. It might have even been enough to swing the election. I don't mind it much when truth sways an election. It renews my faith in republican democracy.

So, if it was the Russians that did it (and I'm not buying it just yet), then maybe they did us a favor. "Right neighborly of them", I might even say. At the end of the day, perhaps the people were not fooled. Long live transparency.

Alleppo now on the map.

A couple of random thoughts while watching the networks try to jar Johnson votes loose for Hillary:

The right answer for Johnson was, of course, one of the following:

1. We should be entirely disinterested in Aleppo, but for some &^%($ reason, we are not.
2. We should be far less concerned about children of Aleppo than we are about the children of Chicago.
3. Which middle east dictator should we prop up this week?
4. What is it about Aleppo that isn't going on in dozens of other cities in the region.
5. First, I think we should stop bombing them.
6. Aleppo Schmalleppo. 

Look, I get it that Gary is not focused on everything that matters; but this is a job interview, and if one of the interview questions is what's going on in one town on the other side of the planet, I'm going to at least let him pull out an atlas and give a thoughtful response.

But that's not what's going on here. What's going on is an organized attempt at painting an unflattering picture of a candidate. 

Even if someone is overly sympathetic to the plight of the Syrians, how can your opinion of either Clinton or Trump improve based on this one dull response?

Ticket Stub

“The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.”  ― George Orwell, The Lost Orwell: Being a Supplement to The Complete Works of George Orwell

I noticed the other day that my membership in the Libertarian Party has now reached 20 years. I hadn't thought about party membership as signifying much of anything, other than supporting the good guys. After all, the LP is the only political party that's come close to decoding the formula for governing humans. I usually don't worry about whether or not they had a good showing in the election, since the result would always be symbolic, anyway.

Oh, sure, I voted for Gary Johnson instead of Mitt Romney in 2012. Who wouldn't have? In fact, judging from this article, Mitt himself must think that that was a pretty good idea.

Third parties don't usually last this long (the LP has been around over 40 years), The Reform Party has logged 21 years as of this writing. However, the Bull Moose Party has not fielded a candidate in 99 years (apparently there are plenty of other outlets for progressives now). For some reason, we pick from Republicans and Democrats these days.

In 2016, now, the Republicans have nominated their populist, and the Democrats have nominated their authoritarian. It appears that there would have been a real opportunity for a liberty candidate. In response to this golden opportunity, the 2016 Libertarian Party nominated, wait for it..., a couple of Republicans to lead their ticket.

Third parties often attract strange actors who simply want the ballot access. Ralph Nader, and Pat Buchanan before him, took the Reform Party after Perot. History is replete with such interlopers. This year is no different. And if Gary Johnson gets the 15% vote that he alone would call a moral victory, there will be many more pretenders looking to carry the LP battle flag in future years. Ballot access creates strange bedfellows.

So, just as Trump has hijacked the GOP, and a Clinton bullies her way to the Dem nomination, we see that qualifications are optional for the LP as well. For today, we can barely discern that Johnson (leaving out Weld for the moment) is the most qualified candidate still standing. So, even the Libertarian Party - the party of principle - can be hijacked. Can't tell the players without a scorecard.

The debate rages whether Johnson/Weld will siphon votes from Trump or from Clinton. We should be well past the siphon phase, by now. We should be choosing the best candidate that shows enough savvy to actually get on the ballot. Yes, the choices are pretty thin at this point. I suppose if you want a Republican in the office, well, Johnson is now your best bet. However, the polls are showing that Johnson/Weld are actually pulling more from the Never-Hillary Crowd. Maybe the Weld VP nomination makes that happen.

If the GOP would have nominated a Republican, they'd probably win in a landslide. Incredibly, the only Republican still in the race is the Libertarian Party nominee. And while we're saying it, perhaps the only qualified Democrat in the race is the Libertarian Party candidate for VP.

Heroes and History

Just saw a news feature on President Dwight D. Eisenhower. He was the president when your Wizer was young. They say that a person's perspective on history generally dates to when they were born.

So, let's see. There was Eisenhower, then Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHWBush, Clinton, GWBush, and now the 44th POTUS, Barack Obama. Eleven presidents since I was born. That means I have experienced 25% of the presidents in our nation's history. A great many "baby boomers" have too.

I think that qualifies us, and especially me to comment on the state of the presidency.

When we were kids, we were told that the country was founded by a number of bright men whose lives and times we were encouraged to celebrate. We were taught that there was this succession of heroes traceable to our country's sacred founding. They were the presidents.

Every school room had a poster with the first 36 presidents on it. Listed in chronological order, and numbered 1-36. The universe started with George Washington, and included other famous Americans one right after another, with Abe Lincoln somewhere there in the middle, and still other guys for whom the stories were written.

At the time of the first 36, these men were all presented as heroes. Andrew Jackson. Calvin Coolidge. Teddy Roosevelt. They carved faces in the mountains for them. Put their likenesses on pieces of paper we were all meant to carry around. In my grade school, each of the presidents, in turn, were featured on a cafeteria milk carton. Collectors items. We learned about Tippecanoe, Millard Fillmore, and John Quincy Adams. I remember when JFK showed up on the carton. This was a real live president. What an impressive guy he must be to merit association with the rest of these heroes, I thought. This was 1962, he was our current president, and we got to see him all the time on the news.

In a short while, some sniper decided that JFK should no longer be president (or even alive for that matter). This had devastation written all over it. How can someone so important, the present successor to George Washington, be snuffed out like an extra in a bad western movie? Presidents were human? News seemed to travel faster all of a sudden. We weren't learning things from the milk cartons, any more.

We were hearing about it from Walter Cronkite and Chet Huntley now. We weren't seeing things through the dusty lens of history any more. We were seeing them through a grainy live picture tube, and the newscasters were providing the color commentary. Welcome to the brave new world.

It was no longer possible to hide who the president was, or what he did, or really even present him in a different light. We now get to examine our heroes in real time, and decide for ourselves whether we have a leader, or we don't.

Funny thing is, with all the talent in this country, we seldom get the leadership we should expect. Out of the last 11, only one gets into the top ten. That's right, the Gipper, the last president to acknowledge that government is the problem is the only one in our lifetime to merit an honorable mention, ...and he finishes 10th. 11 of the 44, and we get one passable president.

How did this happen? Could it be because we let two political organizations control who gets presented in the championship round? Since Reagan, here's what the elections looked like:

1988
GHW Bush (who had supposedly embraced voodoo economics by then)
vs.
Michael Dukakis (the one candidate that could make GHWB appear bright)

1992
GHW Bush (Revving up the desert storm machine)
vs
Ross Perot (This is all crazier than I am.)
vs
Bill Clinton (the democrat antidote to Gary Hart - can we find another Jimmy Carter?)

1996
Bob Dole (Tax cuts will fix everything)
vs
Bill Clinton (What? I gave you welfare reform! What else do you want?)
vs
Ross Perot (Still crazy after four more years)

2000
Al Gore (If I was worth a damn, I would have been president in 1992)
vs. Not Al Gore (whew, that was close)

2004
John Kerry (This country is not elite eastern liberal enough)
vs. Not John Kerry (whew, that was close)

2008
Barry Obama (change is necessary)
vs
John McCain (I see your random draw, and raise you a wounded ex-POW)

2012
Barry Obama (change is risky)
vs
Mitt Romney (If you like your Obamacare you can keep your Obamacare)

Were these choices really the carefully made choices? Really America? We just couldn't find anyone more qualified in each of these job hires? I think our executive search method is deeply flawed, and now that we are down to two democrats and a socialist, I know it's broken.

Do yourself and the rest of us a favor. Don't play along. We haven't had a decent pick since Reagan. We need someone in the top 10 once again. We're not going to get it this time, but that doesn't mean we have to vote for what we are going to get. This time, vote for someone else. At least vote for someone you like. Write in someone you think could do the job instead. Mike Rowe. Curt Schilling. If you want a billionaire, write in Buffett for heaven's sake. At least he isn't going to look like a mistake on the milk carton.

Then, we can begin to break the stranglehold these two self serving parties have on our elected leadership. It's a perfect time to break from this system, and begin to exercise our choice in a more meaningful way. Vote for Pedro if you must, but please, please, do not endorse these clowns.
--------
As an aside, I don't know how the Libertarian Party convention is going to go next weekend in Orlando; but I am rooting for Austin Petersen.  If he makes it through that gathering, he will likely get my vote.

Indiana Matters

There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. -- Ronald Reagan

It comes down to Indiana, it appears. If Cruz wins, it starts to look like he can hold serve on the first ballot, after which some interesting political dynamics will emerge. Most people who have voted in this election won't be able to follow the nuanced difference between a bound and unbound delegate, or first ballot abstentions and other parliamentary maneuvers. If Indiana goes to Cruz, it's very possible that Trump will not be the candidate. If, instead, Trump wins, he may eventually get a majority strong enough to withstand some convention floor defections.  

I lived most of my adult life in Indiana, so I am intrigued by watching this. What I can tell you about Hoosiers is that they are as likely to vote for the son of a businessman as they are the son of a preacher. Either way, they expect they will be hiring a guy who can fix a system that's been broken for 8 years. Whichever one it shall be, depends a lot more on style than it really should. Substance is a dicey thing. If substantive issues are raised, Hoosiers will give it due consideration. If no substantive issues are raised, then it all defaults to style.

Trump has ensured that no substantive issues are getting any oxygen. It's all about hand size, apparently. Or the rigged system. Or maybe it's the Mexicans. Who knows? Can anyone tell me what Making America Great Again actually means? There's a reason why this slogan sounds a lot like "Change You Can Believe In" and Yes, We Can".  The reason is that there is no practical difference between Trump and Obama, and no difference at all between Trump and Clinton.

So why would Hoosiers be as likely to vote for Trump as Cruz? The answer is they watch the news. When he says he will build a wall, and the press doesn't call him on it, they think that maybe a wall is a good idea. When he says he will make better trade deals, and the press doesn't challenge it, it sounds like a good idea. The easy challenge that a news person can make is that there is a world of difference between "trade deals" and "free trade". People conflate the two, because .... well because isn't government supposed to help the economy?

That rhetorical question is why the Donald gets so much benefit of the doubt. Hoosiers still trust that government can be used for the good of the people. They just don't believe politicians are likely to help, so the best choice, instinctively, is someone other than a politician. Another group of Hoosiers are paying close attention and find that there actually is a choice that fights for the people, and against the Crony establishment. It's not the one they press tell you it is, it's the other guy.

This is why it could go either way. There are still a lot of Hoosiers who believe that government can be a positive force, just not this government. Like Obama, Trump is not the guy they want to believe he is. 

History rhymes again

Recently, I received an email from a friend highlighting the concern that conservatives are treating Donald Trump like the Republicans of 1964 treated Goldwater. The point was that all the lies and distortions about Goldwater, having originated in the Republican primaries, were then used by LBJ to destroy the Republican's candidacy. I'm going to dismiss the premise quickly by saying that Goldwater actually had his heart in the right place, where the Donald's heart is invisible. Trump could not be strategically lied about, because, hey it might actually be true and what if it is? (Answer for Trump supporters: We don't know and we don't care).

But history is rhyming now in an entirely different way:

One of the problems with the current administration is that Obama wasn't at all who he presented himself to be to be. From all appearances, he was a person who could transcend identity politics, reduce misunderstandings about race, and present a fresh start to our friends and allies; while winding down an unfocused war. Instead, we saw a president who doubled down on identity politics, inflamed racial mistrust, stonewalled every attempt at transparency ,and conducted his own pointless wars.

A guy who was elected in the first place because foreign and domestic policy was no longer working, and the voters wanted to re-roll the dice.

Here we are today. Foreign and domestic policy is no longer working, and the country wants to re-roll the dice.

Only this time it's going to come up Trump. From appearances, here is a guy who transcends ideology, will address the festering issues of the economy, play tough guy with our enemies, and finally shake up the status quo in Washington. Instead, what we will get is a guy who has no ideology because he has no principles, has not a single idea of what it takes to fix an economy, totally misunderstands the aims of a foreign policy, and is one of the main contributors to the problem of cronyist Washington.

If you can explain to me how this all works out as a positive, please comment below.

Average Punditry

I'm not your average political pundit. Probably not a pundit at all, if it requires an opinion on everything. People who want to be left alone aren't really interested in knowing more about people who want to lord it over us. Maybe I follow it for a glimmer of hope that someone will get up there on the podium and say "I am going to get government out of your life". Ha. I crack myself up. Those aren't the kind of people who want the job. 

It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. -- Douglas Adams

It's not supposed to be this important a job anyway. I bet if Trump would simply read the job description, he would immediately withdraw. In fact, I'm certain of it.

There's a book out now that makes the case that the best presidents were not the ones whose pictures we put on federal reserve notes, but the ones who strived to protect the constitution. Ever heard of John Tyler or Calvin Coolidge? Outside of seeing their pictures on a grade school chart? These guys knew how to run a country.

I cycle in and out of the political landscape regularly each election season. Usually go away for the rest of the year when the last candidate standing (i.e., the one that I'd like to see more from) is eliminated. That hasn't happened yet. But there's only one left that they still show on TV.

Here I am down to Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz, you say? Yes, I would vote for Ted Cruz. More to the point, I would vote for Tom Cruise before I'd vote for Trump. Ted would at least know what to do with a supreme court nomination.

I could make a case for not voting. Doug Casey sums it up pretty well here. But if there is a candidate worth getting out of bed to go vote for, I will still do it. Sometimes I'll even vote in self defense. You can thank me now for voting against Al Gore, but most of the time my guy simply finishes out of the money.

Phil Gramm may have been the last GOP candidate who cared about the economy. Ones who do tend to make better decisions. And this was only four years after WJ Clinton ran on "it's the economy, stupid". I'll vote for the next politician who says "it's the stupid economy" now. 

My prediction is that in 3 weeks the race will be down to the two democrats. The one who declared as a republican, and the one who managed to stay out of jail. I will probably vote for Gary Johnson again, but that's all I can do for you this time. 

What I think

Hello all, I find myself with a small amount of time here on New Year's Day to say hello, and to extend my best 2016 wishes to all. Note that I have not made a resolution to blog more, but it could still happen.

This post is just to jot down a few things; impressions if you will, about current events and themes that may survive into 2016.

• Paris and San Bernardino.

I have one piece of advice for our friends in Paris. Not only Paris, but San Bernardino, New York, and any other city that is or is likely to be victimized by evil destruction: Learn to return fire. It's that simple, and that urgent. Learn to return fire. We outnumber the enemy. If the sentiment is to solve this particular problem, the solution is to arm as many free citizens as we possibly can.

Learn to return fire. Spread the word.

You might be surprised that I also believe there is a government role that can be played here: Congress should enact a law making it illegal to create gun free zones. Gun free zones are exactly what the bad guys like to see. If we eliminate those, it will never be safe for a gunman to create the kind of havoc that we see and read about. 

Learn to return fire. Eliminate gun free zones. Take back our freedoms.

• Climate change.

If you ask scientists if they believe in global warming, 89% of them would say that, yes, the current trend is for global temperature rise. That's enough for some players to demand billions of dollars in new regulations and academic research expenditures. They don't even get to the second question, which is: What do you believe is causing it? It matters little what causes it, they demand money and government interference to be tossed around as if our lives literally depend on it. 

Don't fall for it.

If there is global warming (and that's not necessarily a bad thing - warmer temperatures are conducive to longer growing seasons in developing countries, for example), then we would be far better served preparing for consequences of said warming. Rather than spending our money on willy nilly carbon-phobia schemes, we would be better served by saving our hard earned wealth, so that we can address the feared catastrophes in a more systematic way.

Instead of shutting down coal plants because they believe it would reduce the land surface of a distant Pacific atoll, how about doing a little conservation work on the atoll itself. 

Learn to be resilient.

Seriously, we can't stop global warming anymore than we can redirect a cold front. To think that we have that kind of control over a planet that has seen unimaginable cataclysms without our help requires a particular form of arrogance. 

These people are to be ignored. The best we can hope for is to develop resilience.

Resilience against whatever the planet delivers is what got us this far; and it's our only effective tool for withstanding anything that comes later.

• Mars

The people who think we have irretrievably broken this planet already are thinking about Mars. I'm okay with spending the money to send everybody who feels like that there. Let's see if they can make socialism work up there.

• Diversity

Setting up enclaves of Syrians, Mexicans, Cubans, or any other identity group you want to name in separate communities in the US is not diversity. It is unAmerican. Allowing immigrants to come to the US as individuals, each with their own dreams, to raise their own families, and contribute to society is diversity, it is America, and it is to be encouraged. One family at a time.