Jim Simpson's Blog: "Middle Ground"

Tuesday, November 3, 2020 is Election Day in the United States.  So was Tuesday, November 8, 2016.   In the last general election about 58% of eligible voters actually voted.

Will you be one of the people who votes this year?

I certainly hope so, not only because it is your right, but rather, because it is your duty.

Government By the People

Most of you reading this, myself included, were granted the right to vote when we were born.  We had to wait 18 (or 21 if you are older) years before we could execute that right, but basically we did nothing more – this was one of the many gifts we received merely by being lucky to have been born in the USA.  For my non-American readers born in democracies, you too were very lucky.

According to Freedom House, about 40% of the world’s population lives in countries considered to be “Free,” where there is an elective government with citizens having a legitimate right and opportunity to vote.  I’m sure that there are other creditable sources which differ in their quantification, but there can be little doubt that several billions of persons world-wide do not have this basic human right.  Among the most notable without this basic right to choose their political leaders are the Chinese, North Koreans, Russians, Cubans, and Saudis.

Without this basic right, unless someone is born into an exceedingly wealthy family or accumulates great wealth by some means, they have virtually no say in what their government does.

I consider myself lucky to have been born in the US.  I also feel that I have an obligation to contribute to maintaining the democratic freedoms given to me.  At the very least I should vote.

Excuses for Not Voting 

“Does it really matter, I am such a minority in my district that the “other” side always wins?” 

 “Aren’t all politicians pretty much the same?”

 “What if none of the choices on the ballot really does it for me?”

  “I don’t want to vote for someone who does not support (Fill in the blank for your favorite single issue cause________).”

I have heard all of these statements four years ago, mostly from discouraged Bernie supporters who basically said, “The hell with it.” after Hillary squeezed Bernie out of the race.  A snide version of me might ask, “How did that work out for you?”  A more civil version of me would parrot the overused, but accurate, cliché, “Elections have consequences.”

We need to vote, not just to get people into office who do exactly what we want them to do, but even more importantly, to preserve the system that allows us to have any say in government in the first place.

Why Vote When the Other Side Always Wins?

If you live in Seattle (Washington 7^thCongressional District) like I do and want to vote Republican for Congress you are not going to have your candidate win.  Conversely, if you live in the Idaho First District, where my cousin lives, and you want to vote for a Democrat, you will not likely be voting for a winner.

Even if you think it is not possible for your favorite candidate to win, I submit that it is still important that you vote.  Vote, not because you think the winner will support your positions exactly, she or he likely will not. Rather, you need to voluntarily vote to maintain the power of the vote, which, in turn, helps us retain a democracy.

Candidates who want to be reelected must at least consider the needs of those who oppose them if the numbers are high enough. The smaller the number of people who vote against them, the more they will shift to meet the needs of only those who did vote for them. This could be to the right or to the left depending on the district.  The result of course, is even more polarization, less compromise, and more opportunity for special interests.  Special interests who may or may not represent the needs of the population at large.

It is wise to remember that in the course of maybe 5,000 years since the Sumerians started recording history, the radical idea that “the people” should rule is only 242 years old. The idea that “all people” should vote, even women, is only about a hundred years old.

Worldwide the idea that people should choose their leaders, although it has caught on recently, is still far from universal and current trends seem to indicate it is at risk and possibly even on the wane.

If people do not exercise their right to vote, there also is much more likelihood of us foregoing democracy altogether with one side or the other going for a “strong man” who gets things done the way they want them done – human rights notwithstanding.

What if There Are No Candidates Who Take My Positions on the Issues?

This argument, like it’s cousin, “All politicians are the same,” is a threat to democracy.  Like the Rolling Stones said, “You can’t always get what you want,…”

The idea of democracy (which I define as the people being actively involved in governing) was never that all people would like all of the decisions of government.  Compromise is inherent in the system.

If you don’t accept that compromise is necessary, then you must also be willing to accept an autocracy.  Wise and well-meaning people see things differently.  Sometimes we have to accept what we believe is a less than perfect solution.

Sometimes you just have to choose between the lessor of two evils.  Wait patiently, your day will come.  The pendulum always swings in a democracy.

What about Voter Registration?

Perhaps the most important aspect of voting is determining who gets to vote.

There has been much written/said lately about the fact that many groups within our citizenry are not registered to vote and therefore cannot exercise their rights.

There have been efforts in several states to increase the requirements to register to vote and to “purge” voter registration lists of names of people who have not voted recently or who appear not to be eligible.  The net result of such efforts is likely that fewer people will actually vote.   Some would argue that this is necessary to ensure that people who vote are fully qualified to do so.  Others see this as a means of suppressing votes among groups less likely to vote the way they want.

My view is that there is truth in both arguments, but both sides miss the larger issue: we should be working to increase voter turnout, not decrease it.  At the same time we need to insure that only qualified persons actually cast ballots.

The fewer people who participate in the electoral process, the weaker our democracy becomes.

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires that states allow eligible citizens to register to vote when completing other transactions at state motor vehicle and social services agencies.  Oregon took this one step further and automatically registers everyone applying for an ID or drivers license while giving them the ability to opt out.

The Russians, Chinese, and Other Bad Guys

While the report on the 2016 Election by Special Council Robert Mueller did not directly implicate the President, it unequivacably showed that the Russians did interfer in our election.

(Side note: Mueller was a Marine contemporary of mine who also served as a lieutenant in the Second Battalion, Fourth Marines (AKA The Magnificent Bastards) during the same time frame that I was in Vietnam, although I did not know him personally.)

The Russians were able to access and create a false narrative and increase divisiveness by using our social media, which, by the way, is where the majority of Americans now get their news (See my previous post titled “Truth” if you are interested in my opinion of this trend).  Like it or not, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and their counterparts do influence voters and there are foreign forces (Read Autocrats) who have a vested interest in influencing our elections and in increasing divisiveness between Americans.

All indications are that the Russians, and very likely others, will continue to try and disrupt our democracy again in 2020.  The idea of “the people ruling” is not a comfortable concept for an autocrat.  It is clearly to the advantage of dictators internally if the Democracies in the world are seen to be in a state of political disarray.

Even more importantly than their influence on social media, the Russians, more accurately GRU agents at the direction of Putin’s government, tried to access our vote counting systems, most of which rely heavily on electronic data capture and storage. Apparently they were unsuccessful in this effort in 2016.

However, it is not a question of “if” but rather “when” our electronic systems will be compromised.  If our electronic voting systems are hacked, how will we know whether a “winner” really “won”?

Why Your Vote Counts

At the time of the 2016 election there were approximately 250,056,000 persons of voting age in the U.S who could have been eligible to vote.  138,847,000 of these people actually voted with 62,984,828 (46.1%) of them voting for the winner, Donald J. Trump.

Another way to look at this is that Trump won the election by having a little less than 27% of eligible voters voting for him.  Looked at still another way, the 323,400,000 Americans had their president selected by about 19% of the population.  Kids don’t vote of course, but they are definitely influenced by the results of the election.

Lest you think this is an anti-Trump message, consider this:  President Obama, who got 65,915,796 (51.1% of the total) votes in 2012 with a smaller eligible population of 235,248,000 still won with only 28% of the eligible vote or about 21% of the total population of 314,000,000 in 2012.

My point here is not that Obama got more votes and a higher percentage of registered voters than Trump, but more importantly, that our presidents are chosen by a relatively small percentage of the population.

Analysis by the Pew Research Center found that 35% of non-voters cited work or school commitments, which prevented them from voting, 34% said they were too busy, unwell, away from home or forgot to vote, 20% either didn’t like the choices, didn’t know enough or didn’t care and 10% had recently moved, missed a registration deadline or didn’t have transportation.

Some might argue that if some people don’t bother to vote it is probably better that they did not because they are not informed/enlightened anyway. I challenge that position.

Some conservatives, knowing that their older, wealthier base is more likely to vote the way they want them to, might be tempted to try to restrict voting and make it harder for poorer and younger voters to register and/or actually get to the polls.  However, any short-term gain this strategy might yield would be offset long-term by a loss of faith in the democratic system.

Conversely, some on the left might consider placing virtually no controls or checks on the voting process, basically allowing anyone who shows up to vote.  They might do this figuring that most of those who would vote this way are more likely to support liberal candidates.  Again, this strategy is shortsighted.  More might vote, but the legitimacy of the process could easily be called into question, degrading the value and legitimacy of the vote itself.

If the percentage of persons actually voting continues in a downward spiral, we will leave ourselves open to an autocratic takeover.  If we don’t bother to vote, why should politicians or the bureaocrats they select worry about our welfare? There are special interest groups that will serve up enough dark money to provide the façade of a free election.

I don’t Like Any of the Candidates

Voting for third-party candidates or writing in a protest vote is not OK. Like it or not, we have a two-party system in the U.S. and if you waste your vote, then others will decide for you. Don’t let 27% make this critical decision for you.

What can we do to protect our right to vote, increase voter participation, and ensure the legitimacy of the process?

Here are my recommendations for changes to our National voting system:

1. Adopt the Oregon “opt out” registration system. If you want an ID card/Drivers License or you want to apply for government benefits, you are automatically registered to vote. If you have religious or other qualms about registering, you can elect not to be registered by opting out.
2. Go to paper mail-in ballots like Washington, Oregon, and Colorado now have. This mail-in system provides a number of benefits including: a. Allowing voters to take some time to think (ballots are mailed weeks before the election day) with their ballot and really make sound decisions.  Voters can check with trusted information sources and read/use the voters guide when filling out their ballots. b. Paper ballots are “real” – in a close race they can be recounted.  They cannot easily be changed or destroyed – at least not by someone on a PC from virtually anywhere in the world.  c. There is a voting period giving maximum flexibility for persons whose work and/or caregiving or other obligations make voting during a single 12-hour time block very difficult.  d. Paper mail-in ballots eliminate the very long wait times at polling booths – some people have to work and take care of their kids.
3. Go one step further than Oregon did: If you don’t vote in say 2 years (or at the very least just mail in an empty ballot, essentially voting “none of the above”), you can’t get a renewal of the ID card, nor can you get food stamps or other government benefits. Why should you get services and benefits from the government if you are not willing to do your absolute minimum civic duty and at the very least, register to vote? There could be waivers on this requirement, but I feel that people should be responsible for voting, especially if they can vote via mail-in ballots.
4. Invest in the very best signature identifcation systems.  The technology now exists to electronically determine whether the signature on the ballot is in fact the same as the one on file with the state in which you are registered.  I know this works personally because I have really bad penmanship.  Last election my ballot was “held” until I was able to document that I was in fact Jim Simpson.  This was incovenient, but I felt good to know that the system works.  It was my sloppy penmanship that caused my ballot to be held so I had no one else to blame.  I was notified by text, phone, and by mail to provide documentation within a window of time that was short, but I felt adequate.
5. Continue to offer local polling place options.  In King Couny we have 47 Ballot Drop Boxes where people can safely deposit their ballot on the day of the election.  This option is good for people who procrastinate and for those who do not want to enter their ballot into the USPS system.  Washington State also offers Vote Centers for voters who need assistance.  These are only on a limited basis (I think there is at least one per County not one per precinct) and there are some instances where I can see an advantage to actually going to a local/neighborhood polling place. An example might be a person who felt intimidated by their spouse or another person living with them.  The privacy of the polling booth would allow these individuals to vote without fear or interference by others who might be present when they were filling out their paper ballots.  There are also disabled people who require assistance to complete their ballots and this would best be provided by an election official, not a friend or family member. Again, this adds cost, but hey, democracy is not the cheaper system.

In summary:

I have stated some reasons why high voter turnout is important to a democracy and I have identified some systemic changes that could/should be made to increase voter participation, ensure that only qualified persons vote, and protect the vote count from electronic hacking.

You, however, don’t have to wait until these changes are in place.

In the meantime, just VOTE!

Statue of the Roman goddess Veritas outside the Supreme Court in Ottawa

“Truth, justice, and the American way.” Superman

“You can’t handle the truth!”  Colonel Nathan Jessup (AKA Jack Nicholson)

“Truth or Consequences.” Bob Barker

“The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.” Judge Judy’s Bailiff

Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. Buddhah

“… and the truth will set you free.” Jesus

“In vino veritas.”

Have you always told the truth? Do you know truth when you see it? Is truth important to you? Most of us, if we are honest, will answer “No”, “Maybe?”, and “Yes” to these three questions.

These are questions for the ages. I believe that most of us do seek the truth. I also believe that most of us fail, not only to always be truthful, but also to be able to always recognize the truth.

As a child I remember clearly the lesson George Washington taught us so well, ” I cannot tell a lie, I cut down the cherry tree.” Then there was Honest Abe.

The bar is much lower now.

Defining truth is difficult enough (See the quotes above if you doubt this) but most people, myself included, seem to accept an, “I know it when I see it,” answer.

In my personal life I rely pretty much on experience and interactions over time. This holds true for people, organizations, and things I come in contact with.

Without disparaging any of them in this forum, I can tell you that I know at least some of the “truth” about Comcast, British automobiles, and my Marine Corps Drill Instructor Staff Sergeant D.C. Curran. The more I interact, the closer I come to “the truth”.

Second hand “word of mouth” evidence fills in well for other areas: “If you are taking math next session, Mr. Henderson explains math concepts more clearly than Mr. Wertz.”; “Ishtar is a terrible movie, don’t waste your money.”; or “You should really see St. Paul and the Broken Bones, great band.” The source of this second hand knowledge and my trust in them based on past experience is of course key here. We all have “trusted” people close to us who we can rely on as well as those who we must take with a healthy “grain of salt.”

On the bigger universal issues of life, my personal experience and the word of mouth of people I know personally only helps a little. I have been around a bit, and at 70 have met and interacted with thousands of people over my life time, but the world is huge and there are 7.5 + billion people whom I have never met or even seen. My sample size is way too small to draw any conclusions that could remotely lead to the truth on universal issues based solely on my personal experiences or even those second hand sources of people I know and trust.

And yet, I do believe I have a good understanding of the truth on many issues. Here are some samples:

The earth is round. The universe is 14 billion years old. Most people are kind and good. Some people are evil. Many people are ignorant. Fewer are stupid. Smoking causes cancer. The Patriots won the Super Bowl. President Lincoln was born in Kentucky and President a O’bama was born in Hawaii.

I assume almost all of you agree with me that these are true statements, but how do I know these to be true?

Sources

We all rely on sources for most of what we know to be True. I have never been to New Zealand, but I know that it is a beautiful magical place. I know this is true from talking to friends/relatives who have been there, from reading my parents’ National Geographic magazines as a child, and from watching all three of Peter Jackson’s Trilogy of the Rings movies which were filmed there.

I also bounce what these external sources tell me against my own experiences. For example, the vast majority of the people I know are not criminals and this jives with what I read about crime statistics world-wide from a variety of sources. Therefore I consider this to be true: most people are good.

It gets trickier to identify the truth when I have no direct experience and/or when there are competing versions of the facts, the infamous “Alternative Facts”.   Not only does it get “trickier” to tell the truth when sources disagree, it also becomes critical to both my individual concepts of reality and to the freedoms I have enjoyed having been born in a democracy. Tyrants hate the truth and it is in short supply in countries they rule.

So what sources to do you rely on Jim?

I’m glad you asked, and I will provide a list for your consideration, comment, condemnation, or concurrence a little later on in this post.

But first I want to explain the criteria I use to evaluate news/information sources. I grew up as a Presbyterian preacher’s kid with two well-read and educated parents who lived the 10 Commandments (especially the one about not lying) but who were realists who also were extremely accepting of other religions and acutely aware of the foibles of humans.

I was fortunate also to have had a very good public school education at Swarthmore High School that stressed critical thinking skills. This background, along with a stint in the Marines, prepared me well for my undergraduate and graduate studies and subsequent career in advertising, marketing, and public relations.  Although I never held a job as a reporter for an independent news outlet, I learned through my work experience to greatly appreciate the role these professionals play in a democracy.

As a PR person for both the government (The Army & the VA) and corporate America (Safeco Insurance), I was paid to present information in a way that benefited the organization I was representing. Contrary to some opinions, this can (and should) be done ethically, focusing on the positive, but always being factual and truthful.

The independent press has a vital role to play in questioning the actions of anyone in power in both the private and public sectors. One can’t rely solely on PR or advertising to make purchase or voting decisions. The organization being represented may or may not be straight shooters but, even if they are “good guys”, they are only going to give you those parts of “the truth” that help them meet their organizational objectives. The press needs to ask probing questions and openly challenge statements made by organizations and especially those made by politicians.

I was taught, and believe, that news organizations must rigorously research the issues they are reporting on and include multiple sources and relevant opinions. This rigor is not always followed by some members of the press, and of course, we all make mistakes. Good news sources, however, occasionally make mistakes but then own up to them. They also hire people who have been professionally trained as journalists or who have earned their stripes by working their way up in the field. Bad news sources never admit mistakes, even when they are blatant.

Multiple sources are vital in decision making. No one source provides a well-rounded view.

Jim’s Recommendations

Even though I jump around a lot, here are news sources I trust and listen to with some regularity along with a brief synopsis of each:

Radio

NPR – Hourly News is pretty concise. Programing is varied, but tends to be a little high brow and sometimes boring. Lots of human stories/slice of America stuff.

KIRO News/Talk Radio (Seattle) – News is straight up, talk includes both progressive (Dave Ross) and conservatives (Dory Monson) and one show (Tom and Curly) that includes both a progressive and a conservative as co-hosts.

There are similar news oriented radio stations in most major markets. Stations that focus on “news” over “talk” are much more reliable sources. Most carry one of the national/international news sources such as CBS Radio News or BBC radio news for their hourly news updates.

TV

PBS – The first half hour of Newshour is really good – I miss Gwen Ifel (RIP) but Judy Woodruff is still pretty good. Shields and Brooks have thoughtful commentary on Fridays.

CBS – Best general morning news available – Today Show and Good Morning America are too much fluff. 60 Min. still worth watching, but the on air personalities are really old :-).

BBC – Good world-wide view. Very balanced, mostly straight up reporting.

NBC – Watch local and national stations in both Gettysburg (WGAL) and Seattle (KING) – Meet the Press is solid look at political issues/opinions.

ABC – For some reason I don’t usually watch this – when I have it seems pretty reliable.

CBC – I don’t watch this as much as I should. The Canadians seem to have a very balanced view of most issues.

MSNBC – Generally factual, but selects stories consistent with progressive beliefs -Sort of a mirror of FOX NEWS in that it is selective in what it covers and is more opinion than hard news. I usually agree and find them informative, but am cautiously skeptical.

FOX NEWS – Generally factual, but selects stories consistent with right leaning audience beliefs. Blurred lines between news and opinion – mostly the later. I don’t usually agree, but it is important to hear what their ideas/positions are as they have a very devoted audience that apparently listens to nothing else. Chris Wallace on Sunday morning is very fair and worth listening too.

CNN – They get carried away with sensational stories and tend to run them ad nauseum, but generally factual news reporting. CNN calls Trump out continually, but the points they make are generally questions that need to be answered. They got creamed by Trump in recent Internet wrestling match video he promoted on Twitter, but somehow the network was able to stay on the air (The “fight” is on YouTube).😀

C-Span – Unedited direct political news – I like it, but it is often boring and hard to watch for very long.

John Oliver – Political opinion cloaked as comedy based on hard news. Oliver is a comedian with very detailed and informative stories on a wide range of issues. Left leaning. Very funny and self deprecating. On HBO so limited access although clips are often on UTube.

Newspapers

WSJ – Great general news coverage – they really go into detail and are very nuanced. Editorially a little more conservative than me, but I respect their logical arguments. When in Seattle I get the “real” paper version – they provide much content to take in each day.

NYT – Deep Dive, not as much business/financial news as WSJ – Generally left leaning editorially, but they busted Hillary on the e-mail server. Marianne has an online subscription she lets me see. They have made factual errors in the past but always correct their mistakes.

USA Today – Pretty much straight up news reporting leaning to the easy-to-read. Editorials clearly identified as such and they usually provide opposing views from reputable sources.  You can keep up to date at a basic level without spending too much time reading.  Also can’t beat the price online – free.

Seattle Times – One of the few locally owned newspapers left in America (See warning signs below). I get the Sunday paper version and then they let me access the full paper online daily.

Magazines

Time – The only weekly left that is actually printed on paper, RIP Newsweek & US News and World Report. Pretty fair and balanced, traditionally more conservative than Newsweek, which still has an online presence.

The Economist – Absolutely excellent analysis with a world view. Expensive and I can only afford to subscribe periodically when I get copies via airline points or read at the library.

The Internet

Facebook – Good for entertainment and marginally OK for opinions, but I only respond to people I know personally. I don’t take anything on Facebook that is “Shared” at face value – I am much more interested in original content/ideas from people I actually know.   I view this as a form of word of mouth but much more suspect.  Reading what others find interesting is illuminating.  Keep in mind that “illumination” is what helps us see the cockroaches.

Wikipedia – I have found it to be pretty consistent and reliable. If the article is controversial they address this. And there are pretty good original source listings on most articles, and if there are not, it is well noted.

Books

I must confess, this is a weak spot for me, as I don’t read very many. Currently reading “Tyranny” by that my sister gave me for my birthday. I should do more here.

Lies and misconceptions.

If you believe anything National Enquirer or The Onion, I suggest you reconsider your rational. I find both of these are in their own way entertaining. The Onion is funny because it is classic satire. Laughing at The Enquirer brings out a darker side of me as I find myself secretly making fun of the people who believe it.

More dangerous to our democracy are the extremist views that pose as legitimate news outlets but which do not adhere to journalistic practices such as verification of sources and facts. These outlets primarily deal in conspiracy theories and rumors that are popular with their selective audiences. This includes outlets such as the Communist Party (cpusa.org) and It’s Going Down (Anarchist News) on the far left and Brietbart and Info wars on the far right. They disregard or distort the truth and disregard the traditional rigors of journalists. They exist solely to promote a set of political views. They are essentially just propaganda.

I reject the concept of fake news that President Trump uses to try to delegitimization any news outlet that questions his actions. All presidents complain about the press not being “fair.” Obama, W, and Clinton all complained about the news for focusing on what they were doing wrong or for underestimating their successes. Well, that is kind of the point of an independent press. As Truman once said, “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.”

The idea that “the main stream media” is in cahoots and overly liberal leaning is unsubstantiated. This assumption is based on what evidence? These main stream media outlets were extremely helpful to Trump giving him coverage well beyond that given his opponents, just ask John Kasich. All news media except NPR and PBS are for-profit businesses owned or controlled by .01% billionaires who clearly have much to gain from a more conservative agenda, especially in the area of taxes. So the idea that these media businesses are “left leaning” is bogus.

Fortunately these wealthy owners recognize that, at least up untill now, many Americans will pay to get “real news”. And there is that pesky First Amendment that so far has kept the press free to report and or express opinions that the political powers that be don’t like. Controversy sells and therefore it behoves media owners to let journalists “do their thing” and seek out politicians who are liars or crooks or who misuse their power. There are plenty to choose from in all political parties.

Do Facts = The Truth?

Clearly half truths, lies, and deceit will never lead to any “Truth” other than the truth that the person espousing them is a deceitful lier.   Using reliable sources, fact checking if you will, will help wean out the garbage but even then you can’t equate “facts” with the “truth.” The truth is much deeper and requires mastery of an almost lost art: Thinking.

Critical Thinking Works

Getting to the “truth” requires using facts within a context of values and a logical analytical system. Let me give you an example using paraphrases of some recent seemingly contradictory economic news I have read in the Wall Street Journal:

“The value of the dollar is significantly down since the beginning of the year.”

“The stock market is significantly up since the beginning of the year.”

So is the economy getting better or worse? You can’t really get to the “truth” about the economy from either of these two statements of fact. A weak dollar helps exporters and hurts consumers. A rapidly rising stock market can indicate economic strength or unwarranted speculation that can lead to a depression. An understanding of the context of the facts is essential.

The answer to the larger questions of life require a very broad understanding of history, of the interrelationships of systems, of the potential for false equivalencies or incorrect/incomplete measurements, and healthy doses of that seemingly long lost value, wisdom.

I took a course in logic once and that helps. The “if /then arguments”, “fallacies”, “assumptions”, “conclusions”, and “paradoxes’, and other tools/aspects of logical thinking all contribute to my understanding. In real life, however, many people disregard logical principles and twist them to fit their pre-conceived ideas. Aristotle must be turning over in his grave these days.

You or I will never find the truth on a bumper sticker, a tweet, a headline, a campaign slogan, a FaceBook post, a newspaper article, or in a book, not even The Bible. To find the truth we have to think long and work hard. Even then there will always be some doubt.

Doubt, however, is not all that bad as it is a really good indicator of honesty and integrity. Beware of people who have no doubt – they are not very likely to be truthful.

I will continue to seek the truth even though it is at times a fleeting concept. I trust that you will do the same.

It is hard to understand the meaning of the word “sake” without using it in a phrase.  Examples I can think of off the top of my head include, “For Heaven’s sake” and “For God’s sake.” 

When I checked with Websters, I found that the word “sake”, not to be confused with “sake” the Japanese alcoholic beverage, is associated with “the good,” “an advantage,”  or “an enhancement.” 

Two phrases relating to this word seem apropos during the Coronavirus pandemic: 

“For your own sake.” 

and 

“For the sake of others” 

My late mother, Joyce Simpson, often told me as a child that I should always think about others and how my actions might impact them.   Mom pretty much lived by those words.  I can never think of an instance when she consciously made a decision that benefited herself at the expense of others. 

Mom made mistakes of course, and with her strong religious and Scandinavian heritage, this meant she always carried around with her a sizable load of guilt.  This guilt was self imposed and anyone who knew her would scratch their head trying to figure out what Mom had done wrong.  Mom set the ethical bar very high for herself. 

I think about my mother now as I observe people making choices about how to react to the Coronavirus Pandemic.  

The choices we make expose us all for whose “sake” we are taking or ignoring certain actions.  

Had she lived to experience the Covid 19 pandemic, Mom most certainly would have worn a mask, maintained social distance, and washed her hands whenever she was in contact with others.  Just as certainly, her first thought would have been that she did these things because she did not want to harm others in the event she had the virus.  Secondly, she would have agreed that it was wise for her to do this for her own health. 

I wish I could say that my thought process was the same as Mom’s, but honestly, mine would be more like, “This is a win/win choice.  I take care of myself and it also might be better for someone else at the same time. I’ll do it.”

People I know have made conscious decisions not to wear a mask.  As best as I can understand their logic is something like, “It is not absolutely proven that masks do any good, and anyway, I am not falling for this media hype, and everyone I know is fine and safe.”  

Their logic is anything but.  Yes, there is lots that we don’t know yet about the virus, but the preponderance of evidence and advice from medical people at all levels is that masks, social distancing, and hand washing do help reduce the spreading of the virus, particularly masks worn by people who themselves have Covid 19 even if they don’t know it.  

People who don’t follow these basic hygienic steps because they are not sure it helps are taking a big risk.  The biggest risk is not for themselves, especially if they are young and healthy, but rather for others that might be infected by them who are old and may have underlying medical conditions you may or may not be aware of. Even if you have no symptoms, you may be positive for the virus and a threat to others such as health care workers who are dying while helping others.  

I hope that people who are not taking basic precautions change their minds and follow these simple steps, especially when interacting with others outside their inner circle.  It is not that much of an inconvenience and it seems only prudent to act with an abundance of caution until we know much more about this new threat to us all. 

Sadly, in addition to those who disregard the advice of the medical community, there are others among us who somehow see the mask issue as a part of the ongoing cultural war.  These people say, “Nobody is going to tell me I have to wear a mask, this is a free country.”  What a crock.   This is at worst an inconvenience.  These same people are fine with “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service” signs but cannot put on a mask when dealing with people on “the front line” who may be putting their lives at risk? 

Others take a macho attitude to the effect that, “Only scaredy cats wear masks.”  Give me a break, this is just too much like second grade recess talk. Why are they afraid to wear a mask that shows they care about people who they come in contact with?  The mask is not about you, it is mostly about protecting others, some of whom are very vulnerable.

Certainly there are legitimate concerns about Government actions that may or may not be the best solution – quite frankly there are many unanswered questions about this totally new virus and well meaning governments will make mistakes.  

Everyone I know thinks that people need to get back to work and pursue recreational and religious and interpersonal relationships. Where we all differ is in the details: When? How? Where?  There are reasonable ways that people can do all of these things as they “return to normal” while at the same time adhering to the basic hygienic guidance given that is almost certainly helpful.  

President Trump’s Coronavirus Task force (along with virtually every other international, local and state public health organization world wide ) laid out for us three very clear and easy steps each of us must take individually for the greater good:  

Wear a Mask 

Maintain Social Distancing

Wash your Hands  

There are other steps that businesses and organizations can take. However, these three steps that we each can take individually stand out to me as being simple, doable, reasonable, and very likely to help reduce the spread of the virus and, by so doing, help both ourselves and others. 

If you won’t do these three things for your own sake, well, that is too bad, and I sincerely hope that you don’t get Covid 19. If you are young and healthy the odds are certainly on your side. 

If you won’t take any precautions for the sake others because you don’t really care what happens to them, well, then, all I can say is that you better dig deep within your soul and ask,  “What kind of person am I?”  For God’s sake do the right thing. 

If, however, you do care about others but you won’t do these three things for the sake of others because you think they will not do any good, think again. 

You might be right.  Then again, you might be wrong and your actions will risk the lives of others, possibly even elders or others within your own family. Humility is needed here – none of us really know the truth about Covid 19.  

Err on the side of caution – none of these three things you can do to protect others are difficult.  You can do them easily.

“…the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans…” JFK

Dear Fellow Boomers, Generation Xers,  Millleneals, and  Centennials, 

The coronavirus pandemic is changing our lives.  

One of these changes I hope we all see clearly is that the people who are among the most at risk are us – your parents/grandparents.  

We are what demographers call Baby Boomers, the people characterized by the great increase in population that began with those born soon after our fathers returned from WW2.  Demographers say this is people born between 1946 and 1964.  For the sake of this blog post, just think of this group as being 60 and older. 

Our time as family leaders/care providers has come and is now going, if not already gone.  Except for a few remaining members of the Silent Generation (Too young to serve in WW2) and a very few members of the Greatest Generation (Those who endured the Depression & WW2) we Boomers now collectively make up what are commonly referred to as “Old People.”

Covid 19 has made it abundantly clear that it is time for Boomers to Step Aside.  Like it or not “the old grey mare ain’t what she used to be.”  If we have not already retired, it is time to get serious about retiring.  

There are several reasons for this, most connected directly to the pandemic:

1. Most of us Boomers are not really needed in the work force any longer, younger more energetic people with new ideas and skills are going to be better able to shape the future. 
2. The economic fallout from the world-wide pandemic means that those Boomers who can afford do so need to make room in the job market for younger workers.  Boomers will have to make personal individualized decisions regarding whether they can retire now. If they can afford to retire, Boomers should seriously consider if it is not time to do just that.
3. Depending on how the pandemic plays out, we Boomers may have to be “locked down” for a long time.  It is not wise for us to place ourselves in close contact which many jobs require. Younger, healthier people who are less at risk will have to fill in. 
4. There are many other ways for Boomers to contribute to society: Volunteerism, Assisting with Child Rearing, and Philanthoropy.  Boomers can also help by reducing their own resource and environmental footprint by scaling back consumption, travel, and frivolous spending.

For those of us who grew up with Bob Dylan, The Beatles, and The Stones, and still yearn for the good old days of “drugs, sex, and rock and roll,” this is a rude awakening. 

Covid 19 has made it all real. Now we Boomers are among those with a target on our backs.  This risk to/for us old folks is magnified greatly by underlying medical conditions like heart issues, asthma, diabetes, not to mention cancer. 

Sure, we are all going to die someday, but like Country Music’s Kenny Chesney relayed in one of his hit songs, “We all wanna go to heaven, But we don’t wanna go now.”  

For those of us in high risk categories, my advice is the same as that provided by the flight attendants, “put our own oxygen masks on first!”  In some cases that will mean saying “no” to requests for help from our kids or from our parents.

Those of you who are now in the “parent” generation (Mostly Millennials born between 1977 and 1995) need to switch roles, at least for a while, and refrain from asking for help from your Boomer parents. 

This will in many cases be very inconvenient. You will need to find help with childcare, but this time support will have to come from others, not your elders. Before putting your parents at risk, please ask yourself if you are trading personal “inconvenience” for the health of your parents.

As parents ourselves and now as grandparents, we elders will have a difficult time disconnecting from those we love dearly.  It will be extremely difficult if not impossible for us to actually say “no.”  What I am suggesting is that younger persons think long and hard before asking for help from those who are at most risk.

The good news with this virus is that the grandkids are at the least risk.  And healthy parents should be fine.  Those who are healthy, and it appears the vast majority of healthy people can handle Covid 19, will need to step up to replace those of us Boomers who should be dropping out of the workforce. 

It may be that this is a temporary situation and that “normalcy” will return.  Maybe not.

Change is not always bad news.  Darwin has been quoted as saying words to the effect that it is not the strongest nor the most intelligent who survive, it is those that are the most adaptable to change. 

One upside to this change for us boomers is the aforementioned roll that can be played as mentors and teachers in ways that were not possible in the past.  Technology has given us direct visual and audio access to grandchildren anywhere in the world.  Innovative Boomers are taking the skills and knowledge they learned over a lifetime and sharing it directly online in ways not possible only a few years ago.  

We boomers will have to rethink our retirement plans based on the likelihood of new more austere economic situations.  Do we really want to go on cruises, travel Internationally, juggle living in two locations, enter a “group senior living” situation, or live in a dense urban environment..  I have no answers to any of these questions, I just see that “change gonna come.” 

Either way, the torch is passed.  We boomers are headed for the pasture.  You younger generations have grown up and now It is your time to start looking out for your parents as well as your own kids. Oh yeah, you younger folk are also going to have to take the place of the retiring Boomers in the work force, probably sooner than would have been the case.  This may be an opportunity for advancement and innovation.   Welcome to the Sandwich generation.  

It is time to pass the torch.

One word we are starting to hear used frequently, and I am sure will become even more common as the 2020 election heats up, is Socialism. 

The “S” word has been flying around the airwaves and across the Internet. 

Depending on which channels you watch, websites you visit, or social media bubble you live in, the word “Socialism” may be used as a pejorative or be described as a synonym for panacea.

I know that I am pretty ignorant about Socialism and what it really means.  I have read various definitions, none of which have been very helpful.  I am still confused.

I would love to hear from people I know and trust personally, yes, You.  

What first hand knowledge do you have about Socialism?

Since this is my blog I do have a few “rules” I ask that you follow should you decide to enter into this conversation: 

1. Be civil, better yet, be nice.  Please refrain from any personal attacks towards other respondents.  I only send notifications and invitations on this blog to people who I know personally. All of them are either friends or relatives of mine.  
2. Listen first. My main goal with this blog is to find “middle ground.” We can only do this if we consider ideas which at first blush seem foreign, misplaced, or outright “wrong” to us personally. None of us is too old to learn, at least not yet.
3. Share what you have experienced personally.  There are plenty of sources of information about Socialism but please don’t just cut and paste someone else’s thoughts. I want to hear what you personally think and have seen first hand. 
4. Challenge and question opinions you see as wrong, incomplete, or questionable while keeping Rule # 1 in mind. 
5. Stick to the issue of socialism.  I’m pretty sure there are among those reading this some really strong feelings about individual politicians past and present.  I’m hoping that this post is not about them (they come and go) but rather the concept of Socialism and how much it does, or does not, have relevance to those of us who live in democratic countries.  

I hope your responses to this post lead me to a better understanding of the word Socialism.

Here are some thought starters based on questions I have about your experiences: 

What do you think Socialism means?  

Have you ever lived in a so-called socialist country?  Visited one?  

Do you know anyone personally who has received any government benefits directly (e.g. social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, student loans or grants, mortgage guarantees (VA or FHA), unemployment insurance, workers compensation, government backed disaster insurance/relief, or tax incentives, exemptions or credits)?  

Have you ever worked for a government entity (local, state, or federal) providing services to other citizens?  

Have you ever worked in the private sector or owned a business? Did your company have any government contracts? What services or products did your company provide to the government?  What regulations most impacted your company? Did your customers receive government supported loans or incentives to buy your products? Did you ever participate in small business administration programs or receive government subsidies/business loans?

Is Socialism absolute or can it be incremental? 

Are Socialism and Capitalism compatible? 

Can you have Socialism without Democracy? 

Do you even give Socialism any thought or think it is relevant? 

Please click on “Comments/Leave a Reply”  link below to submit your thoughts to this blog, which I look forward to reading.

Jim 

Here’s an idea: Let’s select representatives like we do jurists, drawing randomly from the entire pool of registered voters.  

A few years ago I posted this idea (See Below) about changing how we select people to serve in the U.S. House of Representative.  While the idea has some merit, the reality is, “It ain’t gonna happen.” Congress is never even going to approve term limits much less change the system that put them in power.

What might work is adapting the jury selection model to the lower house in some states, namely in one or more of those 26  states that allow changes in law via State-wide referendum or initiatives. Even within these 26 there are some limits, nonetheless, there are states where “the people” could decide on a new method of selecting state representatives. 

This could result in a system that assures equal representation while at the same time reduces the influence of the political parties, at least in this one case, the lower State houses.

Adapting a jury selection system for representatives at the state level could provide a pool of experienced people who are much more representative and free of party or special interest group controls.  

Successful representatives could later run for other state or US elected offices.  

Unsuccessful representatives and those who found that political service was not for them could go back to their original careers, somewhat wiser as to how representative government really works. 

The original post which was focused on the U.S. House of Representatives.  For a more realistic idea, just substitute “state house” every time the federal elected office is mentioned in the text that follows. 

Here is the original idea:

My friend Bill Flammer and I have very different opinions on a number of political issues.  But we still talk.  And we are still friends.

Bill and I also agree on a number of things, most importantly wanting a good future for our grandkids.  And although we disagree on significant issues regarding the Executive and Judicial Branches of government, we both share a deep disappointment in the Legislative Branch.  Congress is broken.

During a recent interchange of ideas, we both bemoaned the current situation of political deadlock.  Then Bill suggested a radical change to our method of selecting representatives:

Select/appoint members of The House of Representatives like we do jurors, randomly from among registered voters in each state.  Members would serve one two-year term.

My initial reaction was that Bill must have gotten ahold of some of Willie’s Gold cannabis; or perhaps he had fallen under the spell of an hypnotic cult leader from an extremist unicorn protectionist sect and was now drinking some strange kind of sparkly Kool Aid.

Then I started to think about Bill’s idea.

I can see some real advantages to Bill’s idea:

There would be no elections for The House of Representatives which means…

– No money needed to “run” for office

– No need to spend time campaigning for re-election

– No congressional “districts” and, therefore, no gerrymandering

House membership would mirror the national population,which means that among the 435 randomly selected representatives we could expect that…

– 50% would likely be women

– All occupations would be represented, most importantly those not currently in the mix (e.g. waitresses, plumbers, truck drivers, care givers, Wall Mart employees, etc.)

– Approximately 49% would be white; 14% black; 26% Hispanic; 5% Asian; 5% 2+ races; & 1% Native Americans (Likely future voting age population: U.S. Census Bureau data based on persons born since 2007)

– Representatives would come from all kinds of family/living situations including those not currently represented such as: low income single parents, singles, renters, trailer park residents, public housing residents, and even the homeless

 – All religions would be represented

 – All ages (at least those of voting age 18+)

 – All political leanings (Dems, Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, you-name-its)

Members would not “owe” anyone for their office and therefore, could be expected to be more likely to…

– Be free (or at least more likely) to “do what they believe is right”

– Reject “pork barrel” legislation

– “Look out” for their home state, but not necessarily special interests within that state

– Choose who they spend time with/listen to (i.e. provide access to)

– Draw on their unique experiences, talents, and personality

As a body, a randomly selected House of Representatives with membership that rotates every two years could be expected to provide…

– Balance to the professional politicians who control the Senate

– New blood with new ideas and perspectives every 2 years to reflect attitudes of the people

– A counter to the influence to the political parties and special interests

Currently politicians self select.  Entering “The Political Arena’ is tough business and only a certain type of person with a unique ego/status/commitment combination would want to be a politician in the first place.  Random selection would insure that all personality types would be represented, not just those who can “sell themselves.” Introverts and other quietly thoughtful people would be in the mix as well as outgoing or impulsive people – there would be balance. Currently campaigners are rewarded.  We end up with people who have the traits of a high-pressure salesman vs the traits of a frugal purchasing agent or a wise consumer.  We get smooth-talking lawyers when what we need are people with good judgment. We get wealthy and highly educated people but not necessarily people who have to daily “real world” experience.

The motives of House Members would be less likely to be questioned. Randomly selected Representatives would be fulfilling a civic obligation.  They would not be fulfilling some personal goal or agenda that we citizens are unlikely to fully know.  Ideally this would lead to more confidence in the institution as a whole.  As a minimum, random selection would reduce the cynicism.

A random selection system would decrease the influence of the political parties.  Members could, and likely would, consider party positions on various issues, but their allegiance would not be tied to any special interest or political party, it would be to the people of their state and to the country as a whole. Let’s get rid of “the aisle” altogether. If we select House members randomly, we could seat them alphabetically, by state, or failing a better system, by height, the way Bill and I were organized for dance lessons in high school.

“Hold on a minute Jim!

I happen to like my current representative and you are saying you are going to replace them with someone picked at random?  What will happen to them? 

What about my right to vote? 

Would these people even be capable of doing the job?

If this is such a good idea for the House, why not change the Senate?”   

Let me take these questions one at a time:

What happens to current members you happen to like?

Depending on where you live and your personal leanings, you may or may not feel that your representative is “looking out for you.” My guess is that for most Americans it is at best a “fifty-fifty” chance. As an institution, however, the current Gallup Poll approval rating is about 21% with 73% disapproving of the way Congress is handling its job.

With random selection it is going to be the case that not all of the representatives selected from your state will share your views.  But some will, and based on the law of averages, there will be, among the 435 Representatives, many with whom you will be very happy regardless of your political leanings.

I would envision that there would be a transition period which would allow the current House members to move on to other pursuits, either political or otherwise. Yes, they would have to “change jobs” but hey, we all have been in that situation at one time or another – and they would still get their retirement.

Voting

Voting is the basic underpinning of a democratic (Majority Rule) republic (Basic Rights Guarantee) like the US.  However, we don’t need to vote for everything.  The founders envisioned the people selecting “representatives” to vote on the behalf of the people. (Self Promotion: For my thoughts on the importance of Voting and how we can improve the process see the post titled “Voting” on this blog.)

If random selection were enacted for the House of Representatives, we would still have plenty of ways to exercise our power to vote for politicians who directly impact our lives at all levels:  The president, the Senate, governors, state elected officials, mayors and city councils, school board members, and even judges at the local level.

Qualifications

Clearly some of the people selected at random would not be that bright.  Half in fact would be “below average” on an IQ test. Except, of course, in Minnesota where all of the children are “above average.”

Over the years I have come to understand that there are many ways in which a person’s value to society can manifest itself.  Not all of “the smartest people” make good decisions.  It is even more clear to me that there is no correlation between somewhat objective measurements like intelligence, education, or wealth and the values that I would hope to have myself and desperately want in someone who is representing me: honesty, integrity, kindness, sound judgment, and courage. “Good People” come in all varieties and from all backgrounds.

On one hand being a member of Congress seems like a complicated and seemingly overwhelming job.  But then again, what is it that members of Congress actually have to “do”?  The most important function they have is to vote on proposed legislation. This is a relatively simple binary choice:  “Yea” or “Nay.”

The hard part of course is sorting through the mountain of information and legal mumbo jumbo that goes into the bill being proposed.  However, this is not unlike the role that we require of jurors who also need to ultimately make a binary decision based on complex and often contradictory information.  If our “peers” are capable of making life and death decisions in a trial, with help, our peers can also make important decisions about legislation.

Unlike those serving on juries, members of Congress must also deal with an onslaught of special interest and political party lobbying that would not go away even with a random selection process. They would not be expected to do this alone.

These new “drafted” lawmakers would have the same significant resources to help them do their job as do our current representatives.  Each would have a Chief-of-Staff who oversees a personal staff of about 14 persons dedicated solely to them.  Additionally each congressional committee has staff members who provide subject matter expertise in specific areas.

I also envision a comprehensive one-year training/orientation program to prepare the new Congress Members for their two-year term.  This training program could include academic/formal training in courses like government, history, and civics.  It would also include meetings and briefings by the political parties, industrial and business leaders, and local and state elected officials. Additionally, new members would receive orientation to each of the major executive departments of the Federal Government such as Defense, State, and Health and Human Services. Congress itself (the current members and staff of the House and the Senate) could provide in-depth updates on current legislation, budgeting issues, ethics, and House rules.

Any number of existing institutions/resources(e.g. Harvard Kennedy School of Government; West Point; The University of Georgia, The University of Washington, Penn State or literally hundreds of public or private institutions in every State) could be engaged develop the training program/curriculum and/or to provide the facilities needed to provide the training. This one year training period would also provide an opportunity for the new Congress Members to build working relationships with their fellow selectees. Leaders would emerge from within, just as they do naturally within any group of people.

Getting ready to be a Congress Member would certainly be a lot to swallow but there would be benefits to those selected to serve.  I would see serving in the House as a three-year obligation: One year getting ready, and two years serving in the office.  Pay and benefits would be the same as House members are now receiving which would include a salary of $175K/year, health and retirement benefits. As with military service members, selectees would be guaranteed their old job back upon completion of their tour of duty.  One additional benefit requirement would be housing in DC.  This could be handled much the same as the military does now: the government would obtain and maintain 435 residences which House members and their family could use during the time they are serving in Washington.

Why not select Senators the same way, randomly?

There are three reasons we should not select Senators randomly.  The first is that with only 100 members, the law of averages would not work very well.  This is particularly true at the State level where each state gets only two representatives.  Random selection will result in a few “loose canons” who, in a smaller body, could be very disruptive.  Secondly, the nation’s founders very clearly, and wisely I believe, wanted to provide the smaller states with some protections against being overly dominated by the larger States.  This has to do with being a Republic and it is vital that citizens in all states retain this power through their vote for Senator.  Thirdly, there is value in having the “long term” view that has traditionally been a hallmark of the Senate.  This provides a good balance to the turnover/short-term/current view of the House. Every six years we get to decide whether to keep or discard that vision.

Are you still skeptical?  

This proposal would likely require an amendment to the Constitution and it would be very difficult to get enacted.  It may help to clarify the merit of this proposal and why I think it would be worth the effort if you ask yourself the following questions:

Is The House of Representatives currently doing a good job?

Does money play too big a role in who is selected? 

How much time does your current representative spend getting re-elected?

What are the motives of your current member of Congress?  Are you sure?

Are representatives influenced by those who provide them with financial support?

How much influence do the political parties and or lobbyists have with your current representative?   

 Are the current members of congress truly “representative” of the American people?

Are some categories of people currently “under represented” in Congress?

Why is the approval rating of Congress so low?

With the current system is anything likely to change for the better?

 Would it be worth it to try something new? 

Bill and I would appreciate your feedback on his idea (click on “Leave a Comment” at the bottom of this page).  We welcome you to punch holes in the idea, but please just don’t put any holes in us.:-)

There are angels among us.  But they don’t look like what I would expect. 

Last week my son Josh left his cell phone in the mens room at Ravenna Park here in Seattle where he often goes to exercise/walk.  For some reason Josh got distracted and left without his phone. 

I don’t have to tell you that this would be a huge concern for any of us who now rely on our phones to augment our brains and help us to think.  

For Josh his iPhone is also his lifeline to help and vital to his ability to communicate. 

I got a call from an unknown phone number.  I almost did not answer, figuring it would be a robot call of some sort.  But I did answer and talked to a person named “James” who had found the phone and called my number which I had put on the back of the phone along with an “if found, please call…” message.  James who offered to hang around the park until I could get there to pick it up for Josh.  

I rushed over to the park, about fifteen minutes from my place, and headed to the meeting place, a patio overlooking the park.  The patio is also the roof to the public restrooms where the phone was found.  

There were three people sitting on benches located on the patio.  The closest person was a clean cut young man working on a laptop who looked like he worked at Amazon or Microsoft. 

The other two were an African-American woman and a similarly aged 20-something guy who were sitting together on the other side of the patio.  The woman looked a little on the “rough” side and the man looked as if he might be living in the park. 

I addressed the Amazonian, secretly I suppose, hoping that he was the James who had found the phone.   He was not James. 

Sheepishly I approached the other two, knowing full well that they had seen me approach the other person first.  

As you have no doubt guessed, James was the disheveled young man who has probably had some rough times.  James handed me the phone and said he did not want any reward. He said he would appreciate it if someone were to do that for him.  He was paying it forward.

The woman suggested that I recognize the good deed on facebook, but James said he didn’t do facebook so I offered to send him a thank you letter.  He gave me his address at my request and said it would be OK if I sent him a note or card, which I have done. 

I was humbled by this simple act of kindness from one of the “lessor” people we see among us daily.  I was also embarrassed that I had not remembered the story of the good samaritan and that we all need to avoid jumping to conclusions about who the “good” people are.  

James is one of them. 

 

 

I have two things to say about smoke: “Don’t Inhale it, and Don’t Blow It Out.”

Smoke Gets in Your Eyes

Although the surgeon general had identified the dangers of smoking back in the 1950s, I really didn’t care and began smoking in high school in the 1960s.   A few years later when I was a young Marine I intuitively knew that smoking cigarettes was not good for me.

I distinctly remember talking with a fellow smoker fallowing a running competition held as a part of our Marine Corps training.  I said to my comrade something to the effect that, “You and I were the fastest two smokers in the platoon.”  I was sort of proud of that accomplishment at the time until I started to think about the implication that maybe, just maybe, there was a reason that the fastest runners did not smoke.  It took a while to sink in but several years later I quite altogether and became the worst enemy of a smoker, a reformed sinner.

Much later I learned that wood smoke, in addition to contributing to global warming by releasing CO2, also releases carbon monoxide and a number of toxic and/or cancer causing substances such as benzene, formaldehyde, and benzo-a-pyrene. The health impacts of inhaling wood smoke are real and negative.

This realization of the dangers of wood smoke became particularly relevant here in Seattle when, again this summer (smoky skyline shown above), we had to carve our way through wood smoke that at times blocked out the sun. Yikes, who knew that those fun campfires we lit to cook s’mores over as Boy Scouts were actually killing us just like the cigarettes we hid in our backpacks?

Although I have given it some thought, I cannot come up with any good reason to ever inhale smoke of any kind.  There are good alternatives to burning things that put off smoke. Think cannabis edibles, nicorette chewing gum, natural gas, solar energy, etc.

Suffice it to say that inhaling smoke is inherently bad.

Smoke and Mirrors

“Don’t Blow Smoke Up My Ass, Marine!”  This classic quote could be attributed to any number of Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeants who were dealing with a wayward young Marine who was caught lying.  This quote also provides me an opportunity to pivot to a more nuanced and metaphorical meaning of the word smoke.

Literal smoke is pretty much water vapor laced with all sorts of toxic chemicals.  The metaphorical smoke referred to by the Gunny is something else altogether.  And yet, the two types of smoke share many characteristics.

We can sense it when people are “blowing smoke.”  Like with literal smoke, there is a “smell” that just does not seem right.  We know that our vision of the truth is being distorted when we encounter and recognize metaphorical smoke.

Kids “blow smoke” when they are trying to explain why they “just had to” break some rule.

Spouses do it when trying to “change the subject.”

Relatives do it when hiding family secrets about money or the improprieties of some uncle or aunt.

Bosses do it when trying to explain some stupid decision or policy

And of course, no one can blow smoke like politicians.   The intensity and lethality of this kind of smoke is directly proportional to the autocratic, selfish, and criminal tendencies of the politician.  The more they have to hide, the more smoke they blow.

In all cases our vision and understanding of the truth is curtailed by smoke.

Our vision of the truth can also be blocked by fog.   But fog will eventually burn off and the fog itself does no harm.  The danger in fog is that we do not see things clearly and it can lead to accidents or mistakes.  I mention fog here because not all miscalculations and misunderstandings of the truth are due to smoke, sometimes “fog” is the problem.  With fog there is no hidden “fire” behind it.  With fog we just need time for it to burn off and reveal a more accurate picture of our surroundings: the truth.

But metaphorical smoke is different, and much more dangerous.

The people who blow smoke do so to purposely keep us from the truth.  With smoke there is always something burning underneath.  With smoke there is always danger, not just from what you can’t see and the accidents that it might cause, but also from the fire behind it and from the poison within the smoke itself.

As with physical smoke, metaphorical smoke always consists of poisons.  In metaphorical smoke that poison is the inherent lies that invariably tear at the fabric of organizations and society.

As with physical smoke, metaphorical smoke can temporarily be blown away by strong winds, but ultimately the underlying fire must be extinguished by removing the oxygen of hate and fear that fuels it.

Clearing the Air

Getting to the truth and acting justly/wisely are the only ways we can put out the fire that causes the smoke.  This applies to both literal smoke and metaphorical smoke.

Pouring water on a wood burning fire will eventually put it out, but this is a reactive response that only temporarily solves the problem. We cannot expect to permanently get rid of the literal smoke that fills the air unless we look deeply at the root causes.  There is always a chain of events leading to the sun turning yellow as it did here in Seattle this summer.

Here is one chain of circumstances that leads to smoke: Smoke comes from burning forests and grasslands. Forests and grasslands can be set on fire by natural forces like lightning or be caused by humans.  Forests and grasslands are most likely to burn when they are extremely dry.  They are extremely dry because of a lack of rain.  There is a lack of rain because of climate change. Climate change is caused by natural forces beyond our control and then magnified by human actions that produce green house gases.  The greenhouse gases come from wood we burn in fireplaces, fossil fuels used in our vehicles, and from the coal used to generate our electric power.  We choose to burn these substances to maintain a certain lifestyle.

And on it goes. In order to actually prevent the return of the smoke we have to examine all of the steps in the chain of circumstances leading to the fire in detail to see what actions we can take to prevent, or at least minimize, fires and the smoke they produce in the future

There is also a chain of events that leads to metaphorical smoke: Somebody wants something.  This person is willing to “break the law” or “bend the rules” to get what they want.  They fear that their actions will not be favorably looked on by others. They don’t want others to know exactly what they have done.  This person fears “The Truth” and therefore must create an alternate reality. At this point the person trying to hide their actions is “blowing smoke” to divert others from determining the true source of the fire – their own actions which are sometimes illegal, always immoral.  Repeated enough times, screened by metaphorical smoke, and left unchallenged, this alternate reality can be perceived as the “truth” when in fact it is in fact, a lie.

As with literal smoke, the immediate answer for metaphorical smoke is to pour water on the source of the fire (i.e. weed out the person who started the chain of events).  But this is also only a temporary solution unless we examine the entire chain of circumstances that allowed the smoke blower to “get away with it.”

At the personal level “truth tellers” can call out friends or colleagues at the first sign of smoke.  We can hold people accountable for their smoke blowing by publicly challenging them.  At the macro level our society needs a complex and independent judicial system, a fair voting system, and a free press that can help us to ferret out the hidden fires that are ultimately generating the smoke.

Smoke: “Don’t Suck it in, and Don’t Blow it out!”

PS:  Please see my previous post titled “Truth” if you are interested in my thoughts on how to identify the smoke blowers and make a reasonable assessment of reality. You can reach this previous post via the menu at the top of the blog welcome page or just scroll down. 

 

Note:  This is an update of an idea I originally posted in 2018.

In my previous blog post titled “Government” I addressed the idea of fairness and taxes.

I have a solution for federal taxes that Congress is welcome to consider/use free of charge.

My plan relies on changing how we tax the very rich but it also helps businesses become more competitive and I think it is a solution even billionaire investor Warren Buffett or the world’s richest men, my Seattle area neighbors Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos would approve.

For lack of a better name I call it Jim’s Tax Plan.  Here are the highlights/benefits:

• Fully funds the Federal Government This includes all programs of the Federal Government except for Social Security and Medicare which are funded separately.  Jim’s Tax Plan provides financial support and stability for the Federal government including what I see as it’s most important role: Providing for the Common Defense.

• Eliminates all corporate and business taxes  Makes US businesses the most competitive in the world.

• Eliminates inheritance taxes No death taxes – family businesses & famers can continue to the next generation.

• Keeps Personal Income Taxes Revenue Neutral No overall additional taxes on personal income are needed.  I recommend substituting a Flat tax for rich and poor alike that will be simple to compute and easy to understand. Jim’s tax plan could, however, work with the existing personal income tax.

• Rewards high income (high productivity) individuals  The plan redistributes wealth, not from the rich to the poor, but from the less productive rich to the more productive rich.

• Balances the Budget Many people from all political positions are uncomfortable with deficit spending.  While there are some valid arguments that under certain circumstances limited deficit spending is OK, the vast majority of people I know think that the Federal Budget should be balanced so that Revenue = Expenses.

• Eliminate the Threat of Government Shutdowns caused by the Debt Ceiling   This benefit relates directly to the previous balanced budget benefit.  If there is sufficient revenue to cover the Federal Budget annually, there would be no need to raise the debt ceiling.

“OK Jim, you’ve got my attention, what’s your idea?”  

If you are middle income, please read on.

If you run a business and are in the middle class, I think you will like my plan.

If you are reading this and are both very wealthy and have very high income based on your skills and hard work, I think you might be surprised that Jim’s Tax Plan works OK for persons like yourself.

Rich People who work hard, generate lots of income every year, and who are real “job creators” will do fine under Jim’s Tax Plan. So will the sons and daughters who inherit family farms or businesses and continue to work hard and operate them effectively.

If you are very rich but don’t produce much; spend your money frivolously; accumulate wealth by basically taking it from others (legally or illegally) without delivering value; or basically just live off inherited wealth, you are welcome to read on, but you will probably not like Jim’s Tax Plan.

Under Jim’s Tax Plan the Federal Government would replace the current income focused tax system with a two-part system.  Every citizen would pay the highest of the following annually:

1. 1. A flat tax rate of 13.9% on all income with no-deductions.

OR

1. 2. A tax of 4.7% of one’s net worth.

“What the heck are you talking about Jim?”

What I am suggesting is that the basic premise of our current federal tax system is flawed, relying almost solely on taxing income.  We tax income twice, once when it is received by companies and then again as personal income.  It is fair and equitable to tax the higher of either income or net worth.

“How is this even possible Jim?”

By collecting the greater of the two tax rates (Not both) we can guarantee revenue that will equal the Federal Budget: The net tax rate being based on the percentage of the Federal Budget as a fraction of the total net worth of US Families.

Right now that rate would be 4.7%.  I computed this by dividing the 2021 Federal Expenses of $6.8 Trillion by the current $144 Trillion in household net worth. (6.8/144=.0472 or 4.7%) Note:  Source for Net Worth is The Federal Reserve.

“If the Government automatically receives enough revenue to cover expenses won’t this lead to unbridled spending?”

 Not necessarily.  Congress and the sitting President would need to work out an annual budget that their constituents will accept.  Under Jim’s Tax System taxes would only increase in direct proportion to any increases in the Federal Budget.  Currently we have a system that hides the actual cost of the Federal Budget and has led to deficit spending.  Spending is not directly linked to revenue, Jim’s tax plan would change that.

“So how would this impact most Americans?”

For most Americans there would be a change/no change.

Median Family Net worth is about $121,700.  Half of all family have more than this and half have less. ( Source:  Federal Reserve)

Median Family Income in 2021 was $79,900 (Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development)

According to the IRS the Current Average Effective (After all deductions,the amount people are actually paying) tax rate is 13.9%

The median taxpayers are already paying significantly more than the 4.7% of their net worth. (.047 X $121,700 = $5,719 vs a flat tax of 13.9% (The current average effective tax rate) 0.139 X 79,900 = $11,106)

What this means is that under Jim’s plan the vast majority of taxpayers would just continue to pay their taxes via withholding out of their salaries.

In other words, little or no change.  Exception being the implementation of a flat tax, which, although I support it, would not be necessary to enact Jim’s tax plan.

“So what you are saying Jim is that we can balance the budget by adding a second means of taxation which would mostly impact the very wealthy?  The very wealthy are already paying the lion’s share? How is this fair to them?”

It is true, as conservative entities such as the Heritage Foundation have been saying for years, that the rich pay a very large percentage of taxes.  These sources are also quick to point out that up to 30% of the population pay no federal taxes at all.

We currently raise federal revenue by using a tax system that is so complex not even tax accountants can fully understand it.  Jim’s Tax Plan is a better way to generate the revenue needed to operate our government.

Jim’s Tax Plan shifts a large portion of the tax burden from high-income persons to those with high wealth.  Although sometimes these are the same people, often they are not.

Currently we penalize those who are the most productive (as measured by income) while favoring those who have lots of wealth but who may not actually produce much (as measured by reported income and/or losses which reduce their tax liability greatly).

Jim’s Tax Plan redistributes income, not from the rich to the poor, but from the non-productive to the most productive.   It also aligns taxation more closely with the benefits received, at least at the macro level.

Jim’s Tax Plan realigns the system to obtain a large portion of the revenue needed from a tax on the net worth of every American and especially the very wealthy.

The top 1% of the population currently possess about 32% of the total Net Worth of U.S. Households. (Source: Federal Reserve, Survey of Consumer Finances and Household Total Net Worth Report).

If we add a net worth tax and also keep personal income taxes and other sources of revenue the same (i.e. revenue neutral) we can balance the budget

“Why are you taxing everybody at the same rates Jim? Even the poor?”

We all have a stake in this country.  Everybody should pay something.

Even the very poorest among us do receive benefits of our democratic republic, if only the basic freedoms.

The less you have, the less you pay.  Few of us will choose poverty to avoid taxation.

“How is this fair? Adding the net worth tax will generate most of the additional revenue from the wealthy.  Why should the wealthy people pay more than the rest of us, even if the rates are the same for all?”

 Taxation under Jim’s Tax Plan would follow the principal that those who get more protection should pay more.     

The wealthy benefit the most from the protection our military and homeland security and the legal system provide to protect assets.

The top 1% of our population have, by far, the most to lose if the Federal Government does not protect their assets.  Without a strong military and homeland security, foreign forces would be able to take and/or destroy their wealth.  Without a legal system to protect assets such as patents, copyrights and legal recognition of property ownership, the wealthy could not hold on to their wealth.  Without a stable and mostly peaceful society to live in, wealth would be worthless.

Look at government services as a form of insurance – the more you have to lose, the more you need insurance. Like with home insurance, the more you have to protect, the more you pay.

Currently there is a group of relatively very few people who are getting the most protection.  They need to pay for it. Currently the super-rich are not paying their fair share for National Defense or for a stable society.

Side Note from a retired 29-year military veteran: It is also the case that the burden of actually providing the human cost for National Defense falls almost exclusively on the poor and lower middle class.  It is their sons, daughters, nephews and nieces who serve in the military.  With extremely rare exceptions, these volunteers are not from the families of the super-wealthy.

“High income people are already paying the lion’s share of taxes.”

This is true under the current system.  While it may seem radical, what I am proposing merely shifts the system to favor those high-income people who are the most productive by charging the non-productive wealthy more fairly for the benefits they receive from society (mainly, being able to keep their wealth).

The differentiation between “income” and “wealth” is fundamental to Jim’s Tax System.

“How can anyone maintain wealth under Jim’s Tax System?”

Let me answer this by giving examples of how Jim’s Tax Plan would actually play out.

Let’s say you bust your ass and increase your annual income over a number of years to $300,000 annually and in the process pay off your mortgage and accumulate a net worth (Assets minus liabilities) of $1 Million (For point of reference a net worth of $1M is about 8 times the median).  Your tax liability would be the greater of 13.9% of your income ($41,000) or 4.7% of your net worth or ($47,000).  In this example the net-worth tax would kick in and the individual would pay that tax instead of the income tax.  It would more or less be a wash at this level of income and wealth.

For the super wealthy the equation starts to get to the heart of Jim’s Tax Plan, generating revenue to balance the budget.  If, for example, you inherit $10 Million dollars and do nothing productive you will owe $470,000 annually. $100 Million pays $4.7 M and $1B pays $47 M.  Under the current system, those among this lucky group that produce absolutely nothing or if they are ineffective and lose money they pay little to nothing in taxes.  The previously mentioned complexities of the current tax system offer many ways to avoid paying any taxes. To a certain extent the current system rewards ineffectiveness by allowing loses to be written off.

4.7% per year is not too much to ask from the very wealthy.  If they did absolutely nothing more than buy an index fund they can earn 8-10% annually.  Over the past 100 years the average annual return from the stock market is over 10%.

That means that if a wealthy person did nothing more than make a simple investment, their wealth would still grow annually even after they paid their fair share of 4.7% to run the Federal Government.

Where is the motivation to achieve?”

Really productive people have an excellent opportunity to accumulate wealth under Jim’s Tax Plan should they desire to do so.  Remember that Jim’s Tax Plan eliminates Corporate Taxes altogether. That frees businesses to make smart market-based decisions free from tax-system imposed incentives and decisions.  It would be easy for owners of these productive corporations to exceed 10% annual return on their investment.

There would no longer be a difference between tax deductible and other expenses.  There would just be expenses.  Either it makes business sense to spend money a certain way or it does not.  This decision is better made by the owner of the business than some politician in Washington.

Despite what the Supreme Court says in Citizens United, Corporations are not people.  People own corporations and under Jim’s Tax Plan revenue would be collected from those owners as a part of the net worth tax.  Individuals would be taxed only once annually.  This tax would be collected as either a net worth tax or an income tax, whichever is higher, but not both.

Successful businesses will thrive, poorly run ones will fail.  With Jim’s Tax Plan American businesses will have a tremendous competitive advantage not having to pay corporate taxes.

QUESTIONS?????

Taxation is a complex issue with no easy answers, but I welcome your critique and questions about this idea.  Please let me know what you think, especially if you think this plan cannot work, by clicking on Comments below.

.

It has been tough times for people who compromise.

For many people it seems much easier and simpler just to pick a side/opinion/belief and stick with it, come hell or high water. “Just do it.” “My way, or the highway.” “Get ‘er done.” “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.”

As I watch my two grandsons grow I am reminded how, at some point pretty early on, we all come up against the dreaded “No” word. “No” is often followed by a different option such as, “But you can play with that toy after dinner.”

While at first children probably feel that they are being held back or “lose” in such an encounter, we all soon learn that it is not always bad to do what your momma tells you. You do, after all, get to “play” after dinner just as she promised. Although unbeknownst to us at the time, we are learning to compromise. “Give a little, take a little.” “Go along to get along.” “Trade.” “Share.”

Life gets complicated quickly, however, and very soon most children learn how to tweak the system to get what they want. Kids learn how to negotiate once they find their parent’s “pressure points.” Parents find themselves bending the rules once they find that enforcing them is not always worth the effort.

Similar patterns emerge with friends, partners, and bosses. One way or another we all have to compromise to succeed.

Often the word collaborate is used to denote positive actions that are done in coordination with another party for mutual benefit. The idea here being that these transactions don’t really involve “giving up” anything, but rather just aligning efforts efficiently and effectively. Even in these cases, however, there is still an element of compromise, even if it is nothing more than having to share the limelight with someone else when the project/effort is successful.

One way or another we always have to compromise in some way if we want to be successful.

Some might argue that this does not apply to tyrants, bullies, or crime bosses who wield all the power. They don’t have to compromise.

And it is true that sometimes you can get your way without compromising. If you are in a position of power over the other party you can get away with using a version of the old mafia methodology: “Here’s the deal, you do as I say and I won’t kill you. OK?”

But for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. As in physics, this holds true for social interactions as well. Push people hard enough and they will either break or they will explode. Even if you get the other person to “break” right now, they will eventually react. As the saying goes, “What goes around, comes around.” Even if the reckoning does not come until Judgment Day, every dog has his day. Or, as we used to say in the Marines, “Payback is a Mother F****r.”

In the long run, forcing your will on others is neither as effective nor as enduring as negotiating a fair compromise.

Deals vs. Compromises

Some people describe a “Good Deal” as a win/lose transaction where one party (you in this case) gets the upper hand. A “Good deal” that is not “good” for the both party’s is not a compromise. As such, it is not as permanent. The “Deal” lasts only until such time as the losing party gains enough power to reverse it.

In writing this post I pulled up the word “compromise” on my handy on-line Webster’s dictionary and found that the word implies that a “mutual promise” has been made by the parties involved.

Compromise by definition means both sides gave up something of value that the other party wanted.

Compromises also include promises on both sides. These promises, and the resulting mutual benefits for both sides, make compromises last.

The word “promise” is especially important here. A promise includes not only a commitment to uphold your end of the bargain, but also shows that you have shared ownership in the decision. You have a dog in the fight so to speak.

Contrast compromise with seemingly more powerful words such as edict, commandment, or executive order. At first blush these “take charge” actions seem to be much stronger than “compromise.” But are they as effective long term?

I submit that these more dominant approaches, basically imposing your will, ultimately fail to deliver positive outcomes. They do, however, deliver on negative outcomes.

Compromises will fail if not kept on both sides. We see the results of broken promises all around us: divorces, bankruptcies, and civil and criminal legal actions of all kinds.

Learning how to compromise is a skill worth having.

Personal Life Balance

In our personal lives we not only need to deal with our loved ones, we also need to “compromise” with ourselves. Time spent at work is time not spent with the family. Time spent with family instead of at work can result in less money to spend. We “promise” ourselves that we will exercise, save money, eat right, and at the same time commit to taking it easy. We accept lower levels of professional performance in order to have better personal relationships. We have to compromise to thrive, and sometimes just to survive.

Note: Sometimes people talk about not wanting to compromise their values. For purposes of this post I am not considering that definition of the word. Discussion of “Values” can take us in a whole other direction. For my thoughts on Values I have included the link to my previous post on that subject below.

During his keynote graduation speech at his alma mater, The University of Western Australia, comedian/entertainer Tim Minchin presented nine lessons for life. His first lesson was “You Don’t Have to Have a Dream. Minchin provides the following alternative to following your passion or life long goals:

“Americans on talent shows always talk about their dreams. Fine, if you have something that you’ve always dreamed of, like, in your heart, go for it! After all, it’s something to do with your time… chasing a dream. And if it’s a big enough one, it’ll take you most of your life to achieve, so by the time you get to it and are staring into the abyss of the meaninglessness of your achievement, you’ll be almost dead so it won’t matter.
I never really had one of these big dreams. And so I advocate passionate dedication to the pursuit of short-term goals. Be micro-ambitious.
Put your head down and work with pride on whatever is in front of you… you never know where you might end up. Just be aware that the next worthy pursuit will probably appear in your periphery. Which is why you should be careful of long-term dreams. If you focus too far in front of you, you won’t see the shiny thing out the corner of your eye.”

I share with Minchin his skepticism of dedicating everything to one’s “dreams” or “passion.” It is especially troublesome when I hear people using the phrase, “I’m not going to just settle.” The word “settle” being spoken with a great deal of distain so as to imply weakness or lack of dedication.

“How could anyone “settle” for anything less than the very best?”

And yet, I drive a 14-year-old mini-van with 175,000 miles on it with a big scrape on the right side. I have learned to compromise with myself.

Political Compromise

The current tragedy unfolding on our southern border has resulted in the U.S. Government forcibly separating young children from their parents. This is an example of the consequences of our political leaders not being willing to compromise.

As I pointed out previously in my 2017 Post titled “Immigration”(Link below) the long-term solution is sound immigration law. In that post I asked my two Democratic Senators in Washington State, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, to work across the aisle with Republican Senators. Four Republicans wrote/sponsored the bi-partisan legislation titled The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013. This law ensured border security, protected the jobs of US citizens, and provided a fair way to deal with people who have worked hard and contributed much to our country even though they are here illegally. Under this law violators would be punished, but in an appropriate manner. This compromise legislation passed the Senate 68-32 but then died in the House, where members were not willing to compromise. This left us with antiquated piece-meal laws that do not address the current situation nor do they meet our needs. Since then neither house has passed any legislation that helps resolve the problem.

Immigration should not be managed solely by executive orders issued by the executive branch. Without a workable public law in place, this has been the case in both the Obama and Trump administrations. Congress needs to compromise to solve this problem and come up with new permanent legislation that makes sense. As I recommended to Senators Cantwell and Murray, The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 would be an excellent place to start.

However, so far our elected leaders have been unwilling to compromise.

Republicans, even with a majority in both houses cannot come up with legislation. Democrats have been unwilling to cross party lines and compromise with moderate Republicans.

Compromise is seen as weakness. Both sides see immigration reform (and many other issues) as a Win/Lose situation when they should be looking for a Win/Win.”

In the meantime, nothing gets resolved.

Trump uses executive power the way he wants to, but without bi-partisan permanent legislation and resolution of the issues (i.e. a compromise), the next president could just as easily reverse all of the Trump decisions. Without bi-partisan compromise we will be in an endless loop. Permanent sensible solutions will continue to evade us.

We need for Congress to compromise.

Geo-Political Compromises

Many have criticized President Trump for compromising with Kim Jong Un, the tyrannical Korean dictator who has murdered thousands of his own people, including his own uncle. I too am somewhat jaded and skeptical about being able to compromise with such a man, but it is way too early to tell if the recent compromise that Trump is attempting with Kim was a good thing or not.

As in our personal lives, the success of a compromise of this magnitude is dependent on both sides living up to the promises that are implicit in the compromise. So far the real negotiations have not taken place leaving us with very little understanding of what those “promises” are. All that being said, I do think that in this case Trump deserves credit for being willing to compromise.

A positive historical judgment on the success of Trump’s compromise will be dependent on Kim keeping his promise and destroying his nuclear weapons. If Kim does this, Trump will have a great achievement. If not, well…

So go ahead, Compromise, and feel good about it.

FYI:

Link to Immigration Post Referenced Above: http://03cf8fa.netsolhost.com/WordPress/2017/03/19/immigration/

Link to Values Post Referenced Above:
http://03cf8fa.netsolhost.com/WordPress/2016/03/12/values/