politics

On Freedom…

by MyBaconPress

PseudoFreedom

Recently, I’ve been giving a lot of thought to this “freedom” my conservative brethren are always on about.  I’m not sure I know – hell, I’m not sure THEY know – exactly what it is they’re referring to.  Then I see the above meme.  It’s AWESOME as a piece of political propaganda but has little or nothing to do with reality.

I’m a progressive.  I think this means I’m at liberty to speak for all progressives everywhere on every topic that might come up.  So, speaking for every progressive in the history of progressives, I can say with 100% certainty that nobody is asking anybody to give up their “religious liberty, guns, and free speech” and I feel certain that, on the subject of taxes, progressives would simply prefer that the very super-duper, hyper-wealthy participate in our society at the same rate as they extract from our society.

Look, I don’t care which invisible super-friend you choose to “worship”.  I just don’t want you making actual rules in real-life based on your delus…er…”beliefs.”  I don’t care if YOU have a gun.  I would just like to find a way to keep them out of the hands of crazy, stupid, and/or irresponsible people.  “Free speech”?  Wait a minute…wasn’t it conservative George W. Bush who introduced the concept of “Free Speech Zones”, thereby implying that there are places in America that may not be eligible for free speech?

Does this not mean, then, that the “freedom” conservatives are “defending” is a fantasy position?  Sure, that has the advantage (to the thought shapers) of being an area of discord they can mine endlessly.  That is, since the “freedom” conservatives seek seems to be fantasy-based, it can never become reality and conservatives can be stirred up about it always and forever.

I’d like some help from my conservative friends out there.  What IS the “freedom” you seek?  Are you looking for the “Jeremiah Johnson, mountain man” freedom where you do exactly what you want, when you want?  That doesn’t exist.  It didn’t even exist for him.  Even mountain men had rules of acceptable behavior.  The issue becomes much more clear when one considers this question: What about when the OTHER “mountain man” exercises HIS “freedom” to do what HE wants all over YOUR “freedom” to do what YOU want?

There’s an old adage out there that says that your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.  It’s a metaphor, although I submit that it’s quite literally true, as well.  Basically, it means you really can do pretty much what you want – until it interferes with someone else’s ability to do what they want.  (And vice-versa, of course.  It’s not “aimed” at conservatives…)  Don’t we, the people need an arbiter?  I know conservatives support the court system but are you REALLY saying that the same (or similar) conflicts should be litigated over and over and over again?  Jeez, talk about frivolous lawsuits…

Setting aside the fairly recent trend of special interests buying protective legislation, most rules and – dare I say – regulations are about balancing the “freedoms” of one individual or group against the “freedoms” of another.  There are so freaking many of us, it can sometimes be a tricky situation.  Of course “the arbiter” doesn’t always get it right or sometimes conditions change.

I’ll tell you this: If the “freedom” you demand is the “freedom” to prey on society, I’m not on board and I never will be on board.  So, please…tell me.  I’m asking because I want to know.  What, exactly, does this “freedom” you seek look like?

Define “Successful”…

by MyBaconPress

I saw an opinion piece in the Guardian called ‘Your Worst Nightmare: a Successful Donald Trump Presidency’.  My first reaction to such a headline is that it’s true; a successful Trump presidency might well be my worst nightmare.  But then the obvious question occurs: what might a “successful” Trump presidency look like?

The piece in question starts off appearing to give Trump credit for something he didn’t do, a staple (so far) of his presentation. A sergeant loses an arm and a leg in Afghanistan in 2010.  He has to wait 57 days for a repair to his prosthetic leg and three and a half years for adaptations to his home.  Let’s see…2010 plus 3.5 years…why, that means the sergeant’s problems were handled by 2014, at the latest.  Pop quiz: who was President in 2014?  Still, the sergeant is thrilled Trump is going to solve Veterans Administration problems…

Then, the piece basically, lists things 45’s maladministration is calling “wins” right now.  A Republican beats a Democrat in a closely watched “election.”  David Brooks, a NY Times columnist, suggests the Russia investigation might be overblown.  A revelation that Obama might well have dropped the ball with his choice to remain mum on Russian interference.  Three CNN staffers at the website had to step down due to poor journalism.  The Republitarians in Congress almost repealed the Affordable Care Act.  The “Supreme Court” reinstated the travel ban.  But then, the same column includes a paragraph about why those things might not be wins as well.

Trump’s proposed budget is supposedly going to screw veterans right along with every other not rich person.  The Republican beat the Democrat in a traditionally Republican district.  The investigation might be overblown but Obama didn’t do enough?  Which is it?  “Almost” repealed Obamacare?  So…not yet.  Oh yeah, the travel ban was only partially reinstated.

Essentially, the piece doesn’t say anything more than “politician takes credit for things politician didn’t do” but, really, isn’t that the politician way?  It did get me thinking, though: what might a successful Trump presidency look like?  I’m not sure anybody knows, mostly because I’m not sure Trump, himself, knows.

Yeah, sure, he’s going to build his stupid wall (a win) but Mexico is clearly not paying for it (a loss) AND…his “wall” will be porous as hell (a loss).  If conservatives DO manage to repeal the conservative health care plan known as “Obamacare” (a win?) the resulting devastation to millions might well bring a backlash that harms the Republitarian brand (a loss) AND ushers in single payer (a win for Americans, a loss for greed).

If we end up with oil derricks in Yosemite, HE might consider it a “success” but most people will mourn the loss.  Deregulation?  I don’t care HOW you package it, deregulation is about freeing criminals to commit their crimes again.

I’ll tell you this: the more I think about it the more I realize that a “successful” Trump presidency destroys America and harms humanity.  Maybe that IS my worst nightmare…

Reality Going To Jail…

by MyBaconPress

Well, Reality Winner, the NSA contractor who leaked the document about the GRU supposedly going on a phishing expedition against a company that makes voting software, is probably going to go to jail over it.  They caught her – and she confessed – right away.

The thing that struck me about the document was that it was the first implication that someone – ostensibly the Russians – intended to hack into voting machines.  The official word, of course, is “no.”  “They” didn’t succeed.

I used to be a techie guy, running IT departments.  Back then, I was excited by the possibilities technology could bring to voting – easing access, for example.  But for every upside of technology, there’s a downside.  My thinking on the topic was limited to the application of the technology, not the application of nefarious intent by interested parties.  (Hey, I was young…)

But then we got George W. Bush in a disputed “election” in which many districts were seen to have “voted” in ways other than the exit polls predicted.  The thing was, the districts in question were computerized voting districts.  Then we were treated to online videos showing how ridiculously simple it was to hack into the machines and flip votes.  They’re essentially spreadsheets.  Simply switch the contents of one cell with the contents of another and you’ve changed the outcome of the “election.”

The companies who made the voting machines – the same companies that make ATM machines – insisted it was impossible to make a machine that created a paper trail.  The “official” message was that Americans needed to ignore exit polls since they’re largely inaccurate.  It was a stupid message in view of the fact that exit polling is and has been the gold standard of polling since it’s inception but that was the message.

It put me off computerized voting.  I noticed that nobody did anything about it, or even tried to.  Sure, there was some lip-service paid to fixing the problems but there was no concerted effort to stop using the voting machines until people could know, with one hundred percent certainty, that the machines were secure.  My suspicion is that the parties each thought being able to hack into the machines and “control” the voting was a GREAT idea.  I have no evidence to support that assertion – it’s just a gut feeling.

I use over-arching precepts to guide my thinking.  When there’s a problem nobody does anything about, there’s a reason.  We first saw it in Florida, in 2000.  Nobody did anything about it.  Then, people trying to sound the alarm among the electorate TOLD us it would be Ohio in 2004 – and it was.  Nobody did anything about it.  Truthfully, I didn’t see it in 2008 or 2012 but not so much, I think, because “my guy” won.  I think in order to be effective, the “election” needs to be close and those were not.  But strange doings were again afoot during the 2016 Democratic primary.  Another close race, more “ignore the exit polls” bunk.

Through it all, the “official” position is that there’s nothing to see here, everything’s okay.  The refrain we hear over and over is that it’s important to “maintain the integrity of the vote.”  Can you tell by the fact that I can’t write “vote” or “election” without “quotes” that I no longer trust the “integrity of the vote?”

It’s easy to see how each of the “two parties” might have come to the conclusion that, from now on, the REAL “elections” would take place between two rooms of techies each hacking into machines and flipping votes, racing each other, flipping one way then the other, until the final gun.  Whoever flips most effectively “wins.”  But what if there was a third room?

The document Reality dropped indicated that the Russians were interested in accessing the machines.  What if they got in?  Our own government would NEVER acknowledge the fact even – perhaps especially – if it meant We, the People had “elected” a person so incompetent, it’s a wonder he can move about on a daily basis without supervision, let alone run this once-great nation.

I’ve never accepted the story about Russia affecting the “election” by flooding social media with information critical to Hillary.  I mean, so what?  I saw TONS of information critical to Hillary.  It never crossed my mind it might be coming from the Russians.  I thought it was coming from the GOP just like it had been since the world first heard the name Hillary Rodham-Clinton.

I vote absentee.  I do it because, well, let’s be honest, it’s easier and more pleasant.  But in addition, it creates a paper trail – a way to do a recount.  (Did you know it’s not possible with the machines?  They only keep a total, not a record of individual votes…)  I think everybody should vote absentee.  Yes, I know there are ways to cheat with paper but they’re not as easy as the invisible voting machine hacks.

I’ll tell you this: I want to know if the software company the Russians are said to have tried to access wrote the software for any of the machines used in Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania.  But in the meantime, Reality goes to jail…

It’s A Fair Question…

by MyBaconPress

Sean Spicer insists that 45 and “a small group of people” know exactly what 45 meant when he tweeted “covfefe”.  I’m not leveling any charges, here, just asking a question but couldn’t “a small group of people” be Putin, Kislyak, and Lavrov?  (It could.)  Is it really a good idea to even hint that perhaps the so-called “President” is tweeting secret codes to his Russian counterparts?  (Note: I have ZERO evidence the so-called “President” is tweeting secret codes to his Russian counterparts…)  Let me put it another way:

When your maladministration
is currently under investigation
for potentially illegal collaboration,
Shouldn’t one’s cogitation
tend toward mitigation
rather than exacerbation?

Regarding Measure C, On Rent Control…

by MyBaconPress

I’ll be voting yes on Measure C, the rent control measure here in Santa Rosa, CA.  I’m not a fan of rent control.  Generally speaking, I think rent control treats a symptom and not the underlying problem.  But at some point, if one doesn’t stop the bleeding, there will be no patient to save, you know?

The one aspect everyone can agree upon around here is there’s a housing shortage.  The most popular reason given is lack of building and certainly that plays a part.  The other thing I point to is REITs – Real Estate Investment Trusts.  These are investment vehicles in which people with a little money to invest pool their resources with other people with money to invest and buy up available inventory.  Since REITs use pooled money, they can offer whatever they need to offer to acquire the property and then charge whatever they need to charge to make the investment profitable.

I don’t know who’s going to stop such a process.  A seller receives an offer OVER the asking price, as is, all cash, with a 14 day escrow.  Who’s going to say no?  Is the seller going to “pass” on that offer and take the one below asking in which the buyer still needs to secure funding?  Will the Real Estate agent, who stands to make a killing on the artificially inflated price say no?  How about the bank that gets to charge interest on the loan, will they say no?  Eventually, inevitably, the market, itself, will say no.  If I try to rent my storage unit to a family of four for $5000/mo and I get no takers, I’ll have to change my position.

But in the meantime, how much damage has been done to society?

To be clear, I see the REITs buying single family homes as the driver of the problem but Measure C doesn’t even speak to that issue.  It only applies to apartments and only certain apartments at that.  But as single family homes become unavailable, people are forced into apartments.  The increased demand for apartments created by artificially skyrocketing rents on single family units allows landlords to charge increasingly high rents.

Consider: the average rent for a 2 bedroom apartment in Santa Rosa as of April, 2017 is $2,083 a month.  Management companies look to make sure the prospective renter makes three times the rent as a qualifier.  That means a prospective renter needs to show $6,249 a month in income just to qualify.  Let’s carry this out, shall we?  That monthly income amount works out to $74,988 per year.  A full time employee works 2,080 hours a year so in order to rent that 2 bedroom unit, the prospective renter needs to earn $36 dollars an hour. ($36.05, to be exact…)

Is that the guy who washes the cars at the dealerships before going on display?  Is that the server who just handed you a bag of food through a window?  Is it the person stocking the shelves in your local Wal-Mart?  Fun fact: California will push it’s minimum wage to $15 dollars an hour – by 2022!  If they started that today, people would only be $21 dollars an hour short of what they need to rent a 2 bedroom apartment.  How far behind will they be in 2022?  So you see, I could support Measure C just on the math, alone.

But the truth is, that’s not why I’ll be voting for it.  My reason is more…visceral…

See, the Santa Rosa city council saw the problem and tried to implement a solution.  No, it’s not a “solution” so much as a stopgap but they tried to do something.  Then, big moneyed interests got involved and used the proposition process to force the issue to a ballot – but they lied to people in order to gather signatures.  They’ve been lying pretty much every day since, as well.  I get a new, glossy, full-page flyer in my mailbox nearly every day telling me all the things Measure C won’t do.  The thing is, the pretty mailers are addressing issues nobody else is talking about.

Hey, Measure C won’t make the airlines run on time so vote no!
What?  Who said anything about airlines?
Well, measure C won’t make your kid prom queen so vote no!
Prom queen, what?!?
OMG, Measure C won’t stop fourth graders from smoking, vote no!
Nobody said Measure C would stop fourth graders from smoking – that’s not even the point!
Hey, if you think fourth graders should smoke, go ahead and vote yes on C!

If you hate your grandma, vote yes on C…

All right, I may have made up some (all) of those anti-C arguments but the urgings of the anti-C flyers are no more relevant.  There has been a non-stop flood of falsehoods flowing into my mailbox.  Frankly, it makes me a little suspicious.  I have a rule of thumb that, in my humble opinion, always applies.  It says that when a person (or group, in this case) resorts to lying, they’re admitting they know their own position is false.

Of course, none of that matters with today’s electorate.  Huge swaths of Americans have become dumber than bricks and I’m pretty sure all the slick mailers and outright false advertising – that is, all the money poured into this effort – will have the desired effect.

But I’ll tell you this: the truth is, I’m not really voting for or against Measure C.  I’m voting against the lies…

The Trump Somnambulists…

by MyBaconPress

Did you hear the one about the so-called “President” who did something dumb, his people tried to cover his tail, and then he stupidly re-affirmed that, nope, it was the dumb thing?  I was going to use details of actual incidents but decided I like it better this way, with nothing specific and yet, applying to each day of Donald Trump’s maladministration.

Each time one of these little dramas plays out, there’s a blizzard of “When are his supporters going to wake up?” and “I wonder how his supporters feel, now!” posts in social media.  Here are the answers, in order: ‘Never’ and ‘Just fine, thank you’.

It’s important to separate the two different groups who voted Trump.  On the one hand, there are those who cast a ballot for Trump but who, technically, were voting against Hillary.  These are the people who were going to vote third-party or just sit the thing out until Hillary was named the Democratic nominee.  They had been primed by 24 years of anti-Hillary propaganda to hate her on a visceral level.  They weren’t operating with facts but they really had no choice.  I suspect this crowd makes up the infamous “low information voter” group.

Then there’s the “no information voter” group.  You don’t hear much about them but we’re all living under the governance of one member, now.  These people know nothing…or seem to know nothing.  They don’t know history.  They don’t understand current events.  They actively oppose science.  But they vote.

You can’t identify one just by looking at them.  They blend in.  They seem like any other person struggling through the day.  “Competent adults” we call them and when it comes to going to work or paying their bills well…they are competent.  The facade isn’t exposed until you try to talk with one of them and they spew the fake news from the conservative bubble – all the while calling facts “fake news.”

These are the people still showing up at Trump’s campaign rallies and cheering the cluelessness of Chief Clueless.  “Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated”, right?  THAT crowd.  The people who REALLY didn’t know healthcare could be so complicated.  These people are not going to “wake up.”  They’re as “woke” as they’re going to get.  They get all the information they want from the Blaze or Breitbull.com and the fact that the information never – ever – plays out like they’re told it will never – ever – penetrates.  To them, all else is just “fake news”.

As for the “how do they feel now” part, they’re feeling just fine.  All of this “destroying the country” bit thinking people are worried about is exactly what they wanted in a “President”.  It wouldn’t be fair to suggest they’re eager for the wreckage being wrought.  They don’t actually believe “wreckage” will be the end result.  There’s a very specific reason for this: they don’t know history.  They don’t understand current events.  They actively oppose science.  They’re the “no information” voter and they’ve lived among us going all the way back to Thomas Jefferson.  (Yes, THAT Thomas Jefferson – the one who wrote all the pretty words but didn’t seem to understand the meanings of the words he wrote…)

There are stories about people on the Titanic who started playing with bits of ice on the deck after the ship hit the iceberg.  They had been told they were on an “unsinkable” ship – and they believed it.  In fairness, they didn’t know about the gash in the hull but even if they had, they would have remained carefree.  It was an unsinkable ship!  I imagine that as Captain Smith strode aboard for his last voyage, he believed he was boarding an unsinkable ship, as well, and the only thing that convinced him otherwise was the actual sinking of the “unsinkable” ship.  It takes that kind of sudden information storm to change a preconceived notion but that “sudden information storm” can almost always be labeled “too late.”  My bet?  There was some number of people who wouldn’t believe the ship was sinking even as it slipped beneath the waves, taking the “faithful” with it.

So, please, stop asking when they’re going to wake up.

They’re not…

When Rome Looked Like the US…

by MyBaconPress

Fortunately, I’m good at depression.  I mean, I’ve been practicing for years.  After awhile, you don’t really expect to feel…anymore.  You work out ways to get through another day without spewing – to the extent possible – your internal darkness around everywhere.  People prefer jokes and smiles.  I can do that, normally.  But it’s got me today.

I spend a lot of time with history.  I spend a lot of time paying attention to the “doings” of politics.  I’ve been watching a war play out daily in this once great nation for something like 35 years and I pretty much see the end-game in progress.  It’s the war between the “haves” and the “have-nots” – a class war the “haves” initiated with the “election” of Ronald Reagan and the “have-nots” didn’t even know they were – or should have been – fighting.

One can see the parallels in this once-great nation to two different periods in time: France, just before their revolution and Rome, just as the Republic failed and shifted to empire.  Neither period proved beneficial to the increasingly impoverished masses.  In BOTH cases, the rich were doing just fine.  Too fine, some might say.

Today, I’m more focused on Rome.  Most people know about the Roman Empire.  Many people don’t realize the empire was born a Republic.  They even had a Senate.  Today, history understands Julius Caesar as Rome’s first Emperor but nobody called Caesar the Emperor at the time.  The people of Rome, the work-a-day folks going about their business, didn’t even realize a change had occurred.

Caesar maintained the Senate.  He even allowed for the presence of dissenters, so long as there weren’t so many as to create actual dissent.  The creep of empire was relatively slow.  Romans didn’t go to sleep in a Republic one night and wake up in an empire the next morning.  That’s not how it works.  It’s a slow but steady movement away from the norms of Republic to new “norms”.  Things that aren’t supposed to be…but are anyway.

Things like enriching oneself and family by not only accepting but openly requesting emoluments from people who have business with the ruler; “tributes”, let’s call them.  Systematically replacing people trying to do the Republic’s work with toadies who will do as they’re told and NEVER counter the ruler is another step in the parade to authoritarianism.  A larger governing body – in Caesar’s case, a Senate – that refuses to stand up to the abuses of the ruler in order to protect their own positions, or in the belief that they’re doing so, until it’s far too late.

Yes, the Roman Senate eventually stood up to Caesar but the damage was done.  Rome maintained the trappings of a republic but was never a true republic again.

As it stands right now, it seems like the American Congress is going to support Trump regardless of how outrageous his or his family’s behavior becomes.  It appears, to me, like the transition is pretty much complete.  It all LOOKS the same.  We still have a Congress but they’re clearly not going to challenge Trump.  We still have a “Supreme Court” but they’ll keep making decisions that serve the privileged elite at the expense of the masses.  For many of us, the day-to-day realities of just getting through will seem unchanged.

In France, once the aristocracy had just gone too far for the masses to tolerate, the people rose up in one national riot and began lopping off heads – some deserving, some…not so much.  Maybe the same thing will happen here so the US won’t get hundreds of years as the dominant empire of the day.  But a Reign of Terror as the “hopeful” offset to brutal empire?

I’ll tell you this: I find it all pretty depressing…

 

Dem Wars…

by MyBaconPress

When Dumb Donald took power, I consoled myself with the notion that the Democrats need only take back three seats in the Senate and he’d be thwarted.  Not completely, of course, but at least conservatives wouldn’t have free rein to ride roughshod over everything I think is important in a civilized society.

Now I’m less certain.  I’ve been a little startled by what I’ve been seeing in social media ever since Bernie Sanders and Tom Perez started their “Come Together” tour.  Some people don’t seem to taking the point.  They don’t even seem interested in the message.

Look, I get it.  Purist party loyalists are furious Bernie ran, preferring their own narrative that had he stayed out, Hillary would be President today.  Independents are furious about the discrepancies of the race – the DNC was supposed to facilitate, not manipulate, the primary.  They believe, likewise, that if Bernie had been given a fair chance, he would be President today.

Here’s the thing, it doesn’t matter.  Coulda, woulda, shoulda.  Yesterday’s news.  We can spend the rest of our lives pounding each other over the head with what we think might have happened, could have happened, should have happened if only…whatever.  It doesn’t matter.  What matters are those three seats in the Senate.

But the sniping continues.  Tom IS the DNC (read: status quo).  Bernie isn’t even in the party!  My understanding is that people have been abandoning the major political parties in droves.  That suggests Democrats, alone, can’t get the job done but then, neither can Independents.  We need each other.

From what I’ve seen, it doesn’t look much like Bernie and Tom like each other.  But they’re still out there, together, calling for unity.  They’re doing it because they know that focusing on what happened yesterday can only harm efforts for tomorrow – and tomorrow is more important than yesterday.

I’m not suggesting that anyone “get over it”.  Keep your wound, whichever wound you’re nursing.  Take it out at night.  Pet it, cuddle it, seek comfort from it.  But then put it away.  Don’t allow it to take your focus off the bigger picture.  I’ll do the same.  Let us stop antagonizing each other with details that matter not a whit to anything we face coming at us from the front because I’ll tell you this: the only way we’re going to save our society from devolving into the “Trump Dump” is to work together…

Yesterday Guiding Tomorrow…

by MyBaconPress

This once-great nation was first established under the Articles of Confederation.  The Articles called for a weak central government with a strong emphasis on states rights.  It lasted about ten years before failing.  The time came to replace the Articles of Confederation and the members of the Continental Congress looked at other governments around the world.  They had the advantage of history to guide decisions they were making about the future…

When Alexander Hamilton was establishing the economy of the United States after the Constitution we all recognize today was created, he looked again to historical examples.  He was able to pick and choose the parts that worked well and discard things that hadn’t been as successful…

These days, I find myself using the same techniques to try and divine the future and offer up some ideas that I think might help in the next iteration of the United States.  If the inference is that the United States 1.0 has failed, I believe it.  I can explain but that’s not what I’m on about today.  For now, suffice to say there’s going to be trouble in the country.  Big trouble.  It’s a prediction of history.  My concern, here, is that when it happens, I fear the uprising will throw the baby out with the bath water by which I mean they may decide that, because the Constitution failed, they should go in some other direction.

But I think our Constitution was very well done.  It didn’t fail so much as it was “undone.”  As it happens, it needs only a few tweaks here and there to correct the errors that allowed the selfish few to bring it down.  The problem, as I see it, is one of those that have existed since time began: everyone thinks of themselves as ethical and upright.  This means the Congress critters of the late 18th century were not concerned enough about instituting controls over themselves or certain protections which have proven necessary over time.

So I’ve looked outward and backward and attempted to pick and choose ideas that will help when it comes time to start again.  I’ll give you an example.  After years of study and consideration, I’ve come to the conclusion that the loss of the independent media in America was the single most important victory for the privileged elite who mean to turn this country into their own personal fiefdoms.  They managed it by simply buying most of the media outlets.  Now we don’t get actual news anymore.  Now we get “infotainment” and there’s nothing people can do about it…because of the First Amendment.  You see, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech but freedom of speech includes freedom to lie.

I wouldn’t change that for individuals but accurate information is vital to the survival of a free society.  Unethical individuals have proven, now, that the destruction of accuracy in media equates to the destruction of the Republic.  It might seem as though the balance  – individual freedom of speech vs a requirement for honesty in news – is too difficult to achieve but look at one small addition to the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  Notwithstanding this guarantee, any organization that purports to be a news agency may not deliver false or misleading information.

One sentence.  It’s not even MY sentence.  I borrowed it from a successful model: Canada.  It does nothing to stop the Rush Limbaughs of the world and it shouldn’t.  Opinions are opinions and everyone has one but news…well, that’s important.  When websites or Russians or whomever flood social media with “fake news” it would be nice to have a place to go for REAL news; actual journalism, investigative reporting, that kind of thing.

A rule that requires news organizations to be honest is a rule that protects the Republic.  Yes, Fox “News” might have to change their name but not their content.  OR, their content if not their name but that’s exactly the point.  I hold that ANY source that pretends to be “news” but delivers misleading and/or outright false information is harmful to America.

I’ll tell you this:  I’ve given this idea a great deal of thought.  I know some will say it’s a bad idea but I can’t escape the notion that the people who will say so are the very same people who want to lie to you for their own benefit…

Am I wrong or am I right?

Paths to Destruction…

by MyBaconPress

Bad day all around, eh?  Trump orders attack on Syria, Republicans order attack on the Constitution.

I saw video of the gas attacks on civilians on ‘Vice News Tonight.’  Heartbreaking.  Unconscionable.  Unimaginable.  Any other words you can come up with that mean “assault on the civilized mind”.  I think Trump’s response was pure emotion.  On the one hand, I’m forced to admit, I kind of like that he was so outraged by the murder of innocents that he felt compelled to act.  My own, initial emotional reaction was the same: stop this now!  But my intellect tells me I’m wrong to feel that way, to feel good about a “feel good” response.  Because on the other hand, I don’t think it was a measured, well-thought-out action.  It was JUST an emotional response.

You get stung by a bee.  In the moment, it might feel good to “retaliate” by using a stick to whack the hive.  Intellectually, though, bad move.  You discover exactly HOW bad only after you strike.  How many “bee stings” has 45 generated with his emotional, not intellectual, answer?

My understanding (if one can understand the Syrian conflict) is that part of the reason the US has taken a more cautious approach in the past is because we don’t know who all the players are, let alone what they’re trying to do.  The one piece of information we DO have is that Russia backs Assad in Syria.  Do we now find ourselves in a proxy war with Russia?  Only time will tell.

There’s this: if it’s true the Russians have information that would be damaging to Trump, something like this might certainly be a catalyst to bringing it out…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Speaking of destruction, the coup seems complete now.  Republicans – who only retain the power they have by cheating (gerrymandering, to be specific) – have turned a dishonorable, intentional blind eye to the abuses of the so-called “President” because he’s one of “theirs”.  They’ve allowed him to nominate an ideologue candidate for the “Supreme Court” to fill a stolen seat.  Now, they’ve invoked the so-called “nuclear option” to install the nominee who shouldn’t be.

So, by my count, the Presidency is rigged.  (If nothing else, Trump is guilty of violating the emoluments clause.)  The Congress is rigged.  (See the aforementioned gerrymandering.)  The “Supreme Court” is rigged.  (Clarence Thomas committed perjury and Neil Gorsuch sits in a stolen seat.)  The American press is rigged.  (In service to the American aristocracy.)

So where do we turn?  What’s left?  How do the American people fight back against this now very UN-American government?  In my head, I keep hearing John F. Kennedy: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

Shit, man…