This blog is designed specifically for education purposes and includes writings on History, Science, Reason, Teaching, the Philosophy of Life and a bit of sports and entertainment. All of the writing is my own original work unless otherwise stated. An AI editor is used for grammatical purposes only. Please feel free to comment.
If we learn anything from Election 2020 it is that there is an extremely urgent need for ELECTORAL SYSTEM reform although I am not convinced that these will be carried out. There are too many entrenched players and political actors who benefit from the broken structure as it is.
These reforms are
• Abolition of Mail In Voting with the exception for residents who are out-of-state on the day of the election. Large scale mail-in voting at the level we just saw in the United States is easily subject to abuse. This is the reason why it is shunned in almost all (if not every) Western democracies
• Extension of the early voting-in-person period to mitigate against long lineups on election day and concerns regarding overcrowding
• Establishment of a National Election Board (this exists in Canada and it works) to ensure standardized procedure for ballots cast for national level positions (President, US Senate + National House of Representatives). The Board should include representatives from both major parties plus an independent voice. Elected positions for State positions should be handled by the state as they see fit (this is a state sovereignty issue)
• A blackout on calling election results until all polls have closed nationally (with the possible exception of Hawaii for time delay issues)
• Better transparency in counting. Each voting precinct should give free and open access to observers from both major parties plus an independent to check for irregularities
• When voting a valid photo ID should be required
• A thorough audit of voting machines should be carried out before the elections and checked off by Independent observers to ensure that they have not been compromised.
Now here is the kicker. Electoral reform should benefit both sides of the political equation. It may not seem so at the time but I would urge caution in allowing your confirmation bias to run roughshod over better judgement.
From the article: A 47 percent plurality of Democrats thought there would be a fair election, with 31 percent saying there would not and 22 percent responding that they were unsure. Among Republican voters, 48 percent said it would not be free and fair, 28 percent said it would and 25 percent were unsure.
Entering office with a strong air of legitimacy is big plus especially in a political environment fraught with division. Poor electoral practices can cut both ways. Remember it wasn’t long ago when Stacey Adams insisted with very little evidence that the Georgia Gubernatorial race was stolen from her. It wasn’t of course but it was clear to many that there were deficiencies in the system
Electoral reform ought to be a win-win situation for both sides unless one has something to hide. Now there wouldn’t been any of that would there?
I am not sure how likely it is on an absolute level however it does seem to be the best approach of all the avenues open to us in the SETI quest. The problem though is that we aren’t even sure if intelligent life exists beyond Earth to receive, process and then reply to such a radio signal.
The Drake Equation seems to suggest that there is a strong possibility but the Fermi Paradox (which isn’t really a paradox) throws cold water on this. There are so many unknowns underpinning Drake’s approximation.
It could indeed be the case that we are alone - an accident in the biological and evolutionary numbers game. I would like to think that this is not the case (being somewhat of a Carl Sagan fan) but I am cognizant of a wishful thinking element here.
Having said that if we are to engage in contact, communication via radio waves, with their high velocity of transmission, offers the best methodology in our outreach arsenal. We have the technology available so we might as well go for it.
Hopefully the recipients will be more Vulcan than Klingon.
I have a progressive friend who I discuss politics with. Yes - people with opposing views can debate with each other without inflicting bodily harm on one another. We banter back and forth but get on rather well otherwise.
Sometimes in the spirit of getting under his skin (why not? life is short) I use Democrat Party as opposed to Democratic when referring to his beloved Donks. It drives him nuts. So I asked him one time why that was the case?
His answer was that the Party’s name is the Democratic Party. Fair enough I knew that. But why the anger? Democrat isn’t exactly a universal cuss word (partisan politics aside). In fact that is the adjective that we use for politicians with a D next to their name. Surely there are bigger issues to rile oneself up with then the dropping of the -ic.
Researching the issue further on my own I came across a study by Republican pollster Frank Luntz. After much data collection Luntz concluded that it was only really the most partisan of Democrats who were bothered by this. However the reasons given were once again very vague.
If Right wing Republicans are using it as a taunt why give in to the troll and respond in the way that they want you to? It seems self defeating. So I dug deeper.
According to the literature the term Democrat Party actually goes back as far as 1890. It was first used as a synonym for the Democratic Party.
Here is the earliest use I could find
Whether a little farmer from South Carolina named Tillman is going to rule the Democrat Party in America—yet it is this, and not output, on which the proximate value of silver depends.
Democrat Party has been used several times by the Republicans but has never been officially adopted by the RNC. The backlash tends to be intense. Jack Kemp actually nixed the idea when it came up in the 1984 convention.
So after looking at this further I came to an explanation that makes some sense (albeit with somewhat of a grain of salt). Democrat Party sounds a lot like Autocrat Party or Bureaucrat Party and nobody within the accepted political dimensions wants to belong to anything that approximates such a structure - at least in principle -, hence the hostility. So reasons William Safire.
Perhaps he is correct, although the message seems to have been lost on Messrs Newsom, Whitmer, De Blasio and Garcetti circa 2020, who look set to follow in the footsteps of Woodrow Wilson in using the excuse of a supposed national crisis to clamp down on civil liberties. Odd isn’t that? Democrat, Autocrat…oh whatever.
As for myself I retired the old jibe. Its utility has served its purpose. Life moves on and I am sure my friend will throw his fair share of barbs at my face. Although I still chuckle at the trigger appeal of a term that offers such Pavlovian benefits. Life offers so much of a wicked appeal.
Sources
Oxford English Dictionary under "Democrat" 4 citing the London Spectator November 15, 1890 p. 676.
The history of the abolition of slavery actually goes back
some time in the Western world. In Ancient Greece the famed lawgiver Solon abolished debt slavery in the early sixth
century BC. Debt bondage was also outlawed in the Roman Republic in 326 BC.
Throughout the Middle Ages there were many attempts to curb the practice. These
include Pope John’s prohibition on the enslavement of Christians (873), the decision by the City of London to ban the
slave trade (1102) and the famed Sachenspiegel (1220) in Germany that condemned
slavery as a violation of man being created in the image of God.
Solon - Early abolitionist source: ancient.eu
In Spain the unified monarchy of Ferdinand and Isabella took
a strong stance against both slavery in the new territories as well as the remnant
serfdom back in the mother country between
1477 and 1493. However even with such a position regarding the fate of the native people this did not deter the Spanish, Portuguese,
English and Dutch (plus other Europeans) from involvement in the Transatlantic
Slave Trade that we have already discussed at length (See Western History 153).
Slaves source: The Transatlantic Slave Trade Data Base
In 1652 Rhode Island, Roger Williams and Samuel Gorton
advanced legislation banning slavery in the Providence Plantations.This followed in the wake of earlier
legislation across Europe that had emancipated serfs in England (1574), ended
Chinese slavery in the Portuguese colonies (1595) and prohibited the sale of
Russian slaves to the Muslims (1649). In 1706 England, the court ruled (Smith v Browne &
Copper) that ‘Negro’ slaves were to be
set free as soon as they entered England.
During the American Revolution the
slave trade was largely banned or suspended. The English tried to coax slaves to take an anti Revolution position with
a promise of liberation, The Dunmore
Proclamation in Virginia was one such initiative.
Meanwhile organizations such as the Pennsylvania Abolition Society
were formed to oppose slavery (many of its founders were religious Christian Quakers). The
Constitution of the Republic of Vermont partially banned slavery in 1777. In
the 1780s following Independence Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island and
New Hampshire moved to abolish slavery.
In 1787 the British colony of Sierre Leone was formed as a refuge for
emancipated slaves as abolition societies made strong inroads in Britain, France and Denmark-Norway. A key figure in the abolitionist movement was philanthropist politician William Wilberforce.
William Wilbeforce source: Britannica.com
Slavery was banned in the French possessions
in 1793. In the same year slavery ended in Upper Canada (the future Ontario, Canada). New York
would start freeing childhood slaves in 1799. By 1827 slavery in the state no
longer officially existed. New Jersey would end slavery in 1804.
Four years before that American citizens were prohibited
from investment and employment in the slave trade. The import of slaves from aboard was outlawed by the Act Prohibiting the Import of Slaves (1807). Domestic Slave Trading in the United States would continue until 1865.
Finally in 1807 the Abolition of Slavery Act was passed in
the British Parliament ending the awful practice across the Empire.
Act for the Abolition of Slavery source: www.insidehook.com
I would give Trump a seven and a very solid one at that even though I believe it is still way too early to fully judge his Presidency. The fog of war has not lifted at all and I am convinced that just like Harry Truman who left office with an average approval rating of 45.4% history will be kind to DJT. Presidential Approval Ratings -- Gallup Historical Statistics and Trends
Now just to show where that seven ranks with respect to the Post WWII presidents. Here is my take based on a reading of history and the consequence of their respective actions - Truman 8, Eisenhower 7.5, Kennedy 8, Johnson 5.5, Nixon 5, Ford 5, Carter 5, Reagan 8, George HW Bush 6, Clinton 7.5, George W Bush 5 and Obama 5 . We now have a frame of reference.
So why then do I believe that DJT, who by many accounts looks to be the most divisive President in modern history is worthy of such a relatively high ranking?
Here are the big items
Economics - Until the unfortunate emergence of COVID-19 the US economy under Trump was thriving. Growth rates were consistently high and unemployment (both U3 and U6) continued to tumble. Critics like to point out that this trend was a continuation of the Obama recovery (which finally kicked in after five years into his Presidency under the watchful eye of a GOP congress). There is some truth to this but the Trump era economy built significantly on this earlier showing. Trump also didn’t have the luxury of referencing his recovery to a weaker base which had the add-on effect of making Obama’s performance look better than it actually was. Trump’s Economy Really Was Better Than Obama’s and Black unemployment rate falls to a record low
A big reason for this continued economic success, was that the Trump Presidency was especially friendly towards medium sized and smaller businesses. His decision to remove the burden of stifling regulation - a legacy of the Obama and other administrations - was a step in the right direction as was were his overall tax cuts.
After scourge of COVID-19 made its presence felt the economic markers dropped but this was consistent with a global trend. Lockdowns are economic killers. Nevertheless the fundamentals remain strong and unless the likely incoming Biden administration radically tinkers with the key drivers we are likely to see a V rather than a K shaped recovery.Trump says the economy is booming. He's right -- but you don't feel it.
(You don’t feel it as COVID-19 is still with us and many states are a long way from fully opening up their economies).
Source: CNBC
Foreign Policy - Trump’s greatest success here is undoubtedly in the realm of the Middle East. His movement of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was a bold and long overdue action. Previous administrations had promised to do this but failed to deliver. His administration also catalyzed and carried through peace initiatives that normalized relations between Israel, the UAE, Bahrain and Sudan. Saudi Arabia looks set to follow soon.
Israel-UAE Agreement source: CNBC
Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal) was the correct one as well. The deal did nothing to curb Iran’s long term nuclear ambition while it empowered the Mullahs through the lifting of sanctions to further strengthen their proxy armies in Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen.
Payback in the form of the earlier execution of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was also welcomed. It followed on the heels of the defeat of Daesh in Syria and its weakening in Iraq. Both were fueled by American initiatives in the early part of Trump’s presidency.Trump: 'Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead'
The Trump administration also re-adapted the of NAFTA agreement into the more relevant USMCA which was agreed on by all three countries (ironically it may have helped give Justin Trudeau the necessary boost in the 2019 Canadian national election).
While relations with Germany and France at time seemed strained a great deal of the sense of an impasse was largely driven by media reporting that was consistently hostile to Trump. Unfortunately such reporting has muddied the waters. Trump was correct in pushing the European countries to up their defensive contribution to NATO. For too long many of these countries have outsourced their defense to the US (and by extension the US taxpayer). If NATO is to succeed then they need to pay their fair share. If anything Trump’s advocacy here would strengthen not weaken NATO. Once again the media got this backward.Here's what each NATO country contributes financially to the world's strongest military alliance
With respect to China, Trump was fully justified in taking Beijing to task for abusing their Most Favoured Nation Status (so eagerly granted by earlier administrations). Their unfair subsidy of their locally produced goods and raw materials flies in the face of the free trade mantra. This has been known for some time. The Obama administration tried to address this issue themselves. While tariffs are problematic in the long run, they do offer a necessary methodology to force a trade partner, which is refusing to play by the accepted rules to modify their behaviour. The results here were mixed but it was a critical step in the right direction. If China wants the benefits of MFN status they must play by the rules. If not then a rethink of the status is warranted. Normalizing Trade Relations With China Was a Mistake
Some have criticized Trump’s relationship with Vladimir Putin, a trope that led to the lunacy of the entire Russian collusion narrative. The two have a very cordial relationship but I fail to see how that should be viewed as a negative. If anything co-operation between the two most powerful nuclear forces should be welcomed. The silly notion of Trump as being beholden to Putin simply did not stand up to the facts as I point out here. Is Trump Putin's puppet as Hillary opined?
So there is much that is positive that one can take away, but the most significant of all the foreign policy accomplishments is the fact that Trump has avoided embroiling the United States in a new war or a broader foreign conflict. This was not the case with many of his predecessors. For this alone we ought to be grateful.
Immigration
No President has been able to truly tackle the real concerns with Immigration despite the fact that most Americans seem to agree that legal immigration is for the most part a good idea for the country (based on economic and structural needs) while illegal immigration which flouts the rule of law isn’t.
The reason for historical Presidential failure is that the issue is complicated by several factors that include a demand for cheap labour, poor economic conditions south of the border and the all too frequent accusations of racism that are dishonestly thrown at anybody who attempts to address what is clearly a broken system.
Source: NBC News Cracking down on illegal immigration
The United States had by 2015 a total of 10.5 million undocumented immigrants which if they voted as a state block would be the equivalent of about 15–16 electoral college votes (almost as much as Ohio) Pew Documentation
As a number this figure is likely an understatement. It will if not curtailed likely grow in time placing placing economic and demographic stress on the nation’s socio-economic infrastructure. The Border wall was no panacea but it represented a necessary step to control aspects of the inflow that has brought with it the predictable problems of human and drug trafficking. Previous policies centering around catch and release had limited efficacy with earlier administrations effectively kicking the can down the road for the next holder of the Oval Office to deal with.
In this regard Trump faced tremendous opposition from special interest groups who profit from such free movement of labour. A compromise agreement - The Secure and Succeed Act (supported by Trump) offered a form of conditional permanent residency for some of these undocumented immigrants.
This included a 10 to 12 year pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients, a request for $25 billion in border wall funding/infrastructure security, limits on family migration and an end to the visa lottery (in exchange for re-allocating these visas to family and work based applicants) and finally various restrictions on legal immigration in the light of economic concerns.
The plan made a lot of sense and was in many ways more generous by a factor of almost three than the Obama era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that impacted 690,000 individuals. Trump plan offers citizenship path to 1.8 million immigrants. Unfortunately a combination of Democrats (opposed to giving Trump a victory at all in this high profile field) plus several Conservative Republicans holdouts ensured the demise of what would have been a possible breakthrough.
I suspect that a Trump second term would have seen both Immigration reform and Healthcare emerge as key priorities.
Race relations and Sexual Identity Issues
The media persisted with vigilance throughout Trump’s four years in office in attacking him for being a racist. He isn’t. Like the facade of the phony Steele’s Dossier and the partisan impeachment scam there was no real substance to this at all.
Trump’s impact on the American judiciary has been very significant. He has had three SCOTUS appointees and has added a further 200+ judges to the various courts of Appeals and district courts throughout the country. Many of these judges hold to the strict originalist position that disdains the notion of judicial activism. The nation will be better for this.
In addition he has helped move forward with the United States Space Force initiative - a throwback to the Eisenhower/Kennedy era that will looks to play an important role in a future space policy. Trump Created The Space Force. Here's What It Will Actually Do.
The Administration’s positive work on Veterans Affairs is also commendable. . Veterans Affairs reform is now reality under President Trump. His pressure on the pharmaceutical industry to lower drug prices is also a vital positive step. I suspect that will bear fruit soon.
To many there is a belief that Trump has bungled the COVID-19 response in the United States. His approach here wasn’t perfect (no world leaders was) but it was far from a failure. I have discussed this at length here - Trump's Covid Response.
It is refreshing to see that Trump is now gaining credit for the COVID-19 vaccine initiative - Operation Warp Speed - Operation Warp Speed.
So if Trump is doing so well why not give him an 8 or a 9?
The reason for this is that Policy Trump (his strong side) does not gel with Personal Trump. Personal Trump brings with it elements that don't do him any favour. This is the side that includes the name calling, the twittering, the silly remarks (many of which were taken out of context) and his personal foibles that make him a slave of the ‘sturm and drang’ of the political amphitheatre.
Faced with a media that jeered both his good and bad and twisted facts to frame an alternative reality he sometimes had no choice but to resort to Social Media and direct communication with the people. He was after all shattering an establishment paradigm and in doing so one will expect those who are most susceptible to being toppling to fight back. They did. Their often circus like actions have in many respects worsened America.
source: Syracuse.com
Having said that Presidents need to be presidential and that includes swallowing one’s pride and admitting to error. Trump rarely did this. He also had a bad habit of selecting the wrong people for their respective positions and then throwing them into the traffic when they invariably failed to deliver. Too often he made this personal (look at the case with Jeff Sessions) when it needn’t have been. This was a failure of Personality.
There were also policy initiatives that needed follow through. I believe that he could have done more for the Environment. Paris was a flawed deal and Trump did the right thing by withdrawing the US from what appeared to be an insipid monument to virtue signaling. However in doing so he needed to have an alternative on hand and this respect he was was lacking. Environmentalism is not just a left wing concern, stewardship of the land, air and water has always been part of the Conservative playbook. Trump failed to grasp this. It was an opportunity lost.
Trump also missed the mark at times in articulating his trade policies. Tariffs have some utility (as mentioned earlier) but in the long run they are problematic. Trump often failed to clarify this distinction which allowed the media to fill in the gaps in a way that took a negative and cynical broad swipe at his overall methodology.
So in closing…..
Well Trump’s Presidency had a unique feel to it. He was a genuine outsider in the true sense of the world and made great strides in challenging an establishment consensus that all too often has taken the American people for granted. He fought back against elites from both parties and he took his message to the people.
While at times he fumbled, he also had many successes and it was with these breakthroughs that his presidency shone. He charged and attacked that which was not deserving of being sacred and in doing so exposed the vacuous nature of the media and the layers of ossified corruption that so suffused big government. He was a wake up call for a system that had grown comfortable with managed decline. Like the rest of us he was imperfect. He never could shake his salesman demeanour and was too often a slave to his own superlatives but for all his flaws I believe that he genuinely cared. He had at his heart a better vision of the US and he chose to act on it. Sometimes a champion of the Republic comes from the most unlikely source.
The Laws of Physics are what they are - plain and simple. If they were otherwise the universe would look markedly different and indeed if sentient life had existence in such a hypothetical universe (in some form or another) the question of importance would hinge on the specific local reality.
The importance we assign to the Conservation of Momentum (COM), or any other physics law for that matter, is a value judgement of how it impacts us. We need to walk, run, swim or jump so we rely on Newton’s Third Law (which is an alternative way of stating COM), hence we value it.
We make use of rocket and jet propulsion for travel so we elevate the importance of COM again. Action-Reaction forces and collision physics have played a vital role in planetary and stellar formation so we highlight its importance. After all what we believe life to be requires these structures to function.
However this needn’t be the case. It is conceivable that superstructures may arise from systems that don’t adhere to COM. In which case those working off an alternative ‘Quora’ in a parallel world may be offering thanks to an obvious paradigm that subscribes to a non-COM truism.
