The 2nd Amendment vs. ICE

The founding fathers of this nation ere concerned about how a federal military and the potential for negative consequences for the population. These fears were expressed in the Declaration of Independance where it specified grievance ag ainst King George by saying "He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the onsent of our legislatures", "He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power", and  "For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states."

Don't some of these claims ring true today? In fact most of the founding fathers were concerned that any federal standing army could be turned against the citizenry.

George Mason (1788) "When once a standing army is established, the people lose their liberty. The most effective way to enslave tham is to disarm them."

Elbridge Gerry (1789) Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

Noah Webster (1787) "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed... The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops"

Back when the 2nd amendment was ratified, it was probably true that an armed citizenry would suffice to prevent a totalitarian government from abridging liberties. I  argue that  today things are quite different since the President controls the most powerful military in the world. If he decided to turn it against the citizens, how could an armed citizenry defend themselves?

President Trump seems to be doing his best to disarm and intimidate us into submitting to his will. I believe that he wants to be a dictator. He has already deployed armioes of federal ICE agent to major cities creating havoc and even death. These agents bear no identies, wear masks and claim openly that they "are above the law/" The President has even gone further saying that he is willing to invoke the Insurrection Act so he can send in federal troops wherever he, personally, determines that things are not going his way.

WARNING The problems with ICE and the Presidents threats regarding the domestic use of federal troops are a precursor to the establishment of Donald Trump as a supreme Dictator and Tyrant - Much like Vladimir Putin, Kim Jun Un and Adolf Hitler.

King Donald - Revised

Recent actions by Donald Trump reminds me of King George back in colonial days. As the Declaration of Independence outlined the wrongs committed by The King which led to the founding of our nation, so Mr Trump could be accused of similar wrongs.

The Declaration of Independencs says, "He [King George] has endeavoured to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass otherds to encourage their migration hither; and raising the conditions of new Appropriation of Lands". That sounds to me like how Mr Trump is obstructing immigration; especially over our Southern border. His actions to eliminate the right of citizenship by birth also seem wrongful.

The Declaration also says, "He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries". Mr Trump  has loaded the Supreme Court with justices who have recently said that he cannot be tried for crimes he may commit as "official acts". This has enabled him to break the law by firing several Inspector's General in violation of the 30 days notice required by law. In his previous administration, he also fired several Attorney's General because they disagreed with hime. He also failed to appoint any members to the Federal Merit Systems Protection Board; thus denying employees and whistelblowers their protection under the law. 

The Declaration says.'...for cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world". Mr Trump has turned US trade policy upside down. He has engaged in trade wars between the United States and China, Mexico, Canada, Europe, South Korea, Japan and even Britain itself as well as other random nations. He has railed against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement. He has broken alliances with other nations and withdrawn from the Paris Accord and numerous other treaties.

The Declaration goes on to say, "He has excited domestic insurrection amongst us". Mr Trump supported (if not ordered) the January 6th rebellion and has suggested that he would use federal troops to quell demonstrations. He has granted pardons to most of those who were convicted of crimes related to the insurrection. He has made statements and remarks that have actually inflammed this and other demonstrations.

The bottom line is that Mr Trump is not a King, but he has behaved much like one. By stacking carious departments and agencies with his political cronies, he has behaved like a typical totalitarian dictator. He has actively supported division amongst the people. He has violated the Constitution by writing many Presidential Orders which are not sanctioned by the Constitution nor with the advice of Congress. Writing laws is the job of the Congress (albeit itself currently horribly divided). The President's job is merely to execute the laws passed by Congress. He cannot make law. He cannot and shuld not have it "his" way. He does not own the country like he owned his businesses. He cannot simply say "you're fired" when things don't go his way.

The Political Bell Curve

The bell curve is a shape often used to represent the distribution of opinions or behaviors. In elections, it provides a compelling way to understand why voting is critical and how it can influence the political landscape.

At the peak of the curve is where the majority of voters opinions lie. This represents the collective will of most people. The edges of the curve represent the extreme or minority viewpoints, which while valid, may not reflect the desires of most people.

Unfortunately, it is the people from the edges that generally go to the polls for the primaries. There they tend to nominate "fringe" candidates that will move forward to the general elections. As a result the majority of votersd are asked to select between "fringe" candidates that most likely do not represent the majority points of view. It becomes a choice between the lesser of two evils. This is hardly "democratic".

When voter turnout is high, the curve remains balanced and the collective majority shapes the outcome. However when turnout is low, the bell curve shifts towards one side or the other, allowing the extremes to dominate.  

Low Voter Turnout: In many primaries, particularly in off-cycle or less competetive races, turnout can be relatively low. This gives more weight to motivated, often more ideologically extreme voters. This leads to nominating fringe candidates that appeal to a small but highly engage base.

Party Base Influence: Primaries are typically more about appealing to a party's base rather than the majority general electorate. This often leads to the rise of candidates with extreme or unconventional views because they are able to energize and mobilize a particular faction of their party.

Democracy seems to work best when there is high voter turnout typically because there is more mass in the high part of the bell curve making the fringes less meaningful to the outcome.

Perhaps Ranked Choice Voting (RVC) might minimize having extremist candidates at the general election. Because voters to rank candidate in order of preference, RCV encourages candidates to appeal to a broader base of voters.

1. Broader Appeal: Because candidayes must consider that they may need to secure a second or third-choice vote to win, they will be lead to more moderate positions that appeal to more voters
   
   
2. Less Negative Campaigning: Since a candidate may nneed to appear to a second-choice voter, they have incentive not to harshly attack other opponents.
   
   
3. Moeration in Governance: Elected officials who win through RCVmay feel a mandate to govern with a more balanced perspective having won from a broader based electorate.

While RVC has the potential to moderate political extremes, its effectivness depends on factors such as political culture, voter participation  and how well the system is understood.

NOT a Mandate

Despite what President Trump may think, he was NOT given a mandate in his election. He won by one of the narrowist margins in history. A margin of only 0.15% of the popular vote is most certainly not a charter to do anything he wants. That is only a tiny fraction of the "landslide" 22.6% margin of 1964.

Not only that, he also did not get a majority of the voyes either. He only received 49.8* of all popular votes that were cast. Compare that with George W. Bush with 50.3% in 2004, Barrack Obama with 52.9% in 2008 and 51% in 2012, or Joe Biden with 51.3% in 2020. Even when consoidering the Electoral College votes, Trump only received 6 more votes than Harris; 312 to 306.

Yet Trump and his allies are claiming a "landslide" and a "blowout". From their telling, Trump's "sweeping" and "historic" victory has given MAGA a "powerful mandate" to govern. Everyone's vote counted, but the real outcome came down to the choices of just a tiny sliver of swing state voters. NOT a mandate from my perspective.

Can We Avoid Disaster?

 Why do we allow ourselves to be distracted by politics when no leaders, reall none of them, are even talking about the BIG problems. The kind of problems that put the very existance of humanity in the balance.

Chief among the concerns that most leaders avoid discussing is Climate Change. This is a multi-directional problem that involve MUCH more than just the burning of fossile fuels. It is so serious, that in a mere 20 or 30 years, the human race may not be able to survive on planet Earth.

Look at this graph, which shows that not only is the mean global temperature increasing, it now shows an exponential curve that is accelerating.

If this trend continues, the "tipping point" of a 2.5 degree Celcius will be reach much sooner that originally expected. And much like many other things that have momentum, there is likely to be an overshoot of the target before things go back to normal.

At present, it looks like the tipping point will be reached in the next 5-10 years instead of 25. Of course, many of our leaders will be out of power or even dead by then. But, do they not have any concern for their legacy, the people wh o will outlive them, their children and grandchildren. Is business so short sighted that they don't care what happens beyond the profit from the next quarter?

Climate change is a huge problem that involves many social and economic sectors. Here is a graph that shows how many different factors are all contributing the the changes. They ALL must be addressed - NOW!

I believe that the signs are clear - DOOM awaits humanity if we do not reverse these treands. I urge all citizens to appeal to their political leaders to STOP fostering popular and political divisions and come together to solve one of Earth's most urgent problems.

The window of opportunity is closing rapidly. There is still a very slim chance that we may avoid catastrophy.

The End of the Industrial Revolution

One might say that the purpose of the industrial revolution was to relieve humanity of the need for labor by introducing machines. The epitome of the revolution then will come when robots replace all humans in whatever jobs they might do.

Looking at thr rapid improvements in the state of artificial intelligence and robotics, I believe that we are very near the end of the industrial age. Probably within the next 10 to 15 years, robotic androids will be able to do everything than humans might do. it is estimated that by 2036 there will be more robots in total number than humans. Robots to cook meals, clean the house, baby sit the kids, plough the fields and reap the harvest... The list is endless. Robots will even be able to replicate themselves. In a limited way, they already can.

So what will us humans do?

If I were 25 years old today, I would be terrified. Huge obstacles are in their way such as global warming, devaluing of the dollar, real imcome being diminished, real expenses being inflated, jobs replaced by robots, etc. It's rerally scary!

Fixing these thing require leadership that has view for the future; not the past, despite how "great" our country may have been. After all, the future is created by the actions and choices we make today. However, I do not see any leaders (anywhere in the world) who are actually trying to focus on the results of their actions upon  the future of mankind. Rather, they continue to look backward saying things like "We'll make America great again". In actuality, America cannot ever again be "great" in the way it was in previous years.

Going into the future without competant leadership means that the future will be chaos and humanity will pay the price. We might even become extinct.

Do We Love Our Children

I would say that we probably don't. We have left them an environment destined for disaster.

Looking at the past several generations, I am seeing some alarming trends. Looking back several generations at age 25 and adjusted for inflation, we see 

There is a widening gap from one generation to the next in these and other dimensions. 

Basically the younger the person, the more they lack opportunity and prosperity. Today's 30-year-old is no longer doing as well as his or her parents did when they were 30. This is a fundamental breakdown in a society that should be making things better for the next generation.

People over the age of 55 feel pretty good about America. But 

less than one in five people under the age of 34 

feel good about America. Young people are pissed off and angry because they aren't receiving the same opportunity and prosperity that was available to their parents.. Many feel despondent and hopeless because they know they aren't getting anything near what their parents got. Some give up and become complacent while others turn to resistence, outbreak and even violence.

How much do we value youth labor when we've kept the minimum wage very low? If adjusted by inflation, it should be almost $25 per hour. 

Housing costs have skyrocketed when compared with the avertage personal income. Mortgages have risen from aroung $1000 to over $2500 due to rising interest rates and the inflated costs of the dwellings themselves. An average $250,000 home has risen to well over $500,000.

In only a few short years wealth has been transfered from young to old. In 1989 people under the age of 40 controlled over 12% of the household wealth. In 2023 that share was nearly cut in half to a mere 7% while those over the age of 70 nearly doubled their wealth. 

Every year botaining higher education becomes more difficult. Generally it has become more difficult to gain admission and , once admitted, the costs have increased dramatically. In 1987 The Ivy league schools on average admitted between 16 and 20 percent of the applicatants. Today the average is less thn 10%. According to the College Board the costs have skyrocketed for both Sate and Ivy League institutions.

Todays students are at a definiate disadvantage both in gaining admittance and payimg significantly higher costs.

More to come...