Obama Is a Muslim Terrorist, Gun-grabbing Socialist, and the Destroyer of the US Economy.... (or, so we were told by the cons)

As we're drawing closer to the unthinkable, that is, uttering the phrase, "president Trump", there might be time for Obama to live up to the worst fears of the Republicans, tea partiers, and conspiracy idiots.

Now, of course, this won't happen, but it actually won't be noticed by the knuckleheads who've been accusing president Obama of all those things that were actually lies, that he wasn't, and he didn't.  I don't think they'll really notice the tricks Trump will be pulling off to not do what he promised during the campaign.

Happy new year. The resistance begins on January 20th, 2017. I mean, believe you me, Trump is already responsible for bad weather, disease & pestilence, the middle class woes, Putin's grab of power, the rich getting richer, billionaires in charge of our government, and the Giants' loss in the playoffs.

Our Worst Fears for the 2016 Election Materialized: The Most Unqualified Candidate in 100 yrs is Elected President

Twelve years ago, I worked for the Kerry campaign in Cleveland, Ohio, and on the day after the election we were stunned, defeated, and despondent. But, this feels worse, much worse. The candidate, now president-elect, is worse than GWB, and the way he got to the finish line is irredeemably deplorable. 

I could understand why Americans chose GWB to remain as the commander-in-chief in 2004 at the height of two wars, but it hurts when half the country voted for Donald Trump who built his campaign on racism, xenophobia, hate, attacking people and the constitution, insults with no limits, threats, childish temper tantrums, and by bringing out the worst among us. I did not believe we could be so bad as a nation to elect and find someone like Trump acceptable. Even if you believe you have termites eating your house, you don't fight them by torch.  

I am for democracy, and support the institutions of this great country. Institutions that DJT does not respect. We accept the verdict of the voters, even if we disagree with it. The rules may be outdated--the EC, winner take all system, etc--but they apply to all competitors. Imagine what Trump and his cohorts would say had he, like JRC, won the popular vote but lost in the EC.... He refused to say whether he would accept the outcome of this election if he lost.... This child in man's clothes, who throws a fit, "it's not fair", when he thinks he might lose--a blatant disregard for our institutions and acceptable norms of civility, and citizenship.

What Now?

 It'll take a while for the shock to wear off, though I don't think I'll find the outcome any less palatable for years to come. We'll pour over data to try to understand what exactly happened and plot ahead. Much will depend on how Trump governs. One of the terrifying things about him is that his awful character flaws that make him unfit for the office may result in unpredictable consequences. With GWB we knew what to expect. Did it make it more acceptable? Not really, but he wasn't crazy unpredictable.

It took an non-traditional Republican to win the presidency for the Republicans. But they took a big gamble with Trump. He demolished traditional Republican policy values: free trade and no protectionism; no talk of redistribution of resources; no regulation of Wall Street; pro-NATO and strong presence all over the globe; no tariffs; etc.  There will be clashes within the GOP. Trump's feud with Speaker Ryan may escalate. Will Trump choose the tea party or the Republican party establishment?

Is Trump capable of changing his style? No, not his hair, but the way he's run his business and his TV show. You can't run the country like that, or like a country club or a casino. Nor can you fail to uphold the obligations the country has undertaken, from foreign treaties, to the national debt, to the social safety net.

Most Americans vote on a loose, simple narrative and feelings. They don't know or care to understand the workings of our complicated political system that's been in place for hundreds of years. However, while the majority of Americans wanted change--and Trump represented change--they'll expect change. They'll be aware that the Republicans will control the Executive and both chambers of Congress, so Trump and the GOP will have no good excuse for not delivering what the people want. Now, many of Trump's promises aren't realistic, from building the wall to bringing back factories and improving the lives of the middle class by trickle-down economics and weakening consumer protection.

I personally know people who did not vote for HR Clinton because she was very unappealing to them, and  while they found Trump abhorrent, they didn't reason out: not HRC = yes DJT. This group included 10% of 18-35 year-olds who voted for third parties or millions of them who didn't vote at all. Trump got the majority of women! Trump got more Hispanic/Latino votes than Romney. Likewise, millions of people who benefited from the social safety net, including Obamacare, didn't bother to vote. Elections have consequences and these groups will feel this. First thing on the agenda: repealing Obamacare, so 20 million Americans will soon find out how free they'll be from the government obliging them to have health insurance by not having no insurance.

One thing for sure, Trump will shake the foundations of this country. 

It's been an exhausting campaign and a draining couple of days... I'm afraid this is not going to get any easier for a long time. To all my liberal friends, this is not the end. The country is moving in a progressive direction; look what policies, often via referendum, states are adopting. Many important steps are laid in stone by now, and even though we got an anti-science president and a creationist VP, progress will prevail; it'll just take a detour in the next 4 years. It's up to us to reverse this setback as soon as possible, but we have to bring a sizeable chunk of those misguided people who voted for Trump to our side. Most of them are not part of the fascist core that propelled Trump's campaign, so we have to become even more vocal and active. It's probably the best therapy for us now.

Are Electric Vehicles ready for prime time?

EV vs ICE Essentials
With the success of Tesla and the current trend to have every major car manufacturer offer an electric vehicle it is becoming more important than ever to explain in simple language the essentials of what is the major fuel consumption difference between an internal combustion engine (ICE) and an electrically driven vehicle (EV). There is some truth in the popular belief that EV is overall more environmentally friendly than ICE but what is crucial is to understand clearly that there are some factors that can diminish and even eliminate the perceived advantage of an EV, namely how the electricity was generated and its retail cost. On the other hand the advantage of an EV can be enhanced through producing cleaner electricity ; from natural gas, solar, wind or even nuclear; and through higher prices for gasoline at the pump due to higher taxes.

The following are some facts that are not clearly understood by many consumers:

A zero emissions electric powered engine does not exist, yet. It is true that the driver of a Tesla (TSLA), Nissan Leaf (NSANY), Chevrolet Volt (GM) or any of the other EV vehicles does not emit directly any CO2 while operating the EV vehicle. But the electricity does not get generated from thin air. If the electricity is being produced by a coal fired power plant or any other fossil fuel then the electric power used to charge the batteries of EV vehicles would not result in any significant decrease of CO2 emissions. Many studies have actually shown that in many cases CO2 emissions would actually increase.

In the US the production of an average KWH of electricity generates about 1.2 pounds of CO2 (as per data from US Energy Information Administration). In some localities the emissions are greater and in others smaller than that since different regions produce electricity from different fuel sources. Furthermore an average KWH stored in a battery drives an EV about 3 miles. EX. VOLT has a battery whose capacity is 18.4 KWH and a range of 53 miles while the 85 KWH in a Tesla has a range of 265 miles. So how does this compare to an internal combustion engine ? Every gallon of gasoline produces about 20 pounds of CO2 when fully combusted although the gallon weighs less than 7 pounds. That is explained by the weight of the oxygen that is needed for the combustion.(USEIA calculates that a gallon of gasoline free from ethanol produces 19.64 pounds of CO2).

Based on the above it is clear that an EV vehicle will travel 1 mile and emit 0.4 pounds of CO2 (1.2pounds/3 miles) while an ICE vehicle that averages 20 mpg emits about 1 pound per mile (20 ponds/20 miles). If a typical vehicle is to be operated for 10,000 miles a year then an EV vehicle would produce 6000 less pounds pf CO2 compared to a 20mpg ICE car. The market value of this 2.7 metric tons of CO2 is under $100 per year. Note though, that as the mpg increases in an ICE vehicle then it approaches the emission cleanliness of an EV. Actually an ICE powered vehicle that has a fuel efficiency of 50 mpg will emit the same amount of CO2 per mile as the average EV vehicle using a typical US produced KWH of electricity.

Financial comparisons

Unfortunately some individuals are not that much interested in the environmental advantages of EV over Ice but are more financially pragmatic, they would be interested in an EV purchase provided that the initial price premium can be reasonably expected to result in sufficient fuel saving. Again the facts show, unfortunately, that the EV premiums are not justified on a cash flow basis. 

Let us look at the scientific figures:

Retail price of KWH differs substantially from one region of the country to another. In some cases a KWH retails for up to $0.26 cents (NYC and Westchester including taxes and surcharges) while in other regions it is under $0.1 (Oklahoma 0.0706; Texas 0.076; Virginia 0.081).Clearly, charging an EV in the state of NY is much more expensive than the state of Oklahoma. This implies that EV’s will probably need a much longer period of time to recapture the initial premium charged by the manufacturers. Based on the above, it is clear that fuel cost for an EV could be as high as 9 cents per mile and possibly as low as 3.5-4 cents a mile in some cases. 

How does this compare to an ICE powered automobile? Assume an average price of $2.4 for a gallon of unleaded regular and the CAFÉ standard of 35.5 mpg (Corporate Average Fuel Economy as set by the EPA) then the average cost of gasoline per mile would be under 7 cents which is less expensive than the cost of electricity to charge an EV in areas like NY. But since not many cars get the 35.5 mpg efficiency let us assume that the average automobile achieves an efficiency of 20 mpg. In this case the fuel cost per mile would be 12 cents. Such a cost will be only 3 cent per mile more expensive than the fuel cost for an EV in an area similar to that of NYC but it could be 8 cents more expensive than fueling an EV in such areas as Texas. 

So are the potential fuel savings of an EV vehicle large enough to rationalize the initial $10,000 premium for an EV charged by the manufacturer? (General Motors’ MSRP for the Chevrolet Cruze is about $10,000 less than that for a Chevrolet Volt). Unfortunately, the above simple calculations make it clear that no rational person would be willing to pay a premium of about $10,000 in order to actualize savings of about $300-800 per annum.

Conclusion

The EV fad is not about to make major inroads into the car market. Its vehicles are not zero emissions and their advantages over ICE are limited by science as well as tax policy.The average consumer will not pay a premium for a vehicle whose fuel results in almost the same volume of CO2 emissions as an ICE powered vehicle and whose fuel cost savings cannot justify the high premium being charged by the manufacturers.

This does not mean that there will not be a market for EV vehicles. It only suggests that a mass market for EVs is highly unlikely under the current conditions. Luxury brands such as Tesla, Mercedes Benz and BMW would have no problem catering to a small niche of conspicuous consumers that are driven by high prices, scarcity and perceived quality. A mass market of EV vehicles will not develop unless such automobiles consume fuel whose total direct and indirect emissions are less than ICE vehicles and whose projected annual savings in fuel cost justify the initial price premium. That can be accomplished either through higher gasoline prices or much lower initial price premium or a combination of both. This is why I do not think that the BOLT by the Chevrolet division of General Motors (GM) will be a big success in its current format.

False Equivalency and Laziness in our Politics

Bill Maher is spot on.

Several good points made here, like the amount of lies and the magnitude of those; not all are the same, and, yes, not all are evil.  Also, the lackadaisical attitude and citizenship failure of so many Americans who they hide behind cynicism so they don't have to invest time, energy, and precious brain cells into a process that has a direct effect on their lives! But they know about sports or the measurements of Kim Kardashian's ass.  Don't believe me? See how people talk about sports and the knowledge they exhibit.....

As for the latest FBI announcement that they found more emails... oyvey, I thought the FBI and the media (which are eating this latest "news") were in HR Clinton's corner.  Anyway, the bottom line is that this will not make any difference as most people already have decided that this scandal either enrages them or they don't care. It's beating a dead horse; it doesn't have legs anymore. I like the aggressive response by HRC to demand the FBI release all the details, and that this "revelation" is irresponsible at this stage. Those emails were not from her server but came from a separate investigation into a creep's (Anthony Weiner) sexting underage women.  I guess it was expected to move from the pussy-gate to weiner-gate.

Yes, It Does Reflect Who You Are, Donald! [just go away aready, you disgusting bully]

While the "deplorables" is a recent tag, and H.Clinton has gotten lots of criticism about this, it's appropriate. The only question is the size of this dirt bag. The GOP should have realized that Trump was riding a wave that had those deplorables as its core. The ones filled with hate, prejudice, and utter ignorance. And, he encouraged this. No party should have promoted anyone who gets on stage and denigrates possible future presidents of the US by calling them, "ugly," "little ..." . "lyin'.. etc, and brags about the size of his penis.

But, he is the product of the seeds and cultivation the GOP employed in the last 10 years. That unless Republicans are in charge everything else is suspect, treasonous, foreign, anti-American, anti-Xtian, illegitimate, and worthy of not only disrespect, but hate too. Everybody knows how the Congressional GOP and its leaders have behaved. Same with others down the line to local levels. Trump rode this wave the GOP created, so the GOP, Tea party, etc, all OWN him. As he said last week, "I reflect you"... 

This pussy-scandal shouldn't surprise anyone. If anyone didn't know of or cared about Don's personality before this latest revelation confirms that they've rightly have earned the label of deplorables!

A juvenile, braggart, vile, dangerous ignoramus, who wants to run the United States as a gambling hole, while encouraging and employing a basket of deplorables. He has lead them by example! What more do you want to reject this disgusting bully?

Divided Government, Partisanship and Glidlock, But Otherwise "We're Number One!"

As amazing as it may sound to those who follow politics, many people in our country don't really understand the role the US Supreme Court plays. They see the fight between president Obama and Congress about nominating a new justice as another political game. Many of my students when asked how does the high court affect their lives couldn't come up with specific cases that determined the conditions and direction of our country. A few mentioned the Roe v. Wade case and then a couple others remembered the decisions about "Obama care" and same-sex marriage.

It's the same view the general public has that things will work out, more or less regardless who's on the Supreme Court, and to similar extend in Congress. Oh, yeah, there's partisanship and some hot-button issues, but most of us have picked a team (like in sports), and we hope for the best while we expect to be disappointed by the way our political system works.

I hope this issue of getting the 9th justice on the supreme court is an educational opportunity in many ways. For starters, it highlights the principle of division of power, checks and balances. Or, how the US model separates the executive (president) from the legislature (Congress) in contrast to most western countries where the executive (usually a prime minister) control the majority of seats in the legislature (parliament). 

On this topic, I wish the media asked the presidential candidates the following question, "How do you expect to do all the things you say you will do when we have a divided government, and in all probability--judging from the last many years--Congress will not go along with your plans?"   

As for the supreme court, the president gets to nominate, and eventually gets someone he chose confirmed. The Senate cannot reject or delay forever. I can see why the Democrats might have opposed a G W Bush nomination in 2008 a few months before the election, but conservative presidents choose conservative judges, like liberals choose their kind. The times of "mainstream" or truly independent candidates for the supreme court are over. The two parties are far apart, primarily because the Republican party has left the mainstream.

Also, an appointment to the high court with its eventual effect on our society is part of a president's legacy. The stakes are high, especially in a politically, and I dare say culturally, divided country. That's why presidents now look to nominate someone in their late 40s or early 50s so they can stay on the court for 30 years!  Funny, thing, I asked my students if they could imagine themselves age 50 and they almost fell off their seats. They got the point though that the next ..supreme will be on the high court making decisions affecting their lives until they reach age 50!

Heck, that's a good enough reason to register and vote!

The Year of the Monkey Ushers Fun and Games. But Who's Going to be Laughing by Year's End?

This is shaping to be a nice new year, and once again we're called to make a decision about the direction of our country. There are vast differences between the two parties' candidates, and let's not forget that elections have consequences! The Supreme Court is always at play during a presidential election.

There have been great debates about the direction of the country already, but new ideas come primarily from the left as the right wants to bring back what it has been tried before, often with dire outcomes. Yes, "the system" has a momentum that can't be easily changed given present political realities, unless, as Bernie Sanders says, public opinion and voting changes to reflect the need for change--change that will restore most benefits to the middle class.

The presidential term lasts 8 years, and Obama has over 300 days left in office. God just gave us a gift by recalling Scalia from the US Supreme Court. How can you argue with God, right? Scripture, as per St. Paul, says the people should obey those in power, because, after all, there's a divine plan in place. Therefore, Obama should nominate a replacement asap, and the president should be the communicator-in chief in order to get the new SCOTUS justice confirmed by the Senate.

Despite the nice statements about the departed justice, Scalia was a divisive figure and a conservative champion who believed in a romantic but unrealistic view of the US constitution. The conservatives have been attacking the liberal justices as "activists" who find rights in the constitution and overturn the "will of the people" and legislatures. Of course, the 2000 SCOTUS decision to essentially give G.W. Bush the presidency was an act of judicial activism by the conservatives.  

Marco Rubio put it bluntly yesterday, that the US constitution is not "a living, breathing" document but must be interpreted "as the founders intended."  This is a conservative but misguided view. The constitution was meant for a living and breathing country, not a dead one of the 18th century! A time when owning arms meant a musket and a knife!  Indeed, we tweaked it 27 times already. And, many necessary changes that promoted rights, freedom, and the quality of life came via the judiciary branch, especially when states--often representing local majorities--remained stuck in the 18th century.

There are many cases of importance the high court has to decide before it goes into recess in June, cases such for voting rights, Obamacare, union organizing, immigration, etc.  So, let the gladiatorial games begin...  Happy Chinese new year by the way.

We are All French Today. We Cannot Allow the Terrorists to Win

The terrorist attacks in France demonstrate that we are still very primitive as a species, although we're not all on the same page or even time. Of course, we can disagree about everything, but we should be conducting ourselves in a more civilized manner by now. Alas, we have a long way to go before we eliminate violent conflict and improve the condition of life for humanity. But, what are those chains holding us back?

Exploitation, competition for resources, and a long history of conflict, make it harder to achieve peace and prosperity. Primitive ideas and religion make matters worse. This has to be acknowledged. Certain myths and belief systems must be given up if we are to progress; such beliefs our clearly outdated. Perhaps there was a need some time ago that the world, the universe was explained through myths and superstitions. It doesn't have to be today in the 21st century! 

The Paris terror attack has several causes. One is the religious faith of people who see western secular societies as the devil's playground. Such faith fuels their hatred and makes it easier to kill others and themselves. Another is the economic and political conditions in places where western imperial powers occupied lands and exploited the local populations. Wars--either started by the West or perpetually being fought on the ground in the Middle East--traumatize people and thus makes it easier to be radicalized. However, radicalism includes indoctrination and certain cultural traditions makes it easier to capture adherents. Despondent youth are prime recipients of such indoctrination. 

Rational thinking and a calm approach to problems isn't the norm in crisis situations. A prolonged crisis creates scars, harsh memories, and emotions of revenge as in the case of places that have been experiencing wars, famine, violence, and instability for generations after generations. Peace and prosperity, and feelings that life is getting better aren't created overnight. It takes time. Cultures and personal attitudes change when there's stability, affluence, and improving conditions for at least a generation or two.

At this point, though, we have to evaluate the situation without rushing to extremes and let anger--which is understandable after such a horror--dictate our reaction. Obviously, we want to maintain our open tolerant and diverse societies, but we have to be careful who we admit. This is not xenophobia, but I think a country has the right to limit entrance to those who don't share the established political and cultural values.

So, is this different than,say, what Saudi Arabia is doing? Absolutely! In Saudi, free expression is not allowed. Any critical remark earn you lashing and the death penalty as this barbaric regime employs totalitarian control over its sheepish people. In our world, however, free expression is encouraged even if it means criticizing everything and everybody. As long as it is peaceful and there's no incitement to violence. But, those who see membership in this society must accept these rules of conduct.

My thoughts (not prayers) are with the terror victims' families, their friends, and to the whole French nation.  I understand what they mean when people say, my prayers are with you, but we should not encourage this religious nonsense, because it impedes progress and peace.  

  . . 

Is the Pope Catholic? Yes, But, He Sides With Progressive Liberals on Social & Economic Matters

Is the pope Catholic? Well, of course he is, even though he's challenging traditional conservatism in the church. OK, he says he believes in the devil and that exorcisms make sense. Plus, he's turning some really obnoxious people into saints. But, you know he's hitting a wall of criticism with the economic elites,  and the socio-political conservatives. He's also popular with the masses and the intellectuals who want the church to leave the dark ages and come forward. 

Obviously, a church has to be conservative in many ways, but religious dogma changes over time. What is practiced today in several important ways is not what the church did just a couple centuries ago. The Enlightenment and the formation of another heavyweight--the modern state--curtailed the influence of the church.

It's funny to watch the faithful complain when they taste what they had prescribed for others. Oh, the Xtians are persecuted, they shout. Like Ted Cruz and Mike Hackabee said coming to the defense of the Kentucky city clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses, because, heck, that's against her religion. Hey, have you heard of the Amish who works at the Motor Vehicle Dpt and refuses to register any ..machines of the devil? Haha.

But, we have to applaud the pope when he makes speeches that help move people in the right direction. The environment, health care, immigration, the income-wealth distribution, etc, are some of the issues championed by progressives. We know that some people and leaders aren't moved by rational arguments and facts when these come from their opponents. So, it's important to have someone they respect say these things. It moves the needle of our national dialogue in the right direction. Thank you, Pope Francis.

Paul Krugman is Correct About Trump and the Rest of the GOP Field. The Know-Nothings Have Made a Comeback

Update, Aug. 11th: Those who thought Trump would implode after bullying everyone at the GOP debate and blowing lots of noisy hot air out of his.. orifices, new polls indicate the opposite, because, heck, the conservative base likes what Trump represents. The GOP leadership want to hide this ugly reality from the rest of America.

In the first contest state, Iowa, according to the latest poll, Trump leads the field at 19%, followed by Ben (who?) Carson at 12%.  In the second state contest and first primary, in New Hampshire, Trump jumped up by 7% to 32% [New Hampshire poll] after the debate. The second choice, Jeb Bush, dropped to 11%.

I think it's time for this blog to endorse Donald Trump for the Republican Party's nomination in 2016. I think Sarah Palin would be a great VP on the ticket with him. What? She's not running? OK, let's keep our eyes & ears open on this.....

---------------
Another excellent editorial by Paul K; it's worth reading it in its entirety. (see below)

The GOP strategists and party leaders aren't happy with the Donald because he's damaging and already damaged party with the mainstream (centrists and independents) voters. But, what Trump represents is the basis of the activist part of the Republican party. He's expressing views that, although deeply-held in GOP's heart, are not usually expressed when Republicans are seeking mainstream votes.  Don't believe me? Just read the national and state Republican parties' platforms. There, you find many abhorrent views that fly well with the conservative base but are sunk in the waters of where the rest of the country lives!

I often wonder how it's possible two people to see something in front of their eyes and form totally different conclusions. If it's about factual findings, then, I had believed, it'd be a simple matter of using logic and evidence to ascertain the facts. But, in reality this rarely happens, especially when something is deemed important by the individual!  People are greatly influenced by culture (including religion), ideology, and a personal sense of a comfort zone. The ideological part can numb the mind and make someone lazy to chew up and digest information. Conformity was rewarded. Venturing outside the comfort zone--into the discomfort of realizing you've made a mistake--wasn't/isn't desired either.

But, I think it may be a personality trait on how to approach life. Being a conservative is natural, or at least it's how the vast majority of humans lived and experienced their lives. Captured by culture and in time. Very few ventured outside the norm. It can be argued that such approach made sense too. At the very least, blaze makers were not rewarded but they were rather persecuted, tortured, and killed. Group think was the norm. Of course there were divisions and big conflicts. Recently, I've been pouring over the religious conflicts after the Protestant Reformation. Yes, Martin Luther, Kalvin, and others brought about tremendous change, but much of it--and it took many generations to be evident--was unintended. The bloody religious wars pitted one religious faction against another, but in essence all sides hadn't been that radical--as they all held different versions of the same flawed illusion of a divine creator who insisted upon how we dress, what we eat, how we screw, how we kill our enemies, etc.

Now, how is it that most of us think Trump is someone who uses empty (though appealing) rhetoric. He said he didn't prepare for the first GOP debate last week. I believe him, because he doesn't have to be specific as long as he appears to know and uses generalities specifically addressing the concerns of the conservative base. Instead of responding to Megyn Kelly's question about his paleolithic views on women, he responds by personally attacking her and ..Rosie O'Donnell. That debate broke all viewership records for such debates other than presidential ones. Trump was tramp. The GOP leadership may not want him but if the activist base--those who show up during the Republican primary selection process--this is exciting.

The 2016 election, was supposed to be a showcase of the "new" Republican party. There's no incumbent running this time, so both parties have a chance to re-define themselves by showcasing their candidates. They're indeed doing so....

 Paul Krugman's editorial [link] in its entirety

This was, according to many commentators, going to be the election cycle Republicans got to show off their “deep bench.” The race for the nomination would include experienced governors like Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, fresh thinkers like Rand Paul, and attractive new players like Marco Rubio. Instead, however, Donald Trump leads the field by a wide margin. What happened?

The answer, according to many of those who didn’t see it coming, is gullibility: People can’t tell the difference between someone who sounds as if he knows what he’s talking about and someone who is actually serious about the issues. And for sure there’s a lot of gullibility out there. But if you ask me, the pundits have been at least as gullible as the public, and still are.

For while it’s true that Mr. Trump is, fundamentally, an absurd figure, so are his rivals. If you pay attention to what any one of them is actually saying, as opposed to how he says it, you discover incoherence and extremism every bit as bad as anything Mr. Trump has to offer. And that’s not an accident: Talking nonsense is what you have to do to get anywhere in today’s Republican Party.

For example, Mr. Trump’s economic views, a sort of mishmash of standard conservative talking points and protectionism, are definitely confused. But is that any worse than Jeb Bush’s deep voodoo, his claim that he could double the underlying growth rate of the American economy? And Mr. Bush’s credibility isn’t helped by his evidence for that claim: the relatively rapid growth Florida experienced during the immense housing bubble that coincided with his time as governor.

Mr. Trump, famously, is a “birther” — someone who has questioned whether President Obama was born in the United States. But is that any worse than Scott Walker’s declaration that he isn’t sure whether the president is a Christian?

Mr. Trump’s declared intention to deport all illegal immigrants is definitely extreme, and would require deep violations of civil liberties. But are there any defenders of civil liberties in the modern G.O.P.? Notice how eagerly Rand Paul, self-described libertarian, has joined in the witch hunt against Planned Parenthood.

And while Mr. Trump is definitely appealing to know-nothingism, Marco Rubio, climate change denier, has made “I’m not a scientist” his signature line. (Memo to Mr. Rubio: Presidents don’t have to be experts on everything, but they do need to listen to experts, and decide which ones to believe.)

The point is that while media puff pieces have portrayed Mr. Trump’s rivals as serious men — Jeb the moderate, Rand the original thinker, Marco the face of a new generation — their supposed seriousness is all surface. Judge them by positions as opposed to image, and what you have is a lineup of cranks. And as I said, this is no accident.

It has long been obvious that the conventions of political reporting and political commentary make it almost impossible to say the obvious — namely, that one of our two major parties has gone off the deep end. Or as the political analysts Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein put it in their book “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks,” the G.O.P. has become an “insurgent outlier … un-persuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science.” It’s a party that has no room for rational positions on many major issues.

Or to put it another way, modern Republican politicians can’t be serious — not if they want to win primaries and have any future within the party. Crank economics, crank science, crank foreign policy are all necessary parts of a candidate’s resume.

Until now, however, leading Republicans have generally tried to preserve a façade of respectability, helping the news media to maintain the pretense that it was dealing with a normal political party. What distinguishes Mr. Trump is not so much his positions as it is his lack of interest in maintaining appearances. And it turns out that the party’s base, which demands extremist positions, also prefers those positions delivered straight. Why is anyone surprised?

Remember how Mr. Trump was supposed to implode after his attack on John McCain? Mr. McCain epitomizes the strategy of sounding moderate while taking extreme positions, and is much loved by the press corps, which puts him on TV all the time. But Republican voters, it turns out, couldn’t care less about him.

Can Mr. Trump actually win the nomination? I have no idea. But even if he is eventually pushed aside, pay no attention to all the analyses you will read declaring a return to normal politics. That’s not going to happen; normal politics left the G.O.P. a long time ago. At most, we’ll see a return to normal hypocrisy, the kind that cloaks radical policies and contempt for evidence in conventional-sounding rhetoric. And that won’t be an improvement.

A Landmark Supreme Court Decision on Same-sex Marriage Moves the Country in a Progressive Direction. Conservatives Fear Sodom & Gomorrah..

What a month it has been for progressive causes in the US; the latest is that people have a right to marry a person of their choice--a right that should have been recognized long time ago. It's definitely a victory for human rights as our country is inching to the 21st century while the conservatives are kicking and screaming.

A divided supreme court (5-4) finally took the reasonable path to expanding on a couple previous decisions and making same-sex marriage legal in the whole country. In the 1960s, the Loving v. Virginia case the high court established the right to interracial marriage. Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 had tried to preserve racial purity, as many states, primarily in the deep south, forbade interracial marriages.


There have been instances of horrible treatment of homosexuals in the US, but slowly a movement began to form and push on many fronts within America society. Look, LGBT people have been in every society throughout our human history; often they were oppressed into silence and denial of who they were. Societies have benefited, because such individuals contributed to arts, sciences, culture, politics, and every other domain you can think of. It was criminal to punish them for their nature and deny them their constitutional rights.

Almost to the day, 40 years ago, a police raid on a gay bar--the Stonewall Inn in the Village section of New York City--touched off days of violent clashes and riots, events that galvanized the gay community and it became clear to all progressives that this kind of treatment of the LGBT community had to change. In the 1960s and early 1970s, it was a time of rapid change when important questions about the nature of American society were seen as a big challenge. Too much too soon--beginning with women arriving in the marketplace, civil rights for blacks, sexual revolution, political instability--usually triggers a counter-reaction. And, it did. It was the conservatives who pushed back and eventually dominated the highest levels of our political system for at least 25 years, from 1980 to the dawn of the 21st century.

A Long Arduous Road

But, even if progress can be slow, painful, and challenging, it usually marches on.

In 2003, the court struck down anti-sodomy laws in Texas v. Lawrence. Justice Kennedy--a Republican-nominated judge, but with a centrist (swing vote) flair--wrong both that majority opinions, then and last Friday.  In 2012, the same court struck down the DOMA, which had passed by Congress and signed into law by president Clinton in 1996, not so long ago as far as important laws go.

So, what happened? Well, one thing is that once Hawaii and Massachusetts passed laws allowing same-sex marriage, then it became apparent--in the eyes of the conservatives, which include Democrats and traditionalists--that giving rights to those who are entitled to but denied because of religious superstition, nothing bad happens! These two states and a couple dozen more than followed created more happiness and, surprise surprise, God didn't destroy them like Sodom and Gomorrah. Who knew, right?...

But, let's not forget what happened in 2008 and 2012, that is, the election of a Democratic president. We would not have had two liberal judges, Kagan and Sotomayor on the court today if it hadn't been for president Obama! You see presidents nominate judges to the supreme court and these judges aren't all the same in that they have a particular judicial philosophy. The conservatives--Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts--voted against giving people the right to marry a spouse of their choice. The liberals--Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer--and the centrist Kennedy decided that it is a constitutional right in the US for adults to marry any person of their choice, and that every state not only has to recognize marriages from other states but every state must allow same-sex marriage!

A present for the conservatives

The conservatives, including the likes of Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts in their dissent proposed laughable arguments. It's incredible that Scalia and Roberts are considered intellectuals. If you look at their arguments they sound sophisticated bullshit, ignorant of historical framework, and the constitutional liberal democracy we're supposed to have here. 

For example, they say unelected judges shouldn't be undone the work of legislatures, referring to the state legislatures that had passed constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage. But, a liberal democracy that has enshrined rights in the federal constitution is not a pure democracy, whereas the majority can take rights from the minority. That was the old south, keeping slaves because, guess what, the majority thought it was fine and dandy! Rights are meaningful when they're given to the minority. 

Or, that activist judges [yes, them liberals.... because when conservative judges do the same activism (remember Bush v. Gore?) it's ..legal!] destroy what society wants in defining marriage! What kind of ridiculous argument is this? We've always redefined the institution of marriage. The cases listed above did just that. Oh, you mean the Biblical definition? [You didn't think religion had nothing to do with this argument, did you?] Well, the Bible sanctioned marriage between a man and several women, plus many more concubines (sex servants). Oh, and underage girls given as brides to usually much older men. We call such practice today rape and it's illegal.

In Obergefell v. Hodges [check this out, how Jim Obergefell became the face of the in front of the supreme court] the majority of the court agreed that the US constitution is a living document, applied to contemporary circumstances within the greater framework of its liberal democratic principles. The strict constructionists, like Scalia, believe it's a dead document, thus accusing activist judges of inventing stuff not explicitly stated in the constitution. This is, of course, a stinking bullcrap pile of an argument...

Article 2, Section 2, clause 1 of the US constitution: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States...".   Hmm, so then who should be in charge of the US Air Force then?


Let's salute this important moment in our history for civil rights and liberties. In the words of president Obama,

“This ruling is a victory for America. This decision affirms what millions of Americans already believe in their hearts. When all Americans are truly treated as equal, we are more free.”

However, we still have a presidential race developing. This decision will further expose the bigotry and backwardness of the Republicans. Already their candidates (and not only) are talking about how to reverse this ruling. Unfortunately for them, the country has moved while their party has regressed further into the dark ages. Let's not stop pointing this out, because quality of life issues aren't only based on economics but on law and culture are well.  
 

 The Supreme Court's Opinion as Written by Justice Anthony Kennedy

"Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations."

The swinger on the high court, justice Anthony Kennedy. His vote proved crucial in the 5-4 decision

"As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. ... Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. 

The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples."
"In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. 

The Constitution grants them that right."

Why the Charleston Massacre and the Reactions to It Revive Epicurean Questions...

Today, many people are bowing in prayer, especially in Charleston, SC, after the massacre, whereas a lone gunman killed nine people in church who were praying to God. Any decent person is saddened by this kind of immoral act. Innocent lives lost always emotionally traumatize individuals and societies as a whole. Decent human beings would act to prevent such injurious acts if they could.

Today, there are lots of speeches expressing sorrow but also a belief in God. I find it truly amazing that what almost any person would do as a matter of decency is not done by God, and yet God is given only the good credit, never the bad. This is the behavior that hostages or people drenched in fear (like those under brutal totalitarian regimes) exhibit.

Actually, the speeches that urged us to be even more faithful in the face of a great tragedy are offensive for they ask me to suspend reason and dictate that I must feel the ..love of God and whatever else groupthink purports. 

Being faithful--accepting even the most incredible--is being able to accept anything without evidence or reason. This is like the worst virus of the mind, and this is exactly what religion is. It has a fail safe too; challenge it and it turns the faithful into a more defensive and close-minded person!

Oh, free will, they reply. Really? First, the grand designer created humans with certain attributes, including the bad ones. Why should a defective product's actions be harmful to me? Where;s my free will?  Why don't I get godly protection? To live my life the way I see it most rewarding without harming others of course! And, how about natural disasters and diseases that regularly kill millions of humans? If anyone wants to argue about free will a short trip to the local hospital should make them wonder why children (even babies) have cancer and other deathly diseases.... But, of course, this is not about using reason to understand--instead we're being asked to use our head to bow slavishly. Using faith to numb the mind and to accept horror, immorality, death, and suffering as part of the designer's great plan, should not be the practice of thinking people nowadays.

So, please, let's mourn those who die, let's help the world be a better humane place, and let's stop this nonsense about bowing our heads to an imaginary deity, who's either incompetent or impotent and thus cannot stop evil, or who doesn't really care when evil happens. 

“Epicurus's old questions are still unanswered: Is he (God) willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? then whence evil?”   ― David Hume

*David Hume on Religion

Sometime ago, a friend & colleague observed that I frequently mention this kind of things and talking about religion, God, etc. Yes, it's so fundamental to our world since the vast majority of humans perceive "reality" and act under such assumptions . It's incredible that almost every day, every hour something is said or done in the name of illusions/delusions, prejudice and superstition, but no one notices or says anything. It should be the other way around I reckon. So, OK, beat me up for it....

  PS. Slavery and the Confederate flag were normal too....

The Best Response to Terrorism is to Defend our Liberal Institutions. Freedom of Expression is Paramount in a Free, Tolerant, Society!

Free expression and democracy were attacked with lethal force today by religious extremists in France. The so-called jihadists murdered a dozen people while shouting "God is Great." Of course, it's not Islam or the Muslim world that did this; only a few deranged individuals would support something like this.  Many Muslims are already condemning this terrorist act, though I bet some Islamic leaders will remain silent. 

Those who condemn this barbarism say that prophet Muhammad and the Koran do not support such actions. Same argument about the Bible. Both arguments are false. The holy books contain many passages in favor of killing others who are simply of a different faith or decide to leave their faith.


With the changing of society, culture, and education, people developed a new morality, dropping the extremist dictates of their holy books. It's like a supermarket of convenience--picking what suits people and what's acceptable in a modern society. It is the lack of fanaticism, without sticking to strict interpretations of revealed morals and religious practices that has made our world better.

Richard Dawkins made a statement saying that non all religions are equally violent. He probably means at present time, as by faithful extremists.There a few, like Jainism who are, by doctrine, non-violent. If you're an Jainism ..extremist, you are the least violent; you may worry about killing any form of life, including insects, and the tiniest creatures. Extremism in the vast majority of religions, on the other hand, results in lots of violence, and history proves this.

So, how do you deal with moronic terrorists who are hell-bent in applying their trade? Obviously we cannot reason with them. The freedom we offer them is not something they want to extend to others. But, we cannot succumb to their threats; we should not change the conditions that make our society more free and liveable. Probably this action will embolden the crazies home and abroad. But, the US and western-type countries should react with restraint and maturity. There are many Muslims who do appreciate the so-called western regimes, either by living in them or wanting to immigrate to them. We have to show confidence in our institutions and that we can handle crises like today's.
 
We shouldn't paint all Muslims with a wide brushstroke. What I see is that religious fervor coupled with ignorance can result in terror; and terrorism is often inspired by religion. At this time, Islam fuels the hatred of many fanatics. Again, when people become more secular, educated, have a decent life whereas basic human needs are fulfilled, then extremism fades, or is found with the mentally disturbed. Yes, there have been extremists who were educated and well-to-do, but they were also religiously rejected the fruits of the Enlightenment. 

I do respect people making their own choices as how to live their lives, but unfortunately this is not a universal belief. Liberal democracy and, in general, western civilization is often considered a threat to traditional societies, entrenched religion, and hard conservatives everywhere. Is it a clash of civilizations like Samuel Huntington has argued? That after the Cold War, the sources of conflict would be cultural, ethnic, religious, and not economic or democracy v. authoritarianism.  I think it is the conditions, the context within people operate that is the most important factor.  Change this and gradually you see new people emerge. For example, a single most important variable is the status of women in a given society. Raise their status and beautiful things happen!