https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/29/white-house-sanctions-first-trump-putin-meeting

In mid may of this year, Trump passed along secrets to the Russian Ambassador...and it was explained away.

If it passes that Trump offers anything remotely construed as a give away to Putin then I'll certainly know what to think, but I'd would still expect excuses from some corners.

...and this flap about trumps comments on twitter this morning regarding morning joe and mika....he's done it before you all!

But McCain spoke up, saying it was beneath the office of President.  Could this be some start to reigning in Trump?  Are the Congressmen finally paying mind to more, shaw we say patriotic matters?

http://amzn.to/2qUmeVL

Recently I finished the book by David Horowitz, "Big Agenda, President Trump's Plan to Save America."

The best thing about the experience is that I borrowed the book from the library, and so I didn't waste a dime.  If that sounds harsh, go and find the book, experience it, and tell me what you think.

Here is what I think,

I think this book is an insulting, paranoid, and infantile( a term I am intent on using more, when it fits, and politeness be damned) rant on what Horowitz would want us all to believe about what liberals think, and nothing at all to do with a Trump agenda.

What this book hasn't done is educate me one iota about what a Trump agenda is all about.   I am being very specific in what I am writing here,  what is a Trump agenda all about?

Rarely has a politician gained so much, on so little of an agenda.  All the while, every Trumper has one's own unique expectations of this administration.  It's only after the fact,  that  any expectation is exactly fulfilled.  In other words,  for every supporter of the president, there is a unique agenda projected onto the man, but its only after this impulsive President does anything, that a universal item on all those agendas becomes real.

But this book, "Big Agenda"  also is representing a commonality among Trump's people --  a view of the world predicated on a liberal conspiracy.

That's not a rash assumption on my part.  I challenge anyone to find me a well written defense of the any action on Trump's part that isn't framed in terms of how a liberal failure or conspiracy is what has caused harm to our country and must be righted,  and that Trump's action in this regards is right, long over due, and obviously for the guiltless victim of the liberal agenda. 

I'm not covering new ground here.  But my parting thought would be a suggestion.   My suggestion to any of the paranoid crowd,  whom I would consider anyone who buys into a liberal conspiracy affecting all issues, and especially anyone who found this book appealing, is to just take one opportunity to seek out the views of the side you oppose. 

"The Big Agenda" covers everything,  but its not going to gain you smarts, and its the same silly paranoia I read about in 1992.  The wonder is, will it be the same silly paranoia 25 years from now?

I write infrequently because I have an aversion to taking politics too seriously. What I mean by that is, I believe that when writing about politics grows to almost an obligation, then it becomes serious.

I don't want politics to get too serious anymore. Years ago it used to be serious, and you can probably find my writings from 20 years ago on the web, and read how I thought about things then, like obstruction of justice, and why a President should be impeached.

Some things change, but history repeats itself.

I am having a delightful time with Donald Trump as President. Not a day goes by when I don't shake my head in amusement, and I'm really not stressed by all the things he does that I am opposed to. As truth will have it, he does things I like too. Often enough that I say that not to pander but to acknowledge.

But the truth is also every president makes decisions every day, and often enough every day that if for four or eight years, you find no reason to like something one of these men do, then that's not realistic.

That might mean its a you problem, not existential cultural problem. Its statistically improbable to not like at least one thing, one decision.

But anyways, maybe I'll take him a little more serious, and write what I think more often.

The personality traits and tendencies of the man, Trump, to me are incredibly stereotypical. For example, I notice that when he talks, he usually frames the topic in a way that leaves the impression he is the first to think this through, and the first to have a very simple answer. He extended a health program for Vets, but he made clear that for too long the Vets have been neglected and his action that day is the turning point, that Trump is their singular champion.

There really is an amazingly historic aspect to what Trump is -- green. He's not at all prepared for the task at hand, and he basically bull crapped his way here. But here he is, making decisions and he is going to make ones I agree with, and disagree with. I'm less concerned about that than I am about the honesty and integrity of the decisions, and that's a real concern.

That's being realistic.

I write infrequently because I have an aversion to taking politics too seriously. What I mean by that is, I believe that when writing about politics grows to almost an obligation, then it becomes serious.

I don't want politics to get too serious anymore. Years ago it used to be serious, and you can probably find my writings from 20 years ago on the web, and read how I thought about things then, like obstruction of justice, and why a President should be impeached.

Some things change, but history repeats itself.

I am having a delightful time with Donald Trump as President. Not a day goes by when I don't shake my head in amusement, and I'm really not stressed by all the things he does that I am opposed to. As truth will have it, he does things I like too. Often enough that I say that not to pander but to acknowledge.

But the truth is also every president makes decisions every day, and often enough every day that if for four or eight years, you find no reason to like something one of these men do, then that's not realistic.

That might mean its a you problem, not existential cultural problem. Its statistically improbable to not like at least one thing, one decision.

But anyways, maybe I'll take him a little more serious, and write what I think more often.

The personality traits and tendencies of the man, Trump, to me are incredibly stereotypical. For example, I notice that when he talks, he usually frames the topic in a way that leaves the impression he is the first to think this through, and the first to have a very simple answer. He extended a health program for Vets, but he made clear that for too long the Vets have been neglected and his action that day is the turning point, that Trump is their singular champion.

There really is an amazingly historic aspect to what Trump is -- green. He's not at all prepared for the task at hand, and he basically bull crapped his way here. But here he is, making decisions and he is going to make ones I agree with, and disagree with. I'm less concerned about that than I am about the honesty and integrity of the decisions, and that's a real concern.

That's being realistic.

More on the news, in the nascent Trump era.

I enjoy following the national political news. Its important, it's historical, it's intriguing, and it's entertaining to me.

Politics is where bad lawyers and ugly actors go, or so I'm told. I don't watch much tv at all, but I read and listen alot.

Just had two conversations recently outside of Facebook, both were fun. Both friends observed that I'm always negative on here.

But one of those friends also nailed down exactly how and why I'm going about things.

I'm not that negative, I'm just following Donald Trump in the news. Really, and I didn't put him there.

Following him has actually entailed agreeing with him too, believe it or not. But it's not my role to add to the trumpets chorus of hossanas.

Besides, with just two months into this administration, there is scant empirical evidence that I should be cheering. I don't want to take anything away from the idea that "keeping your campaign promises" is good, but I also don't want to take away from the idea that good promises are good, and bad promises are bad.

Now the fact is, I'm really just criticizing his unprofessional behavior, which includes behaviors unbecoming of the office he holds. Rarely do I criticize his executive orders or his cabinet or his deregulation efforts, and his budget proposal is just that, a proposal. Although it does reflect his judgements and values -- which I feel is honest ground to scrutinize.

Trump could wind up being the greatest man who ever lived, and at this point we all should be hoping for that because it appears the hole he is digging will require the greatest man who ever lived to get out of it.

My role is not going to be championing him, but to be scrutinizing him. Through the press. Because thats the only way.

It's the only way most everyone gets the news. Including Trump.

My point is, please don't ask me to be quiet or patient in light of the fact my president has strained himself in tearing down institutions,  relations, and now freedoms-- the press; judiciary,  legislative branches, and attacked private citizens

I'm calm and optimistic enough.  But read that link,  this is what trump is running with...and absolutely against my best interests, and all of ours.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/it-is-about-time-that-we-had-a-president-that-was-willing-to-go-to-war-with-the-mainstream-media

On the one hand, as a student of history, a phenomena as is trump is personally not bothersome to me.

It was bound to happen.

It's the idea that it's in my own time, and I'm really having trouble understanding how a 70 year old known public figure who has scant personal references to boast of or rally for him is so revered?

Next to nobody ever says anything worth while about the man, except those who are for the most part world's away.

Keeping that in mind while we know he is hiding his taxes, his relationship to russia, and his business tie ins.

All ethically questionable, poor judgement calls unless he is hiding something, and he is mostly promoting concepts that are insulting to professionals everywhere.

I mean, I like the side I'm on, but what's the appeal of over looking the red flags?

Fake News.

"Fake News" to me represents an achievement in self-mutilation. When I hear that response now, it signals to me that current events are not to be considered from one particular side as true. They are a two word response that conveys a sarcastic, distrustful, and likely limited world view.

The fact is fake news is binary, either the anti - Trump "main stream media" or the sites I call kooky, including infowars, the Blaze, and Breitbart.

As for me, news is news. Its fluid at all times, never set in granite. There isn't an either or.

News is mutable, distortable, and misundestandable. The most important thing to understand is that no matter who says it, how often its said, or the relative past of any party involved in the story, any news event can change in an instant, and any fact could change 180 degrees.

I enjoy the news that satisfies my mindset, and typically not so much those that don't. For me, fake news should be defined as news that is false from the get go, from the intent to knowingly deceive, but it doesn't seem to be. Rather any news from the wrong news sources earn the label.

Seems the only answer is to get news from as many sources as possible. Only speaking in terms of that ideal informed citizen, of course. I mean, if there is a war for our minds, and within that war we are being sold on the idea that one side is constantly blowing smoke up our collective ass, then the prudent course of action is to monitor all the news. From all the sources.

That's a tough bill to sell, to monitor the news from all the sources. But what's not difficult is getting the news from multiple sources, including those that are the bad guys.

It seems logical to me. How do you know who is lying if you don't compare stories? What also seems logical is to encourage the free press, especially if the environment is such that paranoia about the press is that they are dishonest.

More press is the answer, not less. Visit it all, let the marketplace make an honest appraisal. In fact, if a news outlet is using provocation to sow distrust of another outlet, scrutiny on both parties is more practical than blind trust of one over the other.

I make regular visits to "left" and "right" sites, mainstream media and aggregators. I have a good bead on the degree of honesty and incendiary nature of some of the sites out there, I still go because some times there is information that helps me understand better what the heck is going in this world.

The real picture is much bigger than any one media outlet, I often find stories that just aren't covered everywhere. As unsurprising as that it is, I can vouch, not one place has all the news covered.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/10/news/trump-press-conference-conflicts/index.html

This is a conflict that has been with him since the beginning, and an issue I've been waiting to comment on.

After all, it could of all went away, as an issue, if Mr. Trump would of just done what other Presidents, candidates even, have done and divested himself of these conflicts.

He even had said it was easy.

Regardless.

My thoughts actually are not to do with whether or not he is in conflict, but rather to ask when does the grading on the curve end?

Certainly it is not unfair to suggest that Mr. Trump has been graded on a curve since the beginning, as well.

There may be reasons for that, and there may be reams written soon enough, but suffice to say he is being graded on a curve --  words and conduct that would of sunk any traditional candidate evidently harmed him very little.

Regardless, again.

Personal sentiment aside, and those are probably cemented for now, are we to continue the curve when Trump violates laws and  the Constitution?    How about ethics and ethical behavior? 

That's what I'm curious about.

How far with the curve do we go?

The constitution, I believe, was written in part to provide immutable precepts.  Others may disagree, as is their right, but there is something similar in the argument to dismiss the popular vote/electoral vote complaints  --  both sides played by the same rules and Trump won.

If all presidents are to play by the same rules, then the curve needs to flatten out when it comes to concrete conflicts.

There is a process to discern the proper response to this unique issue, and that is impeachment.   Remember impeachment is just a step in investigating a serious matter, it does not remove Trump from office.  One must be found guilty for that.

Impeachment also is highly political,  which means public sentiment will have a major influence in the ultimate out come.  Or in other words, the curve Trump enjoys over others in similar circumstances continues, regardless.

I support further inquiry.  I believe that a 70 year old man with a life long ambition to be President, who announced more than 18 months ago, has had plenty of time to arrange his house so as not to conflict.   Just like everyone else before him had done.

If all that this country needed was a man beholden to no one and nothing, we would never have broken away from King George.

Stupid.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_586f882de4b02b5f85883e44?ir=WorldPost&

I'm sharing this story because I couldn't find it on those sites with real news:  infowars, the blaze, and breitbart.

Makes me wonder what else those site haven't covered over the years.

Infowars certainly seems to have missed the last 20 years of Putins life, what with the way they laud him...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/james-woolsey-donald-trump/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/kaine-trump-putin-defense-lawyer/index.html

Hmmm.....

http://www.infowars.com/trump-on-hacking-i-know-things-other-people-dont/

..if trump isnt taking Intel briefings, then how does he know?  Where is he getting information?

What is in this information that leads Trump to tell the world Putin is smart?

I'm reminded of that wise counsel, that it is  better to keep silent and allow the world to think you are a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

A Compromise Proposal on Gun Control.

A compromise proposal on gun control.

I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I try. Can't cut a rug, but I'm sharp about other things, ya know, like birthdays.

But what I can't quite figure completely is what exactly is Obama suggesting, or directing, that is at all alarming with his gun control proposals yesterday?

I get that people are really sensitive on this issue, so be it, in fact I'm glad your sensitivity is there, its a bulwark against my insensitivity on this matter. Hey, I don't want government taking our rights away, but I think some of us are a little too paranoid here.

...and probably haven't really read up on the issue, but took the a.m. radio crib notes.

I was lecturing my boy a few weeks ago on traditions and anachronisms. It was one of those flights of philosophy I have every now and then with my children, and in which they really have no choice but to listen.

I was particularly talking about the old live Christmas tree tradition, but that's beside the point.
But I told O. that one should respect traditions, but don't always beholden yourself to them. I reasoned its your life to enjoy and value, and even have your own traditions. Do not hold so sacred ideas and actions just because that's the way someone else before you did it.

Some may call me irreverent, but many times I've failed to see why my thoughts on a matter should take a subservient place behind the ideas of even fifty years ago, let alone 200 and fifty years ago, or more.

I cautioned that traditions, and the past, can close your mind to new ideas too. A tradition can be so revered that it simply doesn't allow for an alternative look. As rare as it is for the past to achieve such majesty, the varying degrees in which it retards the imagination, and indeed prohibits growth is not uncommon at all.

Back in the day a brave new nation endeavored to create a more perfect union, fully realizing of course that the adjective phrase 'more perfect' is the union trying to become, but not there yet.
Are we a 'more perfect' union because we cling to a 1780's concern for sufficient arms in civil defense against an unjust king?

I think not, and considering how little firearms are going to protect you from a tank, I'm fairly certain that my train of thought is more applicable to today's reality. Which is the second amendment isn't going to protect you from government over reach.

Now I got a framework of a compromise here on this controversial issue of gun control. Its not complete, and hardly perfect, but we both give a little and take a little.

Obviously, the first item on the agenda is what merits 'gun control'?

I'll paraphrase the now cliche remark by Justice Stewart on pornography, -- I don't know which guns are exactly what we want to ban, but I know them when I see them.

In light of the scrutiny the sensitive give on this issue, I refrain from even a categorization of the arms, its a framework of a compromise remember and I'm not an arms dealer.

I've heard all the arguments in the past, we've all have, and yet the number of American's who don't consider guns that are specifically designed to kill quickly and often as sacred objects is growing. 

Which suggest my compromise may become irrelevant sometime soon, as those holy guns many find gruesome will be taken without consideration.

Practically speaking it may be very late in the game to really prohibit some of these things as a move to prevent recurrences of what has happened in the past, but then doesn't that argue against the severity of the prohibition anyways? If its not going to make them disappear from corrupt hands, then its feckless to ban them, right? Well, o.k., but lets ban them regardless.

Symbolism is important,of course. Wouldn't it be nice to show some cohesiveness, and civility, as a culture versus the brutal individualism of the terrorists? (Who are really the only civilians putting them to use anymore, anyways and yet we are anxious to preserve their rights?) Which doesn't suggest there aren't legit reasons to use guns that fire bullets early and often, just that there can't be that many reasons to cloud reasoned action to at least attempt to keep them out of the hands of fools.

If the idea is to make a more perfect union, and any proposal would make it harder for even one person to kill lots of people quickly, then why are people so contentious on this? Sit, let's talk.

I get the whole encroachment of government powers concept, I do. But Supreme Court Chief Justice, and conservative, John Roberts judged you do have to buy health insurance, and even Ronald Reagan, another conservative, enacted gun control, we need but to think for ourselves to make the right decision.

Let's prohibit some of these things, and here is the give.

A tax break, dollar for dollar, on your first hand gun purchase as an adult!

The tax code isn't going to change. Its not the topic here today, but the complexity of the code insures it's here to stay. Call it inertia.

Governments use the tax code to influence behavior. Tax something to dissuade use, rebate to encourage. Buy cigarettes and pay an extra tax, buy a house and receive a deduction!

Despite what anyone might assume, I'm not against the gun advocates. I'm not at all impressed with a lot of the soft and cozy notions from the left, like "no gun zones." I don't want a gun control initiative to soften America, not even symbolically.

One of the cries of the NRA is that the government wants your guns. Well lets turn that on its head, lets have government encourage gun ownership!

Make it our new tradition, a positive step to build trust between the government and its people. If in a
hundred years from now, people think we did the wrong thing, they can change it.

If the government encourages you to buy a gun for personal protection, not only does it disarm some of the extreme on one side, but signals to the extreme on another side that America isn't the place to trifle with Americans.

If its hard for some people to accept that their government would be encouraging its people to arm themselves, consider how I feel about my government, which has encouraged seemingly everyone else in the world to arm themselves, but me. I'm surrounded by nuts the world over, many of whom my tax dollar went toward arming.

Its hard to over look the dismal fruition of that policy.

In the end, this is just an idea on my behalf to form a more perfect union, it would require conversation and compromise. Any takers?

I've always like a good trilogy....

"I've always liked a good trilogy" will become my standard rebut to the established, "with Hillary we get Bill too!"

Assuming of course, and why not assume, that Jeb Bush is going to secure the GOP nomination.

Its not that I like Jeb Bush when I say that, but what I hope it does is imply that three is greater than two. If the logic we are using to support Hillary is that we also get the experience of a former President, and what could be better than that? I'd say the experience of two former Presidents is better.

George H. W. Bush is perhaps the most under appreciated President in history, certainly in our time, while Bill Clinton is perhaps the most over rated.

Throw in W. and you got the winning hand -- If it all boils down to the considerations and ties to experience.

I still don't get why Hillary is the only one running from the Democrats up to this point. Bernie Sander is an independent running as a Democrat, therefore I have to set his candidacy aside for the moment.

Jay Stevens, a biased pundit of the left said, "There’ll be no surprises from her, no possibility of greatness, no hope of transformative change."

He also said, "Oh, and the Electoral College map makes a Democratic win in 2016 almost inevitable."

Considering all the really smart ideas and people on the left, especially with all the behavior scientists and economist pontificating why people behave and do, I find it so ironic that there is no one else within the party stepping up.

The food pyramid was changed because Cass Sunstein and his cohorts figured people needed a simpler reminder about eating healthy, you'd think they advocate choice as a more rationale method of nominating a Presidential candidate.

What I am implying there is power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Democrats are just ceding power to a woman and family tainted, nay, doused in corruption allegations?

We truly are in a bad place if this be the case.

I'm sure the smart people on the left know this isn't a good idea, but up to this point it is the reality, which perhaps suggests that absolute power is already being wielded. Have all the would be contenders been "advised" as to what is good for them?

Where The Wealth Is, Part 3

In predicting that the left may suggest a flat tax on capital soon, in order to booster their anti-1% cred, deflect criticism from Hillary's wealth, and in fact be well intended, what I failed to point out is that it would be detrimental and worsen certain aspects of the economic balance of our society.

It won't work, or happen, as simply as I stated, for the very reason that a 90% income tax on the rich isn't going to work either. Which by the way is the liberal answer to the conservative flat tax.

The reason being is the wealthy have choices now. Unlike fifty or sixty years ago when very much the entire world was in crumples and the United States dominated all, a 90% tax rate on the rich was doable. Where else would they go?

Try doing that today and see what happens! The Cayman Islands couldn't berth all the yachts headed their way.

Consider what businesses are doing today. The corporate taxes here are some of the highest in the world and to escape them companies are finding partners to merge with that share only a slither of a common cause. They're looking in Ireland, Canada and anywhere else where they can find a willing partner and a friendly tax regime. They're are then moving headquarters outside the United States in order to save money on taxes at record numbers.

Outsourcing 2.0.

A flat capital tax would do the same thing, to certain degrees, and that is not only a challenge for the United States and its own income inequality, but its a challenge for the entire world.

What we need to do, and why the GOP needs to get in the game, is have a discussion about how to use the existing tax system to extricate wealth and capital from the 1% in a way that is beneficial to us all and doesn't drive them(the wealth holders) away.

I'm loathe to suggest that the government just tax and spend. Argh!

Let's face it, a flat tax isn't going to happen and a flat capital tax has more of an opportunity, if nothing else, to get another Democrat elected President. Romney lost because of his wealth, Obama didn't have a lot of great ideas on addressing the disparity, he just hammered the idea of Romney being in the 1%.

Take a look at this article in Fortune Magazine,http://fortune.com/2015/04/25/billionaires-versus-big-oil/

What you'll find is the 1% is investing in alternatives to big oil. What you'll learn is that the UN figures the world needs $1 trillion a year in investments to "decarbonize" the global economy.

Where are we going to get that money? Well, the 1% is already doing it on their own, to preserve their wealth status. But even so, their commitments aren't enough.

I've wrote it before and it bears repeating, the GOP is a hindrance in this country when it comes to the tremendous opportunity that green technology presents for American business. Couple that with their defiance on wealth disparity and we could very well miss out on more than we could ever imagine to change the energy game in this world.

However, billionaires are plowing ahead, the GOP be damned

That's an opinion too, of course, but its worth conveying that this Democrat President, the one that beat Romney and who is driving a multi-pronged agenda to establish his party dominance for years to come, just allowed the Department of Energy, "to provide support and access to federal clean-tech R&D to a broad range of private investors and philanthropists. The aim of the program, called the Clean Energy Investment Initiative, is to help wealthy investors mobilize $2 billion in new clean-tech investments." -Fortune Magazine.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/…/fact-sheet-obama-administratio…

Where The Wealth Is, Part 2

Fortune Magazine, Yahoo Finance, and Bill Gates' Blog are three spots where I came across references to wealth, inequality, and the 1% since I last wrote on May 6th. Which is to confirm what I already have said, that this isn't an issue that is going away.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=813988648681493&id=222942981119399

Glenn Beck may at some point catch up, but the contrast to these intelligent opinions is striking. Especially Bill Gates, who contributed ideas, not mocking attacks.

http://www.gatesnotes.com/…/Why-Inequality-Matters-Capital-…

I'm not smart enough to come up with great new ideas, but I have my opinions. One opinion I have is that this issue is going to steam roller the Republican Party unless they start cramming.

The Democrats have a less than idea candidate to champion wealth related positions in Hillary Clinton, but its been my experience that for the left its the ideas and causes, not the character and personal failings that swing their levers.

So I don't think there will be a Romney-esque label placed on Mrs. Clinton that will succeed in distracting attention away from the validity of the ideas and statistics related to wealth disparity.

Here is one idea that I believe is going to up end conservative voters and leave them behind: the flat tax.

The flat tax is an idea that conservatives have dreamt about for years. Its been highly regarded and also disregarded, some think of it as a panacea for what ails the tax code and the bloated IRS. Others, like me, have come to believe that it would never overcome the vested interests, like the attorneys and accountants.

Plus the current tax code on income, although complex and unwieldy at times, is already regressive and somewhat fair. The complexity comes from the government valuing assorted behaviors from the people, and using the tax code accordingly to promote those behaviors.

The greatest deficiency of the flat tax idea however is that it targets the wrong thing, and this is where the progressives may find an election winning cause.

Income isn't where the money is at, its capital. What may come is an idea from the left, from the Democrats, to levy a flat tax on capital.

If you need a quick cramming on the distinction here, read the blog by Gates via the link I provided above. Its not difficult to understand. Taxing income, or labor, necessarily includes people who are already squeezed in this economy. Taxing capital is a whole different animal and captures wealth that escapes an income tax. The 1%, as it is, derives much of its wealth from capital, not income. They don't hold jobs, they employ capital.

In short, income taxes, a flat income tax specifically, doesn't change the equation we are a part of. The equation where the cliche that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer is valid and true.

Now the conservative arguments about class envy or class warfare are going to rise, but in the end they will be muted as more and more people come to understand the particulars of this topic.

Wealth distribution is out of whack, America is not as egalitarian as we think, upward mobility isn't as achievable as it once was in this country and statistically, historically, we as a society are as stratified into have and have not's as at any point in the past. The past being in all recorded modern human history. Understand there were times that were very, very stratified between the have and have not's, like 1800's.

The world wars wiped the wealth away from the 1% in the last century, a reset occurred. Since then they've come roaring back and are on course to truly dominate human kind like never before. This isn't a question of punishing the wealthy, but preserving opportunity for all.

Or we can wait, or hope, for a global calamity to do the job. That's not an approach I would champion.

Where the Wealth Is, Part 1

One of the oldest lines of advice that has stuck with me, not really advice but admonishment, was by the late and great Robert Anton Wilson. He wrote, "it only takes twenty years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea."

Often times I wondered what would you become in twenty years if you were conservative to begin with?

I tuned into talk radio the other day, Glenn Beck as it were, and caught the tail end of one of his mocking sessions. I must admit two things when it comes to Glenn Beck. Of course I do think he is nuts and I infrequently listen to him. But when I catch him, along with his cohorts, mocking someone, I am usually amused and entertained.

Simpleton stuff for the most part, like what Huffington Post does to conservatives.

The other day, when I tuned in, he was mocking someone because the person said something to the affect that a certain Scandinavian country had a more equal distribution of wealth than the United States.

The specifics really aren't that important, but the admonishment by beck was that the average income here in the States is higher than over there in Europe. That's what Glenn was selling, and he probably is right.

However that does not prove the opinion on wealth distribution wrong.

Wealth and Income are two distinct measurements. While it is true that income averages are greater here, it is also true that in certain countries wealth distribution is more equal than here in the States.

Again I'm not trying to be specific, or even attempting to carry the argument that was started by the unidentified speaker.

During the Presidential election cycle we all were exposed to a new issue and a new vernacular: Wealth distribution and the 1%.

If the Conservatives, like Mr. Beck and his followers, have any desire to influence in the arena of ideas, specifically now I'm talking about wealth and income disparities and what is a good public policy a society should adopt in regards to these imbalances, they ought to take the time to understand the distinction between the two measurements.

Mocking is entertaining, but the people with a better understanding of the points being made by economist are going to have more influence in elections.

Additionally, and we've seen this in Health Care, if the Conservatives are going to take the approach that the whole "1%" theme is over blown and inconsequential then they may be eliminating themselves from the entire debate. Which could happen to our collective detriment.

Wealth, Income, and Capital distribution is a real concern, and one in which we all have to discuss. We will not be served well if the GOP decides again to let the Democrats carry the conversation alone, and only after decisions are made to get serious about it.

We can't afford that.

At some point though, and many Democrats think it is eminent, conservatives are going to be so far behind the curve that they will become inconsequential themselves and winning national elections a thing of the past.

Twenty years later, a conservative may very well have missed a lot of new ideas. They risk becoming the Amish of the political community.

I consider myself rather conservative, but I'm open to new ideas and learning what people are passionate about, what learned people have been studying.

The idea that because one party or side of the political spectrum is for something, therefore I must be inherently against it is anathema to me.

Below is a hugely influential book by a French economist on Wealth, Income, and Capital. It was published after our last presidential election, but unless Mr. Beck and his cohorts catch up
with the conversation, his side risks losing a lot more than an election.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067443000X/ref=as_li_tl…">Capital in the Twenty-First Century

http://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir…" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important;" />

This Is Better?

Words are fools
Who follow blindly, once they get a lead.
But thoughts are kingfishers that haunt the pools
of quiet; seldom-seen...
- Siegried Sassoon

I remember an era, like it was yesterday, when the world was on fire and discontent with our leadership in the making of this world was under continuous scrutiny.

No one liked us we were told, and we've turned our allies into enemies.

Indeed, John Kerry, at one time a candidate for President, identified the strained relationships of George W. Bush with Gerhard Schroeder, of Germany, and Jacques Chirac, of France, as proof positive that the world was against us.

Hillary Clinton aped this rhetoric when she ran for office in 2007.

John, Hillary, and their party were adamant that change in the White House had to occur to restore to our country the valued friendship of our allies, which could only increase our esteem and ability to get things accomplished. To be the global leader that we once were.

Am I the only one who remembers this?

At the risk of running long, I'll bring full scrutiny to bear on the whole notion of how we stood in the world, and why it matters now.

Gerhard Schroeder was Germany Chancellor from 1998-2005, and era over lapping the entire first term of George W. Bush. Mr. Schroeder was widely recognized as an abrasive and arrogant man who had difficulty getting along with many world leaders, not just the U.S. President at the time.

Despite all the liberal protestations, and their convenient disregard of the personal aspect of U.S. - German relations, Mr. Schroeder was drummed out of office by the decidedly pro-American Angela Merkel. Seems the Germans didn't have such a problem with America as some would have you believe at the time.

France was headed by Jacques Chirac from 1995-2007 and many have described his personality as the same as Gerhard Schroeder. In fact Chirac was defeated in 2007 by, again, a decidedly pro-American Nicolas Sarkozy.

Makes you wonder if this discontent the world had with us then was in actuality, or just something John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and their party would only have had you believe.

John Kerry is now the Secretary of State, having succeeded Hillary Clinton in that post, and his party has ruled the roost for over six years now. Which is to say that plenty of time has past so that a clean break from the prior administration's miscalculations should find us in a world of love and respect for the mighty red, white, and blue.

But that isn't the case.

Seemingly not a week goes by without another report of discontent from our erstwhile allies in regards to an action or policy emanating from Pennsylvania Avenue.

Israel is noteworthy for what is almost a mortal break from our past relationship.

Germany has serious issue with how we've spied on them, among other international concerns.

Throw France & Britain into that same lot.

Egypt was once an ally and although it was not an ideal relationship it worked. Now President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi makes routine comments questioning Obama's commitment to our commitments.

Of course Russia is a huge problem, but at least Bush tried to find peace and harmony with them. Today Putin mocks our President, something he never did when John & Hillary were just Senators.

I could go on, and I will.

There are no better relations with China, they continue to steal our technology and patents. As well as snub our diplomats and President.

North Korea is still a sixty, going on seventy year old problem.
John Kerry had the answers in his debates with Bush, not so much when he can apply those grand ideas himself as Secretary of State.

Iraq has proven Bush right as to what will happen if we withdrew from there.

Lastly Iran. If capitulation is the answer, as some identify an imminent agreement as, then we could of just capitulated thirty-five years ago and saved us all the interim costs and disagreements.

Another Presidential election cycle is just developing, and along with it some fresh, and some tired old accusations will be bantered about.

I can't help but keep in mind how disastrously wrong the judgement of some were and how disastrously those players have cost us our position in the world.