Category Archives: Thought for the Day

Thought for the 2016 Presidential Election and American Politics in General

Posted on by

Too often we honor swagger and bluster and the wielders of force. Too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others…

We must admit the vanity of our false distinctions among men and learn to find our own advancement in the search for the advancement of all. We must admit in ourselves that our own children’s future cannot be built on the misfortunes of others…

But we can perhaps remember—even if only for a time—that those who live with us are our brothers, that they share with us the same short movement of life, that they seek—as we do—nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can.

Surely this bond of common faith, this bond of common goal, can begin to teach us something…and surely we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us and to become in our own hearts brothers and countrymen once again.

–Robert F. Kennedy

Thought for the Day: March 9, 2016

Posted on by

Donald Trump is a verbally-abusive megalomaniac who has a long track record of business failures, no discernible moral commitments, no discernible policy stances, and no apparent understanding of how government works. If he wins the nomination he’ll probably be the least qualified, least capable major party nominee in the history of the US.  For comparison, Sen. Ted Cruz is a cold-blooded sociopath.  (Seriously, has anyone checked Cruz for The Mark of the Beast? $20 says he answers to “Hey, Damien.” if you say it when his back is turned.)  They’re both awful but I prefer Trump hands down. Why?  Because he provokes a greater immune response than Cruz does.  Most people are quick to recognize Trump to be a buffoon.  In contrast, Cruz is an under-the-radar sociopath.  The more people who recognize Trump as a threat and call him out the more likely I think (hope?) that they’d make it harder for him to inflict his will on the country.  Because Cruz flies under most people’s radar I bet he could get away with more awfulness than Trump could as president.  Pres. Trump would pose a significant risk to civilization, mind you, but I think less of a risk than a Pres. Cruz.

Thought for the Day: February 26, 2016

Posted on by

I think it’s fair to say that a common goal of Sanders supporters is a more democratic distribution of political power. The wealthy hold a disproportionately large share. (Has it ever been otherwise?) That needs to change. To the extent that Sanders supporters embrace heterodox economics (I don’t particularly) I’ll hazard that it’s as part of an overall approach to creating a more democratic and equitable society.  Many things influence quality of life.  The macroeconomic climate is one them.  With respect to recent arguments over what Sanders’ plan would do for GDP growth, I doubt that I would support a candidate whose economic policies who likely lead to economic contraction – of the countries I might care to live in if I couldn’t live here, I don’t believe any have had a contracting GDP on a regular basis – but so long as the trend is upward I don’t think I care too much about the details.  Positive is good but more isn’t necessarily better.  To the extent that economic considerations are a priority for me, I’m much more concerned about how economic gains are distributed, opportunities for gainful employment, job stability, and that I’m compensated fairly than I am about the particulars of GDP growth.

Thought for the Day: February 9, 2016

Posted on by

From an email correspondence a couple months back last year:

There’s a whole philosophy of “change theory” about what actually helps people cultivate change in their lives and what doesn’t that I think we (especially in Puritan New England!) sometimes forget about.  Deep change is slow, involves lots of false starts and short retreats alongside the exciting times of progress.  In order to sustain commitment to deep change, there must be a sense of joy simply in one’s commitment to the goal of deep change.  This joy inspires us to take risks, and it keeps us from being too harsh on ourselves when we face setbacks. 

I’m not predisposed to joy, which makes that challenging for me, but I believe he’s absolutely correct.

Thought for the Day: February 8, 2016

Posted on by

The Great Recession is the culmination of policies which have the effect of screwing middle-class people who get the vast majority of their income via wages.  I’m referring to policies and legislation which provide advantage capital over labor. While middle-class white people have gotten the shaft since the start of the Great Recession, middle-class African-Americans and Hispanics have gotten it much worse.

Thought for the Day: February 6, 2016

Posted on by

Thirty five years of one step forward, two steps back is enough for me. It’s time to mount a counteroffensive. “So long as our candidate is pro-choice and supports same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization that’s good enough” isn’t good enough for me.  I’m sick of perpetual war.  I’m sick of policies which advantage capital over labor and result in decent jobs getting shipped overseas.  I’m sick of politicians who brush off the environmental destruction we’re wreaked for the past 100+ years.  All those meat and potatoes liberal declarations that Clinton has made since Sanders has challenged her? I firmly believe that she will walk them all back once she takes office. That’s where I’m coming from. I’ve had enough.

Thought for the Day: February 2, 2016

Posted on by

Robert Reich:

There are two dominant views about how presidents accomplish fundamental change.

The first might be called the “deal-maker-in-chief,” by which presidents threaten or buy off powerful opponents.

Barack Obama got the Affordable Care Act this way – gaining the support of the pharmaceutical industry, for example, by promising them far more business and guaranteeing that Medicare wouldn’t use its vast bargaining power to negotiate lower drug prices.

But such deals can be expensive to the public (the tab for the pharmaceutical exemption is about $16 billion a year), and they don’t really change the allocation of power. They just allow powerful interests to cash in.

The costs of such deals in “the world we’re living in” are likely to be even higher now. Powerful interests are more powerful than ever thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision opening the floodgates to big money.

Which takes us to the second view about how presidents accomplish big things that powerful interests don’t want: by mobilizing the public to demand them and penalize politicians who don’t heed those demands.

Well now that’s just crazy talk, Bob.