Kellyanne Conway should be quiet

Kellyanne Conway tweeted today "“It took Hillary abt 5 minutes to blame NRA for madman’s rampage, but 5 days to sorta-kinda blame Harvey Weinstein 4 his sexually assaults.”

Hillary therefore beats Ms. Conway's record for assigning blame to a sexual assaulter by about 1 year.

"After the (Access Hollywood) tape leaked, Conway supported Trump’s excuse that this was just locker room talk and said Trump has always been “gracious and a gentleman... After millions of women marched to protest Trump’s inauguration last month, Conway told ABC News that she “didn’t see the point.”" (Huff Post)

Here is the scoring update: Hillary Clinton, no longer in office or working for the government, condemns Weinstein, a former donor, in 5 days; Kellyanne Conway, 1 year after the Hollywood Video came out is still an adviser to her friend, the so-called President who bragged about sexually assaulting women and who has had a dozen women confirm the assaults.  She just called the tape "locker room talk" and obviously is ignoring the actual claims of assault.  Yeah, but Hillary…

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kellyanne-conway-sexual-harassment_us_58920004e4b0522c7d3e3fc0 

The same story, over and over with this President

One could write a variant of this story pretty much every week or every other day: take something the so-called President has said in the past, show it to be full of untruths and fabrications and contrast it with something he is now doing or saying that shows him to be a hypocrite, liar, inept and totally without ethics.

While running for president, the current occupant said this about Hillary Clinton:
"Crooked Hillary says we must call on Saudi Arabia and other countries to stop funding hate," Trump wrote on June 13, 2016. "I am calling on her to immediately return the $25 million plus she got from them for the Clinton Foundation!" http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-putin-no-relationship-226282

Keep in mind that the so-called President could not verify the $25million figure; keep in mind the Clintons made no money personally from the foundation; keep in mind that independent charity rating organizations gave the Clinton Foundation high grades as a quality charity; and finally, keep in mind that at the worst, the alleged $25million donation diverted money AWAY from religious extremist causes and instead was actually used to help people around the world.

On the other hand, in the last week, the so-called President did this:
"When President Donald Trump closed a nearly $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia on Saturday, his deputies’ spirits soared. Policy advisor Jared Kushner high-fived National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster as he entered the room where they held talks with Saudi officials. Aide Gary Cohn told pool reporters the deals represented “a lot of money. Big dollars. Big dollars.”

The weapons sale was one of the largest in history, totaling close to $110 billion worth of tanks, artillery, radar systems, armored personnel carriers, and Blackhawk helicopters. The package also included ships, patrol boats, Patriot missiles, and THAAD missile defense systems.

Much of that military hardware will likely be pressed into service in the Saudi fight against its neighbor Yemen, where more than 10,000 people have been killed over more than two years of heavy airstrikes and fighting.

This puts the U.S. in a precarious ethical position, say human rights groups and former U.S. officials. The Saudi-led airstrike campaign has hit numerous schools, hospitals, factories, and other civilian targets, leading to well-documented allegations of war crimes by human rights organizations. The war has also pushed much of the country to the brink of starvation, with more than 17 million people facing famine, according to the U.N."  http://time.com/4787797/donald-trump-yemen-saudi-arabia-arms-deal/?xid=homepage

Yeah but Benghazi and the email server.

For info on the Clinton Foundation:  https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

It's not the so-called President - it's us, stupid!

To put it succinctly; the problem is not that the so-called President is a serial liar and seemingly has little ability to discern fact from fantasy and seems to believe his own lies; or that he has bragged about sexually assaulting women and indeed that a number of women have accused him of doing what he has bragged about; or he is the most conflicted President ever elected with business interests that could directly profit based on the decisions he makes in office;  or that he has promoted false racist memes; or has promoted religious bigotry in the name of national security or some kind of religious entitlement; or has been willing to make health care unaffordable for tens of millions of Americans for the sake of cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans; or seems to embrace or admire murderous autocrats around the world while criticizing and insulting trusted allies; or displays little intention of studying the important policy issues of the day or being informed of the real state of the world and how his own government works; and has an over-sized ego that has become the textbook definition of a kind of pathological egomania.  No, the real problem is that he was elected President, albeit via an election game that makes no logical sense and only superficially resembles a democratic process.

No, the real problem is that as many people voted for him as they did.  The fact that he received around 46% of the popular vote is the problem.  And that is the problem that needs solving.

Without the ability to read people's minds, as if the minds of many persons were actually coherent and readable, we can at best only speculate as to the reasons why a person would vote for someone like the so-called President.

If you were to ask someone of they would willingly and happily vote for a sexual assaulter, most would say "no."

If you asked a voter if they would vote for someone who repeatedly lied, had numerous conflicts of interest, would threaten the existence of their own health care, promoted racist ideas, targeted religious minorities, and did not want to do the difficult policy work of being President, an overwhelming majority would say "hell, no!"  But as it turned out, 46.1% of those who voted did vote for someone as just described.  How come?

My educated guess is that there are four overriding reasons:

1) Some people actually are OK with lying, sexism, racism, etc.  These are good attributes for them.  This is what a real leader is expected to do for some people.

2) Some people willing to overlook these obvious contemptible attributes in the hopes of some policy action that would personally benefit them, such as a tax cut for the wealthy.  This is selfishness in my book.

3) Others are simply incoherent.  They have drunk the Kool-Aid and are fans of the so-called President and can either rationalize away his incontestable faults or choose to not believe they are real.  As the so-called President has said, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."  Well, he might lose some voters, but definitely he would not lose all of them.  Go to http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/donald-trump-shoot-somebody-support/  .

4) Some actually thought that the alternative choice for President was worse.  Some people actually believed that Secretary Clinton had conspired to kill various persons, see http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp .  Some truly believed that she lied about Benghazi. Go see the Snopes web site:  http://www.snopes.com/?s=benghazi for objective info. Some people believed that the conflicts of interest due to the Clinton foundation were worse than the conflicts of the eventual so-called President despite the Clintons releasing numerous past tax returns and the so-called President releasing none.  Go to https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680 and https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478 and https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16764 .  The Clintons made no money via their charity, did much good work and no evidence of policy influence has ever been evidenced.  Most of the bad things people believe about the Clintons can be classified as fake news, spin and mammoth exaggeration.  This is not a 100% right wing fringe problem - it turns out that many Bernie Sanders supporters were targeted by a disinformation campaign designed to discourage them for voting for Secretary Clinton. It worked.  Go see:  http://www.salon.com/2017/03/31/fake-news-websites-targeted-trump-bernie-sanders-supporters-to-spread-conspiracy-theories/  .

It is the last category where the most possible work needs to be done.  I am not talking about rehabilitating the image of the Clintons - I am talking about combating fake news and the inability of too many persons - enough to swing elections - to be influenced by fake news and their inability to discern between fact and obvious lies.

The work begins with promoting reason, evidence and skepticism while exposing irrationality, blind faith and  cynicism.  That is a topic for another day.

Has the Republican Party Become the Anti-fact Party? The Birth of Lie-based Initiatives!

Like many others, I have taken my shot at explaining Donald Trump's appeal to Republican voters.  In this matter I have a great advantage over the mainstream media; I do not have to avoid explanations that paint a less than  flattering portrait of the voters who, in turn, are the customers of that same mainstream media.  How many people would stop patronizing a media outlet that came to the conclusion that Donald Trump's appeal to his party was based on the willful ignorance, bigotry or the irrational fear of many millions of Americans, the very people that a media outlet needs to appeal to in order to stay in business?

Yet the evidence is overwhelming; Trump's initial appeal was to birthers.  About 50% of the Republican Party was on board with the idea that Pres. Obama was not born in the U.S.  A small minority of Republicans believed that Ted Cruz was not born in the U.S. when, in fact, he was
NOT born in the U.S.  Neither fact is a secret, but this is what they believe anyway.

Start adding up the other things that a majority of Republican voters believe that are contrary to the facts as best as we can know them; many believe in Creationism, and Young Earth Creationism at that; most deny that Global Climate change is a result of human activity as if the effects of Greenhouse Gases is debatable.   But now you can add an impressive new list of willfully ignorant items or outright lies that Republican voters are willing to accept, overlook or even embrace.  What about the total lack of negative push-back by voters when Trump re-tweeted a

fictitious, false, inflammatory and racist chart (see above);  or when he implied that Ted Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of JFK; or when he accused Hillary Clinton of abusing women who had affairs with her husband; or when he suggests that former Clinton aide Vince Foster did not commit suicide but may have been murdered with Clinton involvement; or when he said that John McCain was not a war hero; or that he saw thousands of Muslims on rooftops on TV celebrating 9-11 in New Jersey; or when he calls Bernie Sanders a communist...  I am sure I've missed dozens of whopping big lies.  (Go to http://www.dailywire.com/news/4834/trumps-101-lies-hank-berrien .)

The one common thread in all this is that what Trump supporters like about Trump is precisely his dislike of fact; facts have become "politically correct" and possess what Colbert has described as a "liberal bias."  Of course facts really do not have such a bias but yes indeed many people now oppose "facts" because it is "politically incorrect" to oppose facts and being "politically incorrect" is a good thing!

That is why Trump can lie about other Republicans as well as Democrats, Conservatives as well as Liberals, because it is the opposition to fact that his supporters adore.  Do not get me wrong on this - I am not saying that left leaning ideologues do not do the same thing - they do, such as in those who believed that Bush and Cheney somehow were in on 9-11 and "allowed" it to happen.  It's just that those leftist ideologues have not quite taken over the Democrat Party.  The ideologues/believers and anti-fact yahoos have taken over the Republican Party and their main goal is to oppose all kinds of facts that contradict their beliefs.

This is the mess that Republican leaders have created with their years, if not decades of pandering to the willfully ignorant in their ranks.  By promoting the "faith-based" initiatives the party has embraced in the past, not surprisingly the party members have evolved into demanding "lie-based' initiatives.  Trump is delivering.

You read that here first.

Greed, the American Health Care System and Campaign Finance Reform

One of the things most people just don't understand about the American Health Care System is the how the game is rigged in favor of pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment makers and hospitals, and who is rigging it this way.

This past week it came to light that a older drug, acquired by a new ownership group, had its price raised by over 4000%, from $13.50 per pill to over $750 per pill.  "Shkreli is the founder and chief executive of the pharmaceutical company Turing. He and his company have, of course, been the subjects of widespread news coverage this week after the New York Times highlighted Shkreli's decision to boost the cost of the more-than-60-year-old drug Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 after the company purchased the drug in August. The drug, developed long ago (i.e. the research costs were borne by a previous owner of the drug), is not exactly a frequently used medication but is considered the most effective drug and therefore the standard of care for people suffering with an infection called toxoplasmosis." http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/23/martin-shkreli-a-new-icon-of-modern-greed/  This was a completely legal move.

This is not an isolated situation and in fact it is the rule, although in most cases, the price increase is nowhere near 4000%.  Consider, however the case of "Sovaldi," a drug made by Gilead, that cures a form of hepatitis.  "In the United States, Sovaldi costs $1,000 a pill, or $84,000 for a typical 12-week course of treatment. It is likely to be sold for less than $1,800 for a 24-week course of treatment in India, where people are generally infected with a different form of the virus and treatment regimens can take twice as long.  Gilead plans to introduce the drug in India for about $10 a pill — 1 percent of the price in the United States, Gregg H. Alton, Gilead’s executive vice president, said at a news conference."  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/business/international/maker-of-hepatitis-c-drug-strikes-deal-on-generics-for-poor-countries.html?_r=0  How can this be?  Why would Gilead sell the drug in India at $10 per pill while charging $1000 per pill in the U.S.?  If it's profitable in India at $10 per pill, why can't that be the price here as well?

The answer is that the game is rigged and its rigged by Congress and the Big Pharma lobby.  If you did not know, the Health Care Lobby is the largest lobby in the country, larger than military-industrial complex or any other lobby group.  They donate incredible amounts to campaigns and their support is crucial to may legislators financially.

Congress, the beneficiary of the huge campaign donations, has actually passed laws that prevent Medicare from negotiating the pricing of drugs with drug makers!  Medicare cannot use its enormous leverage to get the best prices out of the drug makers in the same way that other countries do within their single payer nationalized health care systems.  No, in the U.S., Medicare can only pay a premium over an average cost for drugs and that average is pretty high when the rest of the market consists of drug makers with monopolies on their drugs and a very fragmented market of numerous health insurance companies.  All the leverage is on the side of the drug makers.

Obviously the solution is to take the handcuffs off of Medicare and in fact, go to a 100% single payer system, a Medicare for All system, in the U.S.  To do this, we have to have a revolutionary campaign finance reform movement so that Congress is not in the pocket of their big donors.  Good luck with that!  Still, the first step to a better health care system, and solving numerous other problems, is campaign finance reform and  as difficult and hopeless as it seems to be, reform must begin.

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton expressed outrage over the costs of the above drugs mentioned this week made some recommendations to prevent this from happening were she elected President.  "Under Mrs Clinton’s proposals, partially unveiled on September 22nd, Medicare, the government health scheme for elderly Americans, would be allowed to negotiate prices directly with drug companies—something the firms would fight tooth-and-nail. She also wants to stop drug firms treating the cost of direct-to-consumer advertising as a business expense allowable against tax; such ads encourage patients to demand specific drugs when there may be cheaper alternatives that are just as effective. And Mrs Clinton would require drug companies that benefit from government spending on research and development to invest a “sufficient amount” in R&D of their own. If she were elected president however, she might struggle to get much of this through Congress, and even then it might have only a marginal effect on the unrelenting rise in the cost of medicines." http://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21665436-dramatic-rises-price-some-medicines-prompt-calls-action-hillary-clinton-promises 

This is a good proposal but it will not pass through Congress UNLESS Congress is no longer owned by the Health Care Lobby and greed is no longer rewarded in the American Health Care System.  Job Number One is Campaign Finance Reform.

Note: After Secretary Clinton's comments, Turing, the company that owns Daraprim, announced it would roll back the price to some as of yet unspecified lower price and the stock prices of many large pharmaceutical tanked on Wall Street.