Politics

Think Tanks!!!  Oooh, look at them all.  There’s the Hoover Institute, the Constitution Project, The Brookings Institute, the Center for Public Integrity, Concord Coalition and…  and… about 200 more.  A place where people are paid to think, and ostensibly produce useful thoughts.  And better, each one has a mission statement telling us how good and important their work is. For example The American Enterprise Institute says it exists for “expanding liberty, increasing individul opportunity,  and strenghthening free enterprise”.  A heady committment.

We have had tons of think tanks for many decades.  And thank God.  Just think, if we hadn’t had all these stables of great brains, our country might be in a big mess right now.  How lucky we are.

And here is one great idea the geniuses will probably come up with soon because they are so smart – a solution  to the  day care problem: do like they do in Europe!  In Poland, where I have lived for the past several years, day care has been the business of public elementary schools for 50 years. Virtually every public preschool and elementary school has a “szwetlice” or day care room, open from 7am to 5 pm every day.  The caregivers are certified elementary school teachers.  The children have games and materials to use, and when weather permits can play on the school playground.  They also have an area where they can do their homework or read. Working in elementary schools, I have seen daycare teachers reading to groups of kids on occassion.  It would have to be paid for in US elementary schools as it is here, but it could certainly be the cheapest and most easily managed, serving families at their children’s school.  If Poland can do it, I have faith that the US could manage.

But, of course there will be kneejerk criticism. What about children who don’t go to public schools?  What about kids whose parents work late?  It seems to me that if this system could work for even  half of the 25 million elementary school children in the US it would be a huge gift to many American families.

Here’s another concern that may soon be brought up by a think tank (because they are so wise).  In the EU, the independence of the judicial branches of the federal governments is thought to be sacrosanct. Judges and prosecutors are selected by the judiciary.  A few years ago when the PIS party was in power in Poland, they moved, Trump-like, to get the power to select judges moved to the parliament.  Of course this gave the dominant party more authority over the judiciary, was seen as politicizing the process, and was penalized by Brussels. Over 100 billion Euros in funds allocated to Poland was frozen, and was not released until the new government, elected in 2024, started to reverse the process and return the power to the judiciary.  As previously, the Judicial Council selects the personnel, and the president confirms.  The president has the nominal power to reject the nominee, but rarely has the political power to do so, and as a rule confirms.  Poland has a separate head of state (president) and  head of government (prime minister). And the president does not have the power to nominate someone to replace a nominee he may reject.

But here is the thingy.  When I tell Poles that in the US, the president has the sole power to nominate all federal judges and prosecuters, they don’t believe me.  They don’t believe how the selection of supreme court judges could be so blatantly politicized as to allow the president to choose them – and FOR LIFE!!

So I’m SURE that some of the wonderful think tanks that grace our capital city and many august institutions of higher learning will soon come up with a brilliant new plan.  A fabulous plan, perhaps even better than the governments and judiciaries of Europe, (or at least concepts of a plan) to de-politicize the selection of all the federal district judges, circuit courts of appeals judges, and the justices of the Supreme Court.  I’m sure.  Where would we be without them?

 

 

 

 

11111Often children have dreams of glorious success in their near adulthood. Some dream of winning Olympic gold, becoming president, climbing a mountain, or playing for the Yankees or Real Madrid. Elon Musk says his passion as a child was space travel, sci fi and Mars. Now a few decades later, he controls the most influential space agency in the world.  SpaceX has 4 US launch sites, shuttling  personel and equipment to the International Space Station and  6000 Starlink satellites bring internet to remote locations. But his signature mission is to colonize Mars. His plans propose the first manned launches in the early 2030’s and a million people living on Mars by the year 2050. 

But Mars is not a welcoming host. The surface pressure is less than one percent of that on Earth and there is precious little oxygen gas. So without a pressurized suit and oxygen source a human would be dead in minutes of suffocation and embolism, the expansion of bodily fluids into gas. The pressure is low because there is so little  atmosphere – molecules held by the planet’s gravity. No atmosphere because there is no magnetic field flowing from the poles. And no magnetic field because the core of Mars has cooled, unlike Earth’s core of molten nickel. The magnetic field on Earth serves to defray the solar winds, charged particles which emanate in all directions from the sun.  Without this barrier, the solar winds sweep away most molecules which may consider forming an atmosphere on Mars.

Also, the matter of temperature. The surface  of Mars averages minus 63 centegrade (-83F). Wherever night falls on the planet, the temperature goes below -100 centigrade or -140 F. Then there is the cosmic radiation, which causes cancer and neurological damage and which the planet is constantly bathed in, 40 times the intensity of that on Earth.  And finally there are the Martian dust storms, not regional but enveloping most of the planet every 3 years.

3 There is no general consensus, but many scientists believe that a base could be established on Mars with the right protection from all the forbidding elements, albeit at enormous expense.  This would  entail transporting many tons ( Musk: “about a million”)  of equipment and constructing living and working accommodations in a micro environment providing oxygen, pressure, food and water, waste removal, radiation protection. If Spacex doesn’t succeed, it won’t be for not trying. The technologies being developed jar the imagination…………… 

4 But the delicate balance of forces, waves and particles, pressure, and temperature  that make up Earth’s biosphere not only ensures our physical integrity but also helps to maintain our mental wellness. Some people are more depressed on dark, rainy days and more peppy on sunny days. Natural sunlight helps to stimulate serotonin, a neurotransmitter that aids in mood stability; artificial light cannot. Novelty and new experiences help regulate neurotransmitters which foster social bonding, effect calmness, and reduce stress-inducing rumination over regretful experiences. Thus the universal appeal of art, music and dramatic performance. And the institution of vacation, practiced even in primitive societies,  gives relief from the routine.  Over the millions of years, life has developed a symbiosis with earthly conditions in countless ways, many of which we surely don’t yet understand.

5 Inmates in prisons serving long sentences have a much higher rate of mental illness than the general public.  This is due, certainly in part, to the isolation and relative stimulus deprivation of their lives in prison.  The privations of life confined to a Martian habitat, possibly without the hope of returning to Earth, would likely cause mental challenges and should be a cause for concern for all Mars missions. 

 

6   Five countries have landed vehicles on the surface of Mars with varying degrees of success. The Soviet Union was the first in 1971, but lost contact with the craft minutes after it landed.  The  US had a successful landing in 1975 and since then NASA has landed 9 more times, deploying 4 rovers and a helicopter .  Besides these NASA has put various satellites in orbit around Mars. Britain and ESA landed on Mars in 2003 but lost contact before the landing, which was only confirmed in 2013. China landed on Martian soil in 2021 deploying its own data-gathering rover.  

7 But why, exactly?   Why go to Mars and expend such vast resources in time, effort, money, and mineral wealth?  One reason is certainly the one that has motivated mankind over the centuries and continents – the challenge.  The challenge to find India by sailing west, to conquer Constantinople,  to swim the English Channel, to break  a world record, to finish a marathon at the age of 50, to discover a cure for brain cancer.   Technological challenges are no less motivated by this human spirit. On initiating the moon mission in 1962, JFK said, “We choose to go to the moon this decade and  do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”  We feel gratified when we meet a challenge. The disciplined Houston Control room dissolved into joyful, raucous celebration when Apollo 11’s lunar module Eagle landed on July 20,1969.  

8 Second is the prestige factor, which was not far from the surface of Kennedy’s moon mission speech. The Soviet’s had delivered a one-two punch in Sputnik, the first satellite to orbit the Earth in 1957  and Yuri Gargarin’s  single orbit around the Earth in April 1961. The advantage the Soviets demonstrated had some Americans in near panic. . The space race was indeed  a race for prestige and a flexing of geopolitical muscles. 

 9 The space race has cooled now and no one has gone to the moon in 50 years.  It was an interesting time, and there were some useful spin off technologies. But moon rocks on display in the Smithsonian did not radically change our society.   

 

But Elon Musk’s intentions go far beyond landing a human on Mars. 

Most sucessful life long scientists – researchers and  engineers derive there gratification from their work

Insert Neil De Grasse Tyson – skepticism.   vanity project

9With so many hurdles to overcome why does Musk persist? For one thing, he is no ordinary scientist. Most get their gratification over a lifetime by  immersion into their work – into the gratification of receiving a grant for research, for seeing their work published, for seeing their work applied to improve the world. If their research reveals a dead end, they back off and try another path. But Musk has fallen into another realme: The limelight. Celebrity. He has found another source of gratification – a worshipping fandom, as The Richest Man in the World and he has fallen hard. Jumping, jumping high in the air on stage with Donald Trump in front of teeming applause. Now on stage with a buzzing chain saw dramatizing what he plans to do with government spending. Now hosting Saturday Night Live. Now on the Tonight Show. Now publicly challenging Mark Zuckerburg to a cage match.  After developing such a craving for celebrity, how could he abandon the source of his fame no matter how unlikely it is to succeed or be of value to mankind.  

He has justified his Mars plan in ways that often defy reason or at least conventional wisdon, the scientific kind.

But Elon Musk’s envisioned plans are far grander. Central to his scheme is to make Mars not just a lab for scientists, but a place fun for the whole family.

 

 

 

 

“If there is life on Mars, I believe we should do nothing with Mars. Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes.” Carl S Planetary Scientist, Cornell University.

strikingly said he believed  that “

 

It just hit me! A great way to solve the headache of the US natinal debt. I’m slappin my forehead as to why I didn’t get this before. It’s simple. The US Treasury Dept, Bureau of Fiscal Service says the national debt is 36.7 trillion bucks. (Of which 7 trillion is that for which the gov dipped into the Social Security Administration’s piggybank) And the top 1 percent, which comprises 1.3 million families, is worth 49 trillion bucks.

Here’s what we do. We ask the top 1 percent to give us all their money. They say, sure, we want to help. We take all their money and we pay off the US national debt in its entirety. Then we see what we have left. So, 49 trillion minus 36.7 trillion is uh, carry the 1, ah 12.3 trillion bucks. Then we divide it up and give it back to the top 1 percent that gave us their money. So that would be 12.3 trillion divided by 1.3 million = $9,461,538 and 46 cents for each of the generous families of the 1%.

So each family still has over 9 million bucks, which is a lot. Some of the families would find it hard to scrape by on this but they would remain in the prestigious class of Millionaires and Billionaires, our Social Security fund would be  out of danger, and the value of the US dollar is out of trouble. And best of all we can pour more money into our all-important Department of Defense. Who could ask for more??????

(Some didn’t get the message so here it is: to convey how the astronomical deficits of the US government are reciprocated by the astronomical excesses of the super rich class. And one reason why we are now moving toward becoming a failed society – the unconscionable wealth gap and the disappearing middle class. And further, why  legislation accused of being socialist is necessary to help the lower socio economic classes survive.) 

I think trump’s notion that Canada become the 51st state is marvelous. First it would add to our population. And why should we be stuck forever as number 3 in the world, forever less populous than China and India, which is now number 1? Let’s check Canada’s popuarion. Yikes its, 40.3 million. That means it would be our most populous state, ahead of California, which has 39.3 million. The number of reps in the House of Representatives is permanently fixed at 435 members so states may gain or lose reps according to their change in population. California has 52 congressional districts so Canada would likely have 53. It would entail drawing 53 congressional districts in Canada. So the other 50 states would have to give up 53 of their reps. Maybe some wouldn’t like that but think of the great expansion of the US. Of the 9.86 million sq km of the US,  Texas has an area of 695,000 square km. Alaska has 1.72 million sq km. Let’s check Canada. Yikes, its 9.92 million sq km!! Canada is larger than the US!! Now this would make for quite a gargantuan administrative effort to do all the work to make it a state. Might be too much. Hmm. Hey, I’ve got a better idea. Why don’t we make the US the 11th Canadian province? Quod Erat Demonstrandum!!! (We might also get Canada’s universal health coverage.)

 

constitution mandates 435 representatives divided up

canada therefore would get 52 representatves so the other states would have to give u that many reps

interior dept cut 7500 jobs

I was a bit surprised by CNN’s Jim Sciutto’s seeming ignorance of foreign trade. He was completely justified in his contempt for Trump’s constant whining about how unfair are so many countries that sell more goods to the US than they buy. Sciutto reflected that maybe they (other countries) just produce goods “more efficiently” than in the US. Not at all. That the US produces goods more efficiently is the reason that there aren’t bigger trade deficits and that with some countries – Britain, Australia, Brazil – there is a US surplus.

There are two reasons for our overall trade deficit. First, a strong dollar. What does this mean? Having moved to Poland from the US, it is easy for me to understand, and most people don’t. But I think that a newsman should if he were going to comment about it on national TV. Let’s assume the dollar is stronger than the Polish currency, which it is. You take a dollar, go to the store and you can buy 3 chocolate cookies – or 3 widgets.
You take a dollar and  hop on a plane to Poland where you exchange the dollar for the Polish currency. You go in a store and find you can buy 5 chocolate cookies, or 5 widgets for the dollar’s equivalent in Polish zloties. Hey, this is good!  The dollar is stronger than the Polish currency. (This is the reason some retired Polish-Americas move back to Poland – their retirement buys more.) Therefore Polish im/exporters, naturally looking for the greatest profit, find that buying from the US isn’t the best deal.  More profitable to sell to them.

The second reason for the overall trade deficit is the American consumer. The top half of the US population represents the richest, most consuming, most spending, society in the world. The US per capita income is $89,100. That of China is $13,800. Much of our high standard of living comes from foreign goods. If I buy a new pair of Mexican socks, my standard of living goes up. I’m happier with new, colorful socks. By Trump’s idea, the US just got cheated out of 20 dollars by Mexico.  He crowed that under Bidem, the US “lost” 5 billion dollars a day, (because Americans bought 5 bil more of foreugn goods that they sold).  MAGA people gasped and shook their head at such prodigality. Of course it was just more Trump disinformation.

In summary, no, the overall trade deficit is not due to Americam inefficiency. Just as more Americans in the top half of the ecomony
cook less and order more food delivered, the US is producing less of some consumer goods to some extent, and importing more. And the strong dollar makes selling to the US more attractive than purchasing.

TRUMP SWEPT AWAY A LONG-BELABORED NUCLEAR PEACE TREATY WITH IRAN AND NOW THIS WEEK SUPPORTED AND AIDED ISRAELS BOMBING OF IRAN FOR ENRICHING URANIUM TO LEVELS APPROACHING WEAPONS GRADE. THE REASON MANY IN IRAN WANTS NUCLEAR WEAPONS IS BECAUSE ISRAEL HAS A HUGE NUMBER OF THEM- AT LEAST 100. AND TO GIVE ISRAEL A DAMN GOOD REASON FOR NOT ATTACKING THEM. OF COURSE THE CURRENT BOMBINGS MAKE THEM WANT NUKE BOMBS MUCH MORE AND CONTINUES THE CYCLE OF FEAR, HATE, WAR……………… Brief history of nuclear peace treaty with Iran: In 2003 Britain, France and Germany initiate diplomacy with Iran regarding Iran’s increased concern with enrichment.Talks between Iran and the US start in Obama administration, which wisely expands the diplomatic group to include China, France, Britain, Germany, Russia, the European Union. along with Iran and the US……. After many long arduous meetings, a preliminary agreement was signed IN 2013. This was not just an exchange of bargaining chips but a dialectic on the philosophy and economy of peace. On July 14, 2015, the final accord was signed by the seven countries.
The chief negotiator for Iran was Mohamed Zarif, who went to high school in San Francisco, took BA and MA at SF state U, then to
School of International Relations, U of Denver. The concord increased the influence the moderates

THE TERMS– Iran agreed to —-limit U-enrichment to 3.67% -far below the 90%needed for weapons grade

—- reduce their number of installed centrifuges by two-thirds……..

—Allow IAEA inspections of nuclear stock

International allowances to for Iran…… —Lift nuclear related sanctions imposed by the US, EU and the UN —Allow Iran access to international banking system and oil markets —-and unfreeze Iranian bank accounts in the US.

There was criticism that Iran couldn’t be trusted, but as long as all parties were talking, it was the best situation. The worst factions, Hamas and the Revolutionary Guard, saw diminished influence. There was no war for the
dozen years the US was involved in the treaty council.

The accord came into effect January 16, 2016… working effectively until May, 2018 when Trump pulled out of the deal and imposed sanctions again.
Trump pulled out, to the astonishment of the other members, so he could upstage Obama, claiming he could make a better deal. Headlining his demagoguery was his cry that the treaty called for PAYING IRAN 8 BILLION DOLLARS. WHY SHOULD WE PAY THEM 8 BILLION DOLLARS? Because it was their money in US banks, frozen since the Iran hostage crisis…and it was a reasonable concession to aid in the final agreement. Trump tried to bully another deal he could call the Trump deal, but without the diplomatic understanding and experience he failed – proving fact that it was trump himself that ”didn’t know what the f he was doing.”

What happened to the relations among the parties of the Iran nuclear peace treaty after Trump pulled out in 2018?

When  President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal — in May 2018, the decision had major ripple effects on relations among all parties involved. Here’s how the relationships evolved post-withdrawal

1. United States

• Reimposed Sanctions: The Trump administration reinstated harsh economic sanctions on Iran, targeting its oil exports, banking sector, and other critical industries.
• “Maximum Pressure” Campaign: This strategy aimed to force Iran back to the negotiating table for a “better deal” but only deepened hostilities. Trump thought he could bully them back to the negotiating table and claim his deal was better than Obama’s, showing his lack of understanding of Mideast diplomacy – proving it was trump who didn’t know what the f he was doing and it led directly to the exchange of fire of June 25 of this year which saw hundreds of deaths.

2. Iran

• Gradual Breach of JCPOA Limits: In response to the U.S. withdrawal and sanctions, Iran started violating the deal’s terms step by step:
  • Increased uranium enrichment beyond allowed limits.
  • Expanded centrifuge use.
  • Reduced cooperation with IAEA inspectors.
• Strained Relations with Europe: Iran criticized European countries for failing to protect it from U.S. sanctions, as promised.
  -Also increased influence of extremist factions

3. European Signatories (UK, France, Germany – the E3)

• Tried to Save the Deal: The E3 tried to keep the deal alive by urging Iran to remain compliant and creating INSTEX (a special trade mechanism) to bypass U.S. sanctions — but it had limited success.
• Caught in the Middle: The E3 faced increasing pressure from both the U.S. and Iran. Their failure to deliver economic relief led Iran to question their credibility. (and again, increase influence of extremists)

4. Russia and China

• Supported Iran: Russia and China remained supportive of Iran’s position and criticized U.S. withdrawal.
• Increased Cooperation: China and Russia expanded economic and military ties with Iran, especially as Iran turned eastward under sanctions. Greatly increased Chinese exports to Iran.

5. Overall Impact on Relations

• Fractured Unity: The unity among JCPOA signatories eroded, with trust in U.S. commitment to international agreements seriously damaged.
• Nuclear Risk Increased: Iran’s growing non-compliance raised fears about renewed nuclear weapons potential and regional instability.
• Biden-era Efforts: The Biden administration began indirect talks in 2021 to return to the JCPOA, but by 2022 those talks had largely stalled.
  
  The chief negotiator for Iran was Mohamed Zarif, who went to highschool in San Francisco, took BA and MA at SF state U, then to
  School of International Relations, U of Denver. After the trump pullout, he saw decreased influence. He, like all sane, non-extremist
• iranians have no desire to exterminate Iran.

 

JD Vance. WE BORROW MONEY FROM CHINESE PEASANTS TO BUY THINGS CHINESE PEASANTS MANUFACTURE. THIS IS NOT A GOOD RECIPE FOR ECONOMIC PROSPERITY.

Also, it’s not true.

Two components. First, why insult an entire country as a whole by calling them peasants? A spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry said “It is both astonishing and lamentable that this vice president made such ignorant and disrespectful remarks.” A PR genius Vance is not.

Secondly, so how is it that the US is indebted to China? Do Treasury officers go to rice paddies and tap the farmers on the shoulder? How about a few bucks till payday, pal? No. Do treasury officers go to Chinese officials hat in hand looking for a loan? Nope. Maybe we owe for all the merch we buy from China. Are we deadbeats that won’t pay up? No, importers pay cash on the barrelhead before the consumer buys it. OK, so how do we borrow money from China?

SUPPORT AMERICA. BUY US SAVINGS BONDS
I remember the ads in elementary school. My aunt bought me a $25 US savings. But i lost interest when I found out it didn’t mature for 10 years. But many others still hold a keen interest. That is because US bonds are universally trusted. Saudi Arabia has about $800 billion (8/10ths of a trillion) in US investments and about 20% of it consists of US Treasury bonds. However Chinese investment in the US is almost entirely in US Treasury bonds. It is the perfect bank for huge sums. Their purchasing
of US bonds stabilizes the Chinese juan, is the perfect bank for their foreign currency and ensures against loss from bankruptcies or other failing investment instruments. The bonds are low risk, low return. So in return the US Treasury gets a loan with the cheapest possible interest.

The first trump administration did not change the policy of selling bonds to China, nor has the second. And why should they? The first trump administration increased the national debt by 8 trillion dollars. And the second Trump administration is sure as hell going to add more debt. And if we are going to borrow more, why not get the cheapest interest – So his statement of borrowing from Chinese peasants, which we do not – they buy our Treasury bonds, and that it is not a recipe for economic prosperity, makes no sense whatsoever. It is a recipe for the cheapest loans if we have to go further into debt. So why did he say it? Dunno. Most likely he was given a script to follow, which somehow was thought to be receptive to MAGA ears.

 

 

The US treasury bonds China holds represents about 2,4% of the US total
debt. By contrast, the part of the US debt owed to the governments own Social Security Administration (internal debt) is 7 trillion, or about 20% of the total 36 trillion of debt. To address JD Vance’s puzzling statement about Chinese peasants – no, we don’t solicit loans from any peasants anywhere. The Chinese treasury buys US bonds w/o solicitation from US.

 

 

 

trump -” We gave the panama Canal to Panama, not to China”

You can’t give away what you don’t own, and the US never owned the Canal zone even for a day.

In the earliest days of the 20th century, the US negotiated with Columbia to build a canal in their territory of Panama. The terms were agreed upon but the Columbian senate in August, 1903 voted unanimously against it, fearing the loss of too much influence to the US.  A group in Panama was formed (with the aid of a certain North American country) to lead a revolution for independence for the province of Panama.  Voila.  After a brief skirmish with Columbian troops aided by US gunboat diplomacy, independence was declared. The US promptly recognized and struck a deal with the new leaders.

The deal was a 99 year lease to the US, rent being $250,000 paid annually to Panama, fixed rate, and the US collected a couple million in tolls. But in 1964 Panamanian leaders were calling for a renegotiation of the treaty as after 60 years the same rent payment of $250,000 was shrinking in value as the collection of tolls had risen to over $100 million dollars, or 400 times the amount of rent the US was paying. They achieved some traction by taking the matter to the UN. The Johnson administration and Panamanian officials came to an agreement in 1968 but it failed to be ratified in Panama. Negotiations continued during the Nixon administration, and in 1977, under Carter, congress ratified the Torrijos-Carter Treaty which called for the gradual end of US control of the canal zone finalizing in 1999, cutting 4 years off the 99 year lease. And the US rent to Panama would increase to 10 million a year until it was handed over. (by the time of the handover, the US was collecting over 200 million in tolls.)

In summary, no, Jimmy Carter did not give the Panama canal away to anyone. During his time in office, the congress did finalize the renegotiation of the Hay-Bunau-Varrila Treaty of 1903, agreeing on total control to be returned to Panama in 1999. This, in fact happened.