Donald Trump: Wrolds second most litigious man.

Donald Trump is NOT the worlds most litigious man. I bet that really pisses him off, but he only has 500 more to go. At DT's usual rate that will only be a couple years. After being named in 3500 law suits I figured Donald Trump would hold the world record for the most law suits ever. After some research to turns out I was wrong.... there is actually one crazy guy who has been named in more law suits. Jonathan Lee Riches named by Guinness book of Records as The worlds most litigious man. Imprisoned in Lexington, Ky., for wire fraud, Riches, aka Irving Picard, wrote in his handwritten document that he's actually filed more than 4,000 lawsuits in countless courts. After hearing the Guinness Book of World Records planned to name him the most litigious man, one federal prisoner did what he does best -- he sued.
So a crazed Federal inmate has 500 more law suits that the Donald. I thought it was impossible, but apparently Mr Riches has little else to do to occupy his time.
DOES ANYONE REALLY THINK HAVING THE SECOND MOST LITIGIOUS  MAN AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS A GOOD IDEA ??????

An attempt to explain the irony of Jesus loving Trump Supporters.

Jesus was undeniably a very cool dude. His life and teachings are the foundation of all Christianity which today represents thirty one percent of the world population or two point two billion people. If you don't happen to totally believe that he was divine and the son of God and sent here to guide us, teach us and ultimately die for our sins, that's fine. The historical records (as best they can be extruded) do tell us that his life was extraordinary and that he taught a philosophy that all of humanity can benefit from. "Love thy neighbor as thyself", "Turn the other cheek", "blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth" are a few quotes I remember from Sunday school. The bottom line is that this guy wanted us to love and care for each other no matter who we were. It mattered little to him if someone was different, poor, neglected, scorned by society, or otherwise didn't conform to the customs of the time. In fact, those were the people he most sought to comfort and help. He taught peace and goodwill, not war and distrust. He preached that those who are blessed with health, status, wealth, and material possessions should seek to assist and help those who are not.

Unfortunately the teaching and philosophy of this extraordinary man are not always represented by the people in many (in my opinion most) of today's organized religions. Personalities often seem to usurp principals. When Jesus said love thy neighbor I don't think he qualified it with a " unless they're gay" or "unless they are a different color" or " unless they believe in science" or on and on add infinitum.

This basic hypocrisy has always troubled me however it has not really had a direct impact upon my own life until now. This leads me to the current political climate in America and the inexplicable phenomenon known as Donald Trump. Trump seem to appeal to a swath of middle white America; mostly blue collar, working class with a professed religious belief and a deep dissatisfaction for "the direction that our country is going". It strikes me as profoundly ironic that many so called Christians, who would theoretically follow the teachings of Jesus would support a man who so diametrically opposes those same teachings. Trump's mantra has never been " love thy neighbor", on the contrary, his motto is "Fuck Thy neighbor"! By every appearance and shred of evidence, he has lived his life to this motto and then some. Clearly someone who belittles and insults parents of a United States solder killed in the line of duty or a journalist with physical handicaps has some serious issues. Clearly a man who would profess that Mexican immigrants are all rapists and murderers or that an American born Judge with 30 years on the bench can't do his job because of his Hispanic heritage, must possess some inherent racism. Of course I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that Trump displays absolutely none of the ideology taught by Jesus. So why are these people actually supporting him to become their leader. It just seems so mind boggling.

I can only come up with one theory, so I will make my case in light of the afore mentioned hypocrisy where the teachings of Jesus seem to come with multiple caveats. First, we must recognize that Trump is a narcissist and a pathological liar. His entire life is proof that he will do or say anything regardless of consequence in order to get attention. His slogans play to a broken and desperate America that only he can fix. It matters little if he has any viable realistic plans, or that little of what he says is true. All that matters is that he gets the attention. He clams to possess the ability to "make America win again". Of course this is a preposterous proposition, presupposing that "winning" is a zero sum game, and that if the United States is "winning" than someone else is losing and visa versa. This is the attitude of a simpleton and an egomaniac best reserved for the 8 year old school yard. Geo political diplomacy does not work that way, but Trump seems to have convinced much of this disenfranchised middle America that he can make them happy.

All of this begs the question: why is this segment of white, mostly male, mostly Christian middle America feeling disenfranchised? What the fuck do they mean "take America back again"? When questioned most allure to some bygone era, some "leave it to Beaver" America of the fifties. Some are simply angry because that's the band wagon to jump on while politicians and conservative media convince them how awful thing are. I do not disparage the real unfortunate workers who have lost their place in the work force due to technology, automation, or cheap overseas labor, but that situation can only be remedied by training, education and a true recognition that the nature of labor in America (and globally) is shifting and we need to adapt. Playing the blame game and singling out scapegoats as Trump is incredibly good at does nothing positive but serves him well by further fueling the anger and even turning it into hate....He claims it's the Mexicans fault or the Chinese, or the Muslims, and he does a pretty darn good job of stirring the pot. The bottom line is that Donald Trump has a portion of America that feels they have "lost" something eating right out of his hand. But once again, what have they lost? I propose that White, Anglo, Christian males have been in a position of privilege for most of American history. Without a doubt, even if you were working class, even if you were downright poor, you still held privilege in 20th century America. No one in their right mind could argue, a white Anglo Saxon Christian man had privilege that was not enjoyed by Blacks, native Americans, Hispanics, Asians, women, Arabis, Jews, Mormons,  not to mention Gays, lesbians and transgender's. There is a quote, I'm not sure who coined it but it goes like this: "When one is accustom to privilege, equality feels like oppression".
I think this quote goes a long way in explaining the feeling of disenfranchisement by many Trump supporters. It might not be that they are "losing" something, but that other once marginalized segments of society are "gaining" something. America has moved in the proper direction regarding equal rights and equal treatment and equal opportunity. It is by no means prefect but progress has been made. Unlike Trump would have us believe, it is NOT a zero sum game. Just because someone is "gaining" in equality and opportunity it doesn't mean that someone else is "losing" theirs. Of course they will lose some of their "privilege" but that is a good thing because we are a country that believes that all people are created equal.....not privileged!! Equality can feel like oppression. But it’s not. What they are feeling is just the discomfort of losing a little bit of their privilege — the same discomfort that an only child feels when she goes to preschool and discovers that there are other kids who want to play with the same toys as she does.

And here we are back at the playground where the school bully wants the swing set all to himself. I think Jesus would want us to share. I think Jesus would want us to love and respect each other, not try to cling to a position of privilege at the sacrifice of others. I think Jesus would want us to be compassionate and tolerant of all human beings. Hopefully some Trump supporters will come to understand the incredible irony and extreme conflict between their moral values and the self serving ideology of Donald Trump.

The POTUS candidates bizarre and impractical ideas on Trade and Immigration

"But the idea that trade fuels inequality is a very parochial perspective, and protectionists who shroud themselves in a moralistic inequality narrative are deeply hypocritical. As far as trade is concerned, the current US presidential campaign is an embarrassment of substance, not just of personality."

Anyone who has ever had the slightest interest in global macro economics, knows that Kenneth Rogoff is an economist "rock star". His argument as to how utterly stupid the "anti trade" rhetoric we are bombarded with by Presidential candidates, is right on the money. Most of his argument centers on the disastrous consequences bestowed on developing economies around the globe (and the indirect and eventual unintended consequences experienced do by the U.S.) However, the immediate impact upon the U.S. resulting in polices preferred by the likes of Trump and Cruz would by even more devastating. Loss of jobs, stifled consumption, higher prices for most consumer products and reduced demand for U.S. technology just to name a few. The CBO estimates that Trump's trade policies regarding China and Mexico alone would cost 4 million U.S. jobs....that's more than one percent of the entire U.S. Population !!!!! I find it inconceivable that any U.S. citizen cannot grasp the fact that the Trump proposed 40% tariff on Chinese imports means an immediate, direct, and certain 40% increase in price in at least half of the products they buy every day. Does anyone actually want to pay an extra $200 for their iPhone? Ether the Propaganda that the republican (and to a lesser degree the democratic) candidates are spewing is really working well, or the American public is awfully masochistic. Maybe it is a bit of both and for the most part they are simply uninformed.

This is not to mention their proposed immigration policies. Every economist knows, when the population grows the economy grows, when the population stops growing.......well, so does the economy. The U.S. Today has zero organic population growth and the demographics are getting older and older. How do we increase the "working age population" of the U.S so there are enough 20-40-year-old white and blue collar workers to keep the economy growing and take care of us old farts?????

IMMIGRATION......duh....Its little comfort that a simple man such as myself knows way more about this stuff that all the potential presidential candidates. 

From: Project Syndicate April 7, 2016 by Kenneth Rogoff. 

CAMBRIDGE – The rise of anti-trade populism in the 2016 US election campaign portends a dangerous retreat from the United States’ role in world affairs. In the name of reducing US inequality, presidential candidates in both parties would stymie the aspirations of hundreds of millions of desperately poor people in the developing world to join the middle class. If the political appeal of anti-trade policies proves durable, it will mark a historic turning point in global economic affairs, one that bodes ill for the future of American leadership.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has proposed slapping a 45% tax on Chinese imports into the US, a plan that appeals to many Americans who believe that China is getting rich from unfair trade practices. But, for all its extraordinary success in recent decades, China remains a developing country where a significant share of the population live at a level of poverty that would be unimaginable by Western standards.

Saving the IMF

PS On Point: Your review of the world’s leading opinions on global issues.

Consider China’s new five-year plan, which aims to lift 55 million people above the poverty line by 2020, a threshold defined as just CN¥2,300, or $354, per year. This compares with a poverty line of around $12,000 for a single person in the US. Yes, there are significant cost-of-living differences that make direct comparisons dubious, and, yes, poverty is as much a social condition as an economic one, at least in advanced economies; but the general point that inequality between countries swamps inequality within countries is a very powerful one.

And China’s poverty problem is hardly the world’s worst. India and Africa both have populations roughly comparable to China’s 1.4 billion people, with significantly smaller shares having reached the middle class.

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is a far more appealing individual than “The Donald,” but his anti-trade rhetoric is almost as dangerous. Following prominent left-leaning economists, Sanders rails against the proposed new Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), even though it would do much to help the developing world – for example, by opening up Japan’s market to Latin American imports.

Sanders even hammers his opponent Hillary Clinton for her support of earlier trade deals such as the 1992 North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Yet that agreement forced Mexico to lower its tariffs on US goods far more than it forced the US to reduce its already low tariffs on Mexican goods. Unfortunately, the resounding success of Sanders’s and Trump’s anti-trade rhetoric has pulled Clinton away from her more centrist position, and might have the same effect on many members of the House and Senate. This is a recipe for disaster.

The TPP does have its flaws, particularly in its overshoot on protection of intellectual property rights. But the idea that the deal will be a huge job killer for the US is highly debatable, and something does need to be done to make it easier to sell high-tech goods to the developing world, including China, without fear that such goods will be instantly cloned. A failure to ratify the TPP would almost certainly condemn tens of millions of people in the developing world to continued poverty.

The right remedy to reduce inequality within the US is not to walk away from free trade, but to introduce a better tax system, one that is simpler and more progressive. Ideally, there would be a shift from income taxation to a progressive consumption tax (the simplest example being a flat tax with a very high exemption). The US also desperately needs deep structural reform of its education system, clearing obstacles to introducing technology and competition.

Indeed, new technologies offer the prospect of making it far easier to retrain and retool workers of all ages. Those who advocate redistribution by running larger government budget deficits are being short sighted. Given adverse demographics in the advanced world, slowing productivity, and rising pension obligations, it is very hard to know what the endgame of soaring debt would be.

Do pro-deficit progressives realize that the burden of any future debt crises (or financial-repression measures) are likely to fall disproportionately on poor and middle-income citizens, as they have in the past? Simple redistribution of income through taxes and transfers is far more direct and more potent, and would certainly serve to expand aggregate demand.

Anyone who portrays the US as a huge loser from the global economic status quo needs to gain some perspective on the matter. I have little doubt that a century from now, Americans’ consumption-centric lifestyle will no longer be viewed as something to envy and emulate, and the country’s failure to implement a carbon tax will be viewed as a massive failure. With under 5% of the world’s population, the US accounts for a vastly disproportionate share of carbon-dioxide emissions and other pollution, with much of the blame falling on America’s middle class.

But the idea that trade fuels inequality is a very parochial perspective, and protectionists who shroud themselves in a moralistic inequality narrative are deeply hypocritical. As far as trade is concerned, the current US presidential campaign is an embarrassment of substance, not just of personality.

A simple question for Mitch McConnell and the Senate Judicial Committee

So here's the thing. Mitch McConnell says that the GOP controlled Senate Judicial committee will simply ignore their Constitutional responsibility and refuse to consider any nomination for Supreme Court by the Obama administration. His argument supporting this unprecedented, unscrupulous, and quite possibly illegal move is that since the current administration only has one year left in office that  obstructing the nomination process  for a year will "let the voters decide"......... WTF Mitch !!!!! WE DID DICIDE IN THE LAST TWO ELECTIONS you ignorant BOS !!!! That's right Mitch, the voters of this country made a clear choice in 2008 and 2012 ( remember those Mitch...they are called elections) and those voters chose the current Administration to do its job, one of which, is to nominate justices for the Supreme Court !!!!!!!
So here's a question for Mitch McConnell and the Senate Judicial Committee. Do you intend to block the Supreme Court nomination for another four years if the next President turns out to be a Democrat? ........Is it just me, or are these guys just totally out to lunch ???

A crash test dummy explains James Madison and the Bill of Rights.

Gun Control for Dummies

I happened to receive a tube video today titled “gun control for dummies”. The presentation is conducted by a crash test dummy who proceeds to enlighten us as to the intent of the first ten amendments to the Constitution otherwise known as The Bill of Rights. The dummy actually does a decent job of pulling the third amendment into a reinforcement of the need for the second and rolls them into a right of citizens to protect themselves against nefarious and/or oppressive action by the government. What is of note, is that as a federalist, Madison was against any amendments, thinking they would further diminish the strength of the  Constitution. He wrote the ten amendments that would become the bill of rights as a compromise and bone-toss to the anti-federalists. Madison did change his mind regarding the amendments (considered a death blow in today’s politics) and ultimately supported the addition of the amendments added to the original document rather than inserted into the body of the text, however in his personally written draft he scribbled in the margin “bill of rights- useful but not essential”.

Clearly the bill of rights including the 2nd and 3rd amendments, were designed to protect individuals (and states to a lesser degree) from an "oppressive government". This was arguably an effective strategy for around seven decades when the only truly effective military strategy was a bunch of guys with guns. One could argue that an armed Militia today isn't really going to do much against an oppressive government since the militia would need tanks, rockets, helicopters, and maybe a fighter jet or two. So, that argument is now moot and simpleminded, thus the dummy doing the explaining. A much better argument would be the intent to protect one’s life, family, and property against criminals. The SCOTUS has upheld this argument and it actually remains germane to the issue. Pretty clear, if some criminal comes in my house with the intent of taking my stuff or hurting my family, I can shoot him. Of course I might just be charged with a crime myself if I fail to prove my life was in eminent danger, but that’s another issue. Never the less, this is basically my current interpretation of my 2nd amendment rights. I have the right to own firearms and use them for my protection. Not one of our founding fathers mentioned or considered hunting in the 2nd amendment, rather, it was for protection.

Since the gun doesn't do the crime or the “crazy mass shooting" (the criminal or crazy shooter does) then it only makes sense to try and keep them from getting the requisite equipment. That way, we responsible gun owners take less heat for what some crazed phyco might do....right? For that reason I would certainly support reasonable back ground checks for firearm purchase. It would not affect me, but maybe serve to keep the blame for senseless violence where it belongs...with the perpetrators.

As is usually the case, the extreme elements on both sides are the problem. Hey, I really do like guns, but I wouldn't feel comfortable in Texas with guys openly carrying sidearms around. We all have the right to buy a car, but you have to get a license to drive it on the highway. I have the right to own a gun for protection of my home and hunting on my own property or in otherwise approved areas, but I sure don't want a bunch of crazy douche bags carrying them around.

Since criminals do the crime and crazies do the mass shootings, it does seem reasonable to try and keep guns out of their hands. A complete background check before a firearm purchase is one step we can take in that direction. But hey, I’m just a simple guy who happens to like shooting the classic Parker Brothers 16 gauge shotgun that me grandfather and father used, and eating the spoils of my effort, however I'm not really sure I (or the citizens of The United States) should have a crash text dummy explaining our rights for us.

While every organized religion within our limited preview of written human history has claimed to be "the King shit" when it comes to moral superiority, history easily proves the contrary. All of them claim a monopoly on human altruism which I find ether disingenuous (at best) or absolute bullshit ( more likly). Let us put aside for the moment the horrific deeds and practices preformed over the last two thousand years in the name of one God or another. Let us dismiss momentarily one thousand years of Crusades, inquisitions, religious genoside, and current Islamic fundamentalism. Let us just focus on the ever present claim of almost every religious community that they are the true practitioners of altruism. Unfortunately, organized religion serves not as a platform for universal altruism, but as a far more narrow platform of group and reciprocal altruism directed only towards members of the same faith, and not toward humanity in general. 

This becomes all too obvious and "close to home" when one observes the agenda of the current American evangelical right. Ones apparently god given right to participate in ceremony prescribed to ones religion justifies indifference or flat-out rejection of all others. This is simply not acceptable in today's global society. We are all too inter- connected and interdependent on one another to accept religious (read mythological) differences. I can accept the reality of "kin altruism" in the fact that we are all genetically predisposed to love our children more than others, but of course that is not only altruism but survival and Darwinism at its clearest. However the shit that is spudded in the name of God (or whatever group- du jouir) is infuriating, and counter productive to the betterment of humankind. 

The natural disposition of humanity toward fairness, kindness, and empathy whether genetic or learned had certainly never been the exclusive domain of any particular religious organization , no matter where anyone says. Random acts of kindness come from all nooks and crannys. Sure they come from Christian Churches, bla, da, bla..churches and peoples of no religious beliefs at all. The most importance observation is that altruism at its purest is a natural part of the human condition. We all strive not only to treat others as we wish to be treated but to help others at what may be our own sacrafice. This is simply "being human"..... Regardless of who you choose to pray too.

The Great GOP Paintball War

GOP Paintball War: Better than a Debate.

I just came up with an idea which makes so much sense I am surprised no one has suggested it thus far.

Everyone has clearly witnessed that every GOP vying for the nomination is just itching to get involved in a ground war in the Middle East again. All of them have expressed disgust with the idea of diplomacy as used in the past few days by our current administration. All would place U.S.A. boots on the ground and incurs American loss of life, regardless of the irrefutable, frustrating, no-win nature of the situation. This almost appears to me as some sort of unnatural blood lust; an insatiable desire to fight, kill, and die rather than actually achieve an objective, only with someone else's life, or that of their children. Now, I may be wrong in my assertion of some disturbing neurosis but every GOP debate has clearly provided a good deal of evidence supporting my assertion and every one has referred to our POTUS as weak for not having used more military in Syria, Yemen and / or Ukraine.

It also has become crystal clear that they all would rather shit a peach seed than allow assault style weapons like AR15s, AK47s, M4s and the like to be regulated in any way shape or form. They have all publicly  stated opposition to any sort of reasonable back ground check to help keep a high capacity mag. armor piercing, high velocity semi- auto out of the hands of some nut case.

So, here's the concept: Instead of having the next GOP debate, which have all clearly degraded to a mud slinging, visceral, personal attack on each other (Bush v Rubio, Trump v Cruz, etc. etc.) let's try a different approach that will not only satisfy all their aghast and anger against each other and American life today as we know it, but also satisfy their desire  for war, killing, and use of assault weapons, not to mention, provide for a clear and undeniable winner.

Let them have a paintball war only substitute the paintball guns with fully automatic AK47s. The Last man or woman standing gets the nomination. I realize this proposal sounds a bit like The Hunger Games, however from all I have heard from the GOP hopefuls, they would all love it, therefor it would be completely voluntary. Of course this would assume that all hopefuls have  conviction behind their hawkish rhetoric. If any did not accept the invitation it would only go to show that they were really just spewing bull shit and are not willing to put their actions where their mouths are. On top of it all, this could provide the hugest global media event ever. Selling rights to coverage could quite possibly save, and fund social security and Med a care forever.

Macabre sounding I know, and of course Paul gets a pass as a liberation and having never endorsed unilateral U.S. Military intervention, but overall, even in jest.......I think it would be awesome.........anyone willing to shell out a fifty to watch on pay for view??????