We started a Fall tradition last year of taking a tour of regional brewery as a family. We take everyone who can attend and break up the beer tasting with hiking, outdoor games, and food. Here are some images for the family and friends of the family.
I won’t call you a socialist for assuming farmers should receive government subsidies when they cannot sell their beans if you don’t call me a socialist because I believe all Americans deserve health care. [just to get your attention and encourage you to read further]
I have been bothered for some time by the way politicians attack Democratic positions on topics such as health care or funding of higher education by labeling such commitments as socialism. I wonder whether those applying this label with this sentiment could even come up with a definition for what they assume is a derogatory term. I was not certain that I could generate a meaningful definition myself and this resulted in my impression that socialism was essentially a term with a generally negative connotation, but lacking a useful definition. By useful, I don’t mean that those who study the characteristics of governance have no precise definitions, I mean the average individual on the street has little insight and whatever description might be provided would be different from what the next individual asked to offer a description would generate. This lack of specificity for a label that implies a negative practice works great for the dismissal of something you can’t criticize in a specific way.
Certainly, Democrats tend to look to the government more frequently for assistance in solving problems and there is a tendency to tie this expectation in with a greater emphasis on taxation as a way to pay for such solutions. Of course, not having a way to pay for solutions would be irresponsible. Here is the thing, it is also easy to generate a list of things that Republicans want the government to emphasize and I assume would tax citizens accordingly. So what then does this label of socialist actually mean?
I read an article in the Minnesota Post (see below) that addressed the issue I just raised (what do the different parties expect citizens to pay for) and did these differences in priorities influence how and when the label of socialism is applied? According to this article, the Democrats are more likely to see spending on the military, interstate highways, tax credits for business development, and Social Security (surprise) as more socialistic than Republicans. Republicans are more likely to see Medicare, free health care, and support for higher education as more socialistic than Democrats. Now, to be fair, the degree to which the label of socialistic applies varies – e.g., military spending is rated lower as a socialistic value by both parties and free health care was rated as more socialistic by both parties. So, there are differences in how socialistic different investments are labeled and there are party differences in how socialistic a given investment is perceived to be. Not only are there differences in the extent to which the parties see a given form of spending as socialistic, the party labeling a specific funding as more socialistic varies.
The news article uses data from a YouGov survey (https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/07/25/are-democrats-socialists-poll) and I would think that the survey could have included more items (e.g., farm subsidies, food stamps) likely to generate party differences.
It seem to me that the term socialist has little value in political discussions. For more productive conversation, it would be far better to just describe what areas the different parties want taxpayers to spend money on.
President Trump will do one of his rallies in Minneapolis this week. Once this was announced, Minneapolis Mayor Frey and others made some uncomplimentary comments about Trump and were not particularly welcoming to the President. This negativity brought some negative reaction in the local paper and from Republicans basically arguing that you respect the office and recognize that elected officials are representatives for all.
At first I agreed kind of buying into the Minnesota nice thing, but then I thought about Trump’s behavior and the way he has treated Representative Omar. He is taking his road show into her home area. Representative Omar is my representative. She was elected by a significant majority of those she represents. Hence, the argument that we ALL should respect duly elected officials who were elected to represent all of their constituents is not the attitude of our President. Leaders model the behaviors they value. Well – what you see is what you get. Respect is something you earn.
Podcasts I listen to indicate that the Trump re-election campaign has made Facebook and television ad buys. I confess that I do not remember seeing any of these ads. I assume Fox News would be a likely outlet. I very, very seldom watch Fox News, but I do watch Fox sports because some of the teams I follow sometimes show up there. Maybe the ads show during the news programming and not the sports. I do spend some time each day on Facebook and nothing from the Trump campaign shows up. Why?
I am genuinely interested in Trump ads. Really. My motivation may be different from true believers. It bothers me if false statements appear in political ads and I tend to want to respond. Offer policy positions all you want, but don’t blatantly lie in a way I can identify and because I feel that I must respond.
The fact I don’t see these ads bothers me in a different way. If you see these ads and I don’t, we have each been categorized politically and this is not a good thing. Elected officials, especially those elected at the highest level, end up representing us all. In such cases, hidden agendas that play to some and are not apparent to all are a serious problem.
If you rely on Facebook for your news, you play right into this problem. You need to diversify your inputs. My suggestion is to pay for access to a quality local paper (paper or digital) and follow a quality national paper. My suggestion for a quality national paper would include the NY Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal. My definition of quality is basically that the paper employs actual journalists and is not primarily a source for opinions. Read opinions if you respect the author, but include in your reading journalists would report stories based on facts. See facts can be twisted or contextualized in different ways, but it helps if the opinions that follow start with facts. There are certainly many sources for opinion online and my attitude toward such sources is the same. Test the opinions you read against your best effort to read factual accounts.
You may regard these recommendations as outside your price range. You can access some articles from these sources through online sources (Google or Apple News). You will have to decide if these offerings cover a broad perspective – I can’t say. Both the NY Times and the Washington Post allow you to read a fixed number of articles each month without paying for full access. I typically reach my limit and expend this limit on articles I encounter in other ways (e.g., Twitter and Facebook).
We pay for an Apple+ news account. This is a reasonable way to obtain the Wall Street Journal and a range of other news magazines. If you read much, this is a pretty good deal.
I am not certain that most folks would associate Minnesota with apple corchards, but there is much in this state that would surprise people.
There are multiple orchards close to the Twin Cities (Minneapolis/Saint Paul/ suburbs) and these forms offer a wide variety of fun opportunities.
Apple orchards wanting to sell on site often also offer corn mazes and rides for the pickers and kids. The rides help get the pickers around larger farms and make it easier to return heavy baskets of apples to the cashiers, but also are just fun. The farm we visited pulled a hay wagon with a John Deere B. I drove this type of tractor through Iowa fields 50 years ago on our family farm.
I do like apples, but my favorite reason for visiting pick your own orchards is because they often sell baked goods. My favorite is the apple donut. This orchard had the mini version of this treat and they were purchased as quickly as the machine could make them.
Back to Minnesota apples. Probably the thing about Minnesota and apples that is the least known is that the University of Minnesota has developed some of the most popular apple varieties. The best recent example would be the honey crisp.
This orchard had many varieties to choose from. One particular variety brought back memories. My first job was at the State University of New York located in Cortland, NY. There was a Cortland apple. We were at this Minnesota orchard with our daughter who was born in the Cortland hospital. Her kids did not seem that impressed to learn of the connection.
The Republicans on the House committee seem to be trying a variant of the “tree in the forest” defense. If the President commits a crime, but Barr says the behavior is protected by executive privilege it didn’t happen. Translated using the philosopher’s question – if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, it not only makes no sound, there was no tree. I agree, it never made any sense to me either.
I listened to Donald’s presentation to the UN General Assembly. I tried to imagine how the folks I have met in other countries would understand his message. The eschew globalism, embrace patriotism comes across as we are special and you are not, we got ours, too bad for you. If this was the message you received would you interpret it as a realistic appraisal of your personal failures, your lack of will or laziness, or would you be resentful? This message whether presented to other countries or to the folks who struggle in our own is not well received. Let’s all at least start with this. What is that expression from “The Gambler” – don’t count your money when you are sitting at the table.
Unfortunately, It is more than this. This message is unfair and biased from a position of privilege and self congratulations. It is blind to what others are up against while believing we personally overcame great obstacles and worked harder than others. It is a great way to assure enemies will be created. This is not the position taken by great leaders or even mediocre leaders with some insight into human behavior. it is also not a position taken by great countries.
I decided to spend time today supporting the Global Climate Strike. As I am retired and unemployed, striking is not an option. What I can do is spend some time voicing my opinion. I have already attempted to identify information sources that educators may find useful in their classroom discussions of the climate issue. I use this site in a different way and I can be more direct here in addressing issues that are often avoided in educational settings.
The Trump administration has established a history of appointing individuals to political bodies that undermine what logically would be the intended purpose of these government bodies. The appointment of Betsy DeVoss, a proponent of alternatives to public education, to head the Department of Education makes a good example.
One would think that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would prioritize protecting the environment. This is what the title of the organization proposes the purpose of the organization to be. Protection often requires the proposal of requirements that come in conflict with the opportunities assumed by others. Agencies must recognize these conflicts, but the mission does not really change. You can’t actually protect something you are charged with protecting if you ignore behaviors that are damaging. You can’t protect highly populated cities from pollution if you act to remove policies that reduce polluting emissions.
So, what about the Environmental Protection Agency? One component of how this agency operates is to rely on a Science Advisory Board. Again, what is it one might assume from the label associated with this board? I would assume that the members of this board would be the best scientists available. Again, not under the Trump approach to decision making. Why add the best scientists available to a committee if their expertise would result in advice contrary to what you would want the advisory board to offer as advice? See this analysis from the Union of Concerned Scientists. So, it turns out that the EPA is biased by a political agenda and does not take protection of the environment as its primary responsibility and it turns out that Science Advisory Board is not really offering advice based on the best science.
Your Trump logic in action. Beware that you interpret labels as meaning what the words say they mean.
Labels seem to matter in politics. Individuals look to the label associated with a candidate often, it seems, rather than considering the specifics of the candidate’s position on specific issues. Republicans seem to use “socialist” in this way. I don’t really know what would be the equivalent from the Dems perspective so you will have to supply your own.
As I understand the term it implies something about government control. From this perspective, Republicans believe Democrats want to tax at too high a level in order to offer government sponsored programs some of which are argued to be unnecessary and to impose regulations that limit the opportunities of businesses, industry, and individuals. So, it seems being for or against socialism has to do with financial contributions expected from citizens and limitations placed on all. In both cases, the expectations of sacrifices (contributions and limitations) are assumed to provide benefits, but who benefits and who sacrifices seem to be at the core of disagreements.
Once you define things in terms of contributions and limitations, labels to a certain extent disappear and whom is affected become interesting to observe. For example, the present administration has taken on trading partners (China, Canada, Mexico) claiming the U.S. is being taken advantage of. Part of the issue is the amount of money and goods moving in each direction with the complaint that we sent more money for goods out than we take in. China adds the issue of theft of intellectual property with tariffs being used as a punishment rather than a way to control the movements of goods and money. Here is a thought on the desired consequences of these actions. The cost of goods paid by U.S. citizens will increase. The impact will be negative for those of limited means with benefits to those owning the means of U.S. production and those who work in who work in some specific industries. Those in other industries (e.g., agriculture) will be hurt. My point is that local capitalism can also increase the contributions required of citizens within countries that think this way. Those who pay the cost (a tax if you are willing to think of the increased contribution in this way) will be those with limited means.
What about government limitations (regulations)? Regulations tend to impose requirements intended to protect and safeguard. Emission standards would be an example intended to reduce pollution and damage to the environment. Yes, regulations of this type do increase the cost and expectations of production, but a judgment has been made that all benefit from the limited sacrifice in profit that are made by a few. Safety standards in work places would be a similar example. Rules intending to limit the ways in which financial institutions can take advantage of naive or vulnerable population would be another. Who pays – those offering the service because of higher costs or limited opportunities for profits. Who benefits – those protected? Consolidating the costs and benefits, it is again the most vulnerable and most needy would tend to benefit and those in better circumstances expected to sacrifice.
Some folks have taken to labeling him “Moscow Mitch”. This would not be my style. I have been trying to come up with a descriptor that captures my personal frustration. I am looking for just the right phrase to describe someone who is fearful of doing the wrong thing and of offending a benefactor. Mitch reminds me of a dog who has been beaten but still desires the approval of his abuser. Submissive Mitch.
Yes, the pronouncement that President Obama would accomplish little during his second term despite the strong support of citizens and Mitch’s passive-aggressive unwillingness to bring the nomination of Merrick Garland forward for confirmation were bad. These inactions wasted the creative power of and public support for a transformative leader. These behaviors sparked the deep animosity and divisions that mark the country today.
It is Mitch’s lack of confidence in his leadership of the Senate that annoys me the most. Unless I have been misleading myself, Mitch should be in his position because the Republican Party holds the majority in the Senate. This should mean that a party line vote would decide any issue brought before that body. Why is it Submissive Mitch has to check with other parties before the Senate considers bills brought before it. Yes, some of the bills were passed by a Democratically controlled House. Still, if the Senators did not support the House-based positions, a vote should end the matter.
Is Mitch really acting to accomplish a different goal. Is he blocking votes that would reveal Republican voters to their constituents? National polls clearly indicate citizen positions on gun control. Forcing Republicans to vote would clearly document whether these individuals come down on the site of citizens or the NRA. Whether it is Trump or Putin or the NRA, it is obvious who dominates Mitch McConnell. Time for a leader allowing citizens to have a voice through a Senate that makes decisions.
