No, liberals aren’t perfect. The SNL joke on congressman Crenshaw wasn’t funny or in good taste. The difference between liberals and conservatives is the apology that followed. Conservatives, hell-bent on imitating Trump double down on the faux pas.
This is why I am not on board with trickledown economics / aka Reaganomics. Republicans point to GDP numbers but workers get squanto.
One of the underreported stories of the week is 15 congressional seats where members had A+ ratings with the NRA were replaced with members with an F rating. I give some credit to Parkland survivor David Hogg for this. Parkland…. Parkland…. Oh right. The was 6 mass shootings ago I almost forgot.
Hogg has been relentless on Twitter with his anti NRA / “young people will win” message, taking on people in positions of power like Dana Loesch and vitriol spewing Fox News anchor Laura Ingraham Angle, whose show is barely afloat since Hogg’s efforts to boycott her advertisers have been largely successful. 24 advertisers have left so far.
Hogg, along with fellow Stoneman Douglas classmates, were organizers of the March for our Lives which drew 1.2 million protesters.
Most conservatives read as far as “gun measures” and make the leap that it’s an article about some left wing loon who wants to confiscate all guns, so let’s be clear about who David Hogg is.
The fact is he’s a strong supporter of the second amendment. His father is a federal agent and carries. His official positions include strong support for the right to bear arms, but with some common sense restrictions. Background checks, banning bump stocks, raising the minimum age to 21, prohibitions on people with mental illness, a criminal history and domestic violence. All very reasonable suggestions, worthy of public discussion but the mear mention of any gun law changes somehow causes the NRA to start the tyranny messaging.
Indeed we did see a spike in the 18-25 voting block. Many of those races changed hands by close margins 51/49. All I can say is, thank you David Hogg.
I’ll say it again and again, especially after the horrific events today and this entire week, MAGA is hate speech. MAGA hats are modern day swastikas, white hoods and white robes. It incites violence, it creates lies, it breeds terrorism. Period.
It’s just a house. Or is it?
Facing divorce in 2006 I had a tough decision to make. Should I let the house that I just recently bought go or find a way to hang on? It didn’t make any sense for one person to live in 3400 square feet. But I’m stubborn and I just bought the thing and I really liked it, so I found a way to stay in it. Was it the best financial decision I ever made? Nope. Hindsight clearly says I should have severely downsized and bought back in after the market recovered. But you can’t time the market and kick yourself for that.
Was it one of the best life decisions I’ve ever made? You bet.
I cannot count the number of social functions we’ve held at this place. Memories don’t have a price-tag. I got remarried in this house. We’ve hosted Christmas Eve, Thanksgiving, birthdays, family reunions, grandkids overnighters, college football / Duck games (some more memorable than others), several concerts with various band configurations I’ve been in, and quite a few friends gatherings just because. It’s been truly amazing. With Donna’s vision, we’ve been able to transform this place into the type of place that is perfect for gatherings. I don’t regret one second or one penny. Memories.
In my old neighborhood, you kind of sort of knew who your neighbors were but you didn’t socialize with them much. In this neighborhood we did – in spades. Social functions are happening all the time and lifelong friendships have been made. You can’t put a price tag on that either.
There’s been some tough times too. I had a stroke in the kitchen in 2013 where I laid on the floor wondering if the spinning would ever stop. I injured my back doing minor chores and spent the better part of 2 months crawling around it. Donna and I both saw job changes shortly after we were married in 2010. We got through the Great Recession in this house – together.
While it’s been a fantastic 25 years in Tualatin, 16 of them on Meier Drive, Donna and I feel like it’s time to downsize a little bit and get a place together that we can call our own. The original reason for moving to Tualatin had to do with School District. I haven’t had kids in the school district in over 12 years. I used to be Vice President of Little League baseball and I felt like I knew everyone in town. Now I head into town and hardly recognize anyone. The drive to and from work for Donna is a 5 times a week burden. Honestly, the hardest part about leaving will be seeing a little bit less of our amazing neighbors who we’ve become close friends with these past few years. But we’re determined to make it only a little bit less!
So we’re both selling our houses and have our sights set on a new place up near Lewis and Clark College where we plan to make more memories with old friends and new. A lot more memories! That’s what it’s all about.
We’re crossing our fingers everything holds together so we land in the new place. In the mean time, I have a house for sale that if you’re interested, give me a jingle and let’s make a deal!
Here’s the listing: https://www.redfin.com/OR/Tualatin/10555-SW-Meier-Dr-97062/home/26700654
The main mentor of my adulthood was clearly David Aldrich, a Berkley grad who majored in history and philosophy. An activist, and writer like no other. Dave passed away a year ago but you can still read his extensive blog at http://davald.wordpress.com
One of my favorite stories from Dave was when he talked about his father. I played some golf with Dave and his dad up in Everett, Washington many moons ago. His dad was a character indeed.
Dave, like myself, grew up in a traditional Catholic family home with reasonably progressive values. The senior Aldrich was a union member and strong advocate of democratic principles.
One of Dave’s strongest memories of his father were times when his dad was watching the news or reading the paper, decipher what they were up to and would just holler out “Those God Damned Republicans.”
That’s exactly how I feel most days.
I’m always struck by when conservatives decide to come forward and warn about Trump’s next shoot from the hip plan. Today, Americans for Tax Reform leader Grover Norquist proffered this tweet:
@GroverNorquist In 1930, 1028 American economists signed a statement against the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. It passed. Trade war started. Depression followed. The statement was printed in the Congressional Record with 1028 economists signatures below. https://econjwatch.org/articles/economists-against-smoot-hawley …
What’s interesting to me about this is that it’s further evidence that Trump is simply “winging it” when it comes to economic and foreign policy. He has no thought out plan, just impressions from watching too much television over the years. “We’re getting ripped off” is the over-simplified theme that seems to be coming from the White House.
Several key Republicans disagree including Speaker Ryan and Senate Majority leader McConnell. That’s the difference between being smart enough to understand that an issue is complex verses someone like Trump who thinks every issue is easy and can be painted as black and white.
Are there enough Senators to stand up to the anointed one? I doubt it. Fasten your seat-belts it’s going to be a rough ride.
Smoot-Hawley From Wikipedia:
The Act and following retaliatory tariffs by America’s trading partners were major factors of the reduction of American exports and imports by more than half during the Depression. Although economists disagree by how much, the consensus view among economists and economic historians is that “The passage of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff exacerbated the Great Depression.
From the link above:
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 Significantly raised import re-strictions, reduced trade and prosperity, provoked protectionist retaliation by for- eign governments, and damaged the spirit of peace, cooperation, and goodwill.
Economists mustered a remarkable protest to the bill. The chief author seems to have been Paul H. Douglas. In his memoirs, In the Fullness of Time (Har- court Brace Jovanovich, 1972, 71), Douglas wrote:
The six months at Swarthmore were crowded with activity. With Clair Wilcox I drafted an appeal to President Herbert Hoover urging him to veto the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which raised duties to their highest levels. In this we pointed out how the increase in duties on imports decreased the ability of other countries to buy goods from us. Also, it would provoke them to retaliatory tariffs. No fewer than 1,028 economists signed the appeal, and I think poor Hoover wanted to take our advice. His party was so strongly committed to protection, however, that he felt compelled to sign the bill, with the result that all our predictions came true. The Depression deepened and the Western democracies fell apart. Our letter did make it somewhat easier for Congress later to pass Cordell Hull’s reciprocal-trade bill, and thus helped to lead the way to a reversal of our trade policy.
The text below is in the Congressional Record, signed by 1028 economists. I’ve highlighted a few key statements in bold.
The undersigned American economists and teachers of economics strongly urge that any measure which provides for a general upward revision of tariff rates be denied passage by Congress, or if passed, be vetoed by the President.
We are convinced that increased protective duties would be a mistake. They would operate, in general, to increase the prices which domestic consumers would have to pay. By raising prices they would encourage concerns with higher costs to undertake production, thus compelling the consumer to subsidize waste and inef- ciency in industry. At the same time they would force him to pay higher rates of profit to established firms which enjoyed lower production costs. A higher level of protection, such as is contemplated by both the House and Senate bills, would therefore raise the cost of living and injure the great majority of our citizens.
Few people could hope to gain from such a change. Miners, construction, transportation and public utility workers, professional people and those employed in banks, hotels, newspaper offices, in the wholesale and retail trades, and scores of other occupations would clearly lose, since they produce no products which could be protected by tariff barriers.
The vast majority of farmers, also, would lose. Their cotton, corn, lard, and wheat are export crops and are sold in the world market. They have no important competition in the home market. They can not benefit, therefore, from any tariff which is imposed upon the basic commodities which they produce. They would lose through the increased duties on manufactured goods, however, and in a double fashion. First, as consumers they would have to pay still higher prices for the products, made of textiles, chemicals, iron, and steel, which they buy.
Second, as producers, their ability to sell their products would be further restricted by the barriers placed in the way of foreigners who wished to sell manufactured goods to us. Our export trade, in general, would suffer. Countries can not permanently buy from us unless they are permitted to sell to us, and the more we restrict the importation of goods from them by means of ever higher tariffs the more we reduce the possibility of our exporting to them. This applies to such exporting industries as copper, automobiles, agricultural machinery, typewriters, and the like fully as much as it does to farming. The dif culties of these industries are likely to be increased still further if we pass a higher tariff. There are already many evidences that such action would inevitably provoke other countries to pay us back in kind by levying retaliatory duties against our goods. There are few more ironical spectacles than that of the American Government as it seeks, on the one hand, to promote exports through the activity of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, while, on the other hand, by increasing tariffs it makes exportation ever more dif cult. President Hoover has well said, in his message to Congress on April 16, 1929, “It is obviously unwise protection which sacri ces a greater amount of employment in exports to gain a less amount of employment from imports.
We do not believe that American manufacturers, in general, need higher tariffs. The report of the President’s committee on recent economics changes has shown that industrial ef ciency has increased, that costs have fallen, that pro ts have grown with amazing rapidity since the end of the war. Already our factories supply our people with over 96 percent of the manufactured goods which they consume, and our producers look to foreign markets to absorb the increasing out- put of their machines. Further barriers to trade will serve them not well, but ill.
Many of our citizens have invested their money in foreign enterprises. The Department of Commerce has estimated that such investments, entirely aside from the war debts, amounted to between $12,555,000,000 and $14,555,000,000 on January 1, 1929. These investors, too, would suffer if protective duties were to be increased, since such action would make it still more dif cult for their foreign creditors to pay them the interest due them.
America is now facing the problem of unemployment. Her labor can and work only if her factories can sell their products. Higher tariffs would not promote such sales. We can not increase employment by restricting trade. American industry, in the present crisis, might well be spared the burden of adjusting itself to new schedules of protective duties.
Finally, we would urge our Government to consider the bitterness which a policy of higher tariffs would inevitably inject into our international relations. The United States was ably represented at the World Economic Conference which was held under the auspices of the League of Nations in 1927. This conference adopted a resolution announcing that “the time has come to put an end to the in- crease in tariffs and move in the opposite direction.” The higher duties proposed in our pending legislation violate the spirit of this agreement and plainly invite other nations to compete with us in raising further barriers to trade. A tariff war does not furnish good soil for the growth of world peace.