Most history professors and journalists prefer to avoid long discussions on the era. If you do go and research the period....it's probably best nine years of American society (up until 1929 and the fall of Wall Street) of the past century.
What made the era different? I lay the change that occurred over seven key things.
1. WW I and the survivors of the war came back and lived remarkable lives. Whether it was boot-camp, the itself, or the comradery.....guys changed.
2. Prohibition. Saloons were the norm until 1919. After that point, speak-easy operations and hidden clubs became the norm. It should be noted that with the prohibition era.....came women drinking more.
3. Cars and roads went to make society mobile.
4. Movies started to get made, and people were introduced to a new form of entertainment.
5. Radios started to become reality.
6. Baseball went to become a national sport, and was often discussed by the working-class.
7. A housing boom started to take place in this era.
Life changed in this era, and in some ways.....we laid the path to 1929 and the depression that followed.
Tuesday, 29 January 2019
What the Howard 'Starbucks' Schultz Candidacy Does
As he came out yesterday and announced he's running an independent campaign in 2020 to be President, it has several themes and scenarios attached to it. If you haven't noticed, he's leveled criticism across the board toward both parties. Even I would admit that there is much frustration over both the Democrats and the GOP.
So what is the real strategy here? Let's go back to 1992 and examine Ross Perot's end-result....roughly 19-percent of the vote, and 19.7-million votes. I think Schultz could easily attain 24-million votes, with a decent social media campaign, and aim simply at five topics that most people feel frustration over.
But here's the interesting thing.....if he just concentrated the bulk of his time and effort on Michigan, Penn, and Wisconsin.....he'd likely win against Trump and the Democratic contender. By taking those 46 electoral votes.....there would be NO ONE to hold 270 or more votes. So the Electoral College would pass, with no winner.
Then in 2021, the House would be given the job of the vote, and it'd go state by state. Right now today.....the GOP barely holds an edge, with 26 states being 'GOP-control', and 22 states being Democratic-control. The rest are 'even'. This differs from 2016's election where the GOP held control over 32 states. So there would have to be at least two states where things would change drastically, and bring the GOP-control down to 24.
This could be a situation where the Democrat....possibly with less than 55-million votes....would end up as the winner.
So this is a Electoral College gimmick? Yes, I think so. But a lot depends on the House elections in 2020, and if they can manage to hold some control. If Schultz does all of this, and the GOP ends up controlling the House state votes? Then all of this was for nothing.
So what is the real strategy here? Let's go back to 1992 and examine Ross Perot's end-result....roughly 19-percent of the vote, and 19.7-million votes. I think Schultz could easily attain 24-million votes, with a decent social media campaign, and aim simply at five topics that most people feel frustration over.
But here's the interesting thing.....if he just concentrated the bulk of his time and effort on Michigan, Penn, and Wisconsin.....he'd likely win against Trump and the Democratic contender. By taking those 46 electoral votes.....there would be NO ONE to hold 270 or more votes. So the Electoral College would pass, with no winner.
Then in 2021, the House would be given the job of the vote, and it'd go state by state. Right now today.....the GOP barely holds an edge, with 26 states being 'GOP-control', and 22 states being Democratic-control. The rest are 'even'. This differs from 2016's election where the GOP held control over 32 states. So there would have to be at least two states where things would change drastically, and bring the GOP-control down to 24.
This could be a situation where the Democrat....possibly with less than 55-million votes....would end up as the winner.
So this is a Electoral College gimmick? Yes, I think so. But a lot depends on the House elections in 2020, and if they can manage to hold some control. If Schultz does all of this, and the GOP ends up controlling the House state votes? Then all of this was for nothing.
'Rube' Comes Back Around?
'Rube' as a word, got used in the past month by a Washington Post journalist....to describe the people voting for President Trump in 2016. This was a chatter episode which was supposed to explain to naive or innocent folks.....how so many folks got stupid and voted that way.
For those who aren't familiar with 'Rube'....a little history lesson.
To be honest, it hasn't been used to any significant degree since the 1930s (that was probably the peak). 'Rube' Waddell is where most folks remember the word. Waddell was one of the premier pitchers of the American League, Pitching from 1897 to 1910....he was probably one of the five best pitchers in the league, and was washed-up by age 33. Roughly four years later, he'd pass away. In simple terms, Waddell was a nutcase. Everytime a fire truck would pass a stadium in the midst of a game that he was pitching.....it was a 50-50 possibility that he'd take off after the fire truck and leave the game.
The term 'Rube' was supposed to be a county guy with no real recognition of the big world, and bound with 'innocence'.
Generally, it's said that Rube came from the early 1800s, and was supposed to be slang to identify a guy without class, or one with no sophistication....in simple terms.....a non-intellectual.
But here's the funny thing about the term, it's not really been used for almost eighty years. In terms of slang-value, it's been dead since the 1950s. You could bring up the term with folks who are over sixty, and they have a basic idea of the term. Someone who was 20 to 30 years old? There might be one person out a dozen who has heard of the word or has some idea of the meaning.
So where did the journalist dig the term up? Unknown.
Does this mean we are reverting back to some 1920s slangs? Let's talk about some of these:
1. 'Giggle Water'. That's something with an alcoholic punch to it.
2. 'Hay Burner'. That's a car that gets exceptionally poor mileage.....like less than ten miles to the gallon.
3. 'Ms Grundy'. A 'dame' who has an exceptional number of personal rules, and questions anything related to fun.
4. 'Sheba'. A 'dame' who is exceptionally fit, in loose clothing, and dangles a cigarette from her lips....suggesting to 'blow this joint' (to leave the bar), and do unimaginable things in a hay-barn down the road.
5. 'Bearcat'. A 'dame' who is fairly dangerous when 'juiced-up' (drinking), who might show fits of rage or assault, if a guy wasn't careful.
You have to wonder if this journalist is trying to lead folks back around to three-hundred-odd phrases which died in the 1930s.
For those who aren't familiar with 'Rube'....a little history lesson.
To be honest, it hasn't been used to any significant degree since the 1930s (that was probably the peak). 'Rube' Waddell is where most folks remember the word. Waddell was one of the premier pitchers of the American League, Pitching from 1897 to 1910....he was probably one of the five best pitchers in the league, and was washed-up by age 33. Roughly four years later, he'd pass away. In simple terms, Waddell was a nutcase. Everytime a fire truck would pass a stadium in the midst of a game that he was pitching.....it was a 50-50 possibility that he'd take off after the fire truck and leave the game.
The term 'Rube' was supposed to be a county guy with no real recognition of the big world, and bound with 'innocence'.
Generally, it's said that Rube came from the early 1800s, and was supposed to be slang to identify a guy without class, or one with no sophistication....in simple terms.....a non-intellectual.
But here's the funny thing about the term, it's not really been used for almost eighty years. In terms of slang-value, it's been dead since the 1950s. You could bring up the term with folks who are over sixty, and they have a basic idea of the term. Someone who was 20 to 30 years old? There might be one person out a dozen who has heard of the word or has some idea of the meaning.
So where did the journalist dig the term up? Unknown.
Does this mean we are reverting back to some 1920s slangs? Let's talk about some of these:
1. 'Giggle Water'. That's something with an alcoholic punch to it.
2. 'Hay Burner'. That's a car that gets exceptionally poor mileage.....like less than ten miles to the gallon.
3. 'Ms Grundy'. A 'dame' who has an exceptional number of personal rules, and questions anything related to fun.
4. 'Sheba'. A 'dame' who is exceptionally fit, in loose clothing, and dangles a cigarette from her lips....suggesting to 'blow this joint' (to leave the bar), and do unimaginable things in a hay-barn down the road.
5. 'Bearcat'. A 'dame' who is fairly dangerous when 'juiced-up' (drinking), who might show fits of rage or assault, if a guy wasn't careful.
You have to wonder if this journalist is trying to lead folks back around to three-hundred-odd phrases which died in the 1930s.
Monday, 28 January 2019
The Seven Ways That Trump Wins in 2020
It's a silly essay but over the past twelve months, there's so much theatrical business in DC, and with both parties....that in some ways....it's pretty much guaranteed that Trump would win a second time. So these are my scenarios:
1. Biden and Bernie are edged out or just refuse run, with Senator Harris the likely contender for the Democratic Party. Her numbers in Trump-win states in 2016 (30 states)? She might pull more votes than Hillary in the popular vote, but I don't see any of the 30 Trump-win states going her way. With Biden or Bernie, I would suggest three to four of the Trump-win states being possible to win.
2. Howard Schultz of Starbucks fame.....runs as a third-party guy....taking around sixteen-million votes and two states in the Electoral College. Unfortunately, the major (probably 90-percent) of his votes would come from the Democratic Party.
3. The Democratic Party fails to dislodge or impeach President Trump. If you reach January of 2020, and nothing has happened, or it's been a utter failure.....then the negativity falls upon the hype.
4. The Russians help Trump again. As comical as it sounds....if some comedian were to put on a Russian mafia suit, or 1960s military uniform with 88 medals.....doing a daily two-minute presentation of Democratic screw-up's, and how Putin's personal plan is at work to take the Democrats down again.....people would start laughing and label his comments as believable, with Facebook forced to review comical relief as political fake news. College kids would be putting on Russian uniforms and pretending that it's all one big act.
5. If the black unemployment rate were to 5.5 percent or less? Yeah, it'd be a serious issue for the Democrats to argue about.
6. If Latinos start to agree with Trump. Trump took around 28-percent of Latino vote in 2016. If he were to carry weight, and somehow reach 40-percent? Trump wins against all possibilities.
7. Finally, there is a fair possibility that Pence will be offered the Secretary of State job, with some new character (possibly a female) stepping in as the VP candidate. Depending on who it is and their campaign stamina.....it's possible that 'edge' would be enough.
The comical side of this 2020 discussion is that so far....the Russian collusion stuff has been 'Harry Potter' type material.....good on hype but little in terms of facts. Yet if nothing occurs to prove collusion.....everyone will be laughing at fake Russian collusion in 2020.
Course, the other side of this is that he could say 'no' and not run for a second term.
1. Biden and Bernie are edged out or just refuse run, with Senator Harris the likely contender for the Democratic Party. Her numbers in Trump-win states in 2016 (30 states)? She might pull more votes than Hillary in the popular vote, but I don't see any of the 30 Trump-win states going her way. With Biden or Bernie, I would suggest three to four of the Trump-win states being possible to win.
2. Howard Schultz of Starbucks fame.....runs as a third-party guy....taking around sixteen-million votes and two states in the Electoral College. Unfortunately, the major (probably 90-percent) of his votes would come from the Democratic Party.
3. The Democratic Party fails to dislodge or impeach President Trump. If you reach January of 2020, and nothing has happened, or it's been a utter failure.....then the negativity falls upon the hype.
4. The Russians help Trump again. As comical as it sounds....if some comedian were to put on a Russian mafia suit, or 1960s military uniform with 88 medals.....doing a daily two-minute presentation of Democratic screw-up's, and how Putin's personal plan is at work to take the Democrats down again.....people would start laughing and label his comments as believable, with Facebook forced to review comical relief as political fake news. College kids would be putting on Russian uniforms and pretending that it's all one big act.
5. If the black unemployment rate were to 5.5 percent or less? Yeah, it'd be a serious issue for the Democrats to argue about.
6. If Latinos start to agree with Trump. Trump took around 28-percent of Latino vote in 2016. If he were to carry weight, and somehow reach 40-percent? Trump wins against all possibilities.
7. Finally, there is a fair possibility that Pence will be offered the Secretary of State job, with some new character (possibly a female) stepping in as the VP candidate. Depending on who it is and their campaign stamina.....it's possible that 'edge' would be enough.
The comical side of this 2020 discussion is that so far....the Russian collusion stuff has been 'Harry Potter' type material.....good on hype but little in terms of facts. Yet if nothing occurs to prove collusion.....everyone will be laughing at fake Russian collusion in 2020.
Course, the other side of this is that he could say 'no' and not run for a second term.
Ten Books You Should Read by Age Eighteen
I've read an awful lot of fictional and non-fictional books in my life, so I've come to this list that I think every kid should wrap up by 18.
1. Animal Farm, George Orwell
2. 1984, George Orwell
3. A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens
4. The Republic, Plato
5. Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville
6. True Believer, Eric Hoffer
7. Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman
8. Undaunted Courage, Stephen E. Ambrose
9. This Republic of Suffering, Drew Gilpin Faust
10. Toward a Civil Discourse, Sharon Crowley
1. Animal Farm, George Orwell
2. 1984, George Orwell
3. A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens
4. The Republic, Plato
5. Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville
6. True Believer, Eric Hoffer
7. Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman
8. Undaunted Courage, Stephen E. Ambrose
9. This Republic of Suffering, Drew Gilpin Faust
10. Toward a Civil Discourse, Sharon Crowley
Sunday, 27 January 2019
Who Were the Kulaks and Why Does It Matter
The term 'Kulaks' got brought up today and there is a bit of history to the term, and why it fits into the shape of the 2020 Presidential race.
Around 1900 in Russia (while still a Czarist monarchy).....there was some agreement that agricultural grumbling was reaching a stage where 'something' needed to occur. So a reform 'period' was started up and the chief goal was to create something that somewhat a copy of the US 'share-cropper' system where actual farm land was dispensed out to a family and they produced x-amount of food for themselves and the rest was destined to be sold. The idea was to give people some independence.
Between improved agricultural education, cooperatives, and various avenues to commerce....the system was a step up.
Those who took advantage of the program? In rural areas....they moved ahead. Those with no motivation or lacking competence for the program? They got behind. Over the next twenty years, there grew to be a lot more of the 'slackers' than the 'advancers'. The 'slackers' eventually invented a term for the 'avancers' in this farm endeavor.....'Kulaks'.
By 1918 (the war has ended)....the Czar is out, and Communism is the controlling force. Armed groups have now attached themselves to a major target....Kulaks. They start to show up on individual farms and hunt for stashes of wheat. Their perception is that those who advanced.....have screwed the those who were 'slackers'.
For a decade, the Soviet government tried to avoid serious confrontations with the Kulak folks, who were still producing significant amounts of agricultural products, and selling via the cooperative markets.
Things changed in 1929, the Soviet government decided to change. The Soviets invented an artificial and high production cycle. If you failed to produce and deliver to them.....you were in a serious mess. The Kulak-folks? They couldn't possibly meet the goal.
Arrest, deportations and confiscation of farms started up in 1930. As you can imagine....it only takes two to three years for a massive starvation and famine period to start up in the Soviet Union. The Kulak-farmers? They were sitting in Siberia for the most part and unable to produce products. The nation starved.
The slackers? They were basically given confiscated farms which were consolidated into large operations where intense pressure was put on each manager to take whatever actions were necessary to force his slacker-manpower to do the work required. Those who didn't cooperate? They were sent off to Siberia as well.
Some people are looking at commentary at billionaires in the US and the idea of taking their 'money' and 'assets'. This will work its way into the 2020 election. Billionaires aren't really Kulak-types but the idea here works along the same lines. You'd have some political thug invent a fake goal and find yourself taking money, but unable to turn that into anything meaningful to the general public. In some ways, you'd invent a Venezuela-like atmosphere.
So when you hear Kulaks....remember that they were driven by commerce and capitalism....achieving results, and were destroyed by those opposing commerce and capitalism.
Around 1900 in Russia (while still a Czarist monarchy).....there was some agreement that agricultural grumbling was reaching a stage where 'something' needed to occur. So a reform 'period' was started up and the chief goal was to create something that somewhat a copy of the US 'share-cropper' system where actual farm land was dispensed out to a family and they produced x-amount of food for themselves and the rest was destined to be sold. The idea was to give people some independence.
Between improved agricultural education, cooperatives, and various avenues to commerce....the system was a step up.
Those who took advantage of the program? In rural areas....they moved ahead. Those with no motivation or lacking competence for the program? They got behind. Over the next twenty years, there grew to be a lot more of the 'slackers' than the 'advancers'. The 'slackers' eventually invented a term for the 'avancers' in this farm endeavor.....'Kulaks'.
By 1918 (the war has ended)....the Czar is out, and Communism is the controlling force. Armed groups have now attached themselves to a major target....Kulaks. They start to show up on individual farms and hunt for stashes of wheat. Their perception is that those who advanced.....have screwed the those who were 'slackers'.
For a decade, the Soviet government tried to avoid serious confrontations with the Kulak folks, who were still producing significant amounts of agricultural products, and selling via the cooperative markets.
Things changed in 1929, the Soviet government decided to change. The Soviets invented an artificial and high production cycle. If you failed to produce and deliver to them.....you were in a serious mess. The Kulak-folks? They couldn't possibly meet the goal.
Arrest, deportations and confiscation of farms started up in 1930. As you can imagine....it only takes two to three years for a massive starvation and famine period to start up in the Soviet Union. The Kulak-farmers? They were sitting in Siberia for the most part and unable to produce products. The nation starved.
The slackers? They were basically given confiscated farms which were consolidated into large operations where intense pressure was put on each manager to take whatever actions were necessary to force his slacker-manpower to do the work required. Those who didn't cooperate? They were sent off to Siberia as well.
Some people are looking at commentary at billionaires in the US and the idea of taking their 'money' and 'assets'. This will work its way into the 2020 election. Billionaires aren't really Kulak-types but the idea here works along the same lines. You'd have some political thug invent a fake goal and find yourself taking money, but unable to turn that into anything meaningful to the general public. In some ways, you'd invent a Venezuela-like atmosphere.
So when you hear Kulaks....remember that they were driven by commerce and capitalism....achieving results, and were destroyed by those opposing commerce and capitalism.
How to Resolve the Budget Mess
It's actually pretty simple.
You write a three-text piece which basically says that if the House, the Senate, and the President can't come to an agreement on the budget each year by 1 July, then the House will dissolve by the end of October, and a new state-by-state election will occur in November. If you were in the House, you'd have to run again. And in the Senate, you would mandate that their pay goes down to zero from 1 July, until a new House is elected and in place.
Based on this system....everyone will be working day and night from January on....with the budget as the number one priority to get completed as early as possible. Heck, they might even agree on a two-year budget cycle, just to avoid the pain of early elections.
Yes, you could be talking about a 6-month period of shutdown in the government for the more agreeable House to arrive. But this would put full and absolute force upon the idiots of both parties to cooperate and just avoid these battles.
You write a three-text piece which basically says that if the House, the Senate, and the President can't come to an agreement on the budget each year by 1 July, then the House will dissolve by the end of October, and a new state-by-state election will occur in November. If you were in the House, you'd have to run again. And in the Senate, you would mandate that their pay goes down to zero from 1 July, until a new House is elected and in place.
Based on this system....everyone will be working day and night from January on....with the budget as the number one priority to get completed as early as possible. Heck, they might even agree on a two-year budget cycle, just to avoid the pain of early elections.
Yes, you could be talking about a 6-month period of shutdown in the government for the more agreeable House to arrive. But this would put full and absolute force upon the idiots of both parties to cooperate and just avoid these battles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)