Thursday, May 4, 2017

The United States of Animus

I’ve always wondered why we pay so much attention to polls.  They’re like a guessing game where you only have to be correct 50% of their time in order to be considered an expert player.  Sometimes, you don’t even have to be that good.  Pollsters are like weather forecasters on local news.  Even if you get it wrong, people continue to listen to you.

I always laugh when media outlets refer to their “scientific polls” because there’s really no such animal.  Let me give you an example of exactly what I mean.  Here’s a simple question, “What color is the sky?” You might think that the answer is blue.  That would probably be the number one answer of most respondents. But answers can be based on everything from climate conditions to the location of the respondent to the time of day that the question was asked.  Someone who has been in a windowless office all day, might answer blue or undecided.  There are always, at least, ten percent of the respondents who are undecided. You could ask “Are you breathing at this moment?” and at least ten percent of the respondents would be undecided.

Much like our sky color question, validity of polls can also be influenced by the political climate.  Here’s a little test.  Ask ten people if Sirhan Bishara Sirhan is a known terrorist.  I’d be willing to bet that a majority of them will say yes based solely on his name.  Truth be told, you could ask those same people if Sirhan is the president of Syria and a majority would say yes.  It’s not that the respondents are stupid, but they are influenced by mainstream media, social media and the opinions of family and friends.  In point of fact, at least on the question of terrorism, they would be right and they would be wrong.

Sirhan Sirhan was responsible for one of three high profile assassinations during the 1960s.  Sirhan Sirhan assassinated Senator Robert F. Kennedy in 1968.  James Earl Ray assassinated the reverend Martin Luther King, also in 1968.  Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated John F. Kennedy in 1963.  The heinous acts of these three gunmen terrorized the country for an entire decade.

The difference between then and now is that we didn’t blame a religion or a country or an ideology for these senseless murders.  We blamed the murderers.  It didn’t really matter if Sirhan was a Palestinian because we weren’t looking for retribution.  We were looking for redemption. 

Read more at: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01HVSRUP6#navbarCopyright 2016 The Year of My Life: reminiscences and rants: Politics by Mark I. Jacobson. All rights reserved.

Thursday, September 8, 2016

It's not what the candidates are talking about that bothers me, it's what they're not talking about.

I'm not worried about who will be our next POTUS based on anything that the candidates are saying.  To be honest, They can't do 90% of anything they claim to be able to accomplish while campaigning for the office.  You're not a lone gun slinger or a sole proprietor of a business.  If you were, a wave of the hand would take care of any problem.  There are constraints on the office that prevent a democratically elected president from becoming a dictator. As I wrote in my book.

One of Trump’s basic negotiating tactics is to “fight back very hard” if negotiations don’t go smoothly. That might work well in the business world because buildings don’t bleed. But in the geopolitical world of today, fighting back very hard will get innocent people killed. At the very least it will get us involved in a conflict that will cost us more treasure and blood than we can afford to lose. Do we really want a leader who believes it’s acceptable to negotiate with people’s lives as if they were buildings?

But this is what does worry me.  The next president will nominate one or more Supreme Court justices.  That's a job for life.  As I wrote my book, here's how it's gone so far.

There’s plenty of time to nominate a new Supreme Court justice. Normally, that wouldn’t be a problem. But this isn’t a normal time in political history. From a Republican point of view, with a little bit of luck, they could take back the White House. If that happens, there would be a Republican controlled Congress and White House for a couple of years. But that would be enough time to ensure a Republican nominee and a GOP majority in the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future. And if Republicans are really lucky, the next opening would be from the other side. Hey, I’m not being morbid; Supreme Court justices don’t have to die because they can retire at any time.

Of course there is always the possibility that the Democrats will hold on to the White House. In that case, a liberal Supreme Court justice will be appointed and the balance of power will shift. This shifting of political power isn’t what the Founding Fathers envisioned for SCOTUS. When the country was coming together, no one even considered that any of the three branches of government could corrupt the Constitution. They were building a framework that would enable the new American society to function. They thought that they had addressed all the problems that might arise and for the times that they lived in, they had.

It's not so much the president, but the president's political party that becomes a problem.  Because it really doesn't matter which side of the aisle you're on.  The next POTUS will determine the structure of life in this country for generations to come.  I'll leave you with one final thought.

This November, we’ll either elect a man who will make America great again, again or a woman who is actually for America (as opposed to all the other male presidents who, unfortunately were not). What gets lost in all the regurgitated slogans and vapid rhetoric is that this is not an election for the United States of Trump or the United States of Clinton. It is an election for the United States of America.

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

A completely non-political but important message

Hi everyone,

As many of you know, my new book is for sale on Amazon.com.  In case you want to check it out, I've put a link at the bottom of this post.  But that's not what I'm writing about. That book is on its way and I'm already working on my next book.  My next project deals with violence, everything from online bullying to global conflict.  It won't be as tongue in cheek as the first book.  This is a much more serious subject.  Ii is something that has affected my life by way of people that I cared about.  I say cared about because, unfortunately, some of them are no longer with us as a result of abuse.

Each of my books is connected to a charity.  50% of my digital royalties go to that charity.  The first book is connected with Fisher House, an organization that works with the families of veterans who are undergoing extensive medical treatment.  I haven't chosen the charity for the book that I'm currently writing, but that will come later.  I'm open to any and all suggestions from my friends.

In conjunction with this new project, I have started a GoFundMe campaign with two objectives in mind.  The most obvious is to raise funds in order to aid in the research, writing, and promotion of the new book.  But the other objective is to invite input from people whose lives have been touched by violence.  I really want to raise awareness of this problem.  In my first book, I wrote that all politics is local.  It depends on how any political move affects the individual voter.  The same could be said for violence.  Even a global conflict eventually affects each and every one of us.

I am also using this platform to kick start a project that I began working on several years ago.  The Marchese Foundation for Adult Victims of Child Abuse is an idea that I began working on as a nonprofit corporation.  After spending thousands of my own dollars, the IRS and I were unable to come to an agreement on operational guidelines.  I have decided that the foundation will work best if it is not a nonprofit corporation.  Some of the proceeds from this fundraising campaign will go towards the creation of this foundation.  I am still working on the exact operational details and I will keep everyone updated on a new website, ChildAbuseNeverEnds.org.  The only detail that I know at this time is that my salary for running the foundation will be $1 per year.

I'm asking all my friends to go to the GoFundMe page and watch a 3-minute video.  After watching the video, there are several ways in which you can help this project move along.  1.  You can donate to the project.  There are gift packages at every level of donation.  2.  There is a link below the video that enables anyone who has been touched by violence to share their story.  Everything is in the strictest confidence.  If you or someone you know has been touched by violence, please share your story with me.  3.  Probably the most important thing you can do to help this project is to share the GoFundMe page with family and friends.  Getting the word out will help to bring the specter of violence out of the shadows.

I expect the completion date for this project to be March of 2017.  I am looking forward to this book, the charitable donations, and the foundation to leave a lasting impression on our world for decades to come.  Thank you for taking the time to read this.

The GoFundMe page: https://www.gofundme.com/2wzksgzg

My Amazon book page (50% of the royalties go to charity): https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01HVSRUP6

Friday, August 5, 2016

A Political System for the People


Here’s my idea of what would work better.  Keep in mind that this will never come to pass.  I’m just proposing a different way of doing things.  Feel free to disagree or propose your own suggestions.  So here goes nothing.

I propose that we get rid of the two party system.  That means no more donkeys, elephants, or any other animal.  Everyone should have an equal opportunity to run for political office.  Despite what you may think, this doesn’t exist in our electoral system.  The opportunity to run for any political office should be open to anyone, whether they are homeless or a live on a palatial estate.  But there is one thing that keeps this from happening and I will get to that in a moment.

My election process would be overseen by the Federal Election Commission.  Every potential candidate must pass a standardized test on their basic knowledge of how our government operates and global politics in general.  Believe it or not, many candidates don’t possess this basic knowledge.  The potential candidates would only be allowed to take the test once.  The window for taking the test would be from June 1 - November 30 of the year preceding the election.  The ten highest scoring candidates would be allowed to run for any federal political office in the upcoming election.  If candidates did not pass the test, they would not be allowed to run for any federal political office for a period of one year. The election cycle would run from January 1st of the next year until one week before Election Day.

Now let’s talk about the one thing that keeps the average American from running for political office.  That one thing is money and I have a radical proposal for correcting this situation.  Keep in mind that I’m talking about candidates running for U.S. senator, U.S. representative, or POTUS.  I propose that we get rid of Citizens United and every other method of fund raising.  Now, you’re probably asking yourself how anyone could possibly run for office without any money.  The answer is simple.  If you’re running for federal office, your campaign should be financed by the federal government.

Here’s how my proposal would work.  Upon passing the standardized candidate test, the top ten candidates would be given one million dollars which would come out of the federal treasury.  This would be the only financing allowed for a political campaign.  Any candidate who knowingly accepted campaign funds from any outside source would have to bow out of the race, return any remaining funds and would be disqualified from running for office for a period of one year.  Federal campaign money would be deposited into a campaign account in the same way that college students have scholarships deposited into student accounts.  Every expenditure would have to be approved by the FEC and would be published on the FEC website.  Proper money management would ensure that candidates would be able to finish the campaign process.  It would also show the voters how well each candidate can handle a budget.  If any candidate should drop out of the race, the remaining funds would be forfeited back to the federal government.  Any funds remaining at the end of the campaign process would also be forfeited back to the federal government.  This would level the financial playing field and allow anyone, whether they be unemployed or a billionaire, to run for political office. Media would be required to charge the same rate for every candidate and those rates would be capped by the FEC.  Without political parties, there would be no need for primaries, caucuses, or party conventions.

Now for the fun part.  Voting would be done via the Internet and would begin one week prior to Election Day.  The website would be overseen by the Federal Election Commission.  Computers would analyze the social security database in order to determine who is eligible to vote.  Voters would have twelve months prior to the election to verify social security number and address information.  If the information on file with the FEC did not match the information entered at the time of casting the actual vote, that vote would not count.  There would be no electoral college because the winner of the election would be determined by the actual number of votes cast for candidates.  It would truly be a system of one person, one vote.
Copyright 2016 The Year of My Life: reminiscences and rants: Politics by Mark I. Jacobson. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Why does the mainstream media love Donald Trump?

The mainstream media is finally coming around to the fact that Donald J Trump may not want to be president of the United States.  I write about this in my book.  Actually, I wrote this section of the book about eight or nine months ago.

I never understood why the media didn't start alluding to the fact that he wasn't really a serious candidate a long time ago.  They knew that he was a narcissist who loves being in front of a camera almost as much as he loves being in front of a mirror.  They also knew that he loves to make outlandish statements strictly for the sake of self promotion.

But the media loved the gravy train that they were riding on.  Ratings and readership were up and that's all that mattered.  Now, Trump's statements are nothing more than self destructive and the gravy train is coming to a stop.  It was inevitable that any love affair that burned so hot was destined to burn out.  Now the media has to start talking about politics and the country.

Saturday, July 30, 2016

What did we learn from Speechapalooza?

Now that the conventions are over, let's recap what we learned.  If you're a Republican, you learned that Hillary Clinton is bad and Donald Trump is good.  If you're a Democrat, you learned that Donald Trump is bad and Hillary Clinton is good.   If you're an independent, you probably didn't watch either one of the conventions. And if you live on Facebook, you'll learned a million new ways to make fun of both candidates as a result of the conventions.

Party conventions are worthless!  They are the most boring part of any awards show without giving an actual award.  Political conventions exist so that candidates can tell people who already think they're great, how great they really are.  They are four days of people patting themselves on the back for being right.  And at a political convention, everyone is right.  The candidates are right.  The family and friends and associates are right.  Most of all, the people standing and watching them are right.  The winning candidates get up and speak to applause and cheers.  The losing candidates get up and speak to applause and cheers.  A lot of wannabe candidates get up and speak, hoping that one day they'll get applause and cheers.

So why did you watch the conventions?  Was it to learn something new about your candidate?  Was it to learn something new about the other candidate?  Or was sitting on the couch watching eight nights of not much to see TV, just easier than firing up Pokémon Go?

Friday, August 22, 2014

A Random Act Of Respect.

I'd like to take a moment to speak about a random act of kindness. I did one today, but I'm not going to take a bow because I don't do them often enough. I had to go to the drugstore and, as I was entering the door, a young man said hello to me. He was sitting in the shade, against the wall, with his knees pulled up to his chin. I said a quick hello and kept moving.

I'm pretty lucky. I have my health and a roof over my head, food to eat, friends, and happiness. I thought about that as I went inside. I needed some cash and an oatmeal raisin cookie fix.

On my way out of the store, I stopped to talk to the young man. I gave him a package of cookies (he said that they were also his favorite) and a dollar to get something to drink. I could tell that he appreciated my small gesture of kindness. But it was what I did next, that I think he appreciated most of all. I put out my hand and gave him a firm handshake. It's a good feeling to give someone food and water on a hot day. It's an even better feeling to give respect, on any day.