Month: April 2021

by

Biden’s Failed Speach to Congress


One thing Biden did correctly was to enumerate what is enclosed in each of his trillion dollar packages he wants Congress to consider. Biden campaigned on being someone who would bring both parties together but this speech was entired divorced from that pronouncement.

I voted for Biden and want him to do a good job. But on Wednesday, he had the opportunity to reach across the ilse to embrace Republican issues with his bills. He not once said anything to that effect, and that was clearly seen on Republican’s lack of enthusiam. No one expects the party out of power to respond favorably to such a speech but Biden never once gave them the chance to even mildly applaud him.

This was Biden’s chance to bring Republicans to the table by simply stating that he was open to compromise and that each bill may be reduced in part. Had he simply said that he knows Republicans are against certain portions of his bills and that he knew compromise was essential, he may well have garnered some positive response from them but he did not give them the chance.

Additionally, he made a big mistake by introducing a second trillion dollar bill at this time. The two bills equal about $6 trillion which he must have known such a large figure is immediately unpalitable to Republicans. Right now he needs to make a public statement that he is pulling back the second bill until it can be vetted in committees by both partis.

Republicans have proposed a more than $900 billion bill on infrastructure. They knew, and any Democrat with a lick of sense knows, that this is the avenue to compromise between $900 billion and $2.6 trillion. Democrats must assuage Republican by agreeing to compromise rather than digging in their heel against any.

Republicans have acknowleged the need for investment in our infrastructure. Democrat’s hold on power in tenuous at best and the next elections may swing that power back to Republicans. If Biden and the Democrats truly want to claim a victory here, they must acknowlege that certain portions of their bill must be reduced or eliminated. They must not pass this bill along party lines. To do so is foolish.

by

Expanding the U.S. House of Representatives


The U.S. Constitution in Article 1 states that each state shall have 1 representative for every 30,000 residents. Right now the population of the United States is almost 330 million. A little quick math tells you that would mean the House of Representation should have over 10,300 members to meet that requirement. In 1929 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill called the “Permanent Apportion Act” which set the House of Representatives at its present level of 435. At that time the U.S. population was 123 million, more than 200 million fewer people than now.

Right now each representative has more about 750,000 to represent as opposed to the 28,000 in 1930. As I have shown. If the size of the house is doubled to 870 members, each representative would still have 370,000 people to represent. That is a far cry for the level set in 1929 but almost half as many people that they represent now.

Each representative has an average of 750,000 people they must represent. Our 10 year census was set up to meet the requirements of the Constitution. But by today’s standard, the Constution put an impossible level to meet and the 1929 Act tried to bring U.S. House representation more in line with the Constitution. But it would also mean, each representative would be able to serve the needs of their constitency in a more equitable form. This would also give Congress the opportunity to direct states to end their practice of Gerrymandering. That practice has allowed states with divergent desires to shape the voting districts so that the Democrat or Republican power within their state remains in tact. This practice was started in Massachusetts to insure that the Republican power in Massachusetts remained in tact in the early 19th Century. It persists today.

For example, Massachusetts, which has long been described as a “Blue” state with all 9 of its representative being Democrats, might well have, with its redrawn districts, gain a Republican representative in its more conservative areas. It is quite unlikely that states such as Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah would gain a Democrat representative. Conversely, Rhode Island and Delaware would unlikely gain a Republican representative. And so, the cry from Republicans that such a change would sway towards the Democrats, with the likely addition of Washington DC and Puerto Rico as states, as the sum total of representative for those areas would be 4.

There is no representative who can claim that 100% of his constituents is of his party. But our partisan politics of today have allowed that representatives of one party, where the population is a 51-49% split between Democrats and Republicans, that the party who has that seat, does not properly represent the desires of the other party. But those present districts, where there is a 51-49% split, when split between 2 representatives, may well find that one representative from each party is elected. The point is that the people of the United States deserve better representation than they now enjoy. The time to act is now.

by

What is is Biden’s $2.6 Trillion Infrastructure Plan?


Republicans recently declared that only 7-8% of Biden’s $2.6 trillion request will actually go to infracture claiming the rest will go to Democrats pet projects. So what is the truth.

First off, I cannot see how Republicans came up with 7-8%. The bill calls for 24% to go to our nation’s transportation: roads, bridges, public transit, rail, ports, waterways, airports and electrical vehicles. The only portion of that which is questionable is the investment in electic vehicles unless it is directed towards the government’s purchase of such vehicles. The other parts are unquestionably urgent infracture needs.

Then there is $400b for home care services and workforce. I think this portion, though a good investment, belongs in a different congressional request.

Then there is $300b for manufacturing. Biden and the Democrats need to remove this portion as well and present it as another bill. Those two, the $400b for home care/workforce and $300b for manufacturing, reduce the bill to $1.9t, already more platable to Republicans.

Next there is $180b earmarked for research and developement. The idea behind this portion is to help in climatology and other notable projects. This part is tangentally important to infrasture but again needs to be part of a different bill.

There is also $100b for digital infrastructure. Again, tangental to into main infracture but important in its own right, not here.

Then there is $100b for workforce developement. This most certainly does not belong here. That is $1080b which should be removed for this bill and takes us down to $1.5t. Please do not worry that the numbers I have put for do not add up, that is intentional. This is just to show that Republicans are at least partially correct in pointing out that this bill, as presented, does not accurately or properly state pure infrastructure needs, those that the public at large need now.

In 1933-35 President Roosevelt got three bills passed to help the nation recover from the depression, the National Recovery Act (NRA), the Works Progress Administration (WPA) of 1935, and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). The WPA built many of the roads and bridges still in existence today which puts them at 90 years of age. Engineers were reluctant then, as now, to allow for anything they built to have more than a 50-year life span. We are long overdue.

In 1953, drawing upon his experience as a General in Europe, and seeing Germany’s autobahn, Eisenhower helped develop today’s Interstate Hiway System. In each case of the afore mentioned project, millions of Americans were put to work. Biden’s bill will do the same as our infracture, both transport and utility, is in desperate need of either replacement or upgrading, will put million of Americans to work for years to come. It is a worthy bill but each side, Democrat and Republican must accede, and find a middle ground where both sides are relatively happy. More importantly, that Americans will quickly see a strong positive result.

by

What is the Future For Our Children, Our Grandchildren?


What we do right now will necessarily affect our children and our grandchildren with how we treat our planet.

Amaericans seem to have difficulty believing what our nation’s scientist tell us. Sadly, I believe it is our politicians who, for their own personal enrichment, tell us their truth when the science behind it does not line up with the actual truth. For too long it has been “us” against “them,” Democrats vs. Repulicans. It would be too easy to blame Republican’s for our present state as they have most recently poo-poo’d what scientists told us about Covid-19. In truth, Democrats are equally to blame. Republicans, notorious for resisting change, made themselves the target of Democrats but Democrats spoke as if they were well-versed in the science behind COVID-19. They were not. But what I found truly headscratching were two Replublicans, both of whom hold medical degrees, backing Trump when he declared early on that the virus would quickly go away. As public sevants, they are given the public trust to do what is best for their constituency even when it goes against what others in their party resist. The two senators, McConnell and Paul, knew the truth but backed what was politically expedient. This is abhorrent to what our Constitution demands. There are two our physicians in the senate who were largely silent, Cassidy and Barrasso. Each to an oath, “first do no harm,” for which they conveniently forgot and in turn hurt not just their constituents, but our entire nation. And our House of Representatives there are 13 physicians. Where were they during the outbreak?

And now we come to climate change. I want to first qualify by saying that I worked at MIT for a number of years where I was hand-in-hand with some of our nation’s most brilliant minds. Those people, and others at our nation’s leading research facilities, have no political agenda. Their’s is the search for the truth in science. They necessarily are pragmatist. These people frequently are pubished in journals that are revied by their peers and to misspeak brings rebuke.

For two decades now those best and brightest have been warning about the harm we are doing to our planet. But scientist can only report on their findings. They can, of themselves, bring some change, but it is up to the politicians of the world to bring about true change. And their is one thing true in all nations, most scientists act the same in their quest for the truth: they do not bend to politically motivated pressures. That was easy to see last year when Dr. Faucci cringed at so many of Donald Trump’s pronouncements. But were you to go to Russia or China, you will find that the scientists in those countries have little interest in politics.

It is absolutely necessary, right now, for all Americans to weigh the ideas of scientist much more heavily than those of politicans. Here in the United States most our our politicians are lawyers. And most lawyers seldem move from the law degree to advanced degrees in science. Even so, each time we elect one of them to the house or senate, it is in them that we are giving public trust that they will do what is best for everyone and not just for their political base.

I spent most of my working life in science but now retired I have taken to teaching our children and grandchildren. I frequent remind them that what they do right now affects what they will do in the years and decades to come. Ergo, what I polticians decide right now absolutely affects generations of Americans down the road. It is up to each one of us to pressure them to do “the next right thing” and not the next politically motivated thing. They must be pragmatists and not fold to the desires of one small portion of their constuency. They must think both locally and nationally. In the end, their decisions affect all Americans. It is on this point that I believe the members of both parties fail.

The best example of a political appointee doing what is in the best interest of our nation was when George H. W. Bush put David Souter on the US SJC. In Souter, Bush believed he was putting a good conservative on the bench. But what happened was that Souter always took the high road, putting politics aside, and being a pure pragmatists. We need our politicans to act thusly. Our children, our grandchildren are deserving of the very best we can do but sadly, right now, that is seldom the case. This being true, it is ultimately up to each one of us to think of our children and grandchildren when we elect those who represent us. We must make them show that they are fully capable of doing what is in the best interest of our nation. Time is fast running out. Save our planet, not our political ideas.

by

Americans Slaughtering Their Native Tongue


I call it “Their Native Tongue” because English, it is not. Here in America we speak a modified version of English which should more properly be called the American Language. Why, well, one very obvious thing to look at is how we spell things and what we call things, for example, the English spelling of the word color is colour. There a many other subtle differences as well in spelling. Then there is what we call things where in England it is one name and in America, another. What we call a car’s trunk in America is at boot in England. Other such notable difference is a truck in America is a lorrie in England and as trolley car is a tram.

But Americans in general but journalist in particular seem to butcher proper grammer and word usage. Last night I was watching a t.v. show where a guy referred to something as being “notoriously good.” The problem with that usage is that it is a contradiction in terms. That is, notoriously means something or someone is bad which in essence means you are calling something badly good. Makes no sense. The proper usage is either notoriously bad or famously good. But even in those proper usages there is a type of word that Americans frequently use improperly and that is the adjective and adverb. For example, when someone asks you how you are feeling, it is improper to say you are feeling “bad.” The proper usage is to say you are feeling badly. The difference there is that you cannot use an adjective as a direct object where an adverb belongs. The other such example is using a participle at the end of a sentence, such as using the word “of” to end a sentence. For example, you say “there is nothing I can think of.” Properly using the word “of,” the sentence should read, “there is nothing of which I can think.” This may be the most difficult usage the average American can change his way of speaking.

Journalists, people who should be well versed in the proper word usage, frequently misuse words in both print and speaking. One of my great bug-a-boos is the using of the words “fewer” and “less.” The word “fewer” is meant to describe words which are plural whereas “less is mean to describe words in the singular. For example people frequently say “I have less days” where it should read “I have fewer days.” In dealing with time, it is proper to say “I have less time” where “time” is a singular word. Using that same word in the its plural form is to say, “it is happening to me fewer times.” Another is saying “I have less dollars now” where it should be “I have fewer dollars.” And so it goes.

One answer is to inform students during their grade school and high school years, when they are learning the American Language,” is to inform them why they need to learn about nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, etc. Learn to speak properly is dry but also extremely important. For the college bound student who must turn in written papers, a professor will not waste his time on explaining about the improper sentence structure and word usage which will in turn be reflected on the paper’s grade.

The other way to get Americans to speak their language properly, is for journalist to lead the way. But also, those who are responsible for teaching our children necessarily need to speak and write the American Language properly. Repeated proper usage in the presence of students from their earliest years of education to the latest, will reap benefits for all.