How to correct the anti-American protesters

In psychology books about parenting we can learn about an interesting phenomenon.  All children will go through phases where they scream, cry, tantrum, and sometimes even hurt themselves in attempts to get what they want.  This is pretty normal in toddlers and any parent has seen the behavior.  The advice in every psychology books is to ignore them.  Turn your back, and walk away.

Further, it tells you that if you have a person who gives attention to that behavior you need to remove that person from your child's life until they grow out of the phase.

Most of us know this as tough love.

Since we have created a culture who believes safe spaces are needed to protect themselves from opinions they dislike, and that they can tantrum to keep people voicing those opinions away, we have a segment of the population with the mentality of.. well a toddler.  Since there are quite a few of these monsters running around today they have received a name.  We call them SJWs for "Social Justice Warriors".  Notice that the term really has nothing to do with Justice, and the Social involved happens to be what ever grievance they can find in common with others who wish to disrupt society.

Main Stream Media started spreading lies about one person and covering for another.  This has left the uneducated or uncaring with a biased view of reality and MSM has no intention of admitting their lies and corruption.  Wikileaks has proven as much with leaks, but SJWs have little interest in facts.

Further, we have MSM promoting this culture and enabling the behavior by giving the SJWs attention when they should be receiving tough love.


We can't physically remove the media from the SJWs, but you can indirectly keep the media away from the SJWs by removing your view and stopping their ad revenue.

Pop music people who threatened to leave the country if Trump won instead have started protesting.  Those people should be boycotted too, and please live up to your words and LEAVE!

So the answer is to boycott MSM, Pop culture figures, and just ignore the SJWs.  If they decide to behave like adults and have adult dialogue we can let them back to the table.  Until then, pay them no attention but arrest them if they break the law.

Justice and the Empty Scale

When we look at the symbol of Justice we find an empty scale.  Justice in it's purest form is represented best this way and worth contemplation.  When we hear a person ask for, or demand, Justice are they really asking for that?

If a person receives favorable treatment the first reaction by many is to throw weights on the other side of the scale.  There is no way to perfectly balance the arms of Justice so we end up throwing weights on each side of the scale. At a point the arms of the balance become strained and eventually will break.

We see the attempts to weigh the scales in someone's favor so often that we seem to have lost the meaning of Justice.

Justice is not "fair" treatment, though many attempt to frame it that way.  The word "fair" is subjective, and can never be equal.  Justice is the place where we all have the same rights as individuals.  If we all have the same rights in the eyes of Justice, we all have the same access to Justice and the same view from the eyes of those who uphold justice.  The symbol of the blind folded woman administering Justice is redundant with the empty scale.


In purest form Justice is not vindictive or spiteful, though many will attempt to make that claim.  Justice is not malicious, and does not discriminate.  Certain actions make it extremely difficult to remove the weights from the scale, and sometimes impossible, but the goal of administering Justice should never change.

So the next time you hear someone demand or ask for Justice ask them.  "Do you want to empty the scales?"  If not, then explain to them that they are really not asking for justice.

The Deserved Republican Hardships (2016)

Conservatives and Republicans are worried that Trump is going to cost them elections.  Should I feel bad?  Nah, and here is why.

There is lots of talk this 2016 election cycle regarding how the Conservative movement is taking a hit because of Donald Trump.  The Republican and Conservative movement needs to own their failures and stop blaming Trump for their problems.  To show the problem, we need a look at the political landscape for the last several election cycles.  Really, the problems go further back.  The Democrats, contrary to how people portray them, are not stupid and use useful Republicans to promote their agenda when possible.  It's an easy way to exercise the Hegalian dialectic.  If you own both sides, you can progress the narrative any way you wish.  So what has happened?

Over the last 30 years (probably longer) the Democrats have managed to monopolize all forms of broadcast media.  They have also monopolized print media, including adult content, and Hollywood.  Those same stations own most Internet based media for News, so it's a tightly controlled echo chamber.

There are a few exceptions allowed so that the Democrats can claim "no look, they own that one so it's fair" but "that one" is always a small Radio station which can't seem to hold on to National Syndication.  Perhaps a small one off  Website labelled "Crack Pot" by the Democrat controlled media.  But they are all small and have difficulty getting and holding sponsors and national syndication.  Especially if they are a big success at deconstructing the Progressive narrative.


To put it plainly, the battleground is very lopsided.  Oh both sides have their fighters but the Democrats have propagandists demoralizing the enemy,  Sappers, and Money being churned out by the Bankers to keep everyone well funded and supplied.  Their fighters are also not afraid to kick you in the groin in combat.

Meanwhile, the Republicans lack the sappers and funding.  Their version of propaganda is the rare occasion when the Democrats let them be seen on TV edited by the Democrats to make them look like clowns.  Perhaps even worse, the Republicans refuse to allow their fighters to fight dirty.  "No groin kicking by our guys, we are the good guys".


Every few years the Republicans send out their virtuous warriors to battle expecting the enemy to behave virtuously.  Every few years, the Republicans have to go clean up the mess left on the field after the Democrats beat them to a bloody mess.  Romney was painted as a demon who ripped money out of poor starving children's hands.  Sarah Palin was painted as a slutty dumb cheerleader with slutty kids.  John McCain was painted as a doddering old buffoon on his death bed.  And the list could go on and on.

Do you see a problem with the tactic?  I DO!

Along comes Trump who hates that Democrat Army.  The Republicans all scoff and bang their chests claiming "he can't beat our guys".  They line up their best to prove that the outsider Trump is going to lose.  One by one, Trump kicks their asses rather soundly by using the same dirty fighting the enemies use.  Instead of admiring the ease with which he beat them, at each defeat the Republicans turn their backs folding their arms and complain about how he fought dirty.  "He's not a real Republican." and "He's not a real Conservative".  "No fair, he cheated!"

So now Trump stands against the Democrats with very few Republicans at his side.  Still we find people willing to use any possible excuse to fold their arms and turn their backs.  "He's not one of us, he cheats".

Good grief, you bunch of bickering adolescents!  You had a chance to whoop the Democrats soundly this time around.  You could have used the media hype to promote even more Conservatives into office.  The corruption of the other side is easily seen when your guy is free to use the enemies tactics against them.

We got to find a whole lot of enemy sappers sitting inside the GOP and have a chance to clean house.

But nah, it's too easy to claim you are on the high road.  So what if more ground gets lost to the Democrats, you got to play your virtue card.

If you lose, it's your own damn fault.  Own every little bit of that failure, because you deserve it.

If I was a Trump advisor - October 9 opening salvo

If I were advising Donald J. Trump I would ensure that the American public knew this debate, on October 9 2016 was open and honest.  These debates are supposed to be by two people without real time outsider help, so on the first question I would advise:

Donald Trump: "First, I want the cameras to show me as close as possible.  Focus on the ears and the back of his collar."  "I want to prove that I do not have an ear piece."  "I am not wearing a display and nothing near me can be used to read information from."  "This should ensure the American people that I am keeping my word and not using outside assistance in this, or any other debate."  "Since there have been rumors about candidates receiving assistance, I'm sure that my opponent will do the same and prove that she does not have an ear piece nor have outside help."

The reports of the secret service people stashing away her noticeably glowing notepad from the first debate and the reports showing her with a golden pearl shaped ear bud in the Democratic debates can be displayed as false relatively easily.  Strangely though, after the reports of the ear bud surfaced Hillary started wearing her hair over her ears.  I'm sure it's just a style change, and Hillary can set the record straight and give us all confidence in her character.

Right?

The Phony Right's (unlikely) Ally

I originally titled this post simply "The Phony Right" but I was not happy with the title which assumed and assigned a motive to Ben Shapiro.  It is fair to say that Hegel's dialectic is being used extensively as propaganda in benefit of (and by) the Progressive Left.  Politicians called RHINO are an easy example, claiming to be Republican, Conservative, and Libertarian yet they hold the same positions as people on the Left.  Mike Johnson and Jeb Bush should immediately come to mind, both of whom do not see the United States of America as a sovereign Country.  Both believe Open Borders is not just a "good" policy but beneficial to US Citizens.  Both claim that it is how America was built, which runs contrary to actual history.  The media version of the RHINO is today, well, we just call it media. 

Ben Shapiro, and people like him, are helping the left.  I'm not attempting to claim that the act is intentional, but show the effects.  I respect and appreciate Mr. Shapiro's position and listen to his show daily.  I find him to be a very enlightened person, but I also disagree with these specific points.

1.  Ben claims that his vote has no impact, and that it would only be .0001% of the vote in California.  If Ben was a cook at McDonald's or worked as a litigator that may be true.  Ben is not doing either of those things, he makes a living providing political opinion to the masses.  His opinion sways voters, so does have impact well beyond himself.  To claim otherwise is simply a tactic to move voters to his opinion, which does not help the right but helps the left.  His statements to belittle his impact is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.

2.  The idea that Trump is not "the" Conservative and therefor will damage Conservatism misses the path that Progressives have taken to become so prevalent.  President Obama was not "the" Progressive that introduced and turned the country on it's head, nor was Clinton, or Carter, or Johnson.  It has been a pervasive and constant attack against the US Constitution with small victory after small victory.  That is a large part of the meaning of "Progressive" in the "The Progressive Left".  To claim that our only hope is to whack the current system with a giant mallet is dishonest.  It took incremental progressive steps to get here, and we can surely take incremental steps in the opposite direction.

3.  The same ad hominem attacks used by the left are repeated by Ben as factual.  This is one I have big issues with, honesty to me is everything.  It has gotten to the point where there is nothing I take at face value on any broadcast media any longer.  Statements like "Trump is a bigot" have no recent factual basis.  Can you find statements  from his forty years in the public spot light to make it seem that way?  Absolutely, and this is what is done with almost everything claimed about Donald J. Trump.   A made for TV spat between him and Rosie O'Donnell is waved as a flag that he is anti-woman.  He was anti Rosie but not anti-woman (many of us were anti Rosie, so I guess that counts as a populist opinion).  Every claim the left has attempted to trot out, including the fabricated "womanizer" because he gave a model a swim suit at a pool party he was throwing has been demonstrated to be false.

The "damning" evidence produced on the pro-Hillary rag "Huffpo" shows the leading reasons Trump is racist is that he failed to disavow David Duke and an alleged attack on a Gold Star family.  The first story is bullshit.  Hillary didn't disavow Dr. Ayers did she?  See, now we have both players on the same field.  Trump was doing a decent job of ignoring Duke, and it was no problem for him to disavow Duke when it was pointed out he didn't. 

The second item, the Gold Star family, I'll ask you to investigate that law firm of Mr. Khan and how they are connected to Hillary and Politics.  As a Veteran I respect their son greatly and salute his ultimate sacrifice.  Captain Humayun Khanman gave his life for his country, but that does not give his family a lifetime free pass for their actions in politics.

Trumps "attack" was a single sentence tweet after hearing a string of personal attacks and doomsday predictions by Mr. Khan.  Was a single snarky comment an "attack against a family"?  Was Mr. Khan's stream of personal attacks and false claims of Trump being a bigot a personal attack?  Two wrongs surely don't make a right, but see what we did here?  Now if you are being called a bigot, you are going to have a hard time defending yourself without being "proven" to be a bigot.

Look folks, discrimination is illegal in this country.  If you want to say he discriminates you better damn well prove he has been charged and convicted.  What's that old saying about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence?  Oh yeah, it's that thing.  Sorry, but Government suits from the 1970s don't prove bigotry either.  If that's true then Hillary is against Gay marriage and wants abortion to be illegal.  One can never ever move beyond what was done in the past.  That is supposed to be the Left's paradigm, not the "Conservative" position.

One could say Trump puts too much into appearance, and perhaps that's true.  I will give you that as a freebee.  I should not have to point out that I do the same and so do you.  Visual bias is a pretty normal thing, and most of us know some humor about how people look and dress.  Comedians make fun of themselves often enough, and not that long ago made fun of others.  The PC Police made subjects like obesity taboo to talk about, not comedians.  Most big people I know (I'm not a small guy either) appreciate a good joke even if it infringes on our appearances.  Humility, we used to have some.

4.  Mr. Shapiro claims Cruz was our guy, and if only Cruz had been elected the Republic would have been saved.  Cruz may have known the lingo, but  was either a snake oil salesman or gave that appearance.  Here is a very profound thought.

Donald J. Trump didn't beat Ted Cruz, Ted Cruz beat Ted Cruz.

Adopting Policies that Trump put out as a way of pandering the Trump vote combined with the sleazy "Carson dropped out" lie spread in Iowa demonstrated that his personality matched what people thought (at least for those incidents).  If you want to pretty up the lie by calling it "disinformation" then you simply attempting to white wash the incident.  I call that being either a sore loser or yet another liar in politics and media.

Here is a simple analogy. Picture a person hired by a bank to rob you as you wait in line to pay your mortgage.  You can't pay obviously, and lose your  house.  A day later the guy comes back and gives you your money and says "sorry".  Was no damage done?  Was the bank not at fault for hiring the guy to rob you?

This is what people want you to think when they, and Ted Cruz, blame the campaign instead of the Candidate.  If you hire immoral people to work for you, and you have them set to use immoral tactics, of course you are at fault.  It may be hard to prosecute, but we all see the game and see the morality of Ted Cruz.

Besides, isn't it Trump's fault that his campaign manager beat a poor helpless reporter to the ground?  Well that didn't really happen that way either, but it's hard to find the facts in all the fiction today.

 Ben, it's simple.  We already have a sleazy lying Democrat running, why do we need a sleazy Republican willing to lie and pander?

I don't expect to change your mind about voting Trump, and that is not the point.  I do however wish you were honest about your impact and the reasons you dislike Trump.  I also wish you were at least as often Never Hillary as you are Never Trump, because the former only seems to be an afterthought when you speak.

A Tale of Two Anecdotes by an Egalitarian

A Tale of Two Anecdotes 

by 

an Egalitarian

My cousin and I are born a year apart almost to the day, with them being the eldest.  Their father died of a heart attack when they were in elementary school.  My father and mother separated a couple years after, my father moving out of State and died a few years later of a strange cancer.  Both of our fathers worked in different areas of construction, both were young and neither left a family well off or in good condition.

Our mothers did the best they could with what they had to to raise two children each.  In case that is not obvious enough, we each have a sibling.  While not growing up in the exact same house, we did not grow up very far apart.  We had family gatherings at least once a month, so had similar adult influences.  One difference worth mentioning is that they lived in the same house for 18 years, insurance paying it off when their dad died.  I on the other hand lived in five different houses, bouncing between a couple of them twice.

My cousin and I rarely discussed careers between us, but on the few occasions we did we both hinted at a position that neither of us wanted to do what our dads did.  My dad was a plumber who spent time working in nuclear reactors, which may explain the strange and quick growing cancer that killed him.  Their dad spent too many hours at work, trying to pay for a young family which may explain the sudden heart attack.  They inherited a garage full of tools, some of them rather expensive, so they occasionally mentioned opening a garage.  I on the other hand wanted to go to College.  I did not think much about a career because that was beyond the goal post of College, but I knew I didn't want a career like my dad.

During High school my cousin found that selling illegal narcotics was a good way to make cash.  From their Junior to Senior years they went from Store brand jeans, Converse Canvas, store brand Ts to Calvin Klein jeans, Adidas shoes, Gucci leather coats, gold jewelry, and two cars.  One car was a project to use those inherited tools.  They smoked cigarettes, drank as much as the worst offending teenager, but really didn't use the products they sold.

I on the other hand started working as a cook in restaurants at age 15.  I worked as many hours as I could get so that I could afford Lee and Levi jeans, and a mix of preppy and punk clothes depending on the day.  I smoked also, drank perhaps a bit more, and the only drugs I ever did were caffeine pills so that I could stay awake for my next shift.  I knew that whatever I stashed away would not be enough for College so I enlisted in the US Army when I was 17.  I'd leave a few days after I graduated high school.  I was an A/B student when the classes were not dull so graduating would not be an issue.

After High School my cousin moved up in the world, running larger packages around instead of selling small ones.  The money was better, but the stress was much higher and the hours much longer.  It was not too long before they started using a bit of their product to maintain sanity and be alert when needed.    As time moved on they used more and more, and mixing it with alcohol had a bad collision with a phone pole landing them in the hospital and out of work.  Like any delivery business, the people in charge don't like to find recklessness under them.  This left them with a bad habit (addition) and no income.  My Aunt spent loads of money getting them in and out of rehab programs trying to clean them up.

I on the other hand served my time in the Army.  I learned a whole lot about myself and what the human body and psyche are capable of.  There were numerous aspects of the life I really enjoyed, but disliked enough to be choosy about the terms of a long stay.  The Army did not match my terms, so I departed with an Honorable discharge after my time was served.  As soon as I was home I enrolled in College as I planned, and then found out that the funds I was promised didn't really work like I was told.  I take full blame as I didn't bother to read things and trusted people in positions of power to be honest.  Those are two very important life lessons to learn.  I also got a restaurant job so that I could pay for things I needed while I went to college, like everything outside of books and tuition.

Hearing about my cousin from the family was a bummer, and of course me being ignorant to how bad additions can be I volunteered to help.  I believed my cousin when they said "I just need a change of scenery to get away from people using drugs so I can get clean!" and went and picked them up.  We had a couple drinks and bullshitted over cribbage and TV, and feeling rather good about myself fell sound asleep.  I woke up a bit lighter financially speaking, and woke up too.  A lesson I have had to learn over and over again is that no matter what our intentions are, we can't make other people different.  We can only change ourselves.

I still smoked and drank and as I was finishing up my degree.  Needing to work full time made College a bit slower than I hoped but I also took many more classes than I needed.  I had a severe injury while at work which required surgery and my employer's insurance was fighting the claim which added some more time to the process.  I found out I was to be a parent just as I had finished up enough classes to complete a degree.

My cousin has never done much professionally.  They had a wife and house for a couple years and even had a couple kids, but those things were mostly lost to drugs.  They didn't have an influence on society as a whole that I would say is positive.

As for me, I have spent nearly a quarter of a century working with Computers.  I didn't stay married, but have a happy healthy kid (now adult) what many would consider an above average career.  I consider my influence on society as a whole to be positive.  I pay my taxes, follow the laws, and work very hard.  I am nowhere near perfect and I accept all of my mistakes and flaws.  There are plenty of both.

Most people I meet have similar anecdotes to mine.  Perhaps not the two extremes I am portraying, but enough to resonate with my anecdotes.  So what is the point of my two anecdotes exactly?

At no point in my anecdotes, and in no definition of myself, do I consider my race or gender a defining attribute.  I have met and spoken to people of both genders and numerous races who have similar stories to my own.  I could have made the same choices no matter what my gender or race.


My cousin and I are the same race and gender, it was our decisions in life that made us different.  I could have been the person using illegal drugs.  Instead, I made different choices and created a different life for myself.  I chose not to go to those parties and chose to restrict my social life to a specific types of people.  I could have had more "fun" for a few hours with "them" but I knew that there were risks which could change my path.

Attempting to blame race or gender for people's failures ignores the real problem.  Choose poorly and you fail.  For thousands of years this was reality that could not be covered up and used for political gain.  Today, the handout is a way of collecting votes and pandering. 

From the economic standpoint if you were a business owner and it was true that PersonX received 80% of the wages of PersonY, why would you pay PersonY?  That would be money you could have for what you want and need, and try as hard as you like you won't convince me that you would behave in such a way.  If you wouldn't, why would anyone claim someone else would?  Go back a paragraph.

Try as I might, I have a hard time writing this as I am not attempting to put myself on a pedestal or my cousin on trial.  Those things are not the point of the writing.

The Basic Income narrative, is BS

I have been hearing this fantastic narrative spread  about how "Basic Income" will save the US from itself.   I happen to always consider the phrase "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."  This is one of those things right?  Well, not according to our Progressives in the US.


So what is BI or "Basic Income"?

According to the narrative, BI is a check the Government releases to everyone just for being a Citizen.  The narrative claims that BI will alleviate the need for all other forms of Government welfare, even replacing the need for programs like Unemployment and Social Security.  The narrative claims that everyone gets BI for doing nothing but being born and holding citizenship. Everyone from Donald Trump and Bill Gates, to the unemployed Electrician, to would be getting BI just like Carl the heroin junkie and Mary the single mom.  Everyone is treated exactly the same with a cash deposit ever year.  Sounds good so far right?  What could be more fair than everyone and anyone in the US getting a paycheck for doing nothing but breathing in the great US air?

We could argue separately about what BI rate should be, but in the speeches I have heard it's between 30K and 50K. I'll use 30K just to be simple and not blamed of using an inflated number to frighten people from contemplating.  Why do they use those numbers?  To argue that everyone can have a basic standard of living with BI and working would be a choice and chance for extra income.

What is extremely important to note is the fact that 30K in Detroit will be a decent living wage.  Take that same 30K to Nashville TN, Miami FL, Austin TX, Fresno CA, or countless other cities and you could starve to death on BI.  Costs of living are a huge problem to this narrative, yet it gets ignored.

Like me, you will probably ask "Well where does the 30K a year for everyone come from?"  I believe this is a fair question.  BI for everyone in the US would come with a price tag of 9 Trillion Dollars, if we round our population down to 300 million.  This is roughly half of our total GDP.  It's nearly 3 times the total tax revenue for 2015.  We can certainly argue about tax code problems in the US, but Federal taxes even with tax havens corrected would not come up with the difference.

Total US Spending in 2015 was 4Trillian dollars, and 1/8th of that (half a billion) was money we did not have so had to borrow.  So how we are going to come up with a 9 Trillion dollar gift to every citizen of the USA?  Remember, this would not include what we need for Defense, Education, and all of the other expenses Government holds but only BI.

Well according to the people spreading the BI narrative, we are not creating new taxes but replacing poorly managed programs currently in use.  Medicaid was replaced by ACA, and this new BI will replace remaining programs like Government Housing Programs, Food Stamps, and everything else.  Really?  We are going to move to just 2 massive programs instead of all the various stuff we have today?  Wow, another WIN for society right?

How do we get better than fair to everyone, simple, and Free?

I have already shown that the money does not exist, and quite frankly have no idea how anyone could come up with such a massive pile of cash.  There are lots of tax loopholes, but fixing the tax problems does not create that much money.  Further, I argue here that fixing the tax problem causes a massive economic collapse.

Putting it rather bluntly, the people spreading this narrative are attempting to defy basic economics.  Making matters worse, they are also painting people as another species.  This is a typical theme with the progressive narratives by the way, painting all humans as altruistic hard working people.  If everyone just closed their eyes and clicked their heals together while chanting...

Why do people need programs today for things like Housing and food assistance? If you assume that everyone on an aid program is a good hard working person who would work hard if they could only find a job, this would be a really good idea. Reallocating money so that people can shop for better lives would make economic sense.  It could give people the chance to live the American dream, because we are all very hard working and industrious right?  Well, that's no more true than being able to cancel a couple programs to pay for it.

There is very measurable percentage of people who are not hard working and "just need a job".  Current statistics show that approximately 2% of Welfare programs are used for fraudulent purposes and this is just what gets reported to the US Department of Labor.  Contrary to the narrative, there are people who would rather party than work, people with addictions to drugs and alcohol, people who are sociopaths and being taught YOLO (You Only Live Once) and believe what they are taught by mass marketing over mass media.

These people have problems which usually get much worse with large cash deposits.  Not better.

It should take you about half a second to register that removing programs like WIC and Government Housing can't happen.  BI intended for these purposes will be spent on drugs, alcohol, etc.. Children who only eat today because of WIC will either starve to death or we extend WIC. 

We can safely say that the whole BI argument is BS.

The Flat Tax fable

Flat tax fable

For decades I have heard politicians claim that we need to rid the US of the tax code and implement a different system.  I remember Ross Perot, who ran for the US Presidency in 1992, using taxes as a main platform issue.  “Your tax form should be the size of a Postcard” was his slogan.

Every politician since then has claimed they would make some type of tax reform.  Taxes should be simplified, taxes should be fair, taxes should not have so many loopholes for special interests.  It seems everyone knows that the tax code is broken, yet we never see any positive change.  In fact the US tax code has grown to just shy of 75,000 pages in 2015.  This is up from near 35,000 pages since Ross Perot ran for office, demonstrating that our problems are continually getting worse.

To get an idea of how complex today’s tax code is, if your full time job was to read the tax code it would take you almost two years of full time work to do.  This is not taking notes, this is not cross referencing information, and this is not attempting to make any sense of the data.  It is just reading the tax code.  You would barely be halfway through the current tax code when you would be holding an obsolete regulation, and you would need to start over with a new book.

I won’t get into the cronyism and favoritism which is making the problems worse.  I will acknowledge that they exist, and acknowledge that we must address that issue.  There are plenty of papers and articles tackling the subject of corruption around the US Tax code.  The purpose of my work is to determine if something else is involved.  If the right person was voted into office, could we really expect a change?  

The answer to this is sadly “No”, at least not any time soon.

The loopholes inserted into the tax code allow the wealthiest and most capable of paying taxes to do the opposite, and not pay at least a portion of their  taxes.  Because of those loopholes, a massive economy has grown around the US Tax code.  Law firms, Lawyers, and CPAs make their living off of the system.  In addition to people being paid to find the loopholes, people pay for directions on how to take advantage of those and other loopholes.  Of course another market made up of Government offices and bureaucrats  is ensuring that the paperwork exists to make the use of the loopholes all legal, and lobbyists to generate more loopholes for special interests.

Outside of direct beneficiaries, we have a separate market which exists to support those who can’t afford to use the loopholes, but still need assistance in making sense of the US Income tax forms and ensuring everything is in order when they submit their forms.  Lawyers and law firms for representing those people when needed.

Not to be left out, we have a massive number of Government employees who would lose their jobs because they too are supported by this massive, and corrupt, system.  There are Government courts which would no longer be needed, IRS agents and auditors would no longer be necessary, accountants, computer programmers dealing with automating the processing of these complex forms.  

We should not neglect that with all of those closing businesses, the supporting infrastructure would also be out of work.  Offices would close leaving buildings vacant and displacing building staff, restaurants who supported those buildings would close, garages and gas stations supporting the drivers would close, leaving millions more people out of work.

The US Tax “problem” is a massive industry worth at least 100 Billion a year.  The reality is that anyone attempting to drop the system in favor of a flat tax would cause a massive economic collapse.  It is sadly a broken window fallacy taken to the extreme.

As we enter a new generation of political candidates making promises, remember that any claim of moving quickly to a flat tax is a fable.  Correcting the tax problems will take time to transition a very large economy to a new source of income.  Candidates should be focused on how to make this transition, and not make promises they won’t be able to keep.

Everything you need to know about Apple vs. FBI, in simple terms

Encryption and Apple vs. FBI

All the hype and sabre rattling about this case shows the frustration we have with our current Government, and the Government's desire to maintain their current level of control. 

The US Constitution 4th amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Analogy is the best way to argue technical cases, and I have yet to see a good analogy presented on this subject.  Here is my safe analogy, which presents an accurate view of this case specifically for the non-technical person.

Consider that a person commits a crime, and the Government suspects that evidence to that crime is being stored in the person's personal safe.  The Government may obtain a warrant from a court requesting that a safe maker attempts to open a safe.  It might go without saying that the Government must compensate the safe maker for their work which can only be done by taxing the populace, but I'm saying it for more points later on.

The US Constitution is clear that the Government has such authority, and it implies that the safe maker should be required to comply with the warrant.  I'm sure that even the "Progressives" would agree with my analogy up to this point, but here is where a Constitutional scholar will divert from the "Progressive" view.

The safe maker can, and should, attempt to open the safe as we said is legal the obligation.  There is no guarantee that the safe maker does open the safe, nor can that be the expectation by any party.  The safe maker can not guarantee that the client has not modified the safe in such a way as to prevent the manufacturer from opening it.  In fact a safe maker who wanted to assure customers of a desire to protect their belongings may provide tools to customers for the purpose modifying the safe and removing manufactured settings.

Would you find a bank that modified it's vaults so that the people who built the vault could not open it "bad"?  If your money was being held in that vault, of course not.  You would most likely compliment them on their wit and ingenuity, more so if one of the vault builders attempted to rob the bank and was thwarted.

The courts and Government can not mandate that the safe maker opens the safe because that task may not be possible.  They may only mandate the attempt to do so.

The long and short of the issue is twofold.  First, the FBI in this case is demanding that Apple open the safe, not simply make an attempt.  The second, in the demands for both the iPhone source code and a permanent Government back door, the FBI is demanding that a Government door exists in every safe phone Apple produced or produces in the future.

A door is a door, is a door.

It is important to understand that a door, front or back, does not have prejudice on who walks in or out.  The existence of the door can allow bad actors in and out as easily as good actors.  Each year billions of dollars are spent by Governments trying to find and exploit back doors in order to spy on each other (as well as their own citizens).  Each year many millions of dollars are traded on black markets for those same back doors.  The criminals find them in the same way as Governments do, and uses them the same way.

Let us not attempt to fool anyone, a key does not negate a door.  A key only delays the amount of time it takes someone to open the door. 

Let us also not pretend that everyone in the Government is a good person with altruistic motives at all times.  In fact the Government is regularly found guilty of violating it's own Laws, paying constituents who have suffered at the hands of people holding positions of power and terminating employment.. after the fact.

All of these attempts to thwart the US Constitution costs you and I money.  Lots and lots of money, both in higher costs for goods as companies have to pay to fight these cases and higher taxes for the Government to fight these cases.

People will attempt to convince you that the Founding fathers never saw this one coming, and that the Constitution should change.  If a person spends time reading the US Constitution and all of the History surrounding this incredible foundation for our Government, there really is no mystery and the myth of the "living" Constitution needing to change disappears.  The spirit of the Constitution is very clear.  The Government must be limited in power.