Stuff My Brain Says #87

"Who do you think you're kidding?!?"

Remember when Congress wanted then candidate Donald Trump to turn over his tax returns? Yeah. Fun times.

Now Congress is telling us that the multi-trillion dollar infrastructure spending bill will be paid for by making companies and the rich pay their fair share. You know, "The middle class won't be left holding the bag. The rich who haven't been paying their fair share will cover the bill." 

To quote Dana Carvey: "Isn't that special?"

(Side note: when Social Security was first "sold" to us, we were told only the very rich would pay for it. Have you looked at your paystub to see the lump that goes out for Social Security? Welcome to the very rich ... )

Did you see the commonality of the above two statements? Yup. Congress. Now, here's the funny part: Congress is the very entity that created the tax code that ALLOWS people like Donald Trump to not pay taxes.

IF those "evil" rich aren't paying their "fair share", wouldn't there be charges brought up against them? Ask folks like Wesley Snipes, Nicolas Cage, and Willie Nelson about what happens when you don't pay your "fair share". Sounds to me that if a rich person or company isn't already paying their taxes, they would have been caught by now.

Maybe Congress has been watching too many Tim Misny commercials. Of course, the reason he can "make them pay" is that they've done something illegal. You'd think since Congress is made up of a bunch of lawyers, they'd already know that.

Would somebody please ask those folks who've been in D.C. seemingly forever what changes to the tax code they plan on making? After all, one of the reasons that a lot of these companies aren't "paying", is that a POLITICIAN promises tax cuts/abatements for opening a business in their district. NOW they are crying that these very companies actually embrace those cuts and abatements?

Even if Congress were able to get more money from the rich and businesses, they would simply outspend it. It's been their modus operandi for decades. They have an addiction: other people's money.

Maybe Congress should live by this simple financial code: If your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep will be your downfall.

© Emittravel 2021

Christians Love A Whiner - er - Winner

Several days ago I posted the following on Facebook and Twitter: "President Trump is the winningest President ever! He is the ONLY President to be impeached ... TWICE! Now THAT'S winning! Let the door hit you in the a** on the way out!"

I admit, my Facebook and Twitter feeds aren't my blog; however, the "My Humble But Accurate Opinion" theme does tend to carry over to other parts of my online life. 

I really don't get that much social interaction from my posts on Twitter. On Facebook I get loads. Especially when they have even a hint of a derogatory emphasis on President Trump. And mostly from my friends of Christian faith. Which got me to thinking: why are so many Christians so enamored with President Trump?

Before I go any further, I want to state that I am a Christian. If you have read some of my older blog posts, you will also realize that I am not a "religious" Christian. I do recommend you check out some of those posts if you need more of an explanation. Go ahead. I can wait.

Finished? Okay, I'll continue.

From what I can tell, Christians (I'm going to use them as a group - even though I know many Christians do not consider President Trump to be all that awesome. If you are a Christian and don't think Trump to be the Second Coming, don't worry - I'm not referring to you.) think that Trump is the most Christian President we have ever had as a nation. He stands for family. He's pro-life. And he stands against evil (the mainstream media, Democrats, China, etc.) Any comment that would detract from that message is considered anathema. 

Well, if you ARE a Christian who believes Trump walks on water, you may want to stop reading.

(As you might have noticed, I dropped the "President" and refer to him just as "Trump". No disrespect is meant by this. It is simply to tighten my verbose writing.)

I believe that if you ARE a Christian, Trump should be the LAST person you should adore. And here's why:

Let's start with the "stands for family" bit. Trump has the honor of being the President with the MOST divorces - more than any other President in history. To quote the Elite Daily, "In 1990, Trump's first wife Ivana divorced him after his affair with model Marla Maples was revealed. Trump later married Maples in 1993, three months after she gave birth to their daughter Tiffany Trump. The couple was married for four years until they separated in 1997. That brings us to first lady Melania Trump, previously Melania Knauss, who met Trump at a party in 1998. The couple dated for six years before tying the knot in 2005. Melania gave birth to their son, Barron, nearly a year later." Tiffany was conceived and born out of wedlock. A very Christian ideal indeed.

Okay, let's look at his being "pro-life". This may come as a shock, but Trump was pro-choice (for Christians "PRO-ABORTION") up until he decided to run for President in 2015. Why the big change? Did he suddenly decide that every sperm is sacred? Doubtful. More likely he decided that he had a better chance of winning as a Republican than as a Democrat, and running as a pro-choice Republican would not even get him out of the Primaries.

How about that he stands against evil? Surely, that's a good reason to faun over him. Actually, no. The very Democrats that he calls evil were his brothers and sisters up until he decided to run for President in 2015. Again, see the above paragraph.

The only thing Trump values is Trump. His name is the sweetest sound in the world. That's why he puts it on his steaks and the top of towers. As President, he even refused to use the official @POTUS Twitter account, preferring his @realDonaldTrump account BECAUSE it had his name in it.

I also find it difficult to "worship" the guy who said it was okay to "grab them by the p*ssy", and use chemical agents against protesters to make a path for him to go to a church he never attended for a photo op of him holding up a Bible UPSIDE DOWN.

I think it's not too far from golden toilets to being a "golden calf". (I know, he didn't actually have a gold toilet, but it makes this funny!)

Was he an idiot? No. Actually, he was quite smart. One of the main ways to unite people is to give them a common enemy. Trump provided them in truck loads, and his "followers" gobbled them up. One of my Facebook friends made it a point to tell me that they were at the pre-Capitol riot speech and that he did NOT incite the crowd to insurrection. I'm sure the members of Jeremiah Wright's church didn't hear any "god damn America" language either. I got through about half of the transcript of Trump's speech. I gotta say, there was a quite a lot of "enemy" language spouted. Of course, about a quarter of the way through I kept getting mental images of Jim Carrey's Ace Ventura:

The Bible says that a person is "…not to think of himself more highly than he ought…" (Romans 12:3). Yet, Trump thought so highly of himself that BEFORE the 2020 election even happened he was stating that he won the election, and the only way he could lose was by voter fraud. Maybe he was a prophet too.

Speaking of the 2020 election, I'm not at all surprised that it has become the clusterf*ck that it is. Trump repeatedly told his followers that they should vote in person and not by mail. Since the coronavirus was of no concern to Republicans, all the Democrats would be too scared to go out and vote. And since Democrats would then vote by mail, all of their votes should be considered invalid. 

No surprise then, when after the polls closed many states then started counting the mail-in ballots and most went for Biden. Which is why Trump's "lead" started to disappear. That's not fraud. That's the system working as designed.

By the way, in the typical "do as I say, not as I do" Trump mentality, he voted BY MAIL.

When it comes to election fraud, I'm going to quote NPR: "The largest case of election fraud in recent U.S. history took place during the 2018 midterm elections and involved third-party ballot collection. A GOP operative illegally collected and potentially tampered with ballots in a U.S. House race in North Carolina, eventually leading state authorities to overturn the election results." As you can probably guess, Trump voted by third-party ballot collection for the 2020 election.

Of course, this also means Trump got all his election fraud tips from a reliable source: the GOP! (Or, did the GOP get the tips from Trump? Chicken? Egg?)

As far as the voter fraud allegations are concerned, Trump and his legal team have failed to provide ANY credible proof of fraud. Oh, they had a lot of theories, but no proof. During that pre-Capitol riot speech he mentioned the list of inmates who voted. To quote Monty Python in "Life of Brian" when Brian said to the crowd, "A man had two sons," and a member of the crowd yelled out, "What were their names?", I ask concerning those inmates, what were their names?

The list of individuals Trump has fired (or have "requested" letters of resignation from - same thing, by the way) since losing the 2020 election is quite extensive. If you weren't completely loyal to him, you were on the short list. 

As an example of Trump's inability to accept defeat, Chris Krebs, formerly the most senior cybersecurity official, was fired by Trump (via Twitter, no less) when he declared the election secure. Why? Because Trump wanted him to find proof of election tampering and he didn't. Because it's all about Trump, and Trump cannot stand to lose.

But firing people should come as no surprise. I think Trump may still believe he is in his reality show. 

Dominion Voting Systems has been so disparaged by Trump and his team, that they are suing. And unlike Trump's legal team, this isn't a frivolous lawsuit. We're talking defamation and slander.

Trump says that there is no way "Sleepy Joe" got more votes than him. And I have to agree. There is nothing about Biden that makes one think, "Now THERE'S a leader!" But that's the thing: people didn't vote FOR Biden; they voted AGAINST Trump. In 2016 we had to choose between two terrible candidates. Not so in 2020. 

(Full discloser: I didn't vote for Biden and I didn't vote for Trump. I believe that voting Democrat or Republican only reinforces bad behavior.)

Think about it. In order for the Democrats to overthrow the election in the way Trump says they did, it had to be a coordinated effort that knew WHICH counties would need to be impacted to turn the election, WHICH courts the legal team would file charges against so they could be thrown out, and how to get even the Trump-loving FOX News to admit that Biden won. Seriously, if the Democrats are THAT coordinated, maybe they SHOULD be in charge! 

Back during the 2016 election, Pastor Max Lucado posted the following to his blog:

"I don’t know Mr. Trump. But I’ve been chagrined at his antics. He ridiculed a war hero. He made a mockery of a reporter’s menstrual cycle. He made fun of a disabled reporter. He referred to the former first lady, Barbara Bush as “mommy,” and belittled Jeb Bush for bringing her on the campaign trail. He routinely calls people “stupid,” and “dummy.” One writer catalogued sixty-four occasions that he called someone “loser.” These were not off-line, backstage, overheard, not-to-be-repeated comments. They were publicly and intentionally tweeted, recorded, and presented.

Such insensitivities wouldn’t be acceptable even for a middle school student body election. But for the Oval Office? And to do so while brandishing a Bible and boasting of his Christian faith?" Read the rest here.

I find Max Lucado a much better example of Christianity than Donald Trump. Go ahead and prove me wrong.

I know of quite a few Christians who have left churches over less anti-Christian behavior, yet still suck from the "Trump teat" on a regular basis. (You know who you are...)

I’m not a perfect example of Christianity. I like the philosophy of "not perfect, but forgiven". The Bible says we are to be "…living epistles, read of all men" (J.P. paraphrase of 2 Cor. 3:2). I don't have a fish symbol on the back of my car because I know how I drive. And I don't have a Trump bumper sticker either!

Why do Christians insist that Trump is the best thing since unleavened bread? Maybe it's because they are tired and angry and want a change from the usual. The rhetoric, no matter how divisive, is captivating to them.

I don't know. But I can say for certain that the only thing Trump and Jesus have in common is the number of letters in their name.

©Emittravel 2021

Stuff My Brain Says #86

The big question of late (or, more accurately, as of this writing) is why hasn't President Donald Trump conceded the election to Former Vice President Joe Biden? After all, according to every media outlet, Joe Biden has won enough electoral votes to be "crowned" President Elect. And that should settle it, right?

On December 14, 2020, the Electors in each state will cast their votes. (Monday after the second Wednesday in December of presidential election years is set [3 U.S.C. §7] as the date on which the electors meet and vote.) 

(As an aside, I recommend the following: "The Electoral College: A 2020 Presidential Election Timeline".)

G.K. Chesterton once said that before you remove a fence, you should first determine why it was set up in the first place. 

If the Electoral College does not actually vote until December 14, why is there all of this angst over Donald Trump not calling Joe Biden "President Elect"? From what I can tell, the media is NOT the final arbiter of the election: the Electoral College is. And since the Electoral College does not ACTUALLY vote until December 14, Joe Biden isn't OFFICIALLY the President Elect - no matter which media outlet anoints him.

I understand the value of transition time. I have friends who have told me that I'm standing against over a hundred years of tradition (that the media declares the winner). Am I a Trump supporter? No. Do I think his grandstanding is a bit childish? Based on the lack of credible evidence to election tampering, yes. But do I think that the law should be circumvented for tradition? NO!

To quote the linked document above: "January 6, 2021: Joint Session of Congress to Count Electoral Votes and Declare Election Results Meets On January 6, or another date set by law, the Senate and House of Representatives assemble at 1:00 p.m. in a joint session at the Capitol, in the House chamber, to count the electoral votes and declare the results (3 U.S.C. §15). The Vice President presides as President of the Senate. The Vice President opens the certificates and presents them to four tellers, two from each chamber. The tellers read and make a list of the returns. When the votes have been ascertained and counted, the tellers transmit them to the Vice President. If one of the tickets has received a majority of 270 or more electoral votes, the Vice President announces the results, which 'shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President.'"

Maybe we should ask why all the (apparently) "pomp and circumstance" of an Electoral College voting process, when all we need is for the Associated Press to declare the winner.

©Emittravel 2020

If Everything Is A Crisis . . .

What do all of these have in common?

Global Cooling
H1N1
Swine Flu
Killer Bees
Avian Flu
Y2K
SARS
Global Warming a.k.a. Man-Made Climate Change a.k.a. Climate Change a.k.a. Climate Crisis
2012 (Mayan Calendar)
MERS
Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election

Ready? Oh, this is so easy that you're gonna kick yourself if you missed it: According to the media (and our political "leaders"), we were all GONNA DIE!!

That's right. The above list is just a sampling of the things that the media cried over. And to show just how intellectual the elite media are, they would use (and still use) a word coined in 1475 to label anyone who would not whole-hardheartedly agree with them: denier.

Today we are in the midst of a real pandemic. One not seen here in the United States since 1918. And it may actually be serious. Oh, I'm not being a "denier" of the coronavirus. Not in the least. But, I'm wondering HOW serious it might actually be. As of today, the stats are as follows:

The first case reported in the US: 1/22/2020
February 1: 8
March 1: 42 (2 deaths)
April 1: 212,747 (4,746 deaths)
April 18: 724,895 (34,178 deaths)

As an Ohioan, the first three cases were reported on 3/9/2020
April 1: 2,547 (65 deaths)
April 18: 10,222 (451 deaths)

Looking at the stats, things seem quite grim. The numbers are exponentially rising when it comes to confirmed cases and especially deaths. And yet, both President Trump and Governor DeWine (and I'm sure many others) are looking at slowly lifting the quarantines that have been slowing the spread of the disease. I can't talk about the impact upon the economy at an individual level, as my wife is a public school teacher working from home and I work in a company that supports the telecommunications industry (therefore, "essential"), so we are both working (thank you Lord). However, on the macro level, the impact has been substantial. Yet, after only about a month of quarantine (here in Ohio), is it really advisable to start lifting it? Can the hospitals handle the possible increase in cases? Do we have the supplies? Are people willing to keep their distance and wear masks? How serious is this?

Now, the media has been ever vigilant in their reporting of how terrible a job President Trump has done when it comes to this. Mainly, because he was a "denier" initially. To be honest, I don't blame him.

Please scroll back to the top and review that list.

Now, take a deep breath.

Let it out slowly.

I blame the media. It is their fault and they should be held responsible for every occurrence and EVERY DEATH from this pandemic. And here's why:

I'm a big fan of two Microsoft Office Suite products: OneNote and Outlook (the desktop version). When writing an email in Outlook, you can choose the priority of the message as High, Normal, and Low. All emails are Normal by default. I had a coworker that would send every email as High priority. Do you know what happens when all emails are sent as High priority? NONE of them are High priority.

That's our media. Everything is a crisis and we should pay attention to them because they are more knowledgeable than you and therefore are the arbiters of truth. Horsepuckies!

To be more accurate, they are more like the "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".

They have always been more concerned with selling advertising dollars than reporting the news. And because everything has been a crisis, nothing is a crisis. And they are surprised when people are not listening when there is a REAL "wolf"?!?

I'm no expert. This is nothing but My Humble But Accurate Opinion. And yet, maybe, just maybe, we should keep our distance for a bit longer.

And stop listening to the media when they cry, "Wolf!"

©Emittravel 2020

Pundit-cation Without Representation

I listen to quite a few podcasts. 131 shows to be exact. That’s a lot of podcasts. Some are more active than others. About 26 of them are music. The rest are made up of current events, stories (i.e. “The Moth”), and lots and lots of geek. There are about seven that focus primarily on technology and its impact.

I’m sure most of you have heard of “Silicon Valley”. It’s not a real place, as far as the postal service is concerned. It is, however a real place for the rest of us. It is located in the southern San Francisco Bay area of California and is where many technology companies hang their hats.

Most of the technology-related podcasts I listen to are based in the southern California area. That’s not surprising, since San Francisco is the hub of technology. The unfortunate side-effect to this is that the folks who do the podcasts report the impact of technology based on what is seen in California.

California, if you haven’t noticed, is NOT the entirety of the world - or just the United States for that matter.

Much of what I hear has little-to-no impact by the time it reaches my part of the country (Ohio). You think I’m kidding? I’ve yet to see anyone riding a Segway down the streets of Seven Hills…

This localized focus is not limited to just technology. If you ever watch cable news, or read “major” publications, you’d think that the entire country resides in either California or New York. The rest of the country, and the opinions expressed, are basically ignored - or worse, taken as the ramblings of the “uninformed masses”.

If you look up a map of election results from the 2016 Presidential election based on votes, you’ll see that the far ends of the country are blue (Democrat) and the middle is red (Republican). The majority of states are red - again, in the middle of the country - you know, NOT California or New York.

The majority of cable news networks and “major” publications are based in California and New York. This is why you hear so much vitriol over the current administration from them. If you don’t pay attention, you’d think that is the way the majority of the country thinks.

So, what can you do? Well, you could turn off your TVs, but that won’t help. You see, those folks think that their opinions are the only ones that matter and you need to think like they do. Just turning off your set won’t let them know that you disagree. You could write them and tell them. You could write their advertisers and tell them. But honestly, it won’t matter. As I said, for some reason, the folks in California and New York think that those of us in the middle are truly in the “flyover states” and can simply be ignored.

And that is what we need to do to them: ignore them.

According to an article in Wikipedia, Donald Trump received 62,984,828 votes. Hillary Clinton received 65,853,514 votes. That’s a difference of 2,868,686 votes. Hillary Clinton received almost six million more votes than Donald Trump in California and New York alone. So, you can see why the pundits in those states were ACTUALLY shedding tears after the election.

In 2016 there were about 200 million registered voters (I’m not even going to refer to the fact that there are over 300 million people in the United States). This means that 71,161,658 registered voters did NOT vote for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

So, the next time someone whines that we should get rid of the Electoral College, tell them that by popular vote, that big chair in Washington, DC should be vacant right now…

© Emittravel 2018

Stuff My Brain Says #81

So far it seems like every GOP endeavor has fallen short or outright failed. And I think I know the reason why. It’s really quite simple. You see, nobody in the GOP really thought that Donald Trump was going to be President. They believed what the media said (that Hillary Clinton had over a 90% chance of winning the election - based on their polls).

The GOP had eight years to prepare things like Repeal and Replace and did nothing. Why? Because not only did they know they did not have an actual challenger to the Democrats, they knew that with Hillary Clinton as President, they would NEVER pass any of their endeavors. So they figured they had at least four more years (if not eight) to actually come up with anything of substance.

As a perfect example of procrastination, the GOP is living proof that there is no minute like the last minute.

© Emittravel 2017

You Really Don’t Want a Democracy

After the 2016 Presidential Election, many were upset that even though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, Donald Trump took the presidency by winning the Electoral College vote. Cries of “unfair”, and “he’s not my President” rang out; along with a push to eliminate the Electoral College because, after all, we are a Democracy.

Actually, no. We are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. Thus the Electoral College.

I bring this up because we have a current movement that is trying to rewrite history and remove anything deemed offensive from the public eye. Included are statues, flags, and even baseball team mascots.

As a Cleveland Indians fan, I’ve been pummeled by the anti-Wahoo folks for years. Even a recent article I read lumped the mascot with statues of Robert E. Lee as being equally racist. Hogwash!

First off, the Supreme Court has determined that trademarks cannot be considered “hate speech”. So as far as the law is concerned, Chief Wahoo is not hate speech.

Nevertheless, those few are screaming the loudest in hopes to bully a decision in their favor. Even the MLB Commissioner is pressuring the Cleveland Indians owners to remove the mascot.

Dear MLB Commissioner: IF you bow down to the pressure of a few and remove Chief Wahoo from the Cleveland Indians, we the fans will NOT go quietly into the night. Third-party vendors will start making a killing selling Chief Wahoo merchandise - which means the MLB gets none of that sweet, sweet cash.

I for one am getting a bit tired of a few hypocrites calling the shots.

Hypocrites? Yep. Hypocrites.

Go back and reread the first paragraph of this post.

The same folks calling us a democracy don’t really WANT a democracy. Why? Because the majority of people don’t want the mascots removed, or history to be rewritten. And IF we WERE a democracy, you crybabies would have to go away.

It’s called the First Amendment. If you like the idea of freedom of speech, then you have to accept that you will be exposed to speech you disagree with. That gives you a choice: You can either move to a country that does not respect the freedom of speech - which would eliminate you hearing anything that might offend you, or you can go ahead and get thicker skin.

As far as whether or not to remove statues, flags, mascots, or whatever, I direct you to Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations: “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up.” (ascribed to Chesterton by John F. Kennedy).

Do you honestly believe that the people who erected a statue (that includes designing, creating, paying for, and authorizing it) did it BECAUSE they were racist?

"Let's put up a statue to show the world how racist we are. Good idea, huh? All in favor?"

"Aye!"

That’s hard to believe. Just because you are offended by CHANGING the original intention, does NOT give you the right to force the majority to accept your cries as truth.

So, before you “like” a tweet or Facebook post that encourages the removal of this or that, do a little research to find out WHY this or that was erected in the first place.

And if you don’t agree, go ahead, move to North Korea, and shout that statues of their dear leader are racist and hate speech. I’m sure they’ll praise your bravery.

(Idiots.)

© Emittravel 2017

Consolation Prize

The 2016 Presidential Election has produced many a discussion on whether or not we should be using the Electoral College (E.C.) to determine who becomes President. There are many reasons why we should do away with the E.C., including the fact that those voting have the ability to change their vote from the will of the states they represent (which defeats the purpose of having a “republican” form of government in the first place).

The big cry, of course, has been the issue of the Popular Vote, where Hillary Clinton, though losing in the E.C., had a larger number of votes than Donald Trump. One shed tear of the cry has been that if you removed the popular votes received in the State of California alone, Donald Trump would have won that as well.

Regardless, Donald Trump is now the President of the United States, and Hillary Clinton is sitting on the sidelines - probably giving a sigh of relief!

She is, as Donald Trump would say, “A big, fat LOSAH!”

And since politics is an obvious game show (Betsy DeVos became Secretary of Education by playing “The Price is Right” with the G.O.P.), Hillary Clinton should leave the stage, not empty handed, but with a consolation prize.

The Governor of California is Democrat Jerry Brown. Brown is currently serving his fourth life sentence . . . er . . . term as governor. I think it would be such a great gesture of Democrat Party unity for Jerry Brown to hand over his baton of power to Hillary Clinton. Since California proved how much they supported Hillary Clinton by providing enough votes to swing the election to her from Donald Trump (if the E.C. went away), it should be a no-brainer to give her the Governorship.

If you DO need a little brainer, let’s look at the numbers:

Jerry Brown won his last term with a total of 4,388,368 votes. Hillary Clinton received 7,362,490 votes. That’s a difference of 2,974,122 votes MORE for Clinton than Brown. Even the people of California have spoken!

Hillary Clinton, as a consolation prize, you are now the Governor of California.

And don’t worry Jerry Brown, you get a consolation prize as well: a year’s supply of Turtle Wax (™) - which, by the way, is one can.

Thank you, and good night!

(I miss Richard Dawson!)

© Emittravel 2017

It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #11

It's broke . . .

President Donald Trump came under a lot of pressure to separate himself from his businesses once he became President. The concern was that having control of his businesses would impact his decisions and the way he worked with foreign governments. You know, he would not make a decision that would negatively impact his businesses.

And separating himself is a good thing. But is it enough?

If having “civilian” enterprises are a negative for the President, shouldn’t the same be said for those in Congress? What about the Supreme Court? How about for anyone in public service? Why just the President?

In March of 2004, Martha Stewart was found guilty of what is commonly referred to as “insider trading”. (She was actually convicted of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart) Was she in the wrong? The courts surely thought so.

But why is “insider trading” considered illegal? According to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security (stock), in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security. Insider trading violations may also include 'tipping' such information, securities trading by the person 'tipped,' and securities trading by those who misappropriate such information.” It is considered illegal because “insider trading undermines investor confidence in the fairness and integrity of the securities markets”. (See https://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm for more info)

When you own stock, you own a part of a company. The more stock you own, the more of the company you own. If you own a certain amount, you have “voting rights” of a company in their decision process.

If a member of Congress owns stock in a company, wouldn’t that be on a certain level the same as President Trump owning a company? And wouldn’t owning that company impact the laws that Congress writes? And furthermore, wouldn’t having access to lobbyists from these companies provide insider trading information to these members of Congress, which would not only impact the way they write laws, but also how they buy/trade their stock?

In other words, if a member of Congress owns stock, couldn’t they be charged the same as Martha Stewart?

The solution is simple: EVERYONE in public office must give FULL DISCLOSURE of their financial investments to the public (you know, their BOSS) and be accountable for any decisions they make that impact the value of their investments. You know, like everyone screamed that President Trump needed to release his tax forms.

Either that, or like everyone is screaming about over President Trump, they should remove themselves from their “businesses” (a.k.a. “the companies they own - even if it is via stock”). And the simple way to do that is divest themselves of all of their investments prior to taking office.

. . . time to fix it!

©Emittravel 2017

Hyperborea

Unlike the hip-hop group Public Enemy who said, “Don’t Believe the Hype”, Americans - and much of the world for that matter - bent over backwards when it came to the presidency of Barack Obama.

Before you start thinking this is going to be an anti-Obama / pro-Trump piece, relax; I voted for Gary Johnson. And no, I didn’t give the election to Donald Trump by denying Hillary Clinton the election. I’m from Cuyahoga County (Cleveland, OH), and this county went Clinton. My vote wouldn’t have changed anything, even if I would have voted for Trump.

What I want to talk about is “hype”.

I recently posted on Twitter: “Now that Obama's time is over, can we all get back to NOT worshipping 1/3 of the government? #reality”.

Actually, even prior to President Obama, there has been an almost obvious worship of the Office of the President. What we forget is that the President is only 1/3 of the government (remember the Legislative and Judicial branches?) and that his/her power is limited.

Because of that worship, the election process has turned from looking for the best person to hold this temp job, to looking for a messiah to deliver us from all our ills. And that, my friends, is our fault.

“If you hadn't elevated the office of POTUS to king/lord/savior of the world, the transition to someone you dislike would be MUCH easier.” - me

President Obama was not a terrible president. Nor was he the best. At most I’d call him mediocre. He went in with the best of intentions, but found out that the Washington establishment was a little too thick in the skull to listen to “reason”. Unfortunately, the American people and even the rest of the world, were looking for Hyperborea and figured he would be the One to lead us to it.

Remember, there was so much hype around President Obama, that the Nobel Committee bestowed on him the Nobel Peace Prize - not for anything he had done, but for the POTENTIAL of what he would do.

And President Obama fed the hype: “...I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.”

It was believed that because of President Obama, a.k.a. “The first black President”:

the racial divide would dissolve, the economy would thrive, and the world would reach an age of peace (a.k.a. “Aquarius”). Instead, though there was a statistical decrease, there was an increase in reports of blacks being shot by white police officers;

the unemployment rate was the lowest it’s been since before the recession - if you, like the media and the White House, discount the large number of individuals either working at jobs paying far less than before the recession, or are no longer eligible to receive unemployment and therefore no longer counted;

and the American military was fighting more war fronts than the peak of the Bush/Cheney war machine years.

I wonder if the Nobel Committee wants their money back.

And now? We have Donald Trump. We don’t need the media to hype him; he is doing that plenty well on his own. Will he be a good President? For the sake of the country, I hope so. At worst, I can only hope he is also mediocre.

I think it would be best if we and the Office of the President followed the words of Christina Aguilera: "I don't want to believe my own hype."

©Emittravel 2017

Stuff My Brain Says #79

Would someone please explain to me how someone who makes a lot of money pretending to be someone they are not, standing up in a room full of people who make a lot of money pretending to be someone they are not, during an award ceremony that celebrates them pretending to be someone they are not, and uses that platform as an opportunity to slam a person/political party they mutually hate, which is speech guaranteed them in the Constitution, can be considered brave and worthy of celebration?

When we all know that the very definition of "brave" is removing the headphone jack from your new smartphone . . . 

©Emittravel 2017

I'm No Political Pundit, But . . .

The 2016 Presidential Election is “finally" over. I put “finally" in quotes, because according to my Twitter feed, it ain’t over yet.

As of today, November 13, 2016, Donald Trump won the election with 290 electoral votes, to Hillary Clinton’s 228. Now, according to the U.S. Constitution, Donald Trump won. But, according to my liberal friends, Hillary Clinton won because she got the most popular votes. They think that the Electoral College should either go away, or that the Electoral College should ignore the states and vote for Hillary Clinton on December 19.

Now, I’m not going to go into a long dissertation on why we have the Electoral College. I may save that for a “It’s Broke . . . Time to Fix It" article. Or, you can just go ahead and read the U.S. Constitution. What I do want to do is hopefully give everyone something to grasp that is positive, and allow everyone to finally move on.

To start, let me remind you that I voted for Gary Johnson. You can go back through some of my recent posts to get an overall picture of why. Let’s just say if you think I voted to spite the parties, you are wrong. If you think I threw my vote away, you are also wrong. If you think that my vote gave your opposing candidate the win, you can stop thinking: you are also wrong.

The reason I voted for Gary Johnson was that, based on his policies and record, I believed he was the best person for the JOB we the people were hiring for. And that’s it in a nutshell.

I say that to make sure you understand that I am NOT a Trump supporter, and I am NOT a Clinton supporter. I’m a registered Independent, so I don’t have a party line to hoe.

I’d like to say this was the nastiest election ever, but from what I’ve read, our earlier Presidential candidates were barrel-scum flingers. And that’s far before our lifetimes. So, nasty elections are nothing new in our history. It’s unfortunate that this process cannot be handled with the same decorum as the Office of the President is supposed to present.

(Maybe that should be a criteria for winning?)

As far as Clinton winning the popular vote is concerned, let’s look at the numbers. More than 40% of registered voters did not participate in this election. You can scream voter intimidation if you want, but the truth is, many people that I talked to felt that neither “major" candidate was worth voting for. (Most people had no idea about any third-party candidates, since their 24/7 news channels gave them so little free advertising, compared to the Republicans and Democrats.) Many people - over 40% - decided not to vote. THAT is a major declaration by the people. Either run a candidate that they would hire for the JOB, or they aren’t voting. Not voting is as much a statement as voting.

As far as voter intimidation is concerned, I’ve never seen it. I’ve been voting in elections since 1984 and I’ve never seen it. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen. I’m almost positive it does. If the elections of old were as nasty as this one was, I’m sure voter intimidation took place. I am saying that I’ve never seen it. Maybe that means I’ve lived in areas that are just too wholesome for the practice, or more likely, I’ve lived in areas where the electorate is considered of no value. But this election was filled with screams of Trump supporters intimidating voters. I remember cries over alleged Black Panthers intimidating voters in the previous two elections. So, it either is happening, or the concept gets a lot of press.

So, subtracting the over 40% of voters not participating, the remaining popular votes were almost evenly divided between Clinton and Trump. Clinton DID receive the mathematical majority of popular votes. But since NEITHER candidate was able to break the 48% mark, you need to accept that Clinton was .2% (that’s point two percent) LESS UNPOPULAR than Trump. That’s not a majority, that’s splitting hairs. And if you are making the popular vote your argument, maybe you should just stop.

As a side: If Clinton had won the Electoral College but lost the Popular vote by the same .2%, would liberals be shouting that Trump should have won? Maybe it’s time to stop whining.

As far as the people who did vote for Trump: The media has been harping most of this election that he is a bigot, womanizing, pig (amongst many other derogatory adjectives). Because of this, the same descriptors have been placed upon those who voted for him. This needs to stop, people. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people who voted FOR Trump are bigots? I’m sure you do see in the media (social and otherwise) instances showing this to be true, but like the “man on the street" portions of late night TV shows, those are selected instances for impact. NOT the norm.

I saw two maps of the country showing you what it would look like if certain groups had voted. One was hysterical. It represented what it would look like if 3-year olds had voted (completely covered in crayon scribbles). Look for that one. It was the best!

The other map showed the actual results of this election by counties. The majority of Clinton voters were in urban counties, whereas the majority of Trump voters were in rural counties. Now, the media likes to divide that between educated and uneducated. I like to look at it as if those in urban counties live in their own bubbles. Why? Because maybe, just maybe, those in rural counties cared more about the fact that many are either without jobs (never returned to the workforce since the last recession), or are under employed (making less money, or working in jobs that pay less than they had), than whether or not a trans-gendered person used a certain bathroom (if you look at the stories in the media over the last four years or so, the emphasis on such stories was abnormally high). And it’s not that rural folks are bigots against transgenders, it’s that when it comes to their lives, those folks are a minority of a minority of the population.

Maybe, just maybe, those in the rural communities were tired of being left out.

I say this to tell you that I’ve never talked to ANYONE who said they voted for Trump BECAUSE they were bigots. If you think that is the reason why people vote in elections, maybe you need to go and talk to someone . . . professionally.

So to close:

Donald Trump has been elected President of the United States. If you were electing a President, you have nothing to worry about. If you were electing a King, be afraid. Be very afraid.

©Emittravel 2016

Is the Game Rigged?

Donald Trump has been all over both (so called) main stream and social media shouting that the whole election process is rigged. You know Donald Trump: the guy who didn't pay taxes in about 18 years. Or did he?

Now that I have your attention, let's try to decipher both of those accusations.

First off, is the election rigged? I've written quite a few posts where I go into the election process ("Does the RNC WANT Me to Vote with the DNC?"; "I'm Bushed: Have We Ben Trumped?"; "What's a Reagan Conservative?"; "Independent Influence"; "Thank You Obama?"; "Stuff My Brain Says #77"; "A Dress or a Pantsuit - Your Choice"; "Vetting - Not Just for Pets Anymore"; "It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #8"; "It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #9"; "Stuff My Brain Says #78"; "Repeat After Me"; "What Are You Afraid Of?"; "It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #10"; and "It Just Doesn't Matter!"), so you can take some time and read those. One aspect I haven't given time to is the “early voting" process. I mentioned previously that I didn't know much about it, but I've done a little digging since. And what I've found seems to support Donald's cries.

Several states have the option to vote early. Those votes are not counted UNTIL election day along with all of the other votes (not including Absentee Ballots). So, what's the point of early voting? Polls, my dear friends. Polls.

Once people have voted, whether via early voting or on election day, pollsters like to ask immediately to whom did a person vote. They are then able to report this information as “news". This is helpful in that people tend to vote for those whom they believe are going to win. If they hear that a certain candidate looks to be winning, they tend to vote for that person (so they can say they supported the winner). Or, if they were going to vote for another candidate, they don't vote at all ("What's the point?")

This is especially an issue on election day, as those in the Eastern Time zone tend to close their polls earlier than those in the Pacific Time zone. Reports of those results have the ability to have an effect on voting results in other states voting later. And the polls don't have to close to be impactful, as pollsters report on what the trends are based on those leaving the voting stations say they voted for.

(Personally, I believe that it should be illegal for any results reporting to take place until AFTER the last state has closed their polls. This would eliminate such voting influence on election day.)

Hillary Clinton has been pushing promoted tweets on Twitter encouraging people to vote early in states that can. The (so called) mainstream media report the polls of those individuals asked after voting early whom they voted for. Why is she pushing the early vote? Because a lot of the reporting says that she is the one winning in those states who vote early.

Now, as far as Donald Trump paying, or in this case not paying, taxes goes…

Donald Trump reported a very large loss about 18 years ago. According to tax LAW, that loss can be written off over subsequent years, especially if the loss amount is far greater than the amount paid in taxes in any given year. And since the U.S. government won't give a refund covering that loss (the government hates having to return any of OUR money), the loss is divided over the number of years it takes in “paid" taxes to cover the loss. More like credit than "cash back".

Hillary Clinton used the legal polling system to show herself the winningest candidate that you should vote for, and Donald Trump used the legal tax code to not pay taxes. Both functioned within the law.

If you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at the (so called) mainstream media who uses polls as news, and be mad at those very leaders in our government who WROTE the tax laws that people can use to not pay taxes.

Is the game rigged? That depends on your perspective. Are you playing the game?

©Emittravel 2016