Wednesday, October 14, 2015

My Last Day at Work and the Democratic Debate

This will be my last day at work. I hope I don't regret doing this because of the lack of money. I will have to be careful...that's for sure. But I won't miss the terribly hard work. Yesterday I worked until 3:30 putting away four basketsful... stacked two layer high... of DVDs and then spent the rest of the afternoon looking up books that are not in the system. At the last thirty minutes, I had another stack of DVDs to put away. I got them done before I left at 5:00.

It's the noise and the very nature of the work I object to. The noise is really annoying when you are trying to concentrate on something. When I was trying to do their inventory, I just had to go and ask people to lower their voices. I recall when librarys were quiet.  And I really think it's a disservice to allow children to check out 5 DVDs each once a week. To me, that says that instead of reading or going outside to play, children are sitting in front of the TV watching one DVD movie after another.  No wonder so many of them are obese.  Children need to be outside running off their energy.

Then there's also standing on my feet for four hours. When I was younger, that was no problem, but nowadays, it is a terrible strain and when I get tired, my voice also almost disappears. When I get home and finally get to sit down with a cup of Chia, I recuperate pretty well. But it takes awhile. I just can't see ruining my health at my age...or at any age for that reason.

Usually when I finish the DVDs, I then put away the new fiction and that also requires me to get down on my knees to put the books in the lower part of the bookcase for new fiction.  The teen room new fiction is also on low bookcases and I have to sit on the floor to put those books away. I clean and repair DVDs too and that is the one time I do get to sit down.  Lately though, I have been looking for books that are not in the system or are in the system and shouldn't be. After all that inventory, those book's bar codes evidently did not make it into the system. Some were taken out of the system and sold at the book sales but were not removed from the system. It's a mess...that's for sure.

Anyhow, today is the day Marilyn is taking Bob and me out to eat at Eggbert's for lunch. That's something she wants to do for us and we must let her do it even though we think it will strain her budget.  Tomorrow Bob and I will go to Joplin or Owasso and eat lunch at Olive Garden to celebrate my being free again.

Now, about the debate...

This Democratic debate was a real debate....nothing like the Republican yelling and insulting match.

I thought both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton did a very good job. The others were out of their element. I particularly enjoyed it when Bernie Sanders said the American public was sick of hearing about Hillary's e-mails and wanted to hear about the real issues.  She thanked him for those remarks and when the moderator asked her about them first, she reminded him that the proposed speaker of the house had admitted that the latest of the seven investigations into them was a product of the Republican Party in their effort to lower her ratings.

I agree with most of Bernie Sanders arguments about the state of our nation..especially the state of the middle class, but am leery of his wanting to make the US a democratic socialist country. Democratic Socialism is fine in smaller countries like Sweden, Denmark and Norway but I'm afraid it would not work in a large country like the US and trying to change at this point in our history might wreck our economy. Besides, he could never get it past Congress.  The American people need to get those congressmen out of congress. We need to change nearly the entire congressional system. These have mostly been paid off by lobbyists and obviously are in the pocket of the NRA.  They have stymied nearly everything the president has tried to accomplish during his second term. Mostly because of the small midterm turnout of voters.

From Wikipedia:

Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy (usually multi party democracy) with social ownership  of the means of production. Although sometimes used anonymously with "socialism", the adjective "democratic" is sometimes added to distinguish itself from non-democratic forms of socialism, such as the Marxist/Leninist brand of socialism. 

Democratic socialism is usually distinguished from both the Soviet model of centralized socialism and social democracy. This distinction arose from the authoritarian form of government and centralized economic system that emerged in the Soviet Union during the 20th century. A distinction is also made between democratic socialism and social democracy in that the former is committed to systemic transformation of the economy while the latter is not.

Democratic socialism rejects the social democratic view of reform through state intervention within capitalism, seeing capitalism as inherently incompatible with the democratic values of freedom, equality and solidarity. Democratic socialists believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by transitioning from capitalism to socialism, by superseding private property with some form of social ownership, with any attempt to address the economic contradictions of capitalism through reforms only likely to generate more problems elsewhere in the capitalist economy.

However, "democratic socialism" is sometimes used as a synonym for social democracy, where "social democracy" usually refers to support for political democracy, regulation of the capitalist economy, and a  welfare state. bourgeoisie

Democratic socialism is not specifically revolutionary or reformist, as many types of democratic socialism can fall into either category, with some forms overlapping with social democracy. Some forms of democratic socialism accept social democratic reformism  to gradually convert the capitalist economy to a socialist one using the pre-existing political democracy, while other forms are revolutionary in their political orientation and advocate for the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie  and the capitalist economy.

Sanders introduced himself as an advocate for middle-class workers who wants to redirect funding from the criminal justice system and into education and jobs for minorities.

"African-American youth unemployment is 51 percent," Sanders said. "Hispanic youth unemployment is 36 percent."

That claim rates Half True

At the debate, Sanders didn’t define the age range in question, but the most readily available "youth" data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics covers ages 16 to 19. For individuals age 16 to 19 in September 2015, the official unemployment rate for whites was 13.9 percent, for Hispanics it was 18.6 percent, and for African-Americans it was 31.5 percent. For individuals in that age range of all races and ethnicities, the unemployment rate was 16.3 percent.

While the rates for both minority groups are lower than the rate for whites, they are still well below the figures Sanders offered at the debate.

So what’s going on? Sanders is referring to a left-of-center think tank study that looked at high school graduates who were not enrolled in further schooling. They also counted not just unemployed workers, but those were working part-time due to the weak economy.

Sanders didn’t make clear that he was referring to a non-standard unemployment rate.

Clinton announced last week that she no longer supports the international trade deal, despite supporting it while serving as secretary of state -- once calling it the "gold standard." CNN anchor and debate moderator Anderson Cooper picked up on those words and asked Clinton about her reversal.

"I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard," Clinton said. "It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, ‘this will help raise your wages.’ And I concluded I could not."

Her claim rates Half True.

Clinton’s phrasing -- that she said she "hoped it would be the gold standard" -- implies that she was undecided on the TPP. But that doesn’t exactly match up to her prior comments. We found that her previous remarks actually gave the impression that she had confidence in the deal as it stood.

In Australia in 2012 Clinton delivered remarks on the general topic of the U.S.-Australia relationship. Here’s everything she said about the TPP in that address, with the "gold standard" comment in bold.

"So it's fair to say that our economies are entwined, and we need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. Australia is a critical partner. This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment."

So it seems Clinton is saying the TPP does, definitively set the gold standard -- as opposed to Clinton hoping it will. This is in contrast to more recent comments where Clinton said she had concerns about the deal and that she ultimately opposes it.

Clinton tried to hit Sanders from the left during a lengthy discussion about gun policy after the country’s latest mass shooting in Oregon.

"Sen. Sanders, you voted against the Brady bill that mandated background checks and a waiting period," Clinton said. "You also supported allowing riders to bring guns in checked bags on Amtrak trains. For a decade, you said that holding gun manufacturers legally responsible for mass shootings is a bad idea. Now, you say you're reconsidering that. Which is it: Shield the gun companies from lawsuits or not?"

Her claim that Sanders voted against the Brady bill rates True

Before it became law in 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated a five-day waiting period for background checks for gun purchases, underwent many transformations. Sanders, then Vermont’s sole representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, voted against the bill in its entirety five times.

Sanders and Clinton both brought up ending mass incarceration. Sanders said, "Today in America, we have more people in jail than any other country on Earth. It seems to me that instead of building more jails and providing more incarceration, maybe, just maybe, we should be putting money into education and jobs for our kids."

Sanders' claim about the United States' record number of inmates rates Mostly True

It’s likely he means the population in state and federal prisons, along with those in local jails. The latest federal census found more than 2.2 million people behind bars in the United States. A research center in England reports that China ranks second with about 1.65 million prisoners. But the Chinese figure fails to include many thousands of people in detention centers, and we don’t know how many that would be.
Regardless, based on population size, America has an incarceration rate higher than any other nation.

So Hillary and Sanders both made good sense and it's obvious she is very smart.  She also has valuable experience in both congress and as Secretary of State.  I will still plan to vote for her unless something completely unforeseen happens.

The problem with the vast amount of the American public, is they don't study the issues. They have no idea what they are voting for.  They vote as a popularity contest and for the one that yells the loudest. That's really scary!  That's how we got George W. Bush....actually Cheney...for president.

People need to study the issues and make intelligent voting decisions. I say all this as lifelong registered Republican. But I and many others who do study the issues try to vote for the best person for the job.  That's intelligent voting.


ChuckFu said...

I am very pro Gun to start with

1. I have no problem with background checks of course that is logical
2. A waiting period of say 3 days is good also
3. I do however believe it is my right, despite how anyone interprets the right to
bare arms statement in the constitution
4. I am strongly against legalizing marijuana I firmly believe it is a stepping
stone to harder drugs.
5. There does need to be a rework of the Tax system so the extremely wealthy persons
and business pay their due tax and not a larger tax simply because they are
wealthier, that's like penalizing them for being successful.
6. Their should be a limit on senate and congressional office terms of service
of say 8 years and no pension for 8 years that totally messed up

No way would I vote for Hillary and Bernie Sanders sounds good but his age concerns me with all the stress of the office. Ben Carson also sounds very good probably my best choice BUT very soft spoken I would hope he could handle the job, I do like him being a outspoken Christian and his stance on Illegal immigration

Just a few of my beliefs

Margie's Musings said...

That's fine, Keith. We all have our own reasons for choosing the candidate we would vote for. I know you are just as pro gun as I am anti gun. That's your prerogative, son.