Closing Thought–01Sep20

Is your state a “hard working” or is it a “slacker” state?

Despite massive unemployment right now across the nation, WalletHub finds that Americans work pretty darn hard—whether it’s because they want to, have to, or have the perception they have to. To find out which states really roll up their sleeves, the site looked at all 50 states across 10 key metrics involving both direct work factors—ie, the average number of hours in a workweek and the share of workers that don’t touch their vacation time—and indirect ones, including how much time people put in volunteering and enjoying leisure activities. It turns out North Dakotans top the list, while West Virginia could use some motivation. Read on to see which other states have bragging rights when it comes to working hard:

  1. North Dakota
  2. Alaska
  3. Wyoming
  4. Texas
  5. Nebraska
  6. Oklahoma
  7. Colorado
  8. Virginia
  9. Maryland
  10. Hawaii

Read on for the states that don’t work quite as hard.

  1. Arizona
  2. Mississippi
  3. Oregon
  4. New York
  5. Connecticut
  6. Ohio
  7. Michigan
  8. Rhode Island
  9. New Mexico
  10. West Virginia

See how other states fare here

My state is number 42…so “slacker” would be the call.

What about your state?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Are You Better Off?

Remember when that is asked almost every election when a candidate is trying to make the voter think about their situation (like the voter ever thinks about any thing important)…..

Pollsters are still asking that question every election and sometimes the answers surprise me and maybe you as well.

Apparently Repubs think that we are better off since the election of Trump…….

“For most Republicans, America is a nation where the economy is still fairly good, where the effort to handle the coronavirus is going at least somewhat well and the president is doing a very good job on it,” CBS News notes.

75% of Republicans Believe the Country Is Better Off Than It Was Four Years Ago

Did I miss something?

Over 20 million people are unemployed……are all them Dems….apparently no Repubs are unemployed if they think that they are better off than four years ago.

But not to worry….even the Dems have turned their backs on the unemployed……

Three weeks after the US Congress went on vacation and allowed federal supplemental unemployment benefits to expire for 20 million workers, cutting their benefits by $600 a week, the House of Representatives stabbed the unemployed in the back a second time.

The Democratic Party-controlled House reconvened in the midst of its August recess, passed emergency legislation on the US Postal Service, and then adjourned without taking any action on the plight of those thrown out of work by the coronavirus crisis.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi declined to act on the appeal by nearly 100 members of her own caucus, who sent a letter asking that the reconvened House take up legislation to restore federal extended benefits for tens of millions of workers.

The refusal of Pelosi and other leading Democrats to take action on the unemployment crisis shows that the Democratic Party’s claim to uphold the interests of working people is a political fraud. The Democrats jump to attention when Wall Street demands a bailout, but they have no time for workers facing poverty, hunger, eviction and homelessness

I have always heard that Americans vote with their wallets….if they are well off then they will rewarded the candidate that is n the Big Chair…..but I am questioning just how accurate that BS is……if a country that is massively unemployed can think they are better off….delusion can accomplish a lot, huh?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Those Political Party Conventions

The US has made political history by holding their party conventions virtually.

That brings me to a thought I had……

Conventions–A necessity or a complete waste of time?

But first we need to look at why they had their beginnings and how they have changed over the years…..

George Washington didn’t have a nominating convention. As the commander of the colonial forces in the American Revolution, he was an easy candidate to select from among the eligible pool of any white man 35 and older, and he won his first two elections without any real competition. After that, there was no clear path for narrowing the pool, so political parties developed their own ways of choosing candidates.

Parties began holding conventions in the early 19th century and presidential primaries in the early 20th century. The convention remained the main way of selecting candidates until 1972, when new rules gave the primaries more power to determine the nominee. Since then, conventions have become a way to celebrate a predetermined candidate, rather than a means of choosing one.

Then we ask…why do we need these conventions?

The standard answer is that the conventions allow the parties — and their nominees — to define themselves on the national stage. In addition, conventions supposedly produce a “bounce” of popularity that catapults the better-performing candidate into the White House.

But in this era of non-stop news saturation, haven’t the candidates already had ample opportunity define themselves? It’s hard to see why they deserve four extra days of round-the-clock TV coverage, or why taxpayers should be shelling out $136 million to fund two big marathons of cocktail mixers, buffet lines, and canned speeches.

And the bounce-to-the presidency idea is mostly a myth. John McCain got a bigger post-convention bounce in 2008 than Barack Obama, but Obama trounced McCain in November. Barry Goldwater got a bigger bounce in 1964 than Lyndon Johnson, who went on to win the White House by the widest margin in U.S. history.

Why do we need political conventions?

I have been watching American politics for 60 years and still to this day see no necessity for these damn conventions.  To me it is a waste of time and money especially in the last 25 years or so….

In case you are not aware of the devolution of the conventions I can help…..

1976 Republicans: The last convention at which there was any doubt whatsoever of the identity of a major-party nominee.

1972 Democrats: George McGovern delivers his acceptance speech at 2:48 a.m. ET, which led to greatly tightened schedules and scripted proceedings in both parties.

1968: The last year before rules passed requiring primaries to choose most or all delegates. Also the last conventions featuring “spontaneous” demonstrations on behalf of candidates whose names were formally put into nomination.

1956 Democrats: Presidential nominee Adlai Stevenson let delegates name his running mate without making a recommendation. On the second ballot, Estes Kefauver edged John F. Kennedy (Albert Gore Sr., finished third on the first ballot).

1952 Democrats: Last multi-ballot presidential nomination contest; Stevenson drafted on the third ballot.

1940 Republicans: Stage-managed galleries stampede convention with chants of “We Want Willkie!”

1924 Democrats: Dark horse John W. Davis nominated on the 103nd ballot.

1920 Republicans: The original “smoke-filled room” chose Warren Harding, who was subsequently nominated on the tenth ballot.

1896 Democrats: Keynote speaker William Jennings Bryan electrifies the convention with his “Cross of Gold” speech and is himself nominated on the fifth ballot.

1880 Republicans: New York’s Roscoe Conkling delivers arguably the most famous nomination address ever, for Ulysses S. Grant, beginning:

The time has come to move past these fossils of our political system….the 21st century has arrived and we need politics to arrive as well……

The media is no better…..they trot out the fossils from the past old farts that have NO idea about the future and establishment lackeys that are only concerned with the status quo….and those know no racial bounds.

The conventions are the beginning of a political circus every four years….they serve NO purpose!  The average person learns nothing from the conventions for most have their minds already made up before the convention begins.

They are about as worthless as the US Senate these days.

I would like your thoughts on this topic….

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

One Third Out!

The news coming from the Trump White House is that after his removal of troops from Afghanistan the same will be done with the troop deployment in Iraq…..

The first official figures from the Trump Administration on the Iraq drawdown came Friday, with officials now saying that the 5,200 US troops there currently will be cut to about 3,500 in the next two to three months.

That’s about a third of the US troops in Iraq, and realistically more than that, as there are almost certainly over 5,200 US troops in Iraq now. The US has not kept public figures on troop levels for months, and 5,200, the highest allowed by the US-Iraq troop agreement, and when more troops were sent, the official figure always remained 5,200.

As with other planned US drawdowns, the Pentagon has yet to comment on it at all. In Afghanistan, the drawdown was ongoing for months before the Pentagon even admitted there was an order to cut troop levels, and Iraq may be heading for a similar type of ambiguity.

President Trump announced the intention for a drawdown earlier this month during a visit by Iraq’s premier. The expectation was for troop cuts to come before the election. Though officials did not confirm that this is the total of the cut, the timeframe suggests this is what is being planned for now.


Is this a promise kept by Trump?  Or is it just a move during an election to try a sway voters?

Is this going to be an end to our endless wars?

The Wall Street Journal scoop on the details of the Trump administration’s troop withdrawal from Iraq is welcome news. Reportedly, President Donald Trump is cutting U.S. troop levels by one- third, to about 3,500 troops from 5,200. This move would bring force levels back to where they were in 2015, at the height of the war against ISIL, which in and of itself demonstrates how unnecessary the troop level increases have been mindful of the decimation of the Islamic State.

Yet, the Journal — and the media narrative around this in general — frames this solely as a decision born out of political pressures in Iraq and the United States. The Iraqi public wants the United States to leave — as demonstrated by the Iraqi parliament voting to expel U.S. troops earlier this year – and Trump seeking to deliver on his campaign promise to end the endless wars.

“But both governments have faced political pressures at home from critics who have complained that the U.S. may be engaged in an open-ended mission,” the Journal reports.

What Trump’s troop withdrawal from Iraq means for ending America’s endless wars

Whatcha think?  Is this truly an end to our endless wars?  The beginning of the end?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”