Category Archives: Politics

by Barry Kelly | January 9, 2017 · 7:37 am

The Professor: Russia, Hacking and the Election

“Okay! We’re all here. First the question period. I know you see this as a chance to listen to me rather than the reverse. That’s okay with me. You know by now I’m not the usual teacher. I want you to leave this University knowing how to think and find solutions to problems. Part of that is to encourage you to think outside the box. But that is only part of the process of analyzing problems and selling your solution. You must develop an instinct to know when thinking inside the box is just as important. Most complex problems require both kinds of thinking. Why search for a new type of solution when there is an existing one that works well?

“So, who has a question they would like me to discuss?”

The Professor pointed at Alison and said, “Alison, let’s hear your question.”

“TV and the print media are constantly railing about the Russians hacking into our elections to favor President-elect Trump. It sounds like this is more about partisan politics than it is about Russian influence. What is really going on?”

“I think you know most of the answer, but I’ll tell you what I think. Great powers have been intercepting the communications of both opponents and friends throughout history. Hacking, as a form of collection, is at least five decades old. From a very primitive beginning, it has gotten much more sophisticated. The point here is that all powerful nations are engaged. So no one should be surprised that foreign nations will attack our communications systems, particularly those used by important people who don’t have the sense to protect their information. Hacking is not an act of war. A hacking attack on the national grid, the transportation system and some others would be. But senators Lindsay Graham and John McCain, who are making such a scene about wanting to punish the Russians and discredit the landslide victory of Donald Trump over the hacking and disclosure of emails associated with the Clinton campaign, are just over-heated politicians who can only be cured by term limits.

“These two senators sat through the entire tenure of the Obama Administration and, even with a Republican Congress, did next to nothing to stop the destruction of our military forces, the mistreatment of veterans, and the alienation of our allies. Closing of Guantanamo Bay and stopping Trump seems to be their main agenda.

“The Obama intelligence organizations have decided that the Russians were attempting to influence the election by releasing hacked items from Democratic email servers. President-elect Trump doesn’t trust their analysis. He shouldn’t. These are the ranking officials that lied about the Benghazi ‘talking points,’ refused to conduct a real investigation of Hillary Clinton’s illegal server and the consequent mishandling of highly classified material, and produced intelligence on ISIS to fit the White House view of them as the junior varsity. Are these people to be trusted? I think not. The rank and file of the several intelligence organizations are solid, hard-working men and women who take incredible personal risks to serve the nation, but their leadership is suspect.

“I don’t believe anyone in the Obama Administration wants a real investigation of Russian, Chinese or other hackers. Too much would be uncovered, such as what classified material did these hackers get from the Clinton email server.

“Bottom line is that what is going on is a failed President leaving office and trying to rewrite his record and constrain his successor.”

You can sign up to receive Barry Kelly’s blog posts via email by subscribing at www.factsandfictions.com

3 Comments

Filed under Barry Kelly, Clinton, Conservative views, democrats, Eight Decades of Insights, Intelligence & Politics, ISIS, Obama, political solutions, Progressives, Republicans, Russia, trump

Tagged as hacking, Obama, Russia, trump

by Barry Kelly | December 22, 2016 · 7:39 am

The Professor: What Does the Election Mean?

“Before I start this morning session, do you have any fundamental questions to ask?”

Several hands were raised, and the Professor nodded at Carlos, who asked, “What does this election mean in the context of two-party government in the coming decade?”

“A good but very broad question. The Democrats or Progressives who now control the party picked a very poor candidate who had poor people skills and a heavy load of not very acceptable baggage. The Democratic message was more of the same, even though it was clear most Americans thought the Obama Administration was on the wrong course. People wanted to take a chance on change and Hillary Clinton offered more of the same.

“In its desire to push a very socialist agenda, the Democratic Party lost touch with the people, who I believe were fed up with the ideology of both the right and the left. President-elect Trump presented the people with a pragmatic approach. A decade ago, he could have fit into either party. This man made his fortune by recognizing problems and working to solve them. With him, ‘the issue is always the issue,’ unlike both Obama and Clinton who follow Saul Alinsky’s axiom that ‘the issue is never the issue.’ The difference is that the Alinsky Progressives were focused on seizing power to bring about a transformational distribution of wealth; people like Trump were about solving problems and making things work.

“This landslide election is a rejection of the Progressive socialist ideology and a return of the voters to a more central political position. If the Democrats continue to push a socialist agenda in 2020, the party will self-destruct. But there will always be nearly half of the citizens holding on to an embedded belief that being rich is bad and that peace is achieved not through strength but through understanding and appeasement. To them there is no need for a strong military or a strong national economy.

“These people believe President Obama’s deliberate weakening of the military and his total focus on distributing wealth nationally and internationally were needed steps to bring about equality and social justice in both America and the world. This belief is rooted in two primary drives. One is the distrust of European immigrants for wealth and corrupt aristocratic government. Our history has seen the establishment and demise of several local communes based on the philosophy of ‘from each according to their ability and to each depending their need.’ The other is the emphasis the Christian religion puts on the message of love, forgiveness, the evil of wealth, and the belief that peace and justice come from treating other people and nations the way you would like them to treat you. That is a wonderful belief for individuals dealing with others, but it doesn’t work on a larger scale or between nations. Instead, it results in the development of elite leadership and the use of force. The use of coercion to achieve social change and economic functioning has always resulted in elite rule and the loss of individual choice. Nevertheless, the ‘have-nots’ of any society have always resented the ‘haves’ and will be attracted to the slogans of the socialists championing ‘a fair shot for everyone,’ ‘income equality,’ and ‘a balanced playing field.’

“In our last three presidential elections, more than half of the people have voted for a candidate pushing the same old slogans. The problem for the Trump Administration will be to mix governing with pragmatism and a populist message. All our citizens must see they are sharing the better life.

“Otherwise, it will be an even sharper turn toward the hate-America, guilt-driven governing philosophy of the Obama/Clinton era. I’m not sure we can continue to pull back from the progressive abyss so much of our world has fallen into.

“Personally, I am pleased and excited by the possibilities of a new administration. You will all have to work hard to lead our nation between the excesses of both the left and the right of our two-party system of government. Both contain the seeds of tyranny. There is a place in the center that is right for us.”

You can sign up to receive Barry Kelly’s blog posts via email by subscribing at www.factsandfictions.com.

Leave a comment

Filed under Alinsky, Barry Kelly, Conservative views, democrats, Eight Decades of Insights, Intelligence & Politics, Obama, political solutions, Progressives, Republicans, trump

by Barry Kelly | December 6, 2016 · 7:56 am

Public Sector Unions: How Do They Work?

Professor Clark opened his political science honors class by nodding at Alison and saying, “What are your thoughts about my statement that public sector unions are and will be a problem for the Trump Administration, agree or not?”

“I was surprised to see that public-sector union membership is greater than the traditional private sector unions that have been shrinking while the teachers union and government employees have been increasing their membership. So, in that case, when you plan to shrink government and cut the costs of government personnel other than the military, there must be some serious negotiations done with the public-sector unions.”

“Okay, Alison. Good thinking. Now someone tell me who will be conducting these negotiations. But first let me provide a few ground rules. We all know that when the UAW is involved in negotiations the party across the negotiating table is not the government. The UAW is in direct talks with the major car manufacturing corporations. While the issue being negotiated can be other issues than wages, let’s limit our discussion to negotiations over wages. Now Robert, tell us with whom the UAW will be conducting its collective bargaining negotiations?”

“Professor, are you setting me up? Everyone knows of the historic negotiations that have been conducted between the UAW and the big three auto corporations.”

“Of course I am. I want to make it clear that regardless of all the charges and rumors that are floated during private sector union negotiations the issues are clear. Both parties have the power to meet the obligations accepted during the negotiations. One side gains and the other loses. If the UAW wins, they reward their members with increased pay and or changes in working conditions or benefits. The auto corporations, constantly challenged by competition, have the challenge of absorbing the increased cost per unit of production, usually by passing the costs on to the consumer, the auto buyers.

“Both parties have a clear choice. The union leaders can shut down production with a strike and the corporation can refuse union demands and hold out until the union is forced to renegotiate a compromise solution. The strike may impact the growth of the national economy, but it would not be a national crisis. My point is that both sides have the freedom to either authorize a strike by the workers or to cause a work strike by refusing to comprise on their respective positions. Does that same freedom of action apply to all public-sector unions? To answer that question someone needs to tell me to whom the public-sector union leadership presents its demands. Who wants to take that issue on?”

“Paul, the floor is yours. Go!”

“I’m from Wisconsin so I’ll use the Teachers’ Union case in my answer. If the Teachers’ Union wants a wage increase or a change in working conditions, they must deal with the state government officials who were appointed or elected to be the go-to point for the Union. In the case of Wisconsin, the state had designated the points of contact for the Teachers’ Union. Unlike the case of the UAW and the auto corporations, the negotiators sitting across the table from the public sector union representatives had no skin in the game. All increased costs were passed on to the states’ taxpayers who were only remotely connected to the negotiations. Since nearly all the union members and officers were also state employees, the State of Wisconsin collected union dues and passed them on to the Union. The State negotiators often depended on Union financial contributions to fund their election and re-election campaigns. The Teachers’ Union negotiated with itself until the governor stepped in. I do not believe any public sector union truly has an adversary with skin in the game at the negotiating table.”

“Thank you, Paul. The question under discussion here is, do public sector union government employees who work for all citizens have the right to strike the same as workers in the private sector? The people pay the bill but have little or no direct say in the negotiating process. How can you have a negotiating process when only one side is represented?”

You can sign up to receive Barry Kelly’s blog posts via email by subscribing at www.factsandfictions.com.

Leave a comment

Filed under Barry Kelly, Capitalism, Conservative views, Eight Decades of Insights, Intelligence & Politics, political solutions, trump

by Barry Kelly | December 1, 2016 · 7:34 am

The Professor: Public Sector Unions and the President-elect

Professor Mike Clark liked to surprise his class by occasionally serving his blend of rich roasted Columbian coffee and pastries to his 11 o’clock class. He used these periods to deliver an informal discussion-style lecture to his class of political science honors students.

Today, as the coffee was being served, he said, “I want to add another problem facing the President-elect. First, let me clearly state I am not anti-union. I grew up in a coal mining and small mill town in Western Pennsylvania. My grandfather was a coal miner who died from black lung in his early ’50s.

“Without the sacrifices made by both early union leaders and their followers, I don’t think the nation could have developed into the No. 1 economic power in the world. The excesses of the early industrialists make for incredible reading today. A lot of the cruelty imposed on people living in ‘company towns,’ especially by the coal and iron capitalists, is lost in the bits and pieces of the era that makes its way into our written history that is readily available to students like you.

“A few examples that I know from listening to people I visited in the remains of the old company towns in Appalachia. This particular town was built and operated by the coal magnates of the early 20th century. It was populated by new immigrants who debarked from the long voyage across the Atlantic and were immediately loaded on railroad cars for the short journey to ‘company towns’ in the coal country of Appalachia. The houses were newly built, unpainted, and with none of today’s landscaping to soften the harshness of dirt streets lined with side-by-side hastily built houses.

“The miners were paid with company script that was only accepted in the company store. Voting in elections was controlled. The first miner to vote for Democrats was thrown down the mineshaft. The mine owners had their own law enforcement called the ‘Coal and Iron Police.’ In one mining area in West Virginia, the United States Air Force bombed a large group of miners to control a labor demonstration that the state police was not able to break up. Were unions necessary to protect the rights and lives of the workers? Is there any doubt? What is the role of unions today? Does that role extend to teachers and civil servants? I will talk about those subjects at our next coffee session. In the meantime, think how unions could possibly be a problem today for our President-elect.”

You can sign up to receive Barry Kelly’s blog posts via email by subscribing at www.factsandfictions.com.

Leave a comment

Filed under Barry Kelly, Capitalism, class warfare, Conservative views, Eight Decades of Insights, General, Intelligence & Politics, Politics, trump

by Barry Kelly | November 28, 2016 · 7:20 am

The Professor: Cabinet Government Needs Help

The Professor opened the class by saying, “I know you are all working hard to apply the skills of the Cabinet candidates to the problems you have identified. I’ll give you something else to think about while you are problem solving. You won’t find this in many, if any, textbooks; it is something I have personally observed during my career in government service, especially my time as a Special Assistant to President Reagan. Cabinet government doesn’t work in our world and it probably never did, even in the days of our founders.

“Most Cabinet-level officials are people known to the President or highly recommended by people he respects. Cabinet candidates are seldom chosen from the agency or department they are tapped to manage. Their loyalty is to the President and they have committed themselves to use the scope of their unit to forward the President’s policies and campaign promises. And that is what they do for the first three or four months.

“Then, a subtle change occurs. They begin to see themselves as representing their department or agency in the internal struggle for resources and power.

“In some areas, the entrenched bureaucracies understand this process and use it with every contact with their principal to forward the cause for their agency or department. In others, it happens as certainly as night follows day. After all they are judged by the effectiveness and public perception of their unit. Every staff meeting they hold is dominated by the needs of the bureaucracy to grow and gain power on the Washington stage. By the end of the first six months, the process of Cabinet leaders lobbying for their department in meetings with the President is blatant.

“There are only two forces that are devoted to promoting the need for the President’s Cabinet to focus on executing the President’s policies and directives. The Chief of Staff and his or her resources and the National Security Council, which is really the President’s staff, are dedicated to ensuring the entire Administration is carrying out the President’s mission. In total, this is probably less than 300 people acting to keep the bureaucracy of all the agencies and departments working in a coordinated manner to achieve the well-being of the nation.

“As you are assigning your Cabinet candidates to problem-solving, assure yourselves that they are strong enough and skilled enough to carry out the President’s program year after year.”