Resistance (alone) is Futile

The election of Donald Trump as president of the United States has unleashed a robust resistance movement throughout the country. However, while straightforward obstruction was quite effective for the Republicans during Obama's presidency, true long-term victories in the battle of ideas require more than that. For starters, a true opposition must present its own specific policy positions for the American people to accept. Also, it’s unnecessary to oppose every single thing Trump and the Republicans in Congress do, especially if it’s something the majority of Americans actually favor. Perhaps just as importantly, sometimes the best course of action might be the dirty word of 21st century U.S. politics: compromise!

Without detailed proposals to counter Trump’s agenda, the choice for the American people becomes binary: Trump or Not Trump. Finding a position of strength from which to resist the president of the United States and his bully pulpit is difficult enough, but without an explicit plan, it becomes even more difficult to convince the majority of Americans that the alternative to Trump is actually better. Many Americans might just opt for the devil they know, since you often can't beat something with nothing. So, for example, rather than saying “we oppose Trump for X,” the opposition should say “we believe Y is better for the American people than X for reasons 1, 2, and 3.”

The often chaotic nature of the Trump presidency, at least in its early stages, makes it difficult to hit the moving target of near-constant executive actions and Twitter statements. Therefore, it can be counterproductive for the resistance to respond to every single last thing that comes from Trump or even his Republican allies in Congress. Sometimes, the best response is to not respond at all, particularly if it involves a policy or law that already enjoys widespread support. An unintended consequence of constantly disputing everything is that many Americans might reject the opposition entirely just because of its unpopular position on a particular issue.

Finally, there’s nothing wrong with compromise. Certainly, it’s preferable to the current highly dysfunctional political environment in Washington. In the spirit of finding common ground, the best bet is to focus on the issues that enjoy broad backing. For example, anything having to do with increasing government accountability is likely to win the endorsement of Americans from across the political spectrum. This may even serve to widen the appeal of the opposition, by offering a feasible alternative that is also able to put differences aside for the sake of what’s best for the country.

Our two-party system ensures that most Americans will probably find things they agree with in both parties. For this reason, rather than just outright challenges to everything having to do with Trump, the best bet for the resistance is to adopt and promote definitive policy positions that are to the greater benefit of the American people, leave the Trump policies that already enjoy wide public approval alone, and find compromise where possible on the policies in which both sides can work together. These initiatives would position Trump’s opposition movement as a viable political force going forward, regardless of who ultimately leads the way.

Capitalism = Communism

I can imagine a common initial reaction to the title of this blog post being, “How preposterous!” After all, capitalism and communism are supposed to be diametrically opposed economic systems. But before I get into explaining what I mean by capitalism and communism being equal, I should first explain what I DON’T mean. First of all, I’m not suggesting that capitalism and communism are equally good; I’m not even suggesting that capitalism and communism are equally bad. What the title of this blog post means is that, if you allow for true free market capitalism, the end result of that is, inevitably… that’s right, it’s very polar opposite: communism!

Let’s start with the fact that true free market capitalism has never actually existed. I’m amazed at how many people swear by an economic system that nobody has ever experienced! Communism does have a track record, but it’s pretty terrible. The certain forms of communism that have existed have been mostly implemented under oppressive totalitarian regimes. So, on the one hand, we have a fairy tale economic system nobody’s ever seen. On the other hand, we have an economic system that’s been mostly disastrous whenever it’s happened. Still, by engaging in a careful thought experiment, we can quickly see how true free market capitalism ends up becoming communism (perhaps without the pesky totalitarian regime).

First, the basics: free market capitalism consists of the idea that all the needs of society are perfectly met through the supply and demand of the free market, without any government interference whatsoever. In other words, people need and want stuff, other people make stuff, they all come together and exchange according to what everybody is able to make and what everybody needs and wants. Sounds pretty good so far, right?

The greatest point of tension in free market capitalism, much more so than figuring out what stuff to make that people need and want, is determining how much the business owners should pay the workers. In order to maximize profit, the business owners want to pay their workers as little as possible. But in order to work, the workers want to get paid as much as possible. So, how do they resolve this impasse? Well, the business owners can all meet together and agree that none of them will pay workers more than a certain amount for their labor. That way, the workers get paid the same no matter which business they work for. But wait! The workers can organize, as well, and refuse to work unless they get paid what they feel they deserve. The business owners quickly realize that without workers, they cannot even have a business, much less make any profit. So they decide to negotiate with the workers.

The workers soon realize that they have all the leverage. They are more numerous, and the owners depend on them to conduct business. As a result, the workers demand more and more pay and benefits for their work. Eventually, the workers demand enough money to afford a significant amount of leisure time as well as the ability to help out the members of their family and community who aren’t able to work due to age, illness, disability, or having a liberal arts degree. The final equilibrium is reached when the distinction between worker and business owner becomes practically insignificant, to the point that the workers themselves are, for all intents and purposes, the virtual, if not the actual, owners of the businesses. Doesn’t this sound a whole lot like communism?

A Teacher's Answer to Marine's Letter in Response to Obama's Farewell Speech

NOTE: There is a letter floating around the Internet allegedly written by a Marine identified only as “J” who offers a scathing response to President Obama’s farewell address. In that letter, the Marine makes some disparaging comments about teachers and teachers’ unions. This is my answer.

Dear J,

Let me start by expressing my heartfelt thanks for your service to our country. I’m writing this letter as an answer to your own letter in response to President Obama’s farewell address. In it, you detailed your many criticisms of the president’s time in office. While my view on some of the points you made may differ from yours, my main issue concerns comments you made about teachers and teachers’ unions.

As a public school teacher and teachers’ union member, I’d like to clarify some things for you as well as share some thoughts about what my profession is like. First, you refer to teachers’ unions as “bloated.” I wonder what exactly makes you describe them that way because you don’t elaborate in your letter. If teachers’ unions advocate for teachers, who in turn advocate for their students, then at what point is that excessive?

You go on to assert that unions hire teachers. I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that’s illegal. In fact, I live in a “right-to-work” state, where freeloading workers can enjoy union benefits without having to contribute union dues. These unfair laws have significantly weakened unions without providing any measurable improvement to children’s education. On the contrary, studies have shown that students in states with strong teachers’ unions do better.

After accusing teachers’ unions of doing something they cannot legally do, you accuse them of doing something that makes absolutely no sense. After all, why in the world would anyone want to “hire teachers who can’t teach?” If that’s the case, then why do unions offer a myriad of professional development opportunities that help make good teachers great and great teachers even better? Not to mention all the stringent prerequisites to becoming a teacher in the first place!

As if your baseless claims weren’t bad enough, you then suggest that teachers “can’t be fired.” I assure you, teachers can most definitely be fired. Unions simply fight to make sure their members’ due process rights are respected. I’m sure you can appreciate this, since military personnel cannot be dishonorably discharged without a court martial. Everybody deserves a right to due process under the Constitution, J. Yes, even teachers.

But, you see, the problem isn’t even the question of whether teachers can be fired or not. Rather, the problem is people like you feeling like they can pass judgment on our profession, support policies that hurt us and by extension our students, and spread a false narrative that exacerbates the problem, just so they can turn around and use us as scapegoats. This, combined with unrealistic expectations, lack of support, and yes, poor pay, often creates a work environment with low morale and high turnover, so that very good teachers leave the profession out of frustration, and potentially great teachers refuse to enter it out of fear.

I don’t pretend to know anything about your profession, J. Please don’t presume to know about mine. Sure, you were in a classroom once upon a time as a student, but that’s like me saying I know your job because I watched “Full Metal Jacket.” Honestly, J, I don’t even know if you actually exist, considering that I only found your letter in click-bait, fake news, propaganda web sites. But I do know there are many misguided and misinformed people out there who think like you do. Hopefully, this letter will help them understand the teaching profession a little bit better.

All the Best,

Mr. Ramon Veunes

My Review of Obama's Presidency

When Barack Obama first ran for president, I did not support him. I wasn't very confident in the relatively young, well-spoken Illinois senator’s ability to lead due to his lack of experience, and I felt he needed to just “wait his turn” and defer to more seasoned candidates like Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Well, he didn’t wait, and he won the primary, and then the general election, in historic fashion. As the next four, and then eight years rolled along, there were many highs and lows. How many of each, of course, depends largely on who you ask. This is my own review of Obama’s presidency.

I’ll start with the issue that hits closest to home for me: the opening to Cuba. I definitely felt disappointed that President Obama engaged with the Cuban government without demanding much in return, most notably as it pertained to the promotion of human rights and democracy on the island. However, I recognize that the embargo has not achieved its intended purpose over the past 50+ years. And if this opening to Cuba results in more freedom and democracy for the Cuban people in the long run, I’ll estimate Obama’s actions to have been well worth it.

When it comes to the volatility in places like Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Syria, I honestly see President Obama’s predicament as having been stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place. The problems in that region are part of a continuum that stretches very far back before Obama and may unfortunately continue well past his presidency. It’s hard to argue that as president, Obama didn’t make mistakes when dealing with the Middle East, but it’s also important to understand the context of just how difficult the situation there has been, especially after the U.S. invaded Iraq under George W. Bush. The truth is that, in spite of how events unfolded over there during Obama’s presidency, and even with all the rhetoric from many of his critics saying that he was “too weak,” few Americans would have likely supported any kind of serious military escalation after our experience with the long, drawn-out wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Finally, we come to the Affordable Care Act, or ACA (a.k.a. Obamacare), which was, by most accounts, President Obama’s signature domestic achievement. The battle over the ACA also marked a pivotal moment in the evolution of my political views in a decidedly more progressive direction. This turning point centered around seeing Obama putting his political neck on the line for the sake of passing a law designed to help more people have access to life-saving health care. But my political metamorphosis didn’t just result in me turning toward something; it also resulted in me turning against something else. As I saw the Republicans so vehemently opposing the ACA while offering absolutely no alternative whatsoever, I realized how starkly different my worldview was from theirs when it came to the role of government in our lives. Sure, they threw around platitudes about “freedom” and “choice.” But that led me to some significant questions: How much “freedom” can a person really enjoy when that person can’t afford health care? How much “choice” does a person really have when that person can’t get health care due to a “pre-existing condition?” I realized that the government’s responsibility to defend and protect our right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” involves the citizens being able to, first and foremost, be healthy. I also realized that, even though capitalism may be the best wealth-creating economic system in history, it is fundamentally immoral for a society to put profit over the well-being of its people. And finally, I realized that a healthy society involves its most fortunate citizens contributing so that the least fortunate can, at the very least, live a life of dignity.

On the whole, I believe President Obama did the best he could, specifically if you take into account both the very difficult challenges he faced when he took office, and the overwhelming circumstances he endured while in it. After all, not many presidents have stared down an economic crisis right from Inauguration Day on the scale that Obama did. The fact that double-digit unemployment, a collapsed real estate market, failing banks, a stock market losing more than half its value, and a bankrupt auto industry now seem almost distant memories for so many is a testament to how far we came under Obama’s leadership. Many deserve credit for helping us climb our way out of the Great Recession, but it would be unfair to deny the president his due for enacting policies that contributed to that recovery.

A review of the president would be incomplete without mentioning the decency, grace, and unpretentiousness that he and his family consistently demonstrated throughout their entire time in the White House. Aside from anyone’s politics, there is little denying that President Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, and their daughters Malia and Sasha, represented our country in a way that should make all Americans very proud.    

Although he ran a remarkably ethical and scandal-free administration, there were, undoubtedly, shortcomings for President Obama. Being the chief executive, Obama’s inability to work more closely with a very hostile Republican Congress is, in the end, one failure he must own. But with such a concerted and concentrated effort to undermine everything he attempted to do, it becomes harder to put it all on him, particularly when Obama had opponents who were determined not to work with him even when he proposed policies they favored. Regardless of how anyone may feel about Obama’s presidency, the bottom line is, any perceived failure or success by our leaders and representatives is our shared responsibility as citizens, and it is ultimately up to us, the American people, to hold our government accountable.

The Worst Voting Mistake I Ever Made

It was the year 2000, and the U.S. presidential election campaign was in full swing. As a young voter, I felt that the two major parties represented everything that was wrong with our political system: gridlock, corruption, erosion of individual liberty, and on and on and on… Of course, now, many years later, I still believe all those things! In fact, I feel the years since that fateful election have only exacerbated what’s bad about the way our government goes about its business. This feeling about political parties, as on point as it may be (after all, it's shared by none other than the top dog of the Founding Fathers himself, George Washington), nevertheless led me to the worst voting mistake I ever made: I voted for a third party candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election.

Maybe I voted for Ralph Nader. It might have been Harry Browne. Perhaps it was someone else entirely. Maybe I wrote my own name in! I’m really not quite sure. At the time, I was simply so turned off by the two major parties that I couldn't bring myself to vote for either one of their candidates.

If there had been no choice other than the two major party candidates, I knew for sure I would have voted for Al Gore, the Democratic nominee. He was Bill Clinton’s vice president, and the country was just coming off what could be considered a successful two terms by Clinton. The economy had bounced back rather nicely from a recession that had started under the previous president's watch, which happened to be the father of George W. Bush, the Republican nominee. There seemed to be little reason not to support Clinton’s hand-picked successor. But damn those major parties, I thought! Oh, by the way… did I mention I was voting in Florida? Not exactly an insignificant bit of trivia, as I would soon come to learn!

Election Day 2000. Al Gore won the popular vote nationally. But the Electoral College vote, which is what actually determines who wins, came down to Florida. George W. Bush had a small lead in the state, small enough to trigger an automatic recount. Did I mention...? Oh yes. Yes I did. So there we were. Florida was at the center of an unresolved presidential election! It all dragged on with no end in sight. Recounts and more recounts. And then more recounts still! Overvotes. Undervotes. Hanging chads! Each recount seemed to chip away more and more at George W. Bush’s lead. But then the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, the recounts were suspended, and Bush was officially declared the winner.

I couldn’t help but feel guilty about all this. After all, I would have voted for Al Gore. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 might still have happened, but we would have almost surely avoided a largely pointless war in Iraq. We would have had a president addressing the climate change problem much earlier on. We might have even avoided the sequence of events that led us into the Great Recession.

But thanks in part to my stupid protest vote, Al Gore didn’t get elected. So what did I learn? Well, I didn’t learn that our political party system sucks, because I already knew that! But I did learn that when the system is as badly damaged as ours is, the only effective way to change it is in dramatic fashion, not through protest votes for candidates who have no chance of winning! Perhaps instead we need something like a Constitutional amendment that severely restricts the influence of political parties in our government. Until something like that happens, though, I vowed that I would never again vote for a third party candidate for president; I would always vote for one of the two major political party candidates. After all, I don't want to be indirectly responsible for helping to elect a president that is totally unfit to lead!

I Never Liked LeBron

As a Miami HEAT fan, reading the title of this post may strike many as just a classic case of sour grapes after LeBron’s decision to go back to Cleveland. I can understand that. However, a look at the big picture should put it all in perspective.

Back in 2010, when Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh announced that they were signing with the Miami HEAT, I was very happy. At that point, LeBron could go play in China for all I cared. You see, he always struck me as self-absorbed, self-centered, egotistical, entitled, and narcissistic.

But of course, we all know what happened next. Shortly after Wade and Bosh made their announcement, LeBron made his. Now don’t get me wrong. I never liked LeBron, but I was excited about the possibilities. After all, here were three of the best players in the NBA coming to play for my hometown team!

And when I read Dan Gilbert’s letter, ill-advised as it may have been, I actually understood what he meant. I saw LeBron’s behavior in the 2010 NBA Eastern Conference finals. I also felt that he quit on his team, even before I read the letter.  Because when you want all the glory when things go right but none of the blame when things go wrong, that’s what you do when adversity strikes: you quit! Still, he brought his “talents to South Beach” and that was good enough to not think about all that other stuff too much, especially when watching the Big 3 at their best. I was always aware that the Miami HEAT had put together something quite special, and I never took it for granted.

Fast-forward to 2014. The HEAT just got their asses handed to them by the Spurs in the NBA Finals. And as early as LeBron’s post-game interview, I can see that same detachment I saw in 2010. The dude’s already got one foot out the door, I thought.

And so on the morning of July 11, 2014, LeBron made his big announcement that he’s going back to Cleveland. And like so many others, I tuned into ESPN to watch the coverage. I went on SI.com to read his statement. I went on Twitter to gauge people’s reactions. And I started feeling quite bothered by it all. Not because LeBron left Miami. Sure, I would’ve preferred for him to stay with the HEAT than go anywhere else. What really bothered me was the narrative, which in turn fed into the national conversation. I saw LeBron’s Instagram post “I’m Coming Home” and kept hearing and reading things like “redemption” and “doing the right thing” and “the best possible story” and “making everything right” when people discussed LeBron’s return to Cleveland.

How could people be so naive, I thought? Is American society so empty and vapid that people will grab on to this overt display of cynical opportunism and call it a good thing? Does anybody really believe LeBron is “going home” because his “relationship with Northeast Ohio is bigger than basketball”? Is this relationship so big that he would’ve left Miami to “inspire” Cleveland if the HEAT had just won their 3rd or 4th championship in a row? Does anybody really believe he would’ve gone to “give them hope” if the Cavaliers hadn’t spent the last four years stocking up on talented young players? If you believe any of those things, then you probably also believe that Dan Gilbert giving LeBron’s gang of cronies a lot more leeway than Micky Arison and Pat Riley ever did didn’t have anything to do with LeBron’s decision, either. And yet, of all the reasons for LeBron to go back, the opportunity for LeBron’s crew to basically run the show in Northeast Ohio is probably the biggest of them all. This has absolutely nothing to do with sentiment and emotion and everything to do with Machiavellian machinations.

The bottom line is, yes, LeBron is going back to Northeast Ohio, and that’s home to him. But to focus on that as some sort of feel-good story and simultaneously ignore what are probably the real motivating factors is the worst kind of ignorance: the willful kind! To see things the way they really are does not make one a cynic. The one who acts selfishly and opportunistically but pretends otherwise is the real cynic… and the ultimate hypocrite!

And that’s why I never liked LeBron!

Is Your Mobile Phone Company Ripping You Off?

How do telecommunications companies maximize their profit when it comes to customers’ data usage? Well, before I attempt to answer this question, let me preface everything by declaring up front that I’m not a tech wizard by any means. Like most people, I know my way around a computer and a smartphone for most basic uses and applications, but I’m at a loss when it comes to describing or explaining the intricacies of how this technology works. Having said that, I don’t think it takes expert knowledge to draw the conclusions I do in this post. As a matter of fact, some basic common sense along with an understanding of how our capitalist system works is more than enough. Let me start with the facts…

I am a Sprint customer. I currently own a Samsung Galaxy S5 smartphone with a Sprint unlimited data plan. On a recent Saturday, I opened the YouTube app on my smartphone to watch a music video. At the time, I was connected to Sprint’s 4G LTE mobile network, rather than a Wi-Fi signal. When I clicked on the video, I got a message saying that the connection to the server was lost. I tried a number of troubleshooting steps (power cycle, soft reset, uninstall app updates, etc.), but nothing resolved the issue. I attempted to contact Sprint, but of course nobody was available outside of normal business hours (no 24-hour live customer service from Sprint). I then disconnected from the mobile network and connected to an available Wi-Fi signal. The YouTube video played without a problem on Wi-Fi. I went back to the mobile network, and the same error message appeared again. Hmmm…

Something else that has happened related to data usage is when I’ve moved from an area with 4G LTE coverage to one without it. At that point, my phone automatically connects to the much slower (and therefore less data-intensive) 3G network, if available. However, when I return to an area where I know there is 4G LTE coverage, the phone often remains on the 3G network instead of switching back to 4G LTE, which obviously keeps data usage lower.

It’s no secret that telecommunications companies want to charge their customers for data plans (unlimited and otherwise) while limiting traffic on the network as much as possible. Comcast, for example, admits to throttling Internet speeds when customers go above a certain amount of data per month (there’s much more to write about Comcast, but they will probably get a whole separate future blog post). Sprint encourages customers to connect to Wi-Fi whenever available rather than the company’s mobile network under the guise of prolonging the phone’s battery life. It may indeed be true that connecting to Wi-Fi prolongs a phone’s battery life, but that’s beside the greater point that Wi-Fi doesn’t cost Sprint anything while connecting to their mobile network does. Even the phones are designed to make it real easy to connect to Wi-Fi (swipe down>>>click “Wi-Fi” button… two steps) while making it significantly more difficult to connect to the mobile network (Apps>>>Settings>>>Network Connections>>>More networks>>>Mobile networks>>>Mobile data>>>click check box… seven steps). I’m probably the farthest thing from a conspiracy theorist, but these companies spend A LOT of money paying people to figure out ways to increase profit. So I don’t think I have to be sized for a tin foil hat for suggesting that these companies do the things described above ON PURPOSE!

What follows from all this? It appears that Sprint (and surely all other telecommunications companies as well) sometimes disables the network for data-intensive apps like YouTube in order to keep their customers from using too much data, even when these customers are paying for “unlimited” plans. These companies can do things like this on the weekends, not only because this is ostensibly the time when customers use their phones the most, especially for entertainment purposes (thereby using the most data), but also because tech support is not available to “solve” the connectivity issue. By the way, when I got back on YouTube later during the week, SURPRISE... the problem was gone! Of course, these companies can explain these problems away as isolated incidents that they had no control over.

It’s a shame that we live in a society where on the one hand, corporations could be getting away with such underhanded tactics just to increase profit, and on the other hand, most people are too ignorant or dependent on these companies’ products and services to do anything about it. For related news and information on this issue, visit stopthecap.com.