Monday, May 02, 2016

Secretary of Education T.H. Bell causes people to vote for Bernie Sanders

(1) Because they have been, over the past two-plus generations, subjected to a Marxist education, emanating from the U.S. Department of Education. (2) Because Bernie is "up front" about his socialist philosophy; while the other candidates, from both parties, with possible exception of Donald Trump, hide (lie about their globalist/socialist views and philosophy behind red, white, and blue words). The young people appreciate Bernie's honesty? (3) Because President Ronald Reagan, who wanted to meet with Charlotte Iserbyt in 1982, was kept from doing so by his White House Chief of Staff, "conservative" Republican, Edwin Meese III. Had this meeting taken place it is quite possible the Department of Education, which has been funding and spewing out Marxist curriculum and teacher training for 34 years, would have been abolished. ABCs of DumbDown: Patriots Or Manchurian Candidates? Had the Department been abolished and communist T.H. Bell, Secretary of Education, fired, the United States might have retained its basically academic education system which educated our children for upward mobility, not to be pawns in the hands of the international/corporate education system, as serfs, lifelong, to spin off profits for the global elite. No presidential election will change what I have just outlined in the paragraph above unless each presidential candidate is required to publicly, in a major televised speech, promise the American people that he/she will participate in an immediate "tear down" of the communist education system/agenda being implemented at the state and local level as I write. That means that each candidate must publicly call for repeal of the recently passed, with a huge Republican majority, reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act: The Every Student Succeeds Act, a communist piece of legislation if ever there was one.

Sunday, May 01, 2016

Our railroads and airports are outdated.Vote trump

Landing at an American airport is a bit like time-traveling into the past. Outdated design, outdated technology, and outdated regulations are crippling many U.S. air hubs.
Aviation was born in the U.S., and very quickly, American airplanes and American-trained pilots formed the backbone of global aviation. North America remains the world’s largest aviation market today, yet U.S. air transport is no longer the envy of other nations.
America ranks a mediocre number 30 in the world for quality of air infrastructure, as measured by a survey of executives—and 127 in ticket taxes and airport charges (meaning they’re too high). The country ranks an even lower (131) in carbon dioxide emissions per capita.
There are greater worries ahead: the American Society of Civil Engineers argues that a failure to invest in aviation could represent an estimated cumulative loss of $313 billion by 2020—translating into 350,000 fewer jobs—and a whopping $1.52 trillion by 2040.
The U.S. system is characterized by crowded skies; price competition among airlines and resulting low profitability; competition among airports, leading to congestion in some places and wasted capacity in others; outdated ground facilities; a dearth of intermodal links such as air-to-train connections; high fuel utilization and air pollution; slow technological uptake; and dependence on outdated intergovernmental agreements for access to foreign markets.
The U.S. is falling short and falling behind. That’s true even on the cargo side: Hong Kong has already replaced Memphis as the world’s number one air cargo hub. Today, international travelers represent 11 percent of total U.S. airline passengers.
They contribute more than $116 billion in direct spending and another billion in indirect spending annually. For all of that, they are being underserved: the World Economic forum ranks the U.S. 121st out of 180 countries in terms of the burden of its visa requirements.
_Rosabeth Moss Kanter is the author of "Move: Putting America's Infrastructure Back in the Lead."
There are many major airports in the United States, but few are considered good by today’s global standards. In a 2013 survey of the world’s best airports, 12 million passengers ranked more than 400 airports across 39 categories—and no American airport was even in the top 25.
Only four U.S. airports made it into the top 50. Nations in the Middle East and East Asia are building new, efficient, intermodal, technology-enhanced airports, while the U.S. lags behind on basics like core infrastructure. In some U.S. airports, there is no single communication network everyone can use; an emergencies can overload cellphone systems.
Development of airports has been left to cities and regions. Local authorities are often focused on the land rather than landing – the value of retail sales or real-estate near airport facilities, rather than potential throughput, intermodal efficiency, or actual passenger mobility.
As a result, one of the biggest problems with U.S. airports now is reaching them: if you’ve taken a train directly to an airport, it was probably in another country. Our largest cities (New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago) have no means of direct mass-transit from their airports to the population cores, although Atlanta Hartsfield airport is an exception in its light rail connections.
Hong Kong, meanwhile, has brand new high-speed rail that runs every four minutes, complete with fully integrated baggage check-in at their Central railway station downtown.
Hong Kong Chek Lap Kok airportGetty ImagesA plane is on the ground at Chek Lap Kok airport in Hong Kong.
While the aviation industry has figured out how to lift millions of pounds of aluminum, fuel, cargo, and passengers 35,000 feet into the air—a technological feat in and of itself—its technology is in desperate need of modernization. Ticket agents are often part-time coders, untangling software written in the early 1960s. Cockpit controls look like museum installations when compared to the iPads passengers are using.
Information empowers. Empowered pilots in empowered aircraft can empower passengers—or at least enlighten them. Real-time decision-making can reduce costs and minimize delays. The FAA estimates, for instance, that two-thirds of weather delays are avoidable.
Superior weather information would make it possible to predict airspace and route availability, as well as delays, diversions, and tarmac risk. With greater forecast accuracy for pilots, control towers, and operations centers, airlines could carry less contingency fuel, and flight planners could better anticipate ground holds, deicing, and capacity changes.
The costs of fuel-burn while taxiing amount to $25 per minute; diversions cost about $15,000 to $100,000 per aircraft; and an FAA tarmac delay penalty runs to about $27,500 per passenger. These numbers can add up to millions of dollars on a full flight
Technological innovations provide new hope for U.S. aviation. The Weather Company is growing a service that helps airlines use weather data to change travel paths to avoid turbulence, delivering a smoother, safer, faster, and more efficient travel experience.
The FAA is allowing trial use of iPads to in the cockpit. Airlines are exploring glide-path landing to reduce fuel use and noise during descents. Yet, the barrier to progress is often the burdensome and bureaucratic process of regulatory approval. Modernized oversight is needed to speed up adoption of newer and better technologies.
denver international airportMichael Smith/Getty ImagesDenver International Airport.
Industry associations have called for a national strategy to make America’s air transport system better for everyone who uses it. Imagine flying with pilots empowered by technology to make better decisions for passengers. Imagine next-generation air traffic control generating quintuple wins: greater safety, lower costs, fewer delays, lower carbon emissions, and seamless connections.
America’s air traffic control entity should be made independent—free from the short-term Congressional budget cycle—and the FAA and Department of Transportation should collaborate on moving promising technology forward faster.
Being able to fly with fewer delays won’t be enough if there are also major delays in getting to and from airports with shabby facilities. American institutions operate in silos too often, while airlines fly above them all. If the American public demands an upgraded national air strategy, it can be done.

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Megyn Kelly interview could be Trump’s greatest media triumph

Megyn Kelly versus Donald Trump. It’s been the biggest media story of the 2016 GOP presidential race. And yesterday’s news that Trump has agreed to sit for a one-on-one interview with Kelly in May not only ushers in a new chapter in a months-long saga, it could also represent a triumph for Kelly and Fox News, but also for Trump’s designs on the White House.
It began in the opening minutes of the very first debate when Kelly challenged Trump on his past statements to women:
“Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women. You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs’ and ‘disgusting animals.’ …
Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on ‘Celebrity Apprentice’ it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees.
Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?”
Trump’s reaction after the debate was to accuse Kelly of journalistic bias and to attack her integrity and credibility. Legions of Trump supporters hurling misogynistic and vitriolic venom at Kelly via social media, some of the attacks enjoying the imprimatur of Trump himself via a re-tweet from his powerful Twitter account.
Trump personally went after Kelly in a vicious, personal way:
“Certainly, I don’t have a lot of respect for Megyn Kelly. She’s a lightweight and y’know, she came out there reading her little script and trying to be tough and be sharp. And when you meet her you realize she’s not very tough and she’s not very sharp.” Then, came the kicker: “She gets out there and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions, and you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her … wherever.”
And it just got worse from there. Trump boycotted the Fox News debate in Iowa after a hot exchange of tweets and press releases. They met in a debate setting once more in March but most of the fireworks that night came from Marco Rubio and Trump’s hand size.
Now, as the primary season winds down and Trump begins to focus on his potential nomination in Cleveland and the general election showdown with Hillary Clinton, he’s decided it’s time to put the feud behind him. The announcement of the exclusive, in-depth interview scheduled for May 17th could very well be the turning point of Trump’s negative numbers with women voters (which Politico reports are hovering around 70%.)
To see this interview with Kelly as a media triumph, we have to make a couple of reasonable assumptions. First, let’s assume Kelly conducts the interview in the same way she does every night on The Kelly File, with tough, relevant and respectful questions meant to illuminate an issue and not alienate her guest. Let’s also assume that Trump, knowing all eyes are on him, will conduct himself in a respectful and restrained way including a legitimate walk-back from some of the more over-the-top comments he’s made about the Fox News superstar.
I’ll even predict that Trump offers a statement of regret (if not an actual apology) over how the feud spun out of control and how Kelly was negatively impacted by the vitriol from Internet trolls. I suspect Trump takes the opportunity to state that although he’s had differences with her, he admires the classy way Kelly has conducted herself and they let bygones be bygones from this point forward.
I think it’s also a fair assumption that Kelly accepts the apology. Why wouldn’t she? Not only has she expressed that she dislikes being “part of the story” but it positions her as a major media player in the run up to the general election. It also puts pressure on Hillary Clinton to sit with her for a similar interview. After all, Clinton recently praised Kelly as a “superb journalist” who didn’t deserve the rough treatment doled out by Trump. Well Mrs. Clinton, if Trump scould face Kelly, the “superb journalist,” why can’t you? Or, is she just a “superb journalist” when she serves your purposes as a “victim” of Trump’s misogyny? If you really respect Kelly as a journalist, grant her the ultimate respect and sit with her, one-on-one, like Donald did.
Kelly has already laid the groundwork for a “Kumbaya” moment with this quote from the Fox News statement announcing the interview:
“Mr. Trump and I sat down together for a meeting earlier this month at my request. He was gracious with his time and I asked him to consider an interview. I am happy to announce he has agreed, and I look forward to a fascinating exchange — our first sit-down interview together in nearly a year.”
If this interview goes the way I’ve laid it out, and both parties walk away with mutual respect and a “contrition sound-byte” that plays all over social media and the media for multiple news cycles, it’s a win for Kelly, a win for Fox News, and it reverses one of the most unfortunate and ugly narratives of the Trump presidential campaign.
If he can do that, it may be one of the greatest media triumphs of modern presidential politics.
Big “ifs,” I know, but not implausible at all.

Monday, April 25, 2016

Brave new world: A majority of millennials reject capitalism

I hate to sound too much like the old man standing on his lawn yelling at clouds, but perhaps we have something of a parallel here in the United States in terms of rejecting sanity. Most of our millennials apparently have rejected capitalism, seeing it as the cause of all their woes, and they may be turning their eyes wistfully toward a more socialist style of living as the answer to their problems. (Washington Post)
In an apparent rejection of the basic principles of the U.S. economy, a new poll shows that most young people do not support capitalism.
The Harvard University survey, which polled young adults between ages 18 and 29, found that 51 percent of respondents do not support capitalism. Just 42 percent said they support it.
It isn’t clear that the young people in the poll would prefer some alternative system, though. Just 33 percent said they supported socialism. The survey had a margin of error of 2.4 percentage points.
Is this something real or is it just some sort of offshoot of the Bernie effect? 33% of the entire nation doesn’t sound like much but it probably works out to a fair portion of the supporters that Sanders is pulling in from the Democratic base. If that’s the case then it may tone back down once the primary ends and Bernie sails off toward retirement. They clearly won’t be getting a lot of support from the smaller percentage of young people supporting Hillary since her associations with the gold mine of Wall Street are well known.
But a more disturbing possibility is that we’ve entered a period where the population begins to fall victim to the old maxim of forgetting history and being doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. The truth is that socialism has gotten something of a makeover in the modern era, with people frequently looking to places like Switzerland as a model. (Never mind the fact that Switzerland is actually one of the more capitalist places on Earth.) Further to the north, Sanders and his followers also like to point to the Scandinavian nations as the socialist paradise of their dreams. But as an excellent article in the Federalist pointed out recently, it’s really no paradise at all.
In the modern era, if our unhappy millennials really want to learn something about the true face of socialism they should look to places like Venezuela. Under the control of Hugo Chavez, the people of that nation didn’t actually experience any sort of boom times and are now facing the implosion of their society, as Kevin Williamson recently pointed out.
If you consider the most meaningful measure of a country’s economic output — GDP per capita over time — you’ll see that the fat years under Chávez did not actually happen. In fact, if you chart that real (inflation-adjusted) GDP per capita by year, you’ll see that Venezuela is significantly poorer today than it was in the 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s. In fact, Venezuela’s per capita GDP reached its all-time low in 2003, under Chávez. This is no surprise: Making well-off countries poor and poor countries starving is what socialists do.
Things are bad in Venezuela to be sure and the citizens there are under constant threat from their own government as well as economic collapse. But if these unhappy millennials truly want a lesson on social experimentation they should look at the Russian socialist revolution of 1917 and the ensuing virtual enslavement of the citizens who surrendered all their property and rights to the government. These are the wages of socialism and it always ends badly. In case you missed that… It Always Ends Badly.
There is no good outcome from socialism in the long run and those who have lived too long in a prosperous nation like America need to crack open their history books before signing on for a new revolution. Democratic capitalism has its own warts and flaws to be sure and not every outcome is a happy one for every citizen, but it’s also a self-correcting system. Gross imbalances tend to be ironed out through the political force and will of those for whom it fails to deliver. So be careful what you wish for, millennials. You might just get it good and hard.

Sunday, April 24, 2016

Donald Trump purposely not presidental

What’s weirder? That Trump would hand over his campaign to Manafort without vetting him and his vision for winning the race first? (Draw your own conclusion about Trump’s managerial ability from that.) Or that he’d punish Manafort this way amid a landslide win in New York last week and another round of landslides to come tonight? You don’t typically fire your manager when the team’s in the middle of a winning streak, right?
In fairness to Trump, it’s hard to understand why Manafort thought he could turn him into a more disciplined candidate. He’s an extreme narcissist; telling him to be something other than himself is the most vicious thing you can say to him. I don’t think his fans even want him to be more “presidential.” If you like Al Czervik, the last thing you’d want is for him to become Judge Smails. It reeks of “traditional” politics. The whole point of Trumpism is that it’s not politics as usual.
Trump became upset late last week when he learned from media reports that Manafort privately told Republican leaders that the billionaire reality TV star was “projecting an image” for voters and would begin toning down his rhetoric, according to the sources. They said that Trump also expressed concern about Manafort bringing several former lobbying colleagues into the campaign, as first reported by POLITICO…
In particular, multiple sources said Trump was bothered by news stories about Manafort’s representation of Saudi Arabia and for a group accused of being a front for Pakistani intelligence.
“I don’t think he was aware of the extent of the work that Paul has done in foreign countries that have not always been friendly to the United States,” said a Washington operative with close relationships to the campaign…
Multiple sources said that Trump in recent days has re-empowered Lewandowski to handle the campaign’s finances and make some hiring decisions, partially reversing changes Manafort laid out this month when seizing some decision-making authority from Lewandowski.
Trump reportedly didn’t like Manafort’s habit of keeping him off the Sunday shows (where he’d be more likely to be quizzed on policy) while choosing to appear on those shows himself. He also rejected a more “presidential” draft speech that Manafort wanted him to deliver last Tuesday night after his win in New York, although he did tone down his own rhetoric that evening before shifting back this week to talking about how disgusting Kasich is when he eats. A more substantive failing of Manafort’s was Team Trump getting lapped again in the delegate battle last weekend, but I think his excuse for that is sound: You can’t expect him to work miracles immediately when he’s been with the team just a few weeks and Trump is badly understaffed on the ground at state conventions. Manafort will become more useful in persuading delegates in May, June, and especially before the convention in July. But oh well — combative Corey Lewandowski, whose philosophy has always been to “let Trump be Trump,” is back in favor while Manafort, who’s been with the campaign less than a month, is now suddenly on the outs. It reminds me of George Steinbrenner hiring, firing, and re-hiring Billy Martin repeatedly in the 70s and 80s, overreacting to every setback despite the team’s overall success. Trump’s building himself his very own “Bronx Zoo.”