Biden

As a frequent watcher of Morning Joe on MSNBC, I was well aware that Joe Scarborogh had become the voice of Biden who was not often heard from and it was well known that Biden watched the show on a regular basis. Morning Joe and his sidekick Miki often dinned at the White House and were in close contact with Biden. Over the last year Joe and Miki led the chorus claiming Biden's fitness for office best represented by the phrase, sharp as a tack. When a person undergoes a slow cognitive decline it is recognized by those who are close but Joe and Miki apparently did not see this or a some say they saw but ignored. Their desire to defeat Trump was strong and all the experts said Biden had the best chance to do this. Then came the fateful debate but even after the initial shock Joe and Miki once again came to Biden's defense when they  floated a theory from the president’s camp that former president Barack Obama is “quietly working behind the scenes” to undermine him. The signs of mental decline are obvious to all of us octogenarians. I was always able to articulate my thoughts without much trouble but in recent years I find myself pausing while I search for a word. If I can recognize this in myself certainly people close to me will. Did Joe and Miki deliberately hide Biden's condition or were they not able to see what was happening. If they did try to hide it they were not alone as many commentators failed to mention the changes that occurred especially over the past year. Were they planning to use Biden to win then turn the reins over to Harris and if so isn't this just politics.

Speech

There are wise people who feel that free speech is under attack using words like misinformation or disinformation and they are speaking out. Keeping in mind that private companies can decide what is acceptable but government cannot. Some areas covered by the First Amendment are complicated and may require a court ruling but the general rule is, if it is not illegal you can say it. Reasonable people understand that just because your are legally allowed to say something doesn't mean you should say it. You can stand on a crowded street corner and say that Jews are money hungry, Scots are drunks, Italians are crooks, fat people are ugly, most murders are committed by niggers, Trump is Hitler, Biden is senile or Trump supporters are cultist. Labeling a group a cult is a cowardly way of tolerating, condoning, appeasing, or promoting favored groups while simultaneously rejecting and disparaging a other groups. You can say if you shave your head it will prevent brain cancer. You can say eating lots of sugar will add years to your life and health. You can say the world is flat. You can say that vaccines are harmful. Saying things that are not true and/or hateful is not illegal. The constitutional experts will tell you that the purpose of the free speech clause is to protect unpopular speech no matter how distasteful it might be. This is best expressed by the quote "I may not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it"?

Censorship

Private newspapers, as a matter of practice, had to censor news because everyday more information came across the wire than they had room to print. Thus they had editors who would pick and chose what to print. In today's world of social media there is no limit to how much they can print so there should be no reason not to print all the news and all the tweets and all the Facebook comments. The rule should be, if it is not illegal they should print it. To do otherwise means that they feel they can better determine what people should read than the people themselves. This is an unnecessary concentration of power and that leads to potential misuse of power.

Twitter

After the January 6 attack on the capital Twitter warned that any violations by Trump and he would be banned. Then two tweets appeared and he was banned. The first was defending others who had been banned when he said,"they will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any was, shape or form". The second was when he said, "to all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the inauguration on January 20th". Twitter interpreted this as Trump saying the election was not legitimate. The person in charge of content at Twitter was Yoel Roth. He had a history of anti Trump tweets one that occurred on Election Day in 2016 when he tweeted, " I'm just saying, we fly over those states that voted for a racist tangerine for a reason". In time as more tweets came out he was force to resign. In one he suggested that people in the Trump administration were Nazis. When Kellyanne Conway appeared on Meet The Press, Roth tweeted, "Today on Meet The Press we're speaking with Joseph Goebbels about the first 100 days". When he was confronted with these past tweets he said his personal feelings did not interfere with his job.

Home

If the average worker in California wanted acquire a home it would be difficult to come up with a down payment which for a conventional loan is 3% and even more difficult to meet the requirements to qualify for the loan. Banks normally require that your monthly principal and interest payment plus taxes, insurance and mortgage protection insurance not exceed 28% of your monthly income. The median price of a single family home in California is $900,000 which means a $27,000 down payment. At 7% for a 30 year loan the payment would be $5,800 per month plus $500 for taxes and $200 for insurance plus $800 for private mortgage insurance (required when down payment is less than 20%) for a total monthly payment of $7,300 which when divided by 28% means a monthly income of $26,000. If you have an excellent credit score the ration can be raised to 36% which means a monthly income of $20,000. Using the same criteria a person working at a fast food restaurant earning $20 per hour or $40,000 per year would qualify for a home loan of $150,000 if you could come up with the $4,500 down payment. In other words it is very difficult for a person to purchase a home in California and many are leaving the state.

Better lives

The progress that the world has made in the past 100 years can be directly related to new energy sources. The path from wood to coal to oil to natural gas and finally to nuclear has led to increased standards of living across the globe. In 1900 more than 80% of people lived in poverty and today that number is less than 20%. The most advanced countries like North American and Europe have the most advanced energy systems. Other places like Asia and Africa are following the same energy path and are slowly catching but their progress could be accelerated by using the experience of developed countries like the US and move more quickly toward nuclear power. The expansion of small thorium reactors could allow these countries to leap frog from wood to nuclear in record time. This means low cost electric power which leads to desalting sea water to grow food in desert areas. It means breaking down water to get hydrogen for transportation for cars, trucks and buses. It means combining hydrogen with carbon dioxide from the air to synthesize diesel and jet fuel. It means zero carbon emissions and the solution to climate change problems. It means the end of long electric transmission line and small power units designed for specific needs. As the price of energy goes down so does the price of goods produced and brings with it increased productivity which means increases in the standard of living. Excess energy means the new technology like AI can proceed unabated. All of these advances will bring the underdeveloped nations into the 21st century and narrow the wealth gap. As peoples lives improve the chances of war decrease and all those resources can be used to improve the lives of people.

Healthcare

Universal healthcare has been proposed in the past and about half of the people polled favor this which is estimated to cost about $4 trillion per year. Total cost of healthcare in 2023 was $4 trillions. That is broken down as follows Medicare $944billion Medicaid $806 billion Private $1,289 billion Other $564 billion Out of pocket $471 billion If the universal plan included transferring the $1,289 billion that companies currently pay to the government plan the cost would be the same. The upside is that administrative cost of government healthcare is 5% while the same cost in private care is 15% or three times higher. The downside is that many people feel private care is better. While that is true for Medicaid and Obamacare it is not true for Medicare which is comparable to private care. In any case the argument should not be based on cost but rather on the type of service. Many union plans are superior and were achieved over the years by sacrificing increases in wages and they would not be willing to accept a lesser plan like the government would offer. One suggested compromise is that there be one government plan for everyone and wealthy people would have the option to purchase a private plan on top of the base plan. It should be noted that there are 600,000 people employed in the private healthcare field and these jobs would be in jeopardy. The US spends about 18% of GDP on healthcare compared to 12% in European countries and much of this is differences in administrative cost. Companies would be OK with this since they would no longer have to deal with dissatisfied patients as the government would handle all disputes.