Al Franken – Giant of the Senate Review

Al Franken is Funny:

I read his Big Fat Lies and the Liars Who Tell Them after stumbling on it at a retirement community library in South West Florida. Sometimes the jokes fall flat. He’s not hilariously funny. But he’s funny. Knows how to construct a setup and punchline appropriately. The Giant of the Senate is hilarious. Reading his biography of his time in comedy and politics is enjoyable. Here’s what I got out of it:

Al Franken Is Awesome, This Book is Inspirational:

The book lays out how laws are really passed or not passed. For example, the Republican obstruction during the Obama years was something anyone could see; but the depravity of the whole thing is made clear in this book. Delay, delay, delay; it’s rather frustrating. Franken can be a bit sanctimonious at times about American values, sometimes conflating US values with Democrat values, but that’s okay, he only went to Harvard i.e. not the smartest cookie. However, Franken’s stories about how difficult it is to pass legislation is very instructive. He mentions Saskatchewan although he miss pronounced it. He talks about Indigenous rights in Minnesota and Indigenous education. He does however recognize that the media is partly to blame for the free media Trump was able to garner throughout the primary and real race. Overall, I’m really impressed and might start a podcast, I’m that impressed.

About SNL, John Belushi, the De-humanizer and the Show-Horse versus the Work Horse:

SNL writers believe that you have to write jokes for people who don’t know about politics and reward those who do with a few wink wink jokes. When Bob Woodward wrote the book on John Blushi’s comedic career, the book excessively forces on Belushi’s cocaine addiction which Franken also had for a time (the SNL work load was grueling).  Franken had a joke about how kids were downloading bestiality which was really well constructed and which I won’t reproduce here, but his opponents turned the joke into a serious statement about being pro-bestiality. Franken realized he had to be serious in the US Senate.

Fundraising is 80% of What a US Senator has to Do, and that’s Sad:

Franken describes all these ridiculous calls that he has to do and it’s all about money. First of all, his sales pitch in the book is terrible. “Hi, you democrat, me democrat, me need money, you money have.” And sure he gets money from comedian friends. Franken seems to have come into the US Senate as an original, and let as a copy. Still Franken is cool, don’t get me wrong.

Franken is a Partisan Thinker, and that’s Sad:

Franken doesn’t realize what Jane Jacobs and Socrates knew; that ideology is a means of aggregating vote totals. It’s a means to power, and politicians, use ideology to bolster their support. Language is inexact and leads to hilarious word based debates rather than data based debates. Democrats and Republicans are ideologicaly camps that simply prioritize different areas of political resource allocation. End of the discussion, do I need to draw a diagram. Fuck! Franken says that the US Senate is not a discursive dialogue…Sounds like it. But perhaps, Franken is part of the problem? Franken says; Democrats have better ideas just not as good as explaining those more nuanced ideas….eye roll. He then says things like “if you believe in clean water, you’re a Democrat.” His persuasion is partisan and hammy….

Franken on Climate Change, part of the problem is language:

Franken is so bound by his upbringing in an era where there was no internet. It’s sad. Here’s an example of the language problem. The Climate Change discussion is interesting, the Republicans and Democrats are binary; their intellect deficient. One says that the climate is always changing and Franken says, man is causing climate change. Um, you’re both wrong! Nuanced politicians! Are there any? Probably not. Why? because they need to corral a spectrum of thought into a binary. Of course, humanity is impacting earth’s climate, the very house you are sitting is human created. Do you really think that humans are not effecting even at a 1% rate on the planet’s Earth? The debate should be really around what to do about the fact that our species might be under major duress in 100 years time if we continue to change the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. Denying that CO2 is being produced at a greater rate by humans (who have the brains to reduce or increase production of CO2 i.e. not a volcano) is not what Republicans are doing for the most part. It’s about the economy stupid and about predicting the future of weather being, um, difficult at best.

Al Franken Is Thoughtful but Still Partisan, Did I Mention That?:

Franken thinks in terms of society. He sees the government as a positive contributor. He also believes that lawyers are over-represented in politics. You have to pull yourself up by the bootstraps by the truth is that you need a pair of boots and only the government can provide you boots. Any of those statements disagreeable to you?

The Ted Cruz Chapter Is Hilarious:

That is all.

What Now for Al Franken?:

There is a line for comedians that you cannot cross. That line is retro-active. Humour can be weird but there are major risks when you make off colour jokes or abuse you fame to force yourself on others. The lesson is clear as day: leave your sexual impulses at home.  Franken resigned so that Democrats could take the upper-hand against Roy Moore AND because at the height of MeToo: due process did not matter in the court of public opinion.

If You Cannot Afford to Take Risks, You Should Not Be Involved In Politics

Politics is a blood sport. You can only commit transgressions if first, the transgression is understandable, common or somehow justifiable AND you are really good at getting things done in public office and can truly lead with a dynamic vision. Otherwise, you’re like a provincial court judge or other bureaucrat; any significant mistake will standout because you have been trying to be perfect at all times.

Tocqueville’s Democracy in America – As a Framework for The Future

It’s the most important work on American democracy and the US in the 1830s. Democracy in America is a very long book 1000 pages though. The truth is that every American and every Political Scientist should read it.

Two ways to look at it:

  1. It’s a historical artifact: it’s historical.
  2. Work of political science and sociology.

The French Revolution ruined the de Tocqueville family wealth. The author studied, Voltaire, Rouseau, Pascal. In the 1830 July Revolution , Tocqueville takes the oath for the new Burbons. Tocqueville wanted to try looking into the US for prison reform. However, he wanted to identify lessons from US democracy, it’s inclination; what should we fear or hope for in this new democratic movement emerging in the US? The Trail of Tears occurred in the 1830s….Also the Nullification Crisis. There was also slavery; bu Tocqueville observed a ‘classless’ society.  

Funny Associations:

  • The Voluntary Association / Local Sovereignty
  • American Bible Society; Temperance Society;
  • The Lady’s Association for the Benefit of Gentle Women of Good Family Reduced In Fortune Below the State of Comfort To Which They Have Been Accustomed.
  • Voluntary Associations: don’t rely on the government to solve their problems.
  • Democracy at the local level then is far more robust. Tocqueville and his co-author won a cash prize for their research.
  • The federal government was very small; voluntary association was central and patriotism is evident.

  • The Hierarchies of Power could be crushed as long as we are all being treated free and equal….and meeting up to talk about it.
  • Freedom and Equality are mutually re-inforcing. But then we asked;
  • Freedom and Equality seem to pull in different direction….
  • Locke wanted to separate powers; but it’s an institutional device.
  • How to combine popular rule with political wisdom?
  • “1835 Democracy in America”
  • America is a blank slate. Tocqueville thought that France would become like America: democracy is likely to revert back to monarchy.
  • Equality of conditions: this is the equality of conditions (equality of opportunity). It’s a gradual spread of the concept.

Features of American Democracy:

I) Local government: localism: local democracies are the cradle of civil society in townships. The institutions of putting the democracy in the reach of all the people were not that expensive to build. The people are legislating and organizing. Alexis de Tocqueville told his readers to read Rousseau every day;

The township format itself is Aristotelian. The township exists by nature. There is the old Polis character described by Aristotle which Tocqueville believes is very important for a democratic society.

II) Civil Association: these voluntary groups are immensely powerful and energizing. There is the mother science concept; uniting in associations. Trying to fix common goals; civic association.

Robert Putnam: happy for social capital. The decline in association is the Bowling Alone phenomenon. These are not natural times; It’s a learned activity; the Civic Society goes into decline as our isolation cripples our Civic Associations.

Are we in a couch potato crisis? Yes, in 2018!!

III) Spirit of Religion: America is primarily a puritan democracy; early Puritanisms. Religion will not disappear because of the decline of faith; it’s rather a shift in faith. We can’t separate faith: dignity of the individual. Tocqueville looked at religion purely for social effects.

Increase the number of factions in order to prevent anyone from being the dominant one.

The idea of democracy does claim that this idea that political correctness is a danger.

Moral of the State:

  • Compassion, restiveness,
  • Democracy has made us gentler: broadcast tv has made us indifferent to others in our group.
  • Bill Clinton “I feel your pain.”

Political Educator: – There is a divine

  • Restful. We want to ask what kind of people we create.
  • What is the democratic statecraft? A new political science; it’s based on a novel history of human agency; as any reader knows there is a power in history.
  • It’s like we are part of an immense process. 
  • Certainly the pendulum has swung away from civil society in many ways. But generally online interactions are positive.

Leadership Under Duress: 2 Technologies Used by Officers of the Law – Gwent

These Welsh Police officers showed real courage, professionalism and calm under true duress. In this video, the assailant refused to put his knives down, after so many requests to obey law enforcement. Follow the law, obey police officers (if you live in an advanced western democracy). The guy didn’t do that. And he even asked that they not record the situation etc. Clueless! The police are an extension of the government that we pay for as citizens.

What’s really interesting is the use of tasers and body cams; the police (who are serving their community at great personal risk) managed, through quick action, to disarm this dangerous person. While some may argue that statistically other professions are more risky (Alaskan Crab Fishing), I would argue that the kind of risk needs to be included in an stat used to evaluate risk. Stabbing death is a bit more horrendous than falling off a boat. And yes, police get compensated for their hard work and they are aware of the risk but this kind of courage is commendable. Unfortunately, taser guns do not completely incapacitate an assailant, hopefully that technology will be available soon.

 

Poverty is Moving Downwards in Real Terms | David Henderson

[WARNING BIAS POSSIBLE: David Henderson is part of the Milton Friedman School of Economics.]

Who is More Wealthy? | A Royal Dog from the 17th Century OR a Working-Class Dog Today

When we talk about inequality we need to understand that economic growth and productivity is driven my commercial transactions that drive new innovation and wealth creation.  So if you hear someone say that inequality is worse now than ever before, you need to ask this this question is a royal puppy from the 17th century more wealthy than a working class dog today? {I guess the dogs on the street with their homeless owner would be an exception here but you get the point}….

VS

 

One Of the Most Important Question

Does it matter how people acquire their wealth?

Two Stories

The Story of the Earner; he invented the chainsaw. The guy sold 100K chainsaws….There was producer surplus and consumer surplus. The producer surplus: only 2.2% of value is consumed by the innovator himself, the rest goes to the others in the company. The individual creates a lot of value and his customer’s get to spent less time cutting wood relative to pre-chain saw Axe usage. The issue is that the consumers got modestly more wealthy. The Taker: used political power to get wealth. LBJ made his money through a radio station through Ladybird Johnson. The Big Taker is Cuban dictator Fidel Castro but even there, you could argue that he brought about universal healthcare to a poor island and all the other benefits minus pains.

Understanding Income Inequality: Transparency

Income and wealth distribution. If you are concerned about income and wealth. Most people do not understand their own income and wealth distribution. Most people do not realize that they are rich for example. Has Income Inequality Increased?

Yes, however real team income has gone up for everyone. There is new inequality. If you are making $20K per year, you are in the top 3.65% of income earners globally. Wow, that’s an unequal world but how does the nation-state system help out with other countries. It doesn’t! What can you do about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everyone is getting the benefits of new technology but some people are getting more benefit than others.

There are lots of ways that we are way better off than our grandparents. Society is insanely accelerate quality of life. It used to cost a full month of work to buy a bicycle that now takes 1 day.

Piketty’s Clerical Error

Piketty talks about the inequality in France in the 19th century but then pivots back to the idea that the working poor are “no better off today” then the poor in the 19th century. That doesn’t make sense if you consider that the quality of life of everyone has been improved so much in the last 125 years.

Take 80% from the rich is what Piketty concludes.

Marry Someone And You Are Unlikely to Be Poor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to be in the top 55 you would be wise to have a partner in crime, mkay?

Joe Stiglitz Doesn’t Ask How Crusoe or Friday Get Their Oranges…Mistake

You need to look not just at what money each person has but also HOW they acquired their wealth. You can have justified and ill gotten gains.

Henderson’s Idea: When You Focus on Inequality Over All Other Priorities We Get Strange Outcomes

Would you rather have everyone have the same income and have slow economic growth OR would you rather have lots of income inequality but have fast economic growth? As if this is a zero sum gain:  it depends on your priorities of course. If you are obsessed with what your neighbour has; then you would want equality.

The following is a disturbing extension of equality rights. Now, imagine you want equality in life length. Currently, women live up to 89 years old while men live up to 84 years old. If you are obsessed with inequality, you might want women to be executed at that average age so that it would be more fair for the males in society. Would you agree to that? Hard to imagine.

David Henderson is Obsessed with Something Else : Economic Freedom

Frequently, folks basically ignore the ills of commercial.

 

 

This publication is dedicated to finance, politics and history