Further Shift, ... A Short Note For Now
Further Shift, ... A Short Note For Now
That Was Some Tunnel
Kevin A. Sensenig | April 10, 2014 | Updated June 5, 2014 | Addendum June 17, 2014 | Updated 2014-07-22
[ The addendum is very important, and should set Republican minds at ease. ]
[ The addendum is on a fundamental premise-and-view nature to ObamaCare that is, uh, problematic. ]
[ And this premise-and-view was spelled out by Verrilli, and is consistent with the “you didn’t build that” uh premise. ]
[ Then at the end there are a couple of notes that are very important. ]
[ But I’ll start in, as I wrote this starting April 10... ]
[ It unfolds a bit like a journal. ]
THE VOTE FOR ROMNEY
[ Here I had in the early 2014 some second thoughts about my vote for Romney in 2012; then I recalled my more “actual things on the table” viewpoint from 2012. This, and the #ObamaDidThat.YouDidn’t theme, and the ObamaCare uh problematic theory. I recast my viewpoints into subtype progressive as 100% GOPPartchment. — 2014-07-22 ]
I now support President Obama in more completion. [Not.] [I now support the subset subtype progressive ideas that Obama’s team does, but not the social democracy ideas; and I no longer support President Obama very much at all. — 2014-07-07.] I always supported aspects, but found some key contradictions. However, the balance of his approach is clearly of some nature of illumination, and fairness, and opportunity across the board. [Right. The incorrect way.] I’m enjoying the precision and enthusiasm with which President Obama addresses issues [Right. Except that he always blames Congress. Other things I uh “but I digress”.], and I appreciate the dimension to the story and statistics that he highlights. [But the 2 papers of 30 charts each early 2012 with notes were from Treasury, at www.treasury.gov, the Geithner team. Now it’s Jack Lew, and I haven’t paid attention, we’ll see.] Why I didn’t balance this out before I’m not sure. [Now I know why.]
[ I now support the subset subtype progressive ideas that Obama’s team does, but not the social democracy ideas; and I no longer support President Obama very much at all.
— 2014-07-07. ]
And it is apparent that Romney would not have answered this matter of contradictions either. But that’s another story. But I appreciate Obama’s precision and enthusiasm [but not so much the semantics], and I’m revisiting the fundamental premise [in a material way, for sure]. And I appreciate his stance on a couple of issues, like gay rights, pay equity, and social programs remaining intact.
[ There’s uh this:
#ObamaDidThat.YouDidn’t — Philosophy & Theory / TMAX P3200 Edition.
— 2014-07-08
]
That was some tunnel I went down in 2010-2013, not in the end particularly helpful. Some of my study here on nxmvc has some insight; but I should have been factoring in a number of various perspectives along the way when it came to key policy such as ObamaCare, or the roll call vote at the Democratic National Convention.
[ 2014-06-17 note:
“...or maybe the tunnel was very helpful, and
the nxmvc material to that point effective work with the material!”
— See ADDENDUM below.
]
[ 2014-06-17 note: The fundamental premise in Obama’s #ObamaDidThat.YouDidn’t statement, that it’s the government layer that is the “to allow” layer, the fundamental do-something layer ??? Ignoring the fundamental stance of the individual, and private individual or free market function, and natural rights from that? Somewhat uh very problematic. Some other aspects in his view are fine. But as far as “the fundamental do-something” layer... what about the free market and individual and collaborative group effort? For instance, all the free market effort that went on in the computer technology field to enable and deploy the Internet. And requisite work from independent thought of maybe 100 years. And if AT&T had been left intact, it would have developed the Internet, or in conjunction with DARPA and the universities, maybe 5 years sooner. Bell Labs. ]
I’m revisiting now...have just begun to revisit...some progressive thought, and in the 1990s I had begun to establish a framework here. But it was too lacking in overall view and structure, and thus I became distracted recently by just one interpretation of liberty. I still think my definition applies; but I would expand on it in different various ways with a more progressive type view.
It is too bad that I did not factor in even the voice of the White House, at www.whitehouse.gov, even though I did notice highlights. I really apologize to President Obama for not voting for him in 2012. [No longer.] It would have been real poetic justice to have written what I put on nxmvc, then voted for Obama 2012! [2014-06-18: Maybe.] I voted for him in 2008, but did not see the premise of his stance; that he’s taking on various matters of fairness and opportunity in a direct way. [The incorrect way.] So I missed an opportunity in 2010 to 2012 to really participate in the appreciation of what he’s trying to accomplish. He and his team did further stabilize the economy, and have taken apparently to structural considerations. [I still back up Geithner and his team at Treasury, and the Fed. But President Obama? Not.] What all this might entail I don’t know. And it does seem that revenue could be realistically considered in addressing the deficit gap, and maybe even closing it, optimal revenue. More on this in another short paper.
In foreign policy, sometimes to let others take the lead, and find the terrain for themselves — with support — is a more long-term view. And if you were concerned about Israel, the Israeli top leadership said in an extended video released by the Obama campaign that they had had an ally like no other, in Obama. If you’re concerned about the Palestinian/Israeli relations, then at least Sec. Kerry is attempting apparently serious efforts in that direction (I don’t know the details).
[ 2014-06-18: But foreign policy is problematic, for the United States; whether Romney or Obama. ]
I support the minimum wage increase to $10.10, I support the White House’s new program on mentorship within the black and other youth community, and I support the measured and detailed attention to the economy. It takes time to recover from what was a serious gash in economic function, according to the Treasury reports, affecting the private sector and states’ revenue or at least spending. And in a matter more personal to me, Republicans may not be so concerned with a central theme of liberty as pertains to and better more open treatments within mental health as I thought; thus, room for progressive action.
[ 2014-06-21: I would debate the minimum wage differently; in fact I would introduce a framework for this that may have not been thought of. At least some of the points are valid; I would put it in a different framework, and it’s not an ideological or class-centric argument; very much not so. Not everybody would agree with it, but it has a structure-and-framework-and-flow-and-directness to it that nobody’s thought of. ]
In spite of another paper here, many seem to have gotten what they wanted out of ObamaCare — and I’ve begun to take another look at the law to see its effects and benefits. I think the mandate idea depends on interpretation, and we’ll see how that plays out; but if it’s a tax, then that has maybe a less problematic idea. But I should reconsider the premise here, too; while acknowledging some of the flaws in reasoning that I saw, in applying a broad mandate...what is reasonable, and what is a natural limit. I’m not sure right now how to factor this out, to completion, in a reasonable way.
[ Aha! ObamaCare Problematic Theory
I’ll be paying attention to foreign policy from the White House standpoint — but it seems to be more nuanced and less cut-and-dried than Romney’s would have been [although uninformed]: and with such a policy, while you may not always get what you want or things might be seemingly more difficult in the short run, I think that you’ll _notice_ things in the long-run that you wouldn’t otherwise see. Why I didn’t factor in foreign policy more during the 2012 election I’m not sure. In fact, I factored in very little, on a particular set of sub-issues (one that I focused on was the way Romney handled women’s concerns — his response was intuitive, and he simply hired them for his MA government); there may have been a point to that, but it didn’t result in the right vote, for Obama. [Not.] It’s like the one time I grew so frustrated with stuff that I banged my head on the floor of my apartment — a singular serious error that I have a tough time explaining — except that they now correspond! [Or not.]
I contributed about $165 to the Obama 2012 campaign, and then $35 to the Romney campaign; then I voted for Romney. Again, it would have been real poetic justice to have flipped back, left those donation amounts as a statement of proportion, then voted for Obama. Ack!
[ HOWEVER (2014-06-17) note the ADDENDUM, just below... this addendum is fundamental, and helps explain my vote for Romney, in clear terms. ]
I enjoy the way Obama connects with people, and lays out the domain in a dimension way. [Very much so!!! Key! Oh so key!!! Nice work Obama! #ObamaDidThat.YouDidn’t. ] That’s the stuff of illumination and debate. I enjoy seeing Michelle Obama connecting with kids in her health and school meals options programs; and, no matter how you see the military being used, her support of military families. [I still support this.]
I’m very glad that others had more wisdom in putting President Obama in office for a second term. [Uh, not.]
[ Or, er, maybe so, for sure, in a Kellogg’s Fruit LoopsfphT sort of way! For sure! ]
[ But again, I see why I voted for Romney. ] [ Certainly! ]
I still wish that he [Obama] had taken the stance of explaining certain things about the Republicans during his first term, and where they came up short of what is my ideal of what I’ll call the GOPPartchment (reminding us to return to some basics when the Democrats get carried away with this or that — like not being able to address in argument, as second nature, the idea of natural limit vis-a-vis the broccoli question). But the Republicans would have had to shift as well; and perhaps Obama could have put them in a position where they were forced to realize certain things, and assume due role. [ 2014-06-25: And this would have been a very strong position, the Republicans, after some initial reformulation. ]
I’ll sign off for now, on this, and will return to specific issues later.
[ For more on Romney and my 2012 vote I’ve updated with material at
KAS Political Stance — Obama On Romney And Private Equity, where I lay some things out. — 2014-07-22
]
----
IMPORTANT ADDENDUM (JUNE 17, 2014) ON OBAMACARE.
WHAT A PROBLEMATIC PREMISE DESCRIBED BY VERRILLI.
----
The above was written on April 10, 2014, then updated June 5, 2014. On June 16, yesterday, I revisited the Verrilli (Verrilli was the Obama administration lawyer) arguments before the Supreme Court, and the #ObamaDidThat.YouDidn’t theme that I cascade in other sections on nxmvc, and realized that besides the natural, direct way of to hire women to get parity (acknowledging that men and women are equals), Romney understood some of the very problematic nature of the basis and framework of ObamaCare.
I might go into that elsewhere in detail. But ObamaCare, and the arguments Verrilli made, in conjunction with the semantics of what Obama said in his “you didn’t build that” paragraph, is a very problematic premise.
I don’t think that Republicans may all fully understand the implications; although perhaps Boehner does (and I am not Republican). But GOPPartchment would understand it fully, and chisel a response. Holy shit.
Here’s a quote from the argument before the Supreme Court by Verrilli. It was at the end of a response to a question by Justice Roberts, and represents I think Verrilli’s fundamental basis, what he thought as the essential question:
“Is the national government regulating economic activity with a substantial effect on interstate commerce?” [Transcript, 2012-03-27, p. 30, line 24.]
This deserves careful study.
In a paragraph on the next page, he says, “…because it is predicated on the participation of these individuals in the market for health care services.” [Transcript, 2012-03-27, p. 31, line 18.]
Two flaws. First, it’s not “national government”. It’s “federal government”. The language is striking.
Second, just because an individual or corporation touches economic activity does not mean the federal (or “national”) government can regulate the contents of that activity. Only the commerce aspect.
States retain the right to define corporate-design law and so forth.
That is, the federal government cannot describe for the corporation or the individuals who purchase its product either the specification for what the corporation does internally or the design or implementation of the product. (It may be able to regulate some type of direct safety and the basic accuracy of product representation, and that’s about it; and it does this in some markets already. That’s where it should stop.)
That’s a key understanding, and prevents the design flaw of ObamaCare in that aspects of it may be national socialism.
That is, the federal government according to the Constitution, and this is reasonable, can regulate aspects of interstate commerce (commerce in the Constitution as Commerce, capital-”C”, a thing, just as the states are capital-”S”, a several bodies. It can regulate the aspect of things that are Commerce; but it cannot say, “because a thing (health care, book, exercise, diet, computer) has an aspect of Commerce, we can regulate the entire thing (health care, book, exercise, diet, computer)”.
But Verrilli makes just such an argument. What a disaster.
And the focus of Verrilli was on this economic activity (anything he could relate as having “significant effect” on interstate commerce, either in the aggregate or in specific markets), strengthening the argument that it’s national socialism. “Economic activity” so qualified has just about everything touching it, or can, subject only to the views in the lawmakers’ minds, without natural limit. “Interstate Commerce” is different, and is a natural (in the sense that it naturally falls into its own place) limit.
Verrilli does not place his government in the proper role as “federal government as entity”.
Neither did Obama, in the failure in his “you didn’t build that” paragraph to contextualize federal government activity as having this nature and design and activity — the federal government as entity, clearly understood, with a lot going on in American society and culture that is simply aware of it, not that the federal government is there in all or even many aspects of individual day to day life. Again, look at all the material taught by teachers, and the activity of the people who actually build businesses and work for them, and the engineers employed by the State to build roads and bridges, and the work and product done by the free market and private effort to design and deploy the Internet and its components, and what we as individuals and groups freely do with the Internet and the iPad.
But the iPad — #ObamaDidThat.YouDidn’t. iTunes — #ObamaDidThat.YouDidn’t. “The music albums on iTunes.” — #ObamaDidThat.YouDidn’t.
Why didn’t he cite these, to set government function in context? Paper. #ObamaDidThat.YouDidn’t. Electronics. #ObamaDidThat.YouDidn’t. The computer mouse. #ObamaDidThat.YouDidn’t. (Actually, Xerox PARC did that.)
This is another direct reason that I voted for Romney; although I don’t know if he understands the chiseled implications of all this, or was able to describe it. I hope so. Again, it means that one has to have a clear understanding of what Commerce is, a thing, and that one cannot simply lay down “wires” across society such that any individual or entity that touches it can be regulated. it also has to have the foundation of “to start with the individual”, that is, whether corporate or individual, action starts with oneself: going to the gym or tai chi; which book to read and how to consider it; how and why to build a product.
There’s some dynamic to how the federal government can work; but it’s not the “national government” doing stuff — it’s Representative Federalism.
----
END JUNE 17, 2014 OBAMACARE ADDENDUM
----
----
NOTE
----
For an introduction in PDF to the basic nature of the problematic theory of ObamaCare, see TN.04.
----
NOTE
----
The above section I wrote on June 17, 2014, based on revived views from 2012 and a deeper understanding of the argument.
You can find Verrilli’s arguments from the Tuesday transcripts at http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Tuesday.pdf [Archived here: 11-398-Tuesday.pdf.]
Therefore, the features of my “tunnel” become more clear. I think that to bang my head on the floor indicated both the vote for Romney and the fact that I had to — what a disaster Verrilli’s interpretation is.
When (and if they could become more-so) the Republican Party is more GOPPartchment I could support them more consistently. There is something to be said for an appreciation of the “etched”, and a firm depth understanding to the dynamic, structured nature of the Constitution (sans slavery) that Republicans bring to the table. I really appreciate that, from Jeff Sessions to John Boehner. I don’t vote entirely with either party.
If they had a deeper sense of the ecosystem, and more fully articulated support for the effect of social programs and supports (even with occasional reservations, and with due corrections), while continuing to refine the idea of the function of the states (autonomous/independent/interdependent bodies yet co-existing with the federal government, actually originally being its basis, along with the people), then I could more fully support their policies. They do understand the value of the corporation as being another type of autonomous body/entity. I support that.
But to grasp the federal government as entity too is important.
(And here again it’s not a “national government” — oversight of everything, or intrusion into all that we do. Our activity is not “national” — it is federal, state, individual, group, corporate.)
----
NOTE
----
There may be strong sections to ObamaCare, and these should be retained — within a GOPPartchment framework.
----
NOTE
----
It is my feeling that the real goal is to get the best of the Democratic Party, and it can be very liberal.
It is my feeling that the real goal is to get the best of the Republican Party, and this is something I'll call GOPPartchment.
Democrats are free to consider many types of ideas.
GOPPartchment brings us back to a chiseled read of the basic framework.
These can work together.
Right now there are clashing views and ideologies. It is untenable. This state has persisted for a while.
It also yields politics, not governing and theory developed then implemented after (internal) debate.
And it’s a bizarre outcome, to be able to introduce a premise of national socialism, or the rationale to lay down “wires” across society at will ... that’s nuts.
Republicans may not be aware that to impose authority as authority to “straighten out” (in the context of say mental health, or adjudicating law) may be an incorrect view (any idea must be “to correct”, and the actual dynamics need to be worked with, and certain voices heard; but structure can be acknowledged ... and this is to act with authority, evident). But John Boehner may be aware of some of this, “the actual dynamics...and certain voices heard.”; it seems that’s what he’s done with the U.S. House, as Speaker.
But President Obama keeps trying to “impose views” on the Congress via appeal to populace (the appeal for action is fine), and without actually listening to and factoring what the Republicans are trying to say. Other times you do need to stand firm; but I think a new premise needs to be found, for some of this. And again (from another paper here on nxmvc) I thought Obama was going to highlight differences and their rationale and then resolve many of them, from 2009, with the Republicans. That would have been phenomenal. Then he could have taken a firm stand on areas of disagreement and retained respect. And the fundamental flaws (in spite of what may be areas of benefit) to ObamaCare would have been factored out, and a GOPPartchment framework put in place for effective answers on a point by point basis.
By the way, national socialism is not Marxism. Marxism is theory and praxis. It may or may not overlook things. I recommend becoming familiar with liberation theology and Chinese Marxism. I don’t know much about either of these, but there may be material here that, set in its own context, and a consideration of various frameworks as just that, GOPPartchment might be able to see at least some of and reason with; and the very liberal work fluidly with. We’ll see. Maybe.
That would diffuse and negate some tension, in international relations (set in a new context).
----
NOTE
----
I believe that the Democrats have some keys and Republicans have some keys; individuals reflect more complete key sets, within each party. But I think that the Democrats and Republicans need to establish basis (for Democrats) and framework (for Republicans) then theory and praxis. This also would make the Presidency less about the individual being able to by himself or herself put together “the package”, and better able to rely on the framework/basis/theory/praxis, with also better predictability for the American people voting for them; yet individual expression and the importance of developing his or her own consistency and view.
----
NOTE
----
If you haven’t seen the material on #ObamaDidThat.YouDidn’t, then here I list relevant pages:
Setup & Premise
http://www.nxmvc.com/ODT.YD.01.html
NeXTstation. 1991.
http://www.nxmvc.com/ODT.YD.02.01.html
The Basic Theme
http://www.nxmvc.com/ODT.YD.03.html
#TheAmericanPeopleWantToBePartOfTheConversation
http://www.nxmvc.com/ODT.YD.04.html
Home
TOC
There might be information in the computer technology and philosophy/papers sections that you'd find interesting.
Again, it's ***the premise that activity itself begins with the individual — that is, to do tai chi or go to the gym, or to read a book and act or not on it, or to factor it in, or to decide to make group effort — and this therefore is bound up with the corporate, and the corporate model takes on this individual character of self-direction itself.*** That's part of what the sections on computer technology and the philosophy/papers are about, as well as the content.
----
NOTE
----
You might disagree with all or some of this.
In any case, all the best, while you work with the layers of intelligence, awareness, and wisdom. Tread carefully, but with intuition and consciousness.