HARD CHOICES

Author's note: Trill is a fictional female acquaintance who makes it possible to write in a style that is comfortable for me.



My Dear Trill,


     What took you so long in bringing up this subject? When it comes to two inferior candidates for the presidency, how do you choose? By all appearances these days, quite far in advance of the election, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the frontrunners in the Democratic and Republican parties respectively. Hillary Clinton, darling of Wall Street, rails against Wall Street in her campaign speeches, and elicits no response from the financiers. In a world governed by tacit, or covert understanding, they know she doesn’t mean it. Then there is the issue of mishandling of classified material while she was Secretary of State, for which she may yet be indicted.

     The Clintons shamelessly used the presidency to amass a fortune, much of it from speeches, paid for handsomely by the financial community. Contrast this with one of America’s great presidents, Harry Truman, who with his wife Bess, left Washington with only their personal belongings, not even a pension.

     The dominant and regrettable Clinton legacy is deregulation by Bill Clinton, which set the stage for the financial collapse of 2008 and cost taxpayers $700 billion to bail out the financial houses and causing countless mortgage foreclosures and loss of retirement investments.The gutting of the Glass Steagall Act, which served the country well since the great depression gave financiers and banks the freedom to take big risks with client’s money. Hillary states that she would not reinstate Glass Steagall.

     The opposing candidate, Donald Trump, deal maker, television entertainer , hotel magnate and casino operator, approaches the public with a line that horrifies even the Republican party, which is frantically trying to displace him. But he is the elephant in the room and may prove impossible to remove. Rumored association with the Mafia in his earlier years may yet prove to be his undoing, but maybe not, as he will argue that it is the way you do business in New York, with no apologies necessary. A billionaire himself, he says nothing about the merits of wealth distribution, which ultimately will be necessary if he is to deliver on his grandiose promises. The road ahead will be difficult if he is elected, as he has already earned the scorn, and even worse, of nations he has verbally abused and insulted.

     I can hardly guess how all this will play out, Trill. My own view is that the country needs somebody in the mold of Franklin Roosevelt. That man is runniing too, in the person of Bernie Sanders. It remains to be seen whether he can surmount the tough opposition by the Trump and Clinton admirers. If Clinton emerges the winner, the nation will once more be led by a hawk. Her judgment and background are particular worries - voted for the Iraq war, which cost millions, killed and wounded hundreds of thousands, and left a nation in ruin. Also the architect of a now failed nation, Libya, as she promoted the overthrow of Ghaddafi. 
If Trump is the winner, It's Katie bar the door, as the nation will be under the leadership of an unschooled and unpredictable politician.

DARK MONEY

In DARK MONEY, (Doubleday, 2016) Jane Mayer, staff writer for the New Yorker ,
nails it, bringing to the light of day the nefariou machinations of the oligarchy, or the Titans, as I call them, in their bid to solidify their superiority and preserve and grow their wealth through a process of buying the government and having it do their bidding. High praises for this courageous and crucial effort in which she ably presents the hidden history of the billionaires behind the rise of the Radical Right. I am happy that it affirms and solidly buttresses my 2010 essay on the same subject, now lost in the archives and reposted for readers here.

                           HOW WE  GOT HERE AND WHERE WE ARE HEADED 
                             A retrospective on the US Economy By Edward Hujsak

OH, FOR THE GOOD OLD DAYS
There is zero evidence that profit-based industrial corporations, financial corporations and the existing aristocracy, collectively identifiable as society’s “Titans,” long for anything but the pre- 1930’s years when there was no middle class, and all power was in the hands of Titans who truly believed that they both owned and governed the country - who believed that the Federal Government was needed only to act at their behest, and to take care of minimal services like Indian Affairs, the Postal Department, a moderate military (the latter needed in case it was necessary to quell striking workers). It can be argued that the view continues to hold true, as not a single Titan has come forward to publicly disclaim or reject the words of Grover Norquist, wealthy president of a taxpayer advocacy group, who repeatedly states: “I don’t want to abolish the government. I simply want to reduce it in size to where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bath- tub.” In other words, back to a deregulated free-for-all for profit based organizations.
FACE TO FACE WITH REALITY
Regarding profit based corporations and institutions, there are some virtually unassailable truths that call for earnest thought.
First, profit based organizations are non-benevolent. They are soulless creations, and there is no reason for them to be otherwise. If any actions appear to have a benevolent quality, one can be certain that internal evaluations have first determined that these actions will be profit-beneficial. Failure to realize this accrues to the various leverages that corporations use to convince legislators to make favorable decisions. For example, awarding subsidies to oil companies that make huge profits and still pay no taxes.
Second, profit based corporations and institutions are ruthless, and are restrained only by regulations placed upon them that became necessary as a result of unacceptable behavior in a civilized society. History records consistent walk-away attitude when disasters occur. Bophal, Exxon- Valdez, the Texas oil refinery fire, the BP deep-water oil rig explosion stand out among recent events. More insidious, as recently demonstrated with failed Japanese reactors, hazardous installations will always be pushed beyond reasonable life expectations if still profitable. Corporations engage in rapacious extraction of natural resources from nations that are then left destitute. History also shows corporations are resistant to the extreme to compensating for damages resulting from accidents. With ability to marshal the strengths of teams of the best lawyers, they always come out winning by purposely prolonging dealings with government officials who have lesser skills and are vulnerable to overwhelming opposition.

Still, it is hard to fault them. They are soulless entities, existing for one purpose only - to make a profit.
The need to regulate operations of profit based organizations is self evident, but recent power plays have worked successfully to eviscerate what laws were in place. How did this happen?
A TAKEOVER GONE AWRY
The appearance of a strong populist president after Herbert Hoover- Franklin D. Roosevelt, scared the Titans witless, even to the extent that some among them considered drastic action necessary to remove the newly elected president from the White House.
In 1934 ex-Marine Lt. Col. J. Smedley Butler testified before Congress that JP Morgan and other interests had approached him to lead an armed force to Washington, take over the White House and remove Roosevelt from office. The consequences of such an action are unimaginable. As
it happened, news media and politicians acted to both downplay the incident and discredit Col. Butler, thus the investigations literally petered out and nothing further came of it. In retrospect, it seems doubtful that Col. Butler would have risked his reputation to fabricate such a story.
In view of what happened in ensuing years, right up to the present time, the story remains credible. Human nature being what it is, it would seem likely that perpetrators would have said to themselves of the heavy-handed venture: “Well, that didn’t work. We’ll have to think of something else.” They certainly would not have given up. A little constructive thinking would surely turn up a more effective approach. It might take time, possibly decades, but a carefully planned strategy would ultimately return the nation to the rule of the Titans. Meantime, a little distraction - World War II - turned up, and everyone’s attention was temporarily diverted toward meetingall the challenges of America’s entry, which ultimately stretched across several continents.
A STROKE OF GENIUS
By the end of the War, President Roosevelt’s policies were firmly emplaced. Two economic policies were placed into operation that cemented a strong middle class into the mix of a population that previously consisted of the industrial and financial Titans and a dollar-an-hour farmer/ worker class. First, high tax rates on the wealthy provided a bulwark against a reversion to the pre-1930’s rule of the Titans. No one suffered, though they did not like it. Thoughts of how to get out of this situation among the Titans were omnipresent, though overthrow of the government was ruled out.
Second, the government assumed very strongly a role that it has always played - a redistributor of wealth. With millions of men and women returning home from the military, war production factories shutting down, Europe and Japan in shambles, the Soviet Union posturing as a new potential enemy with its development of nuclear weapons, and the prospect of extremely high unemployment, the challenges were formidable. Decisions that contributed to a robust recovery included the Marshall Plan, a continued maintenance of a strong military and development of advanced weaponry in view of the Soviet threat, the GI Bill for funding college education for returning veterans, funding of research and development on many fronts, and funding of vast infrastructure projects like the national highway system. All contributed to an emerging middle class that had never been in place before. The policy of redistribution of wealth arguably brought about most of the technological improvements that are in place today. A major influence was the military and NASA need for ever smaller electronics, which made possible handheld computers, cell phones, high capacity communications satellites, and many other advancements. But for these drivers and newly opened opportunities, we might still be using black AT&T dial phones for communications and sending telegrams by wire.

There are, of course, constant rumblings that redistribution of wealth amounts to socialism, depending on what definition of socialism suits the critic. Nothing could be further from the truth. Redistribution of wealth is a bold operational strategy for a healthy democracy. It was demonstrated to work admirably well in the years following World War II. Meanwhile, the Titans grumbled, and never lost sight of their objective.

The policy of robust redistribution of wealth continued with Democratic and Republican presidents alike, up to the election of President Ronald Reagan, a likeable romantic, an easy mark for the Titans who still wanted the old ways back. The skids were already greased by a weak preceding administration, with Carter having little success in governing a nation worn down by the Vietnam War and a letdown after the spectacular achievement of placing humans on the moon for the first time. President Carter was probably right in his speech lamenting a national “malaise,” but the fault was largely his. A strong president would never let such a situation like this develop, especially during a period of rapid technological progress.

With President Ronald Reagan in place, the Titans seized their opportunity. Overturning the gov- ernment was out of the question. Instead, they would buy it. No need to buy all of it. Just enough to turn legislation their way. Moreover, the preferred tactic was to preserve some of the populist legislators so the appearance of a give and take atmosphere could be maintained. The tipoff, however, evident to everyone, was the eventual lockstep response to all legislation by Republicans in the Senate. Nothing else explains their reluctance to think for themselves.

But first things first. The era of high taxes on the wealthy would have to come to an end.
THE SELL OUT BEGINS.
Reagan, entering office derisive of what he called “the welfare state,” and a proclaimed champion of small government, felt endeared to promoters of Supply Side Economics, popularly known as “trickle down” economics. Lower the taxes on the wealthy and the money will be reinvested in the economy and it will grow like corn on a warm summer day. Subjectively, administrators knew this doesn’t happen. The wealthy tend to keep their money, to grow ever more wealthy, and in the process become more powerful.

The policy was viewed with scorn by no less an economist than David Galbraith, who recalled that the tactic was employed before, an underlying cause of the panic of 1896. Galbraith’s response was “If you feed the horse more oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.”

Nevertheless, under forceful promotion by David Stockman, Reagan’s Director of Management and Budget, the Kemp-Roth act was finally passed by Congress as the Economic Recovery Act of 1981. It didn’t work. A good measure of how the economy is doing is the increase in Federal debt as a function of GDP, expressed as percentage gain or decrease. With higher taxes, debt/ GDP growth from the Roosevelt/Truman administration through the Carter administration ranged from -24.9% to +.2%. With lowered revenue, debt/GDP increased +20.6 % during the Reagan presidency and another +15% in the George H.W. Bush presidency. It was reversed in Bill Clinton’s administration to -8.% by the end of his two terms, after he had raised taxes. But the buying of the government had gained a foothold. Loosened policies and deregulation saw two eventsthat were harbingers of troubles to come. The Savings and Loan debacle of the 1980’s and early 1990’s involved failure of 747 thrift institutions, which were deregulated by a Congressional act in 1982 and promptly fell into bad financial practices. Resolution cost taxpayers, who ultimately had to bear the cost, over eighty billion dollars. The second event was the stock market crash of October 1987, for which exact an exact cause was never determined, but appeared to be a convergence of events like pending legislation, out of sync trading of stocks and derivatives, changing interest rates, the stock market at a new high, all combining to make the market particularly vulnerable at that moment in time.

The Clinton years appeared to be a time of good growth and prosperity. But people in charge failed to realize, or act on what they must have seen occurring. Alan Greenspan, heading the Fed- eral Reserve, engraved in history forever his comment regarding the “irrational exuberance” of the housing market. He knew what was occurring but did nothing. Greenspan gave high approval to the derivatives market and hedge funds, which produce nothing, but contributed enormously to the near economic collapse at the end of the George W. Bush administration in 2008. It was not that people in charge could say, “We didn’t know.” They knew, and did nothing.
FROM COVERT TO OVERT
The main events reflecting a government takeover began in the final years of the twentieth century. All pretence began to disappear, and bolder acts surfaced. One of the first was the lobbying of Wendy Gramm, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, wife of Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, by Enron, which was seeking exemption from regulation that prevented its trading in derivatives. After granting the exemption, Wendy Gramm resigned and took a lucrative position on the Enron Board of Directors.
Much more sinister and damaging was the last hour insertion into President Clinton’s final budget in 1999 by Senator Phil Gramm (spouse of Wendy), a 254 page amendment that gutted the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. This bill, which served the nation well for nearly seventy years, prohibited commercial banks from collaborating with full service brokerage houses, or participating in investment banking services.
Senator Gramm did not write the amendment by himself. It was a carefully contrived piece of work by experts, bent on reverting the nation to the deregulated pre- 1930’s days.
An incredible stroke of luck occurred with the election of an arguably easily influenced George W. Bush as President to succeed Bill Clinton. Like Reagan, he was an easy mark for supply-side economists, often repeating the mantra: “It’s your money. You know how to spend it better than the government.” With that mindset, and a compliant Congress, President Bush put into place a massive tax cut that was scheduled to run for ten years, which, together with Phil Gramm’s mischief, set the stage for invention of various financial instruments that produce nothing but money for a special few, and began a dramatic reversal of fortune for working classes. One of the worst instruments was the bundling of mortgages into salable securities that were marketed all over the world. A measure of the success of the financial free- for-all was an increase in the number of billionaires in the nation from 234 in the year 2000 to 403 in 2010, while the fortunes of the middle class remained stagnant and even reversed. Percentage growth of debt/GDP was the highest ever at + 27.1%. With lowered revenue, two wars of choice conducted off budget, and the financial system heading toward a self-inflicted train wreck, George W. Bush handed off to President Obama, in the closing months of his administration, a nation in near economic collapse.

THE MAGNIFICENT PROPAGANDA MACHINE
With a Democratic plurality in both the House and the Senate to his benefit as he assumed the Presidency, Barack Obama was able to take certain measures aimed at righting the economic engine, such as the stimulus plan and restoring General Motors from the brink of bankruptcy. But in the face of an intransigent, lock-step Republican caucus in the Senate that could filibuster every move, much of the restoration appeared to be little more than cosmetic. Until the third year in office, little occurred toward restoring the 2.6 million jobs that were lost under the Bush administration. Despite promises made while campaigning, lesser goals were accepted in the interests of compromise with the opposition.
Meantime, an unprecedented effort was underway in the nation, supported by the Titans, to regain possession of the Senate and House of Representatives in the mid- term elections, setting the stage for a wholesale reduction in the role of government as a protector of the people.
The mechanism had its base in the 527 political-action authorization that allowed formation of groups with special interests to pursue political objectives without oversight regarding sponsors or funding. They had great sounding names: “Freedom Works,” chaired by former Texas representative Dick Armey, tireless fighter for lower taxes - backed by the likes of Met Life, Philip Morris and the Scarfe family; “American Crossroads,” headed by Karl Rove and backed by Texas billionaire Trevor Rees Jones; “Americans for Prosperity,” backed by the Koch brothers and Richard Fink of Koch Industries; “Progress for America” operated by Tony Feather, politi- cal director for Bush/Cheney 2000, and backed by the Walton family, inheritors of the Walmart fortune.
The target, common to these and similar pressure groups, was the very large segment of the population that oddly takes pride in claiming to be anti- intellectual, and known to be highly susceptible to simple sloganeering. The mechanism was thousands of gatherings to gull participants with the same story: get the government out of your lives, trim it down, and reduce taxes. Amazingly, they could also be convinced to be supporters of the very wealthy: “If you make it to become very wealthy, more power to you.”
“ ‘No’ to inheritance taxes.” “You already had that income taxed.” They were unmindful that taxed income gets taxed again in many ways through sales, excise, gas, auto license, telephone and other fees, and also unmindful that not one in the crowd was ever likely to leave an inheritance that would be taxed.
“I want my freedom back.” Freedom for what? Contaminated foods? Unsafe aircraft? Closed libraries? Marginal schools? Dangerous drugs? Stifled research and development? Purveyors of this nonsense knew it was nonsense, but they also knew that it works. They were setting the stage for an eventual takeover of the government - achieve one party rule.
These events were not spontaneous. They had to be organized. Participants had to be gathered up and transported to the meetings. They cost money, a lot of money, and that is where the support- ing Titans came in. They could stay in the background and let the PACs do their work for them. With the mid-term election of a Republican majority in the House, bent on reducing the size of the government and lowering taxes, the policy devised by Roosevelt/ Truman—redistribution of wealth as an operating strategy—appeared all but dead.
Two other events seriously tilted the course of history to favor the takeover objectives of the Titans. An organization called “Citizens United,” headed by David Bossie, dedicated to “restoring the US Government to citizen control,” a campaigner for withdrawal of the U.S. from the United Nations, filed a suit with the U.S. Supreme Court, the result of which was that the court ruled that

corporations could spend whatever they desired in advertising to support a candidate for office so long as they did not contribute to the campaign. This egregious ruling heavily weighted future elections to favor and represent not the people, but soulless corporations.
A second ominous event was the highly publicized legislation in Wisconsin, and also taking place in other states, to bust the unions of employees of the state. Success in this assures destruction of the last tree in the forest. There will be no one left to compete with the numerous Republican political action organizations, including the biggest supporter of all, the US Chamber of commerce. With one party rule, and the legislators bought, the campaign is won. The ruling Titans can free-wheel the nation back to the pre-1930’s.
THE LARGER DILEMMA
Even were the administration able to restructure the tax code to heavily tax the rich, and return to the economy the stimulating benefits of redistribution of wealth, there is low prospect of saving the economy by that means alone. An economy based on growth in consumption is bound to end badly somewhere. At some point it will cease to work. Complicating factors now are an increase in world population by a billion every twelve years. The consequent drain on resources signals a need for conservation, intelligent husbandry and attention to improving efficiency. They stand as essential elements for future survival at reasonably comfortable levels.
SUSTAINABILITY - THE NEW ECONOMIC PARADIGM
The materialistic, consumption based philosophy that underpins present national economies, if nothing changes, is destined to eventual failure. Moreover, in continuing to pursue this course humanity is abdicating all responsibility for preserving Earth’s resources for future generations. The concern should be across millennia, not the next one hundred years. Without a drastic change, irreparable damage will likely be done before the 21st Century is over. As the world’s largest consumer of goods and resources, and an outward appearance of enviable prosperity, the United States has in effect set the example for other nations. Included are nations with populations of over a billion people, most aspiring to and shaping their economies to emulate what they envy. Proceeding as they are, it is evident that world demand for energy and resources will grow at an ever accelerating rate and far outstrip availability. The energy problem is solvable. Resources, however, are non-renewable.
Something different must occur that will both ensure fulfilled lives across humanity, and halt
the present race to a dreary and dangerous future. Fate has targeted the greatest consumer, the United States, to take the lead. Failure to do this will result in opinion by other nations: “You are most at fault and doing little. Why should less prosperous, less fortunate nations take up the burden?” On the other hand, defining and adopting a sustainable way of life has the potential of reenergizing a faltering economy, opening vast new opportunities for advancement along many fronts. Among the major issues is energy production, most of which comes from buried deposits of coal, oil, and natural gas, and mixtures such as tar sands and oil- containing shales. Originally found in abundance, the present scenario has already engendered a frantic hunt for more sources, often in extremely difficult circumstances. The reality, however, is that energy is not a problem. Prodigious quantities of methane exist, derived not only from fossils but also dissolved in brines from the original atmosphere in Earth’s formative period. Secondly, we are already blessed with fusion power in the sun. It remains only to harness it in the form of photovoltaic and solar ther- mal installations.
The fossil fuel legacy from the sun is like the principle in an inheritance, which, if wisely man-

aged, can last indefinitely. On the other hand, if one elects to spend it down, life will become difficult and dreary, if not in danger of extinction. Returning secreted carbon to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide will have adverse consequences not yet imagined.
Solar power reaching Earth amounts to about 89,000 terrawatts, whereas world energy consumption is about 15,000 terrawatts. The methods, both terrestrial and space based transmission to Earth are known. The hardware has been invented. Very large scale implementation is possible. Needed are a strategic energy plan, legislation and funding, all of which require a driving convic- tion on the part of legislators, administrators and the population in general.
“Electric America” will witness virtual disappearance of the internal combustion engine. And it should. Electric motors operate at more than twice the efficiency of gasoline engines. The thermodynamic nature of the internal combustion cycle establishes the limit of engine efficiency at a maximum of around 40%. In other words, sixty cents of every dollar spent to fill a tank is thrown away. Biodiesel engines, however, will surge in popularity, powering electric cars on-board.
In the sustainable world deposits of fossil fuels will be mostly restricted to source material for the host of manufacturing processes that yield fabrics, plastics, medicines, and possibly even synthetic foods. They will last as long as humanity survives.
Most of the material wealth that passes through human hands, which originates both in natural deposits and natural growth, ends up in dumps and landfills. The value of ‘junk” is of course recognized and is presently manifested in can, paper and plastic collection, recycling of metals and other recovery industries. The vast majority of the mass, however, is buried or burned. In the sustainable society landfills will be replaced by processing industries that recycle everything that arrives, delivering an assortment of material and hardware back to society. Even the last dregs, neutralized, will be used for paving bicycle paths, walking trails, and an assortment of architec- tural applications.
In a sustainable society, the governing of communities will be subject to new guiding principles that strongly emphasize conservation and efficient operation. Pilot experiments are already underway in small communities. Out of these experiments will be revealed techniques that span water utilization, recycling of materials, energy conservation, sewage processing, as well as en- vironment and living facilities that offer manifold opportunities for healthy, fulfilled lives for all humanity.
CODA
Realistically, adoption of policies that will lead to a sustainable society may not be possible. Humans are the only plundering species. Other species store food, either internally in body fat or externally, for example as honey in beehives, or nuts in tree cavities- but seldom in excess.
With humans, established industries, profit motive, greed, self interest and irresistibility of wielding power may be too strongly entrenched to change, unpersuaded and unpersuadable that a problem exists that merits serious attention. In a perverse way, by its own actions, humanity may be shaping for itself a destiny that mirrors the historical near eradication and /or extinction of other species—passenger pigeons, cod fisheries, buffalo, whales—to name a few, as well as massive environmental shifts that span the Cedars of Lebanon to the Amazon forests, to the Aral Sea, to the leveled coal mountains of West Virginia and many, many more.
.

This article may be copied and distributed, but only in its unabbreviated form. 

COME SPRING

This poem was postedon yourdailypoem.com on February 20. 2016

COME SPRING

by Edward Hujsak


If, my father muttered,
I am still among the living,
Come Spring
we'll plow the far corner
Where the power lines run
And plant barley.
I nodded, knowing the job would be mine,
a bit reluctantly;
Because robins fed there
And nested nearby.

THE HUNTERS

    I'm not too enthralled when Donald Trump announces pridefully to his audiences that his sons are "hunters." He does not say that they are trophy hunters and kill for the fun of it. In my book, it plummets them, and him, into association with the rest of the execrable lot that kills off  Nature''s wonders for sport. 

SINGLE PAYER FUTURE?

       A cruel and costly aspect of Obamacare and concurrently a gift of billions annually to the health insurance companies by Congress and the White House, is allowing insurance companies to issue policies with high deductibles, $2500 or $5000, ostensibly “to lower your monthly payments .” (lower than what?). The direct consequence is that people find themselves  paying for medical treatment out-of-pocket, year after year. Insurance companies bank the entire premiums, year after year.
Bernie Sanders has a solution: Replace Obamacare with Single Payer, or Medicare for all. With smaller monthly payments, consistent with what Medicare patients pay now, Single Payer will pay for itself. Moreover, negotiating drug prices would be a feature not presently in force. The system could be incentivized, whereby people would be eligible for a refund if they took care of their health and didn’t use the system. Everyone wins. as the nation grows healthier. He points to other countries, including Canada, where universal care is provided by the government.
     Hillary Clinton, in contrast, likes Obamacare and recognizes only that its shortcomings, while not defining them, are fixable. Insurance companies, not unexpectedly, will support her candidacy lavishly, as permitted by the Citizen’s United perversion  created by the Supreme Court. 

SUPER WHAT?

Super Bowl Sunday - when  Americans come together for a glorious, embarrassing celebration of the excesses of our culture -  the modern version of a gathering of battling Roman Gladiators, performing not just for a crowded Colosseum, but for an avid audience of tens of millions, cheering their television sets.

JOE BIDEN

       I am beginning to think that the Democratic party is running the wrong candidates. 
       If you line up three possibilities, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden, the only one who looks presidential and has the style, demeanor and experience for the job is Joe Biden. The other two appear too brittle and inexperienced for the job. Hillary has too much baggage that reveal her true allegiances and poor judgment. Bernie, unfortunately, seems doomed to fall due to the reality of bigotry in the country. Electing a Polish Jew from Brooklyn will rub too many the wrong way. 
       On the brighter side, Bernie Sanders  and Elizabeth Warren in the Senate with Biden at the helm could be an unstoppable trio for achieving the changes that both Sanders and Warren are promoting for a more equitable America.

LOVE POEM

As the season of l'amour  is upon us,  some are inspired to compose  poems that are appropriate to the time. This is my contribution, posted on www.yourdailypoem.com on February 4. 2016.

C'est La Guerre  by Edward Hujsak

When “Hi” replaces “Dearest,” I sense the jig is up. Some other chap has claimed your charms. The “Hi” is cover-up. Oh, subtlety in texting, How cleverly you’re used. You leave me obfuscated And thoroughly confused.