This is the second post in this new format (see the first):
1. The Fundamentalists Really Don't Like Me. (8/12/16)
My new apartment complex assigns parking spots. My number? 666. No, I'm not the Anti-Christ, although some of my social media adversaries will claim they've known it all the time...
2. The Cable Monopolists Act Like the Government Monopoly. (8/12/16)
Keep in mind that the government is responsible for its manipulation of the cable industry, in particular, exclusive franchises and/or regulations that impede new competition (e.g., forcing them to carry "public access"/unpopular/high cost content), corrupt politics as its core, crony capitalism.
I've had my share of customer issues with cable companies over the years. There are insane contracts where you might be forced to pay termination fees, even if you have to move, like I have 3 times since 2013 for work reasons. I'm all for voluntary contracts, but when you have to move out of their coverage areas, it's basically unjust. I know when I moved to SC to take a position on an expiring federal contract, I didn't even take a full year's lease and communicated the same to my cable company. No discussion of a termination fee at the time, but when I left, I was told that I hadn't stayed long enough to avert a termination fee.
Now there's the infamous scheduling for the cable installer; I'm not even a handyman, but there's not that much to setting up the cable and Internet off a coaxial cable connection. Just leave me a kit and some basic instructions. Ironically the SC vendor was actually good about this; I had a kit waiting for me when I moved into the company, and I was up and running in less than a half hour--without having to take time off work.
Now one of my pet peeves with vendors is those who insist that you identify your account number--even just for the privilege of talking to them. These are arcane numbers are usually some seemingly random collection of some alphanumeric string of characters. I personally don't care what these Procrustean items are; they serve totally for the convenience of their own systems. Oh, they'll try to convince you the hoops you have to jump through to get support you've paid for are for our own protection and benefit.
There's just something beyond annoying about this current incident. It is to the benefit of the cable company for the customer to go paperless, to enroll in automatic payment, etc., from the start. But it turns out for the "privilege" to do so, one has to supply a customer code. Where does this customer code come from? Can you access it from your cable website account? No. It's located on your bill. But I'm a new customer without an invoice. How can I find it? Call customer service.
I call using my cellphone. The customer agent insists that he can't help me because I'm calling from my unaffiliated cellphone; I need to call from my digital cable number. I haven't connected a phone to my digital call line yet. "Sorry, I can't help you then." This type of bureaucratic extortion and arrogance is completely unacceptable. I'm not going to jump through hoops to help them control costs.
3. Trump, Social Media, and Family (8/13/16)
I am not going to rant extensively on Trump here; I've probably written over a thousand anti-Trump tweets and/or blog post segments. There has never been a single moment that I've been undecided or favorably disposed to a Trump candidacy. It goes beyond the fact of 4 business bankruptcies caused by taking on high-interest debt; Trump is not responsible for the general economy, but he did control how much debt/risk he would take, especially in a competitive industry like gambling (casino-hotels), where regional states like Maryland wanted a piece of the action.
You can argue that Trump's program of mercantilism/protectionism and infrastructure development is consistent with the American System espoused, in part, by Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, and others, championed by the Federalists and Whigs through the GOP. In fact, Lincoln was a pro-tariff protectionist. But the GOP has transitioned to a more supply-side economic perspective since the more libertarian Reagan Administration; in fact, manufacturers, who realize 95% of global consumers live outside the US and realize that economies of scale are possible with a more diversified consumer base, oppose the anti-market/protectionist policies of Trump; they have openly supported TPP and TTIP. Why would they oppose Trump's protectionist vision if they thought it was good for business? The 1930's Smoot-Harley tariffs sparked a global trade war and exacerbated the Depression.
I have also been repulsed by Trump's threats against American companies like Ford, Carrier, and Nabisco for foreign operations. The fact is that global competition makes efficient production necessary; Detroit's labor costs make its products increasingly noncompetitive. In many cases, Detroit can compete by technological improvements, e.g., increased reliance on robotics. Nabisco is forced to pay above global market prices for sugar because of pro-domestic producer policies; it can cut costs simply by shifting production to non-protectionist countries, holding other factors constant. Carrier's products use parts which have foreign suppliers offering lower prices; American part suppliers oppose competition which threatens their profit margins. In the latter cases, the issue has more to do with corrupt, dysfunctional government policy. Instead of addressing counterproductive government policy (say, by allowing Carrier and Nabisco to source materials and components available from more cost-competitive international suppliers), Trump espouses an anti-market policy, manipulated by the political influence by corrupt local suppliers. He's trying to convince workers that he can force manufacturers to offer high-cost jobs; first, as President, he has no authority to unilaterally hike tariffs, to ignore laws allowing arbitration of international trade disputes or to compel corporate business capital investment decisions; second, companies are responding to competitive challenges in their own industries, something no President is competent to judge or regulate.
I've also been repelled by Trump's signature anti-immigration stand. I have regarded the last century of immigration restrictions as not only counterproductive, economically illiterate policy, but in fact it has had a negative effect on economic growth. Illegal immigration has, in fact, declined since 2007, and part of the reason that immigration policy has failed has been to dysfunctional government immigration policy which makes legal visiting worker migration all but impossible to get and delays family reunions. As someone who went to high school and college (all 4 degrees) with Latinos in Texas, Trump's inflammatory reference to Mexico dumping criminals and rapists over the border is not only factually false and unsupported but xenophobic in nature. This was just 3 years after Trump blamed Romney's loss to Obama on Romney's "cruel" self-deportation policy. Trump's policy of forced deportation of over 11 million undocumented aliens is even more morally repulsive and ultra-expensive.
As someone pro-liberty, I see Trump's anti-trade and anti-immigration policies as not only morally outrageous and economically counterproductive but counter to GOP policy over the last 4 decades or longer. In many respects, Trump is pandering to similar constituencies as Clinton, e.g., blue-collar labor. Totally gone is the small-government Tea Party revolt. Trump doesn't want to empower individuals or businesses; the issue, in his view, is not with Big Government but its leadership--namely, it's not him. He's not talking about entitlement reform; he's talking tax cuts but DoD and other increases. He's talked about sacrificing privacy rights (the Apple controversy), bombing families of alleged terrorists, the benefits of eminent domain.
I have to admit that I suffer no fools gladly, I don't go trolling for Trumpkins on Twitter, Youtube or Facebook. I follow a few sources like Trumpbart (a satirical account) which replies to a number of Trumpkin tweets and sometimes I'm just exasperated with a clueless Trump or Clinton supporter's tweet and will bluntly respond. And the cultists often respond with personal insults (my weight is a common topic) and/or abusive language. I've occasionally responded in kind with rough language (retard, bastard, idiot, SOB, often aimed at Trump himself). The hypocritical Trumpkins will cry foul (do you recall Trump's self-righteous indignation at somebody else's language. I've embedded a reminder compilation below. I am not an advocate of rough language but I'm trying to make a point to Trumpkins, who cheer on the Donald's bad boy behavior but when others return fire suddenly become self-appointed critics on the use of language. Usually though, I'm more interested in debating policy. I'm not motivated to go after Trumpkins, but I've had Trumpkins refuse to let me have the last word, and there's usually a wolf pack after me, liking each others' insulting tweets. Sometimes the tweet wars end up attracting up to 1000 or so impressions. There have been a couple over the past month, not the way I want to build an audience. I have a modest follower base on Twitter, attracting 30-39 followers. I've occasionally pointed out during the Twitter wars that they are spending a lot of attention on someone with only a few dozen followers. But as I said, I don't go looking for trolls. They'll often be triggered by one of my anti-Trump tweets. I'm rapidly growing more irritated by those who accuse me of being a shill for Hillary Clinton.
As for family, it's difficult to say because my 6 younger siblings almost never discuss politics. My Mom is more anti-Clinton than pro-Trump, but I've told my relatives if they're pro-Trump, I don't want to hear it. I suspect most are probably more conservative; some of my in-laws also grew up in military families or are social conservatives; one of my sisters was in a GOP wives' group. One of my nephews has posted a couple of anti-Trump Facebook posts. But it was one of my nieces with ambivalent feelings on Trump who posted a critical article on Trump and then a more favorable one. (She doesn't like Trump but is repulsed even more by Clinton.) I wrote a sharply worded criticism of the latter. Somehow her husband, an anti-abortion abolitionist, commented back that he (like I) had originally backed Rand Paul, but Clinton in the White House was totally unacceptable. I'm of the opinion Clinton is a problem but a controllable risk like Obama that a united GOP could thwart. Trump, on the other hand, was an unprincipled, impulsive authoritarian who could and would endanger the US with trade wars and destabilize global hotspots. The time to think about Clinton was in the primary when Clinton was regularly beating Trump in the polls. His 70% unfavorable rating makes him virtually unelectable. That thread didn't go beyond a single exchange, and I didn't want to cause an issue with my niece's family. But, yes, Trump is splitting families.
