#and the three step children ('Hard working contributors to society' or something like that)

[conservativetradlife]

What would you say is the biggest barrier to young women living traditional lifestyles?

Hello Anon!! Thank-you for the thought provoking question. 💕 This is going to end up being a wee bit long, so I will give you a TL;DR about how I feel, but if you want to read, I absolutely encourage you to read past the block to learn more. These are my personal opinions, and in no way reflect how other people feel about this question, but I hope it gives insight regardless.

TL;DR - The long and short of it is, I believe that three big contributors to the Traditional Barrier began with the Stigma for Women who desire a Traditional Lifestyle. The Feminist Movement was the ... kick in the sides the horse needed to get started, but its not the main cause, and its certainly not a negative in modern times, due to how many benefits it had on our Rights, however it placed a lot of pressure on women to choose a briefcase instead of a diaper bag. Finally, and most importantly The High Rates of Inflation has made surviving on a single income as a household complete with all the expenses children bring to the table. Finally, I believe that the general support of a tight knit Community, one we had not fifty years ago is no longer there. With lack of community, comes the lack of the ‘village’ children need to raise them, along with the female emotional support a lot of women need, for the trying job of child rearing makes being Truly Traditional very difficult to authentically uphold.

Thank-you for choosing to read through this, I appreciate it.  💕💕💕 I think that the Feminist Movement has been a big part in generating a barrier for women who strive to live Traditionally. That being said, its less about the blanket of Feminism and more of the expectations that all women should feel the same in regards to what they believe is their vocational role in the world.

There is a Stigma for Women, who choose to live within the Traditional Gender Roles (female the homemaker, the stay at home parent while the male is the main breadwinner, and the wife is respectful to her position at her husbands side.) After all, years of strong feminist women like Susan B Anthony, Emmeline Pankhurst (along with her daughters) and Lucy Stone, struggling through the Women’s Suffrage Movement, and yet despite all the progress, there are those who were happy in the positions they were in. How could someone betray the hard work of these Revolutionaries, by maintaining their stay at home positions? Why not take hold of your general rights, and implement them to be monetarily beneficial to yourself? Many people were under the impression that women as a whole were downtrodden and wanting change, but that obviously wasn’t the way of all women. The pressures to seize your individuality as a woman were overbearing, and it was seemingly an expectation to do so. Women who chose to stay at home were-... A step backward to those who sought to own and implement their own individual rights.

Group Peer Pressure to concede to become Career Women finding careers that would add value to their worth as women (personally, socially and economically) was expected. Rather than finding a good husband, building a home together, a family together and finding worth in being Wives and Mothers, Women were seeking occupations in increasingly competitive fields that had been previously dominated by men, and for some that was what they wanted, but not for everyone. The idea of becoming a Housewife in a Traditional Role beside your husband suddenly was viewed as a negative. Women who had previously grew up doting on their dolls and playing house, were sneered at by their peers who viewed the idea of these Domestic positions as demeaning, or less than someone who chose to be a doctor, a police woman, a scientist etc.

With the Economic Boom, its become a necessary evil for women to balance both, being a mother and being a career woman. Let not forget that its “far more profitable for a woman to purchase formula for her child while she goes to work, rather than stay home to breastfeed.” Most households in North America require more than one income to afford basic living conditions (during the Suffrage Movement in 1916, an annual income from a man would generally be rounded to around $690.00 a year, equaling in today’s economy to around $16,000. Where the median of purchasing a home in 2015 is around $177,600 versus 1916 where it costed around $3200, pretty feasible on what appears to be a small single income) general inflation has made purchasing a home on a single income nearly impossible. It is pretty much necessary to have double income to find somewhere to afford the cost of living, not including children or other expenses. The growth of the economy along with generalized inflation has made it very difficult to afford to be a housewife, and finding a career a must for survival. Some women are forced to work when they would rather be at home raising their family, due to these strict expenses to afford to survive month to month. This is pretty defining barrier for women who wish to be entirely traditional, even with minimalism, even with homesteading or other personal money making means. It’s hard to make rent, or your mortgage. You don’t have much of a choice but to work, and now you don’t have an excuse. 

Traditionalism has become stigmatized, sexualized and looked down upon as an economic burden to society. No matter what position you have, be it as a housewife or a career woman, you will be met with those who find reasons to have problems with it. If you’re a woman who has a rich husband, you’re lazy. If you need to work, and put your children in Daycare, you are a negligent parent. If you manage both, you are spreading yourself too thin, and unable to do both successfully to the best as you’re ‘distracted’ and a liability in the workplace due to unforeseen hazards of having children (getting sick, needing to pick children up from school, having limited hours due to need to be home) and if you manage to be a housewife, you’re a back step to progress. It can be... very discouraging.

In the end, the only Barriers that truly exist when it comes to Traditionalism, are in the Economy. Right now, as much as I want to blame Feminists for pressuring women to become self sufficient, for a lot of us, its unrealistic to be able to afford the dream Lifestyle we want as Homemakers in a Traditional way on a single income unless you have a spouse (or yourself) with a job that hosts an annual salary of a decent amount. Stigma and Judgement can be ignored and brushed off (as so many beautiful women in this community have done but not being able to afford the roof over your head between two people is another thing entirely. Some of us get lucky, but it can be a struggle bus for others. 

I believe that Community has become something truly rare in our modern society. Where before the neighborhood watched out for one another, church groups, play dates between children, at hand baby sitting and additional support in casserole dinners, we now are closed off, distant, and afraid of reaching out to become close to others, be that because of the neighborhood you can afford or a lack of feeling able to identify and socialize with other women. With this lack of community support, I believe a secondary barrier exists in that we feel so disconnected from one another that we are afraid to ask for help (after all, we’re supposed to be Strong Independent Women who can handle anything) and if we were able to do that again? I believe there would be a lot of changes to what is and is not a barrier to managing a Traditional Lifestyle between our sisters.

I hope that answers your question, thank-you for reading, God Bless. 💕

EDIT: I want to say thank-you again really quickly for giving me this question. I know I’m likely to get a lot of flack for mud slinging the Feminist Movement and I want to say now that I don’t vilify Feminism. It has allowed women to have a voice in our country, and have given us a lot of things we take for granted nowadays. That being said, with power comes responsibility, and with responsibility, expectations for everyone. Not all Feminists believe it is a bad thing to be a stay at home mother, a Homemaker, a Traditionalist, but there are those who have very negative toxic opinions of those who want to have those lifestyles. In general the Feminist Movement opened the door for feminine progress into the modern era, but it does come with its thorns.

[keneerike]

The Definition of Patriotism: Anthem Demonstrations and Protests in The NFL

There's been a lot of talk surrounding the NFL demonstrations during pre-game ceremonies this year. A few readers asked if I had an opinion on them, so I'll weigh in.

- On Claims that Protests will Damage NFL Viewership:

Be they for anthem kneeling or anti-demonstration, anyone who claims they'll stop watching the NFL was a fringe fan to begin with. Ratings across digital platforms have never been higher.

If anything more viewers are tuning in to NFL games just to see what all the fuss is about.

It's just like the ratings for The O'Reilly Factor (while Bill was still on Fox News). Half of the people hate him, half love him, but everyone is there to see what he's going to say next.

Controversy will always sell.

How many Americans actually paid attention to the anthem before these protests started last season? Have you ever stood in your living room while the stadium singer belted out The Star Spangled Banner? Most viewers turned the channel knowing they had a few minutes to spare before kickoff.

Americans tune in to watch football, not commercials and political discourse. The game takes center stage---nothing else. As long as that experience remains intact, the league has nothing to fear.

The NFL is so popular that an entire cottage industry has sprung up to cover winter workouts of kids who aren't even in the league yet.

More Americans can name a top draft prospect than one of their state's senators. #Facts

The National Football League is a religion in America. It's not going anywhere.

- On Fan Reactions, "Patriotism", and Hypocrisy:

There's been a lot of condemnation of the players. Calls for them to be sanctioned, fired even, for not saluting the flag during the anthem.

"Firing" an NFL player, even if it were possible, makes no sense for owners. Not for something as inconsequential as a silent protest during pre-game activities. You can't just walk out on the street and find 220-lb guys who can tackle and run like these guys do.

The skills of a professional athlete are among the rarest and most valuable in our society. There's a reason they're paid so handsomely.

And before you mention "loss of sponsorship" as a reason to discard a kneeling player, remember that NFL games are routinely the most popular television program every week. If one company pulls its sponsorship in response to a vocal minority, there are ten other companies ready to slide in to that slot yesterday.

How else can you convince world-renowned performers to PAY the NFL for the right to perform during the Super Bowl? The audience for marquee NFL events is unparalleled.

The First Amendment grants them the right to kneel, just as it gives you the right to disparage them for doing so.

Of course, we all bear costs for what we do. If you engage in controversial activity, expect to deal with the fallout. Americans who jump on protest bandwagons may find that out the hard way.

A common response to players doing something fans don't like is to burn the "offending" player's jersey. Send a message to both the player and the team.

It's an irrational act, really, from fan(atic)s too wrapped up in their own self-importance.

Burning jerseys doesn't harm the team. They've already got your money from the sale; you're just slashing your nose to spite your face.

You may hurt the feelings of the player, but aren't you better than that? Did he personally do anything to harm you? Let hiim live his life---he doesn't owe you anything beyond a full effort on the field and being a decent human being off of it.

Your pyrotechnics are hypocritical as well. You're running with your First Amendment privileges to burn a player's uniform in effigy because he exercised his rights. Yet, you'd turn around and deny someone else that same accommodation because it doesn't jibe with your beliefs.

Euphemisms like "safe spaces" have been shoehorned into 21st Century lexicons to impose policial correctness and suppress free expression of ideas.That's a growing problem in America---we support free speech: as long as we agree with what you have to say.

Should you be fired from your job because your boss discovers you watch MSNBC or Fox News after hours? If you can do the job, you can do the job. To the extent that your views do not cost your organization money, you should be free to live your life outside the office as you see fit.

- On Trump Commenting on NFL Players and Demonstrations:

It's beneath the office of president to comment on these matters with such fervor. Calling for player finings, bucking long-standing tradition by disinviting championship teams expressing conflicting opinions; it's undignified.

Like many hypocrites---on both sides of the aisle---he's castigating demonstrators for availing themselves of the same rights he so freely enjoys himself.

Histrionics aside, Trump remains the favorite to win the 2020 election.

And that's not because of any landmark accomplishments in his first year in office; The other team still hasn't learned its lesson.

Besides the natural advantages of being an incumbent---united party resources behind you, no primary competition, national inertia---the same factors that kept Hillary Clinton from winning last year remain unaddressed.

Democrats are still blaming Russian boogeymen and a flawed political system for the 2016 loss instead of looking in the mirror. Finger pointing, unfounded claims of racism, and a seemingly-never ending chorus of complaining turned American voters off. The average white bread American voter doesn't want to be branded a racist or sexist without cause.

In an environment with a swelling tide of disenfranchised, disatisfied voters, a candidate free from the stains of "go-along-get-along" establishment politics had a real chance to win. Paired with the kind of name recognition he brought to the table, Donald Trump's campaign platform was one poised to upset the apple cart.

Believing she had enough electoral votes wrapped up, Clinton didn't even bother to visit some of the swing states. Her arrogance gave Trump the opening he needed to seize the oval office and he didn't waste the opportunity.

- On The Efficacy of NFL Demonstrations: Are We Making Any Progress?:

Like many protest movements, this one is long on ceremonial acts and short on plausible solutions.

The only way to wound the NFL is to stop buying tickets and merchandise, tuning in to games, and watching highlights on Youtube. That's how they make their money.

Sports betting brings in the dollars as well, an open secret the NFL prefers to shove under the rug.

The farce that is "amateurism" is also a major contributor. It's a low-cost feeder system for professional sports leagues and lines the pockets of many in and around the NFL.

If you want to break the NFL, these are the pillars you have to attack.

Good luck with that.

Let's explore the ethos behind this particular protest movement...

Shouldn't more people be asking whether boycotting the NFL because of racial iniquities or Colin Kaepernick not having a job is even a reasonable response? Will that actually strike a blow for civil rights or are people fooling themselves?

NFL rosters are nearly seventy percent black, most of whom epitomize the work ethic and dedication to excellence we tell our children to look up to. The rank-and-file is closer in stature to blue collar guys hustling in a 9-to-5 than those mythical 1%-ers people love to hate. Wouldn't boycotting league activities hurt them, too? Are those the wallets we want to lighten?

Too much demagoguery, not enough critical thinking.

The problem with this anthem movement, like most demonstrations, is that the players have no specific stated goal. "Awareness" is not precise enough, nor is "starting a conversation". Only the most dyed-in-the-wool bigots deny racism exists. Awareness is overrated. Problems don't get solved without actionable solutions and the first step to meeting a goal is defining the target.

Open discourse helps. Shaming people in to silence does not. Activists are too quick to dismiss detractors as racists, instead of encouraging an exchange of ideas. All intellectual-dishonesty does is stunt progress. We will not get anywhere if people are afraid to speak up.

If the goal of the anthem movement is to "eliminate racism completely", well, we can stop right there. 

As long as we live in an imperfect world, we will have imperfect people. We can chip away at the iniquities, enlightening the uninformed and ushering in a continous wave of understanding and accountability. The civil rights heroes of the pasts set an example of what can be accomplished with dedication, personal accountability, and a well-executed plan of action. Substantial progress was achieved and we no longer live in a country with government-sanctioned  discrimination and overt violent racial hostility.

Alas, the cognitive biases that lead people to lie, cheat, and steal beget sin against one's fellow man. Racism, sexism, ageism.....you can't legislate behavior. Humans are flawed and absent everyone deciding to drop their prejudices and be born anew, those behaviors aren't going away.

Sorry.

"We just want to start a dialogue."

Ok. And then what? We've been talking about racism since we landed a man on the moon.Talk is cheap.

Here are three steps to designing a protest movement that can stick....

1) You've got to identify specific problems, point out specific instances of wrongs. 

And don't selectively edit evidence to fit a narrative. Lay out all appropriate information and allow reasonable minds to come to a conclusion.

2) Then, out the bad actors. All of them, not just the ones who fit certain stereotypes.

Political correctness has to be checked at the door.

3) Parcel out blame. 

Who did what? Why? What could have been done by everyone involved to prevent this?

Learn more about designing effective protest movements here:

http://justtaptheglass.com/post/109205123403/slacktivism

Complaints of police brutality? I covered that here. 

When you're in the crosshairs, the best course of action is to be polite, yet firm. Know your rights and comply with lawful orders. You don't have to kiss the ring---as a civilian, the cops work for you, not other way around---but that's no reason to act up. Treat people the way you want to be treated. Many cops are decent enough, just wanting to do their jobs and go home. Minimize the hassle and you might catch a break.

It's not a rite of passage to square off with a cop, impugning his authority every step of the way, no matter how many selectively-edited videos you see on the news. What we see and hear renders lasting impact on how we think, instilling normative cues that determine how we interact with the world around us.  

This is another reason why consuming too much of the wrong media is a real threat to our society, much more than NFL players kneeling during the anthem or the contents of some politician's email server.

That's a cause we can all get behind. 

Too many knuckleheads double-down on idiocy, turning what would have been a minor infraction into a life-altering "this-could-get-me-fired" encounter.

If I learned anything from Road Rash, it's to make sure you can get away if you flee a traffic stop.

Treat police interactions like a flu shot: Hold still while the needle is in; endure the temporary pinch of pain; move on. Wriggling your arm during the injection can inflict serious damage.

Too many people antagonize the police, mouthing off to officers or flaunting their authority, as though their auditioning for internet fame. They think they can say and do whatever they want with no repercussions, as though free speech grants license to be a jerk.

All these political issues....we'd be better off spending time working on our own lives rather than fighting about some issue of middling importance. How much does some dude sitting on a sideline actually affect your daily life? Or what some politician says about [insert your favorite controversial hot potato] to rile up his fan base? Is publishing another angry comment on the internet going to solve the problem?

We fill the emptiness in our lives with television, or music, or fretting over the latest news to hit our feed. When we turn our attention inward, the silence can be deafening. Many of us struggle being alone with our thoughts, so we fill that space with media, controlled by entities who are all too ready to control that real estate.

This is what a mind without boundaries and direction looks like.

You can make a ton of headway if you behave rationally in a world increasingly-designed to distract, addict, and disorient. Know when to expend effort on issues that really matter and when to hit the "off" button.

[darbiblog-blog]

Can data predict fashion trends?

New Post has been published on https://darbi.org/can-data-predict-fashion-trends/

Can data predict fashion trends?

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

Impact of Fast Fashion on Society

hot fashion models

Japanese fashion models

best new fashion models

Fast style refers back to the garb which makes its manner immediately from the catwalk to the shop. Many leading clothier brands inclusive of H&M, Zara and pioneer 21 have shifted to this mass productivity way of life. Further, the quick reaction approach and extended efficiency of the delivery chain have helped clients last up to date with the latest traits in fashion technology. However, the garb enterprise suffers from a few essential drawbacks, including its huge percentage inside the surroundings footprint.

According to Fisher, the CEO of Fisher 21, “style industry is the second one largest surroundings polluter after oil wells”. In the United Kingdom, each year around 35 tonnes of clothes is dumped in landfills most of them are crafted from nylon and polyester which are non-bio degradable in nature. 90% of the apparel is imported in the United States and the massive scale transportation is met via the usage of low-grade bunker gas pushed ships which emit toxic nitrous oxide and is a first-rate contributor to the greenhouse impact.

The other trouble consists of destructive workmanship where people are subjected to bad running situations made to paintings on minimal wages because of lack of itemization of hard work costs.

The children working in the Rana plaza manufacturing facility said they were made to work all day long with out a periods in among and were paid less than a dollar an afternoon. When requested for rest and a break day due to illness they have been crushed seriously and struck oilcloth of their mouths as a result of which lots of them fell unwell and died.

The story of pregnant girls become no extraordinary they were not given maternity depart and had been continuously threatened with the aid of abortion if they didn’t do their paintings.

Apart from the shoddy workmanship fast fashion had a main effect at the designers of the world. On being asked about what he feels about rapid fashion enterprise, Shivam a fashion fashion designer from France answered:” Fast style has made us no higher than the salesman, designers haven’t any room for creativity, they need to copy designs from the other brands, because there is continually a pressure from the marketing heads.”

One big step to sustainable style might be to unlearn that style democratizes style and has a position to play in international capitalism. The fast style might hit the roadblock with increasing patron awareness of its dangerous effects, the significance given to the word “who made our garments” and inspiring the reuse of vintage garments either by means of promoting or by way of donating to the needy.

Our clothes are so cheap that to raise wages, and therefore, fees might improve the lives of developing global employees however for this, we need to spend something from our wallets. Shops and vendors, as well as the federal government, need to attempt to implement certain primary worker and environmental protections in the course of the whole period of the delivery chains, anyplace in the global these may make bigger.

Application of strict labor legal guidelines making sure proper running conditions pay prices, academic and fitness services given to workers trend micro account log in.

There ought to be a provision of recreation and appropriate resting intervals between running hours, the establishment of rehabilitation applications and everyday inspection with the aid of authorities officials of the operating situations of the manufacturing facility. Stopping the “unauthorized manufacturing,” in which a contractor sub-contracts manufacturing to an unauthorized manufacturing facility, probably one that fails to meet across the world diagnosed or maybe agency-required hard work, manufacturing, or building standards.

Is It Easier To Predict Volcanoes Or Earthquakes?

It seems that in current years some of the most severe hazards have taken location. Their vast destructiveness is going hand in hand with the struggling of the human beings involved. Many folks will ask us why such disasters could not be prevented in times of modern-day generation and high medical realize how. But like climate, volcanoes or earthquakes can’t be prompted via the human intelligence. Life could not be existence if we could manage everything, despite the fact that it’s miles hard to comprehend why those horrible matters do happen.

I even have written this newsletter to provide an fashion trends explanation for a bit about predict the character of volcanoes and earthquakes.

Especially volcanic eruptions and earthquakes are devastating herbal hazards which can be each difficult to expect and difficult to respond to hot new fashion models.

However, examples like Montserrat, Mount St. Helens, Heimaey, the San Francisco earthquake and the Mexican earthquake illustrate the variations in phrases of predicting and responding to those risks.

Volcanic eruptions are simpler to expect than earthquakes, as minor earthquakes are often the primary ‘signal’ of a following volcanic eruption. The instance of Mount St. Helens underlines this, as first indicators of a coming volcanic eruption will be observed already three months before the actual eruption. These signals can be both minor earthquakes or even gasoline manufacturing in a volcano shows that it’s far ‘active.’

Earthquakes are harder to predict as they occur without any caution or with brief notice. However, each earthquake and volcanoes may be monitored and located via seismographs, tilt meters, lasers, GPS, and commentary. Furthermore, some animals like catfishes can be used to are expecting them as they’re very sensitive. It is likewise possible to create danger maps as a prediction for volcanic eruptions. These are based on preceding eruptions and near observations predictz today prediction.

The example of Heimaey in Iceland shows that volcanoes also can arise all at once. It erupted without any previous signs on January 23rd, 1973. In this situation, there were handiest 24 hours of adolescent tremors earlier than a four hundred meter fissure spread out to pour out lava. The Heimaey is most effective one example in which a volcanic eruption passed off without previous caution. Other examples like Mount St. Helens and Montserrat show that volcanic eruptions are usually easy to are expecting. Mount St. Helens, for example, ended in the biggest landslide in recorded records with a velocity of 70 to 150 miles per hour. But due to terrific preparedness most effective fifty-seven human beings died. This indicates that early warning consequences in less complicated and more correct prediction.

trend micro download reinstall

trend micro my account page

trend micro installation instructions

[notyouraveragearchitect-blog]

HOW TO REALLY ‘MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN’

An Economic Plan Rebuttal to the Trump Syndrome.

If you’re not a supremacist, or a hater of anything that strays from the strictest version of Patriarchal society, or you don’t have an economic annual value over $1 million, and you supported Donald Trump for President, I want to say, I feel your pain.  Although I am technically thrown into the societal basket of privileged white males, I live every day in fear of being one bad medical mishap away from economic ruin. I am a self-identified progressive that consciously moved my family to the bleeding edge Bay Area of CA, but my roots are firmly in the rural cornfield lands I like to call the ‘eastern-most edge of the Midwest’; the snowbelt area of southern Buffalo, NY.  The mindset is conservative and the economic boon of the auto and steel industry have long since seen the area slowly bled of its vitality and hope.  Even so, it has taken me a while to wrap my head around the feeling of economic despair facing white middle America.  The Trump Syndrome rocked my word and many in my world.  The shock of electing possibly the least caring person I could think of living within the United States left scars that may never fully heal.  But because so many people in my life have closed one eye to the horrors of his character, I knew there had to be something real there; something much deeper.  It was only through placing myself firmly in their shoes; shoes I too could have worn if I remained in Buffalo, was I able to finally get it.  

At one point not long ago, a man [as was typically the case back then] could find a job working in the Bethlehem Steel Mill or the Ford Stamping Plant with or without a college degree, earn a pay check, buy a house, buy a car, raise a family, and have a pension with security for the future.  The money spent by these upwardly mobile middle class workers powered the entire economic region.  Those jobs are mostly gone now. This is not a new phenomenon as the slow bleed has been happening for many decades and is well documented.  What’s new is that the level of despair and the feeling of not being heard or helped has finally come to a head.  The cost of housing, daycare, college education for children, health insurance, etc is pushing even modest dual-income families to the brink of what’s physically possible.  Stepping backward from middle income into the poverty level is demoralizing and creating a universal feeling of failure amongst working white families, in particular white men.  Democrats have fought the hardest for the middle class, but have focused their empathies on minorities and the poor at the perceived expense of middle America whites; which made it easier for conservatives to place the blame on them for that demographics’ economic woes.

The economic revival of the Bill Clinton era was undercut by one major slice of the NAFTA lawn sickle. At the same time, the powerful auto workers’ unions dug in their heels on innovative changes to preserve the generous negotiated pension plans.  The rallying cry became ‘If it ain’t broke, why fix it?’  And thus the barn door was swung open for Japanese and other auto makers to take the reigns as leaders in auto innovation and performance.  Whether or not globalization was upon us because of declining belief in American goods or because of the NAFTA agreement was almost irrelevant.  It became the scapegoat for all the ills of the manufacturing industry, and Democrats were squarely to blame.  The actual truth behind the blame played second fiddle to the perceived lack of compassion by the Democrats to the cries of the middle America whites.  The real issue is the direct link between a family’s pocketbook and the feeling of self-worth as a human being by the bread winner. Although it was always clear to me the Democrats cared more about the middle class, they never were able to articulate and fight for a real economic strategy for bringing back those types of jobs. Until Obama.

The feeling of hope and change in the Obama era faltered for many reasons. Ushering in of this era scared the crap out of conservatives.  The vision was strong, well-articulated, and with the economic meltdown at the hands of the Bush administration, there was fear that a second New Deal would crush the Reagan conservative agenda for decades to come.  To remain politically viable, they had no choice but to clear cut and intentionally dismantle all signs of hope through obstruction of each and every Obama initiative.  Coupled with the relentless Fox News negativity campaign, which is the primary news source of middle America, the slash and burn approach by conservatives worked. Obama, the great compromiser, overestimated the goodness of conservatives and squandered a second New Deal vision for a watered down ‘shovel ready project’ version.  The New Deal built schools all across the country, dams, bridges, tunnels, and had long term lasting impacts on communities through social good.  What was left across the country were physical built reminders of the ‘greatness’ of American achievement. A reminder of the jobs that were created and the pride that came from those built structures.  For the sake of expediency and compromise, the Great Recession recovery left no such lasting mark on the landscape.  Fixing roads and bridges puts people to work and saved our country from economic ruin, but there were no prideful physical remnants.  Obama saved our country, there is no doubt, but did not fight hard enough, did not push back on conservative obstruction soon enough, and did not stick with the real long term projects that would have set us up for the next 30 years of economic growth. Even the achievement of Obamacare fell short of a truly revolutionary vision.  Instead of providing health care for all through a single-payer plan similar to the well liked Medicare plan, Obama early in the negotiations scrapped that plan as a way of getting conservatives on board.  In the end, none of them came on board and the resulting watered down version left profit-driven insurance companies still in charge our nation’s health care system.  We are still the only major first world country left with millions of citizens without health insurance.  Now, it’s easy prey for conservative dismantling and is one of the largest contributors to the Trump Syndrome through incessant Fox News negativity.

The Trump Syndrome is a direct byproduct of the economic hopelessness felt by white middle America, and the relief that a candidate was finally feeling their pain and offering a vociferous vision defending them. Unfortunately, the current regime is motivated by two basic creeds, money and power. The economic principals being implemented will give the economy a short term shot in the arm, but will ultimately fail the entire middle class, will further enrich and empower the top 1 percent, and send our country into another recession.  The primary reasons are simple. Tax cuts for the wealthy results in greater wealth disparity, more money being hoarded in tax shelters, and less money in the hands of the middle class.  Giving more money to ‘job creators’ does not create more demand for products or goods. Putting more money in the hands of the middle class and the poor is the only way to create more demand. Most importantly, the current regime has no vision for HOW to create new sustained jobs for the future. Like Obama, infrastructure projects like fixing roads and bridges create jobs, but once the 'fixing’ is done, those jobs go away.  So, the result is a short term bump, and a long term bust.  It’s the equivalent of a 5-Hour energy drink for our country for short term political gain with no thought for what happens after 5 hours. It also takes years to undo the ill advised policies that were put in place. What’s needed is a new long term New Deal-like vision, and so far progressives are the only ones embracing the visions I’ve summarized below.  All that’s needed is the right orator to sell the deal to the American people.

Although high tech, real estate, and other sectors have powered much of the current urban economic boom, these jobs require highly skilled, educated individuals. So the economic benefits of the recovery has been focused outside the rural areas. What’s really needed are good paying jobs that tradesmen type workers can get for the next 30+ years to power an entire generation of people into the middle class.   These jobs do not necessarily require 4 year college degrees to perform successfully. We need industries that transform our country and produce downstream ripple benefits for other investments and other industries.  

There needs to be a three pronged approach to the future growth of our country:  1. a new country-wide high speed rail infrastructure [which should be coupled with the electric grid upgrade]  2. an all-in approach on renewable energies  and 3. return to belief in sound science and investment in technology.

The auto and oil industry lobbyists have dominated congress for decades. Every politician that mentions high speed rail gets slammed by naysayers who claim it needs to be economically ‘viable’.  What they mean is that the dollars generated by passengers needs to cover all costs including construction, operation and ongoing maintenance. This assertion is ludicrous. There are millions of miles of highways and roads across our country, yet only a handful of select toll roads are actually economically self-sufficient. The remainder are 100% taxpayer subsidized. When the highways were built, there was an enormous infrastructure investment by the government, which spurred decades of secondary economic growth and private sector profits. But it took a vision and courage by Eisenhower to sell it, and faith and hard work by the American people to make it happen. Once the roads were built, real estate speculators and developers bought up land which created new wealth, towns were constructed around the highways which created millions of jobs, and entire new industries [like trucking and delivery services] became feasible.  Our country did the same with airports.  It’s time for high speed rail. Studies have shown each dollar in infrastructure spending results in $10 of private sector wealth. High speed rail lines can run between urban centers, reduce airport congestion by reducing flights between cities 2-5 highway hours apart, create millions of new high paying construction jobs across the country, spur in new real estate market growth at rail stations, reduce highway congestion and pollution, rail cars can be built here in the US, and result in generations of construction in new walkable communities within ½ mile of stations. The country also needs an upgrade to the power grid. The new train lines are electric and ideal locations to couple with a new electric grid upgrade. Because of auto and oil industry lobbyists and conservative obstruction, our country has missed this opportunity and our middle American workers desperately need this vision to get them back to work. 

Regardless whether our leaders are science deniers, the rest of the world is not.  This wave of green technology and renewable energies technologies is well under way in every country of the world.  Except the US. Even if our leaders don’t believe man effects the temperature of our planet, it’s imperative for the economic future of our country that we get on board and start to become a leader in innovation and technologies around these ideals.  We’ve spent the last 30 years fighting wars because we lacked control of our energy sources and we’re about to shoot ourselves in the foot again because we’ll be buying our energy products from China and other countries just so we can compete.  If their energy sources are built, renewable, and cheap, our manufacturers will be at a significant disadvantage. They will crush us economically in the world marketplace. Our leaders need to lead to a new future, not fight to go backwards to coal and oil and fracking.  The first countries to discover cheap new innovative ways to harness energy will be the ones that benefit the most financially from those inventions. The US has never backed away from a challenge, and yet the Trump Syndrome has put us potentially four or more years backwards into the past. 

Because most major economic booms start with government investment [i.e. the internet, biomedical engineering, robotics, satellites, air travel, high speed rail, aerospace industry etc] we need to double down on science and technology investment. Like infrastructure projects, [even if only 1 in 10 dollars lead to new innovations] the economic return on those successful innovations is enormous to not only our economy, but to our societal and potential health benefits. This is the obvious reason why investment is the key to our future. We can’t let conservatives that bash government investments that don’t work out [like Solyndra] thwart the progress of investment in our future.  This is imperative to ensure the United States remains at the forefront of ALL new world discoveries.  Giving this edge away to another country, like the current regime is doing, is the first step in the demise of the US as a world leader. 

To make this vision happen, all citizens must reject every aspect of the Trump Syndrome that puts the US at risk for losing its status as an economic leader.  We must rally around a progressive candidate that fights for where the US can be in the future with new and innovative ideas and not someone that clings onto old technologies to maximize their own personal profits. And we must focus on a financial vision that benefits urban AND rural America so we can finally rally our entire country behind a common cause again that doesn’t involve a war.

������ǁ��M��