My Letter to the President

         To the surprise of no one and the chagrin of my girlfriend, I wrote a letter to the President.  That's right, I performed my patriotic duty and made my voice heard by mailing a letter.  Though I don't expect a response, I thought I'd share what I sent him here"

Dear Mr. President, 

 

I hope this letter finds you in good health.  You are no doubt aware our country is facing a time of extreme crisis and a need for direction.  Our people are very divided and that only seems to be getting worse by the day.  It is time for bold direction and a President to reach across the aisle to support legislation all Americans can get behind.  For that, I am asking you to reinstate former President George H.W. Bush’s ban on Broccoli from the White House. 

 

As you may know, your predecessor banned Broccoli from the White House and Air Force One in March of 1990.  The decision was well met by school children whose mothers had forced them to eat their greens and had shown solidarity with them and the many others who rightfully hate the awful vegetable but are too scared to admit it.  I believe if you bring back the ban, you will touch those same Americans again and show solidarity with the public.

 

For far too long the vegetative menace has haunted this great nation from the coast to coast.  It can be found in grocery stores, schools, local farmers markets, and anywhere our nation’s nutrition can be found.  It hides in the shadows, waiting for the opportunity to ruin any good meal.  People may have tried to mask its fowl taste by drowning it in cheese, but no amount of dairy can protect us from its spread. 

 

This is an excellent opportunity for you to take decisive action and show the American people where you stand on this important issue.  Remember that President Bush was a Republican and you are a Democrat so this is a perfect chance to show bipartisanship and unity.  In addition, it will show your respect for the office by bringing back a policy from your predecessor. 

 

I have full confidence that you will make the right decision and take this crucial action.  For far too long, the party has allowed this menace to ravage our society and it is finally time to defeat it.  If you do not take this, school lunches will be ruined forever and no shopper will be able to get groceries without the green terror lurking.  So I ask you on behalf of my friends and family, ban Broccoli from the White House and make this nation proud.

 

 

        Yes, I seriously mailed this to the President.  No, this isn't an April Fool's Day joke.  Just thought you all might enjoy.

Do Democrats Still Care About Unions?

        Unsurprisingly, unions played a role in the victory of President of Joe Biden.  In addition to receiving many union endorsements, union households voted over 60% in the swing states of Wisconsin and Michigan.  Likewise, it was revealed by a Time article that union collaboration with big business played a part in making sure their members supported Biden’s election.  In spite of this, some of Biden's first actions as president eliminated union jobs.

        In the first week of his Presidency, Joe Biden killed the Keystone XL Pipeline which destroyed 11,000 jobs, 8,000 of which would have gone to union workers.  This unsurprisingly got condemnation from unions such as LUINA, the Pipe Fitters, and the AFL-CIO.  Of course, Biden and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg assured green jobs (that do not yet and may not exist) will replace those jobs, but since large portions of green tech are made in China, this could likely increase jobs instead for non-unionized foreign labor than American unions.

        This is hardly the only evidence though that the Biden administration might be turning on unions.  Plenty of his current policy positions have come out against union interests.  Further evidence suggests the Democratic Party may no longer be interested in union support.

        Other Biden policies include increased support for trade deals that will send jobs overseas such as the TPP and the promise to destroy the oil and gas industry (while telling those displaced to learn to code).  Meanwhile, though he has promised to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour, that remains stalled in the senate.  It seems unlikely he will carry much for unions with his future policies.

        This is likely a sign that union power in the Democratic party is waning.  After all, union membership has decreased 10% in the last 40 years so that may be heralding a reduction in interest for them from workers.  If unions do not carry as much power over labor, the Democratic party may be looking for other forms of support.

        Still, it’s no surprise as most of his financial support came from Wall Street which may suggest Biden’s more interested in them.  After all, he received $74 million in Wall Street donations.  Also, Biden has been hiring people from tech companies who usually oppose unionization.  With increased Democratic support coming from cities, it’s likely that their policy may reflect coastal elites more than working class Main Street.

        This then brings up the question: would unions be winnable for Republicans?  After all, the Dems are becoming increasingly hostile towards traditionally unionized fields like the energy industry and manufacturing as they increasingly become the party of the wealthy.  This may mean labor may be leaving the party of the donkey.

        However, there are many issues stopping the Republican Party from benefiting from labor support.  First of all, union leadership continues to benefit from Dem leadership.  While laborers may lose jobs, national leadership may not be concerned if the Dems keeping benefiting them specifically.

        This may actually mean a coming reckoning between labor and union leadership.  After all, some unions were reporting majority Trump support despite leadership opposition.  It should come as no surprise then that a majority of union members support voluntary dues laws like right-to-work as they don’t want funds to go to leadership that does not support them.  So this may be a bad sign for union bosses.

        All the same, a second issue may be Republican opposition in the past.  After all, many have taken stances unions have disliked in the past, such as Nikki Haley intervening in the Boeing labor dispute when she was governor or South Carolina.  So some may be untrusting of the party.

        Still, with dwindling numbers, changes in party structure, and a transitioning economy, union members may feel a need to start adapting to the times.  Those members still have families to feed, work to do, and long term threats to those things.  A change in political direction could be in the wind.

Addendum:  Of note, the Biden administration is making overtures towards teachers’ unions, especially by supporting not opening schools despite approval from the CDC.  Public sector and private sector unions tend to function with different sets of interests and rules so they have different interests.  So while private sector unions may be open to change, public sector unions will likely stick behind the President.

Someone Wants Xi Gone

  Recently, the think tank the Atlantic Council published “The Longer Telegram,” a report by an anonymous “former senior government official.”  In it, the author recommended that the United States pressure China to remove Chairman Xi Jinping in favor of a more “moderate” leader sympathetic to US interests while keeping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in charge.  Unsurprisingly, the article was a near sighted policy suggestion that would be at best hard to implement and at worst greatly make the United States’s problems with China worse.  However, a worthwhile question to ask might be “Who gains from doing this?”

        Now, there are ample reasons why people would want to remove Xi from office.  He’s actively engaging in genocide against a minority population, mishandled a viral outbreak that became an international pandemic and covered it up, has overseen a mass crackdown on dissent, manipulated the countries currency, used accumulation of other countries’ debts to manipulate their policies (to preclude naval expansion), etc, etc, etc.  There may be a shorter list of things Chairman Xi hasn’t done.

        However, this is hardly new for China.  Never forget, censorship existed well before Xi became Chairman, massacring political rivals has happened before, and questionable economic practices are usually the norm.  So why would anyone think someone else from the party that continuously produces despots would be any better?

        Well, we could find out the bias of the paper by looking at the background of the author.  However, since it is an “anonymous” source, it is impossible to independently verify who used the info.  Also, as proven during the Trump administration, it is impossible to even prove independent sources are credible.  Therefore, we cannot use the author or their alleged background as evidence of anything.

        Instead, those funding the Atlantic Council may give us an insight into who is supporting the idea.  After all, those who give money to it likely do so because they support the institution.  However, if we do take a look at their donor list, we begin to see a lot of businesses that have financial ties to China.  This may imply that these companies may be supporting this for self-interested purposes.

        Some of the financial firms that have donated to the Atlantic Council include Goldman Sachs & Co., the JP Morgan Chase Foundation, the Mubadala Investment Co., and BP, among others (like Burisma).  Goldman Sachs is trying to buyout its Chinese partner, JP Morgan “is seeking to establish another Chinese joint venture in wealth management,” Reuters reported Mubadala investing $2 billion in China back in 2019 with plans for more, and BP has been expanding its gas Chinese importations.  It seems that companies doing business in China may have a vested interest in the nation’s leadership since it impacts their deals.

        There are also entertainment companies that have been doing work in China.  21st Century Fox (now owned by Disney) and NBCUniversal Telemundo Enterprises (owned by Comcast) are both on the donor list.  Both companies have investments in China so they are another potential interested party.  This is starting to suggest a pattern.

        Some of the more prominent companies though on the donor list are Google and Facebook, two of the largest tech companies in the world.  Both are actually banned in China but have been working with the Chinese government and are trying to get into the nation.  They may see regime change as a way to get themselves legalized internally, especially if they conform to Chinese censorship standards.

        Now this is a long list of companies that have financial ties to China, but the reader may be wondering just what exactly this means and how this connects directly to Xi Jinping.  Well, it is possible that the “Longer Telegram” report is a sign of growing dissatisfaction with Chairman Xi’s leadership and a belief that his removal could actually help these companies.  After all, Western firms are increasingly purchasing Chinese bonds so there is corporate desire to control political action in China.

        Under Xi’s leadership, the Chinese state has been greatly increasing state influence and authority over the countries’ businesses.  In addition, he is purging political rivals which creates a hostile environment within the government.  All of these would make business ventures hard for foreign companies hoping to use government ties to make a profit.  This may lead them to support a political rival for a better business climate.

        It is important to remember though that there is no hero in this conflict.  Yes, Xi Jinping is a genocidal authoritarian responsible for the worst pandemic in decades, but many companies have actively supported his rise to that position.  Nike, Apple, Coca-Cola and others fought to protect slave labor in the Xinjiang province while Disney thanked the agency overseeing that for letting them shoot a film nearby.  So their interests are not humanitarian and whoever replaces Xi will probably be just as bad even if he supports foreign investment.

        Nevertheless, the real question may be if there are any actual plans to implement policies on behalf of the “Longer Telegram” report.  Well, the Atlantic Council also takes money from governments including countries at odds with China like Japan and Korea, countries investing in China like the United Arab Emirates, and factions in the United States government like the United States Department of State, Department of Energy, and the Marine Corps.

        President Joe Biden has actively been focusing on addressing China by hiring multiple Asia experts.  However, Wall Street spent $74 million supporting Joe Biden (more than it did for Trump) and Joe has been hiring folks with ties to Wall Street, including tech companies, so he will have their voices in mind.  So there is a good chance that his policies may reflect the will of Wall Street, especially in favoring American financial interests abroad.

        All this is conjecture though at this time.  There have been no major pushes from the Biden Administration into Asia and there may be other ideas in the works besides removing Xi Jinping.  All the same, it would not be surprising if removing Xi while preserving communism suddenly became an interest of the US.  After all, President Joe Biden was the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when the US voted to invade Iraq and Afghanistan so he may know something or two about regime change.