The Dog Whistles of Reasonability and Sensibility

For those who don’t know, political dog whistles are things said that seemingly mean one thing but which are meant to communicate a hidden meaning to those who understand the language. In the Democratic primary, we are inundated with the political dog whistles of reasonability and sensibility. As you will see, the corporate-run media and their beloved bought and paid for centrist candidates use the dog whistles of reasonability and sensibility to ensure old white people they have their backs.

Continue reading


Why Sanders is Better Than Warren

I have supported Bernie Sanders since early in the 2016 campaign. I have made two contributions to his 2020 campaign.

I like Elizabeth Warren. Her focus on policy is refreshing. I agree with much of what she says.

While Warren is the only candidate besides Sanders I would enjoy voting for, there are to fundamental differences between them that give Sanders a serious edge.

Continue reading

We Should Use Less Plastic

Bans of plastic straws and bags has been in the news for months. Yesterday, Donald Trump gave a speech at a developing Shell factory that will someday produce a million tons of plastic each year.

Stories of dead animals washing ashore with stomachs full of plastic have become heartbreakingly familiar. Efforts to remove a fraction of the tons of plastic polluting our oceans are getting some traction.

The political disconnect between those promoting plastic and those recognizing the damage caused by too much plastic highlights the political disconnect of the time that will someday be seen as a primary reason behind earth’s decline. Currently, it doesn’t look like too many want to stand with earth.

Continue reading

A Jobs Guarantee Makes Sense

Transcript of the Podcast Episode

Welcome to Jonathan’s Verdicts. I’m Jonathan Simeone. The title for this episode is: A Jobs Guarantee Makes Sense. The verdict for this episode is: guaranteeing every American who wants a job a job isn’t radical.

Some of the benefits of everyone who wants a job having one include:

  • Fewer people getting government benefits
  • Government collecting more taxes
  • More projects getting done
  • More Americans having the dignity that comes with work

There are two factors that must also be considered:

  1. There are currently about seven million jobs in the American workforce that employers want filled that aren’t filled.
  2. Only about 75 percent of the working-age population is working.

So, we have millions of jobs unfilled. We have a crumbling infrastructure. Large areas lack broadband. Millions of Americans aren’t working.

Given those realities and the benefits that would come from a guaranteed jobs plan, how can you intelligently argue against a guaranteed jobs plan?

During the Great Depression, President Roosevelt introduced a host of jobs programs. Those programs created new roads and parks, brought electricity to millions and did much to modernize America. All of that while providing millions of Americans decent jobs.

After the Great Depression, the will for government-provided jobs through projects that invest in America disappeared. Over time, our infrastructure began crumbling, areas of our country fell further behind, and good working-class jobs became much harder to find.

If America adopted a guaranteed jobs plan that promised a living wage and union protection, millions of working-class people would find the kind of work they want, our communities would revitalize and modernize, fewer people would need benefits, and America would be a much better place to live.

Oh yeah, millions of Americans would choose these good government jobs over the low-wage, little to no benefit jobs offered by corporations. Oops, I think I answered my question. The idea of a guaranteed jobs plan is regularly criticized because corporations want to continue exploiting American workers.

Thank you for listening to this episode of Jonathan’s Verdicts. I appreciate your support.

Killed by Baby Powder

As far back as 1971, Johnson & Johnson had evidence its baby powder had been testing positive for asbestos. Instead of warning the public, the company tried hiding the evidence, threatened scientists, researchers and medical professionals with lawsuits, and got the government to do its bidding.

Continue reading