Congress Approval Rating lower from Republicans than Democrats

Gallup just reported that 16% of Democrats approve of what Congress is doing, while only 13% of Republicans approve. Gallup also point out that the poll is reversed from the typical situation where members of the party in control usually report a higher approval.  So, since the Republicans are in control of both the House and the Senate, that Republican voters would think better of congress than the Democrats.
Is it any wonder that Donald Trump, an "outsider" who does not completely follow the right-wing agenda is getting so much traction among the Republican voters?  Republican voters are more angry with Congress than Democrats, so possibly that is pushing them to vote for a presidential candidate who is not part of the "establishment."
I think part of the problem is that the Republicans seem to take such hard stands on so many "hot button" issues that they alienate multiple demographic groups.  They could lose one or two groups, but their hard stance on so many issues has made many of those members very unhappy.
Some of those groups:

• Health Insurance -- Republicans have continually voted to kill "Obamacare" and have said multiple times that they will come up with an alternative program to replace it.  But they have NEVER come up with a real, comprehensive and feasible program to replace it.  How many Americans know or have a relative who is benefiting from that program?  
• Gay Marriage -- Republicans have fought Gay marriage by every method possible, using legislation, lawsuits and intimidation.  Obviously, they have turned off most gays.  Since almost everyone has gay friends or relatives, how many of us would vote against Republicans if only because of their long-standing fight against gays? 
• The Environment -- Republicans have been proud of their continual fight against any protection of the environment, and have generally voted against all laws to protect the environment and maintain adequate funding for EPA.  Because of that, most strong environmentalists have voted Democratic and the Republican party has given up on them.  However, now they have clearly lost a 20 year battle against global warming mitigation.  The majority of the US population lives in coastal regions that will be severely affected by rising oceans, and the midwest is already being hammered by the global warming caused tornados.  How many of those additional citizens will worry about that, and be turned off from voting Republican because of it?
• Immigration -- Our Republican congress has been unable to come up with any sort of plan for resolving the illegal immigration problem.  The lack of progress has clearly angered all recent immigrant families.  The "wall" between Mexico and the US is purely symbolic.  With the modern drones, electronics, and the huge Border Patrol staff, I doubt if it would make any difference.  We need clear policies!  The H1B and H2B policies are, in many ways, worse. 
• Abortion -- Right-wingers claim that life begins at conception, so any abortion is murder.  Their theology for this claim is rather weak, and was not a real teaching of Christ.  However, they want to force their religion onto all US citizens by banning abortion.  It is similar to Muslim countries forcing women to wear chadors or not drive, even if they don't believe in the religion.  One of the world's greatest problems is overpopulation.  Another problem is unwanted, unloved children.  How many citizens have been turned off from voting Republican because of this bizarre platform.
• Guns -- Republicans have generally refused to pass even minor restrictions on guns and gun ownership.  It is very hard for me to understand how they can rationalize a belief that all life is sacred with the concept that everyone should carry a gun.  Christ would have never carried a gun, knife, or sword, but how can that policy relate Christians with NRA policies?  With so many murders, gun injuries, accidental shootings and police shootings in the US, it would seem that almost everyone would have a family member or neighbor who has been affected by gun violence.  How many of them would be turned off from voting Republican?  

Social and Charity Organization Managers get greedy as organizaitons grow

I received a card today in USPS mail  from "Helppetshelters.com" that said that the Humane Society (HSUS) was spending more money on its own pension plan than it does to help pet shelters.   --I have no other information.   The mailer was apparently sponsored by Rick Berman's Center for Organizational Research and Education (CORE), which has been called "a PR front" for fighting against environmental causes. So the information in the mailer and website could be strongly biased.   I was always a small-time contributor to HSUS and thought they were a worthwhile cause.  I'm very surprised, and saddened that another nationwide charity organization has succumbed to the greed that so many other large organizations seem to also.   This follows news that the Wounded Warrior Project was doing similar things--collecting immense amounts of money, and then spending it on the paid employees with somewhat lavish salaries, benefits and parties--leaving a small percentage for the actual wounded veterans.

I can understand how organizations made up of many volunteers can eventually decide that they need to hire a small professional staff to provide continuity and help the organization achieve its goals.  However somehow, the management and staff of those organizations lose sight of the mission, and try to make them profit centers.  However, it takes a very strong board of volunteers to supervise organizations like that and keep control on salaries of CEOs, top level staff and their associated expenses and benefits.

I've suspected that the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America also got hijacked by their paid professionals, and the right-wingers who want to proselytize children into believing their perverted forms of Christianity.  They, also, were very good organizations with many volunteers, but now are just a shell of what they could have been.

Canada Leading the Way on Cable Unbundling

David Lazarus had a column in Sunday Feb 21, 2016 San Diego Union Tribune entitled: "Want to have control over your cable bill?  Move to Canada"   On March 1st Canadian cable companies will be required to offer a basic bundle of local channels for around $25, and then offer individual channels or small bundles of channels for "modest" monthly fees.  This will allow Canadians to tailor their channel package the way they want it.  It will also prevent the cable companies from charging for channels we don't want, such as the expensive sports channels.  The understanding is that all viewers are subsidizing the sports networks.  
Cable companies are in somewhat of a "death spiral" -- As their rates go up, viewers are defecting to internet, netflix, hulu, amazon, and youtube types of viewing.  As more viewers defect, the cable companies have to spread their overhead across fewer viewers, and are forced to raise their rates.  Sports franchises make a large percentage of their revenue from TV licensing, and have continued to pay extremely high amounts to franchises, which in turn, allows them to pay extreme salaries to sports stars, and executives.  If more viewers unplug from cable, or, in the future unbundle the sports channels, the cost to those who want to view cable sports channels will also have to rise -- another element of the cable death spiral.
This ala carte style of channel selection wouldn't have been possible until a few years ago.  Now the technology is available, and cable operators are stepping up to building the capability with digital cable connections.   It will be interesting to see how that works in Canada.  If it works OK, I suspect that the concept might spread within the US as well.   It is possible that the Canadian Cable operators will come up with a good pricing strategy that keeps many viewers.  Conversely when viewers are faced with individual channel pricing, they may opt for a very minimum set of choices, and cable operators will be squeezed.

Israel Works Hard to Stoke the Fires of their Conflict with Palestinians

The Washington Post today (Jan 19, 2016) reported that Israel is destroying homes of relatives of Palestinians who might have been involved in some sort of attack on an Israeli citizen or property.  World Bulletin reported that they are even destroying a family home of a boy who was accused of stabbing an Israeli.  This is clearly a form of "Collective Punishment" which is just another form of terrorism.  The Israeli government, by punishing extended families and neighbors tries to terrorize the Palestinians into compliance with their harsh policies.  All of this is done without fair trials or any reasonable form of just due process.  I'm pretty sure that Israel knows that this won't stop reactions from Palestinians --but probably hopes it will actually make the Palestinian citizens more angry and stir up even more hatred and resentment.  Israel wants the conflict to continue, so they can continue to receive the $1 Billion per year from the US, and financial support from so many other countries.  Israel continues to build more of their settlements on prime Palestinian territory and continues to blockade the Palestinian controlled territories so those people will not have the capability to build a viable economy and government.

During this Syrian refugee crisis, Israel has an opportunity to be a good world citizen.  They could take on Syrian refugees.  They could help refugees come across the border from Syria and help them get on safe boats to get to other countries of refuge.  But it appears they have only provided some assistance to refugees when they arrive at locations like Greek Island of Lesbos.  Instead, they are participating in treatment of Syrian refugees similar to how WW2 Jewish refugees were treated.  

Is Small Claims Court the right venue for resolving homeowner association disputes? http://lat.ms/1QXOtwi

Who owns & controls crime scene video?

From USA Today Chicago shooting video tampered with, Burger King manager says http://usat.ly/1jqdBy2

Maybe the loss of religion isn't really the cause of our modern problems?

I've often been irritated when some of the religious right-wingers complain that many of our problems are due to the loss of religious beliefs.  Some say that if we had more prayer in schools, the kids would be better students, or have less violence.  They never seem to have any evidence for their assertions.
There was an opinion piece in the November 1, 2015 Los Angeles Times by Phil Zuckerman titled "Don't blame secularism for modern society's ills" that refuted those right wing statements.  He pointed out that the countries of the world with the highest "secularism" also have the highest rates of violence.  Likewise the US states that have the highest amounts of religious followers also have higher rates of violent crime and other indicators of "helping our neighbors"..
Throughout world history, it seems that more people have been killed or tortured due in some part to belief in some religion.  It is hard to imagine how different sects of Christianity could kill each other as they did during the battles between Catholics and Protestants.  Even more difficult to comprehend the violent hatred between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. It only points out to me that as a nation, and as a member of the world society we need to do everything we can to keep religion and government politics separate with a clear "firewall" between them.  Religious organizations should be prohibited from participating or advocating politicians or governmental positions.  Governments should be restricted from allowing any vestige of a religion as part of doing their business.  That should certainly include restrictions on any form of prayer in their meetings, and from displaying any religious saying, symbol, or icon as part of their operation.


Note at bottom of Article in LA Times:  Phil Zuckerman is a professor of sociobiology and secular studies at Pitzer College in Claremont and the author of "Living the Secular Life"