Zealots

zealot (zĕlˈət) A person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

The origin of the word comes from the Greek name of a Jewish sect that existed in the time of Jesus.  Their goal was to resist the Roman empire and create a world dominated by Jewish theology. Those zealots were surrounded first in Jerusalem and then Masada, and destroyed by the Romans in about 70 AD. [1]   We see a lot of zealots these days, but it seems most of them are engaged not by a deep understanding of the issue, but by the enthusiasm of youth and their educational indoctrination. 

Perhaps it is because we have so many social, economic, and environmental issues we can’t agree on that we create all these zealots who demand action but have little insight into the unexpected consequences of their solution sets and who take no responsibility when those consequences manifest themselves.  Or maybe, it is we have developed such a class of elites they believe world control is within reach and they’ve set the masses into conflict to further that goal?

What I find most interesting is we’ve reached a state of economic prosperity within our country where socially committed individuals have so much time and wealth they can devote themselves to what they believe to be these higher callings and not focus on the tasks essential for survival.  Along the way, their entitlements and views of self-importance are cast about as clubs while they abuse the legal and political systems.

Their issues and the positions seem often at odds as each group jockeys for dominance.  Take for example the recent massive fires in California.  The legislature and the Governor have written laws that prevent logging or other active forest management on much of the land under their control.  They’ve chosen instead to claim those lands must remain “natural.”  That would be a great idea if they were, in fact, wilderness areas, but they’ve also allowed development in those natural areas.  When wildfires break out and destroy homes, communities, and lives they are shocked.  Of course, it really isn’t a result of their direct political/economic self-interest, they can blame climate change -- because computer projections suggest a likelihood of stronger storms, longer droughts and a myriad of worsening environmental crisis, so it’s really the fault of those other guys, the climate change deniers.  Those who would question the accuracy of the computer projections and the group think (i.e. the science is settled) of those who are warning of imminent death and destruction if the US doesn’t take immediate action.  

Animal rights is another area where with the best of intentions, uninformed individuals can band together to save the planet, or at least some of the planet as long as they are animals and not humans.  They can arrogantly dismiss the eons of humanity to now explain why tofu is preferred to the beef while lobbying for a ban on meat.  The simple question then becomes what to do with all the beef that is busy creating methane and contributing to global warming?  But that really isn’t their concern, there is obviously another group to handle that.

Last year we saw major protests over oil pipelines, where the native American tribes that would be affected by those pipelines were buoyed up environmental zealots from across the county, including a number of notable Hollywood personas.  In their zeal to stop the pipeline and reduce the flow of oil, they assembled in South Dakota to make their position known.  The funny thing about this environmental protest was the amount of human waste they left behind when they finally decided the weather was getting too cold to camp out and be visible to the press.  Of course, cleaning up after themselves as they fight to save the earth is really someone else’s job, isn’t it?

I could go on ad infinitum but in all cases, just as with the original zealots, their aim is to reshape the world into their vision of perfection, and if in the process they get to be richer or gain power through the manipulation of the masses, well that is just a wonderful side benefit.  Isn’t it?

---

[1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/zealot

Just My Observation

     Maybe it is just me, but I see very little difference between the extremist positions, either left or right.    One side advocates for supremacy based on their alleged racial beliefs, the other side claims superiority based on their supposed support of socialism and approval of diverse sexual orientations.     Both advocate violence to achieve their political agenda, both are intolerant of those who question their views, and both are extremely small minorities within the general population.  The only difference is the media, the DNC, and democratic politicians are willing to tolerate one side while condemning the other to achieve their short-term political gain.
    If it were my call both would be classified as domestic terrorists.

Is it Just Me, or is Hillary Really That Tone Deaf

Hillary Rodham Clinton is now telling Europeans they have to get a handle on immigration or it will become problematic for them.  Yet for our nation, she supports illegal immigration, because well that is her party's line.
As she ramps up for yet another run at the Presidency one has to wonder where all these ideas are really coming from?  I can think of big politicians as tone deaf to the reality that surrounds her as HRC. 

Freedom of the Press

Edited - added legal brief at the end.
I realize we live in a litigious world, where the laws have become relative, and for the right price lawyers are available to argue any case you want to bring against anyone you don’t like, but let’s talk about CNN and Acosta v Donald J. Trump, John F. Kelly, William Shine, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and the United States Secret Service (including Randolph D. Alles and John Doe).

As I understand the case the plaintiffs (CNN and Acosta) argue the President’s decision to revoke Acosta’s press pass is a violation of CNN and Acosta’s 1^st and 5^th Amendment protections and are asking a judge to order the WH to allow access while the case is decided.  They argue Acosta needs the “hard pass” credentials to allow him to do his job and report the news.  They also suggest CNN attempted to resolve this through a good faith negotiation prior to bringing the suit.

On the surface, the latter claim seems unbelievable based on the hostile relationship CNN, its reporters, and the WH public relations arm has had for the past two years, but that is just my opinion.  That said, I offer these lay opinions which I believe represent a common view held by my peers.

Revoking a single reporter’s credentials does not violate the 1st Amendment rights of the press.  I know the press would argue differently based on a fear of precedent, but the amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” 

That said, there is probably court precedent where the judiciary has found the government cannot act in a capricious manner to restrict access of reporters whose reporting they don’t like.  The question then becomes does the removal of one individual’s pass to the WH actually limit CNN’s ability to report?  Of course, they could have reassigned Acosta and replaced him with another reporter, as other organizations have done when reporters become “persona non grata” to the President, but we live in a world where the President cannot be allowed to ever appear to win because his opponents have determined he is the villain.

The argument that CNN and Acosta’s 5th amendment rights were violated is an interesting expansion of what decisions actually require compliance with an amendment written to protect the citizenry in criminal accusations.  The 5th Amendment says, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

So, on the surface, it sure seems that CNN and Acosta are viewing their suspension from the WH press room as some sort of criminal conviction where they are illegally charged with an infamous crime without the right to defend themselves.

Perhaps this could all have been avoided if the other reporters in the room had acted to self-regulate the grandstanding of one reporter, but that is neither here nor there now.  It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

I am guessing the lawsuit was filed in a court where the plaintiffs would expect to prevail and we will see an injunction approved while the finger pointing continues.
https://www.scribd.com/document/393373607/Acosta-v-Trump-Brief-of-One-America-News-Network#fullscreen&from_embed

On Veterans Day, 2018

“And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”                  From John F. Kennedy’s, Inaugural Address, January 20, 1960

What better day than Veterans Day when we remember those who’ve put service to the nation before their personal desires to recall the inspirational speech that guided a generation. 

John Kennedy’s speech serves as well today as it did when he delivered it.  Please take a moment to read it in its entirety.

 We observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom — symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning — signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe — the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans — born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage — and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge — and more.
To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do — for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.
To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom — and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.
To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required — not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge — to convert our good words into good deeds — in a new alliance for progress — to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbours know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.
To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support — to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective — to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak — and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.
Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course — both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.
So let us begin anew — remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.
Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belabouring those problems which divide us.
Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms — and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.
Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.
Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah — to "undo the heavy burdens -. and to let the oppressed go free."
And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavour, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.
All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.
In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.
Now the trumpet summons us again — not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are — but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation" — a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.
Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility — I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavour will light our country and all who serve it — and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

The Politics of Outrage.

To paraphrase a popular quote: Life is hard; It’s Even Harder When You’re Partisan. 

It seems this age we are in has made life almost unbearable for the partisan left and the partisan right.  There are so many things to be outraged about, yet our politicians find more value in feeding the outrage than they do in working towards viable solutions.  How does one cope on daily basis?

There is a line from the Cary Grant – Tony Curtis movie “Operation Petticoat” Tony Curtis, playing Lt. Holden, is put in charge of finding parts needed to fix the submarine commanded by Cary Grant, as Lt Cmdr Matt Sherman.  In one scene Lt. Holden leaves the sub while the navy base is under attack.  When he is asked where he is going he offers this memorable truth, “In confusion there is profit.”  That seems to be the strategy in play in today’s political division.

We have problems with immigration, who should come and how should they be qualified for entry?  Today, it is better to be outraged at the separation of children from adults at the border than it is to find a solution that prevents that from being a necessity.  This shouldn’t be a partisan issue, but it clearly is.  During the eight years of the previous administration, we saw a hodge-podge of enforcement and non-enforcement of immigration laws.  The DOJ was accused of gun-running that resulted in at least one death of a border agent, some people were welcomed and others denied, and yet children and adults were still separated when detained and very little effort was made to ensure they were reunited after the mind-numbingly slow decision process.  The press and the partisan supporters of the DNC said little or nothing about the moral injustice.  Put a hated Republican in charge and all the sudden it is the end of the world, and people will die.

On the opposing side, there at least is not a rock-solid set of approved talking points as there is on the left. We have everything from President Trump’s promise of a wall to grants for limited immunity from deportation.  It would seem to anyone who considers this spectrum there is room to negotiate a new law, but when one side says there can only be one answer, that room quickly shrinks to the hardline rhetoric we have today.  We were supposed to have fixed this in the 1990s, under President Clinton when we granted immunity to millions with the intent we would have laws we could agree to. What has changed?  Who has altered the requirements for immigration?  Are we to be a nation that believes in the rule of law or not?  To me, that is the real question before us on immigration.  It appears one side says no.

Then we have the Russians and their impact on preventing the favored DNC candidate from achieving her rightful place in American history.  What makes matters so much worse is she lost to someone who the media and the party had vilified to such an extent that he was viewed as almost certainly someone who would be little more than a footnote in history, much like William Henry Harrison.  At the time of the election, the DNC had predicted the economy would never recover, the markets would crash, healthcare for the nation (especially women) would end and people would die.  On election night some small percentage of the 60 million or so voters who voted for HRC decided their outrage was just too great to contain.  They bought knit hats and took to the streets to show the world their disdain for the nation’s choice for the next president.  Calls for investigations on how this outrage could have occurred began immediately and here we are two years later still waiting for the Special Counsel to shed some light on how the Russians persuaded some 60 million voters to choose someone other than HRC. 

Of course, over the past couple of decades, we’ve developed an intolerance for ideas and thoughts that might invoke discomfort and force debate on an issue.  The definition of “hate speech,” although fluid, is now part of our language.  It sure appears the demands for politically correct speech is less about offending and more about controlling the debate.  When only one side gets to call the other racist it is no longer a debate, is it?  I give you, as an example HRC’s latest snappy comeback.  When an interviewer attributed a quote to Cory Booker, HRC corrected her and said that was actually from Eric Holder.  When the interviewer apologized Ms. Clinton forgave her saying “they all look alike.”  The audience laughed because after all this was Hillary Clinton and she’s a Democrat and by current definition can’t be racist.

We are bombarded by the idea that white racist organizations are going to undo all the civil rights minorities have fought so hard to gain and expand, yet how many white racists are really in power now that Robert Byrd (D-WV) is gone?   The Southern Poverty Law Center shows a marked decline in the number of groups since 2011 when estimates put the number of hardcore and sympathizers at about 300,000.  For the record that is .09% of the nation.  So, 1/10^th of one percent of the nation is classified as racist yet how many times have we heard someone who disagreed with the President called a racist?  Of course, with critical race theory that is the desired option, since only white people can be racist the best way to control the conversation is to shut it down.

Once again, the issue of putting on makeup has hit the news.  NBC has suspended and will quite possibly can Megyn Kelly for her comments about how as a child putting on “blackface” was okay and opining about why it isn’t today.  Having never had a desire to wear blackface, but watching the likes of Al Jolson play exaggerated characters in movies about the Minstrel shows I can certainly understand why many would find the idea of a whole bunch of white kids mocking their color as offensive, but the outrage that comes from these events today does not appear to be based on a compelling desire for cultural sensitivities nearly as much as it comes from a desire to control the conversation.  Just as in the #metoo movement there is evidence that when some liberal personalities chose to use blackface for the sake of their comedic benefit there was little mention of how offensive this was to black culture.

Finally, we have become a nation that selectively condones or condemns actual hate speech as represented by vile acts of terror against political or religious targets.  It sure seems the focus of these condemnations is more about affixing blame than actually ending any political speech that may incite the actual individuals involved.  One side lays the blame on President Trump, and of course, President Trump’s supporters have an equally large number of examples that will lay the blame on his opposition.  Is affixing blame for mean and ugly speech really ever going to solve a problem where individuals feel empowered to kill or attempt to kill others?  I doubt it.

At the end of the day, isn’t that what all this outrage is about?  The need to control the debate so your side wins?  The question we will see answered in the next week or so is can the idea of outrage be overplayed to the detriment of the victim party?  Will the voters reject the vilification of good people by the outraged left or will they reward them for their victim status?