Foreseeing the Future

-->

I am not a fortune teller nor do I have a crystal ball, but seeing this future isn’t hard or even profound.  The House of Representatives, and more exactly the Democratic Party majority, crossed a line yesterday that will come back to haunt them in the not too distant future. 

I’m not talking about the upcoming elections in 2020, although the thought of them losing the majority seems a reasonable one based on the nature of the average American not living in a big city or at the end of the pollsters questioning.  I’m talking about the next time there is a President from the Democratic party, and the GOP has a majority in the lower chamber.  If you think impeachment won’t be the principal topic for the House you should consider this House vote as a new (very low) benchmark for what the majority party can ram through the now divided body.

I can certainly understand if you want to disagree with me, but I would cite in my defense the decisions made when the Democrats were in control of the Senate, and Harry Reed was spending all his time protecting his President and trying to get judges appointed to the bench.  The animosity was such that thoughts of bi-partisan cooperation disappeared.  Senators would put holds on appointments until their pet projects were addressed, or their pet peeves resolved.  At the end of the day, the Senate Majority leader decided to throw out 200-years of tradition in what was referred to as the “Nuclear Option.”

He eliminated the individual Senators' right to filibuster judicial appointments and the requirement for confirmation approval to have a supermajority of 60 votes.  Of course, the minority party was outraged and warned that changing the rules would have dire consequences.  Now, as the Democrats in the Senate are powerless to stop the steamroller of judicial appointments by the GOP I, for one, have very little sympathy.

Each time one party or the other seeks to short-circuit the established political processes to achieve some short-term gain they usually live to regret the decision.  This partisan impeachment will be no different.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

-->

Guilty until proven innocent seems to be the new legal standard for the Democratic party; unless, of course, it is a Democrat being accused.  Don’t get me wrong, the President has his flaws, (and they are many), but the opposition’s rage over him beating their princess in 2016 has all but destroyed the foundational belief in the rule of law that is supposed to serve as the glue to hold the nation together.

I guess since most politicians are now lawyers that old truth about lawyers (and politicians) should be routinely posted anytime one of them is talking.  If the media were honest and neutral it would be run on a chyron (that little scrolling bar at the bottom of a TV screen) every time a politician gets his sound-bite broadcast. 

“HOW DO YOU KNOW A LAWYER/POLITICIAN IS LYING?  -- THEIR LIPS ARE MOVING.”

After three years of hearing how President Trump a) colluded with the Russians to steal the election, b) colluded with the Ukrainians to steal the election, c) is viewed as a fool by other world leaders, d) is a mean and uncaring man, d e) blackmailed the Ukrainians into digging up dirt on the Biden family, the house settled on two pretty unremarkable and incredibly political charges.  Both based solely on partisan political opinion.

Of course, the outcome of this political circus is pre-ordained so in the end it is just so much theater to appease the masses and perhaps divert attention away from the critical business of the state where polarization makes the accomplishment of productive change unlikely.  In the end, with a partisan “trial” in the Senate where the outcome is known, we will return to the status quo – where the opposition will paint the President is guilty of all kinds of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” since he didn’t “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” he is innocent.

But for us, the average citizen, we should be deeply concerned that the government and ultimately the judicial system will now embrace this new standard and we will abolish the protections of the Bill of Rights.  We’ve seen evidence of how the powerful have attempted to bypass the protections in the past.  Usually in large Democratic-controlled cities with significant crime rates.  For example, the DNC is now decrying their new Presidential candidate’s decision, as Mayor of New York City, to have the police department “stop and frisk” people they thought were likely of doing something illegal.  In practice, this meant they routinely stopped African-Americans, Hispanics, and other groups they found suspect.  I assume they rarely, if ever, stopped well-dressed white business people because the political fallout would have been immediate.

Remember, under the new rules we remain Guilty Until Proven Innocent.

In this Age of Outrage, Does the Law Matter Anymore?

The New York State Attorney General sued the ExxonMobil Oil Company (hereafter referred to as Exxon) in State Court on a securities fraud charge based on what it claimed was a misrepresentation of Exxon’s risk to investors because the NY AG thought the company didn’t correctly represent the dangers of climate change and the company’s liability for that change.

At the end of the trial the judge ruled that even with the lower standards of proof required for a securities fraud case, the AG had failed to prove that Exxon had broken any laws.  In its defense, Exxon attorneys noted that the case was a concerted effort by the “anti-fossil” fuel advocates (supported by the New York AG) to destroy the reputation of the giant oil company.

That spurs this question.  In this age of emotion where opinion seems to outweigh facts are we really concerned about the law?

We have politicians filling social media with outrage about Administration policies that reflect support for the current laws.  These would be the same politicians who are in a position to change the law if they could focus on cooperation rather than attack.  If we don’t like a law we used to change it.  Take, for example, prohibition.  We were all up in arms about the devil’s brew and so condemned the production and consumption of it by changing our Constitution.  It didn’t take but a few years to realize that was a pretty stupid idea so we undid the change.

It doesn’t seem to be the case anymore.  It is much easier to appeal to the mob, so at what point do we just abandon the law and revert back to the way life was before we had laws?

It's a Cunundrum

If a member of the U.S. Armed Forces (AKA "The Military") has a gun for personal use (e.g. hunting or self-protection) doesn't that make that gun a "military-grade weapon" which should be banned because the left has said no one needs a military-grade weapon.  Wouldn't the liberal states, which have passed severe gun laws confiscate said military-grade weapon?

Moving On...

So, the House impeachment inquisition is moving on -- to its Judiciary Committee and I assume the outcome of their hearings is already pre-determined, as evidenced by the comments of the Speaker this week.  It’s nice to know as a Catholic, one who believes in the killing of the unborn by the way, she is incapable of hate and this is all moving forward to save the Republic.  Her invocation of faith reminds me of the last great Catholic inquisition where those who didn’t agree with the church were tortured and killed for their own good and to save their souls.

Just as in the Intelligence Committee hearings the opening witnesses offered opinions, for that is all “legal experts” can offer.  Not one of the witnesses has first-hand knowledge of the “high crime” that will result in the bills of impeachment but were called to supposedly shed some light on the severity of the allegations or the intent of the founders in allowing for impeachment.  The fact most of them have been part of the “Resistance” movement since the election should in no way influence their expertise.

Listening to excerpts of the testimony I think I am on safe ground in saying bribery will be one of the charges.  They might also throw in some stuff about self-enrichment and violations of the emoluments clause even though they have failed in the courts with that charge. 

There is an interesting observation floating around, one which resonates with me.  “The bar for impeachment has been set so low we can now expect to see it used routinely, but the bar for conviction is so high it has never been reached.”  For those who would bring up Richard Nixon, I would just point out he resigned before the trial ever began.  I am pretty certain it won’t be reached in this case.

The question for us as we approach the next election is really about what form of government do we want?  Do we want what we have today where the politician’s primary concern is about destroying their political opponents, or do we want to reshape the landscape to force them to see the error of their ways?  That latter option is not likely and is perhaps impossible but if the Republic is to survive it is the only true option.  The only way to achieve the latter option is to completely reshape the Congress by voting out every incumbent and starting over with a new House and a 1/3 new Senate. Of course, the danger here is no one in the House would know how to act as a Representative and the professional staffers would be in complete control.  So maybe that’s not a viable thing either?

Oh well, I guess we’re doomed to keep living this Ground Hog Day scenario for as long as a Republican is in the White House.

Another Victim of White Billionaires

Ms. Kamela Harris has announced the end of her campaign.  Of course, the fact she is doing so poorly in the polls and does not appeal to the early primary voters has nothing to do with her or her positions.  It certainly had nothing to do with her attempt to destroy the most recent Justice to the Supreme Court, nor anything to do with her role as a prosecutor in California.  She is simply a victim of the billionaire in the race.

"My campaign for president simply doesn’t have the financial resources we need to continue. I’m not a billionaire. I can’t fund my own campaign."

Returning to the Days of FDR

That crazy comic duo of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are calling for the Democratic Party to return to those halcyon days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration where the party in power was able to do almost anything it wanted because those evil-industrialists, bankers, and the Republican’s had started a global depression.  Having grown up in Franklin’s hometown I was indoctrinated with all the wonderful things he, his closest advisors and Eleanor did to save America and the world.  But I approach this latest call for a return to those days of essentially a single-party government with some trepidation.  I am older now than when I was in grade and high school, and I’ve seen a number of things in the world, which cause me to question the role of big government and the abuses they are capable of inflicting on the individual. 

Today, while I enjoy the fruits of the socialist policies started under the Roosevelt administration, and greatly expanded under LBJ’s arm-twisting of Congress, I’ve begun to wonder just how long it can be sustained before the Chinese come storming the gates of DC seeking repayment of all the monies they have invested?

Here are some interesting things to consider about FDR’s 3+ terms of office.

When the stock market collapsed and the people made a run on the banks, seeking to get their dollars back and into a safe place (like their mattresses), the government under Hoover sat on its hands.  It was the government under FDR who intervened to stop the run.  They declared a “bank holiday” where all the banks were closed and no one could get their money.  Before they reopened FDR and the Federal Reserve had new authorities passed by a unanimous Congress that allowed them to decide which banks would reopen, and which would come under government scrutiny.  In his soon to be familiar style, he came on the radio to assure the American people that the Government would take care of them.  It was a positive move to reinstate consumer confidence in the banking system.  A modern equivalent would be the crash of 2008 where the government loaned billions of dollars to businesses and banks “too big to fail.”  A bunch of new legislation came out of Congress at that time, among them the Glass-Steagall provisions of the 1933 Banking Act.  Glass-Steagall separated banking from investment.  The intent was to provide greater security to the individual accounts held by a bank, and not let them speculate with small investor’s money. 

In the years since that calming decision the government has played an ever-increasing role in running the lives of the average citizen and we’ve happily played along.  On a selfish level, I think we all like to believe our government is thinking of our best interest when they propose new entitlements (or free stuff for us), but I believe that is hardly ever the case. For example, the provisions of Glass-Steagall have been eroded by the efforts of the banking industry with the Congress, and with the approval of the Federal Reserve.  The reductions in those separations were claimed to be a contributing factor to the collapse in 2008, but I would say the decisions by the late 20^th and early 21^st century Congresses to let even the most unsuitable candidate secure a home loan and then default was the bigger trigger.

As part of his plans to reshape our society, FDR and his administration began creating new agencies, organizations, and programs that greatly expanded the power of the Executive Branch.  When the Supreme Court began striking down New Deal programs like the National Recovery Act in 1936, FDR considered ways to reduce the power of those in the Judiciary who opposed him.  It was a miscalculation on his part and his ideas for packing to courts to get favorable rulings soon died.  But the influences of the socialist and unconstitutional agencies he created long outlived him and the justices who found them in violation of the Constitution.  The NRA made unions a strong political entity for the decades that followed the closing of the agency itself.

Since the 1930’s unions have played an active political role in local, state and federal politics.  Usually on behalf of the Democratic party.  But one has to ask, what have the unions actually done since the mid-1930s to enrich their membership?  Have they actually protected jobs, kept their members on a path to financial security, or just made the union leadership rich and influential from the wealth of union dues?

Those of my generation will recall the scandals of the Teamsters Union, Jimmy Hoffa, and organized crime.  The question still remains today, which part of the Giant’s end zone is Jimmy buried in?  Unions seem to be great at vilifying management, but not so great at figuring out a win-win solution that keeps a business alive to provide long term employment for the membership.  For the record, a lot of business management deserves to be vilified for their own stupidity but that’s for another rant.

I love this video from economist Milton Freedman talking about unions.  In it, he points out the two most successful unions (as of 1980), if we assume the primary role of a union is to enrich their members, were the Air Line Pilots Association and the American Medical Association.  He also talks about the inherent problem with municipal unions and those they bargain with.

We, as voters, would be far better served if we understood under our current rules politics is purely a game about power and control and has next to nothing to do with making the lives of the average citizen better.  To support this hypothesis, I only need to look at the principle positions of the two parties.  Show me in either party’s platform where the average citizen comes out ahead?  On the Democratic side, it is all about centralizing and maintaining power by letting anyone they think will vote for them cast a ballot, on the Republican side it is about allowing the big corporations a free reign.  Of course, religion gets thrown about as a useful tool because on the one side they’ve chosen to abandon their faith, or at least give it only lip service, which opens the door for the other side to be the defenders of it.

For me, the most amusing things I’ve read are the party platforms.  Each contains about 10-pounds of BS stuffed into a 5-pound bag, but I’m sure they’ve paid good money to have them written and published.  Historically, their use can best be described as a tool to say it’s the other party’s fault when things go south.

Let’s take one example for each party and see if I can prove the point.

In the section titled Government reform, the RNC platform lists about 17 things it says are important.  They range from “Making Government Work for the People,” to “Preserving the District of Columbia.”  In the first, and I assume the most important section they suggest we should return power to the states and reduce the federal government.  When the Republicans were in complete control of the Congress and the Executive has there ever been any fundamental changes to our government that even slowed just a little bit the growth of a central bureaucracy?  In the words of John Pinette, I say “nay-nay.”

One the DNC side, we see a section called Raise Incomes and Restore Economic Security for the Middle Class.  In that section, they talk about everything from “Raising Workers’ Wages” to “Revitalizing Our Nation’s Postal Service.”  The funny thing about this section is it is really about making the unions strong again and offers the approach they should do this through Executive Orders or some other mean. That sure sounds like an endorsement of a dictator (as long as it’s the right dictator).  Today we have record low unemployment, does that work for the Democrats?  Apparently not!

So my bottom line remains one of skepticism and distrust of a large all-powerful government regardless of who is in charge.  Those who advocate for the DNC version of Government I can only offer this advice.  Be careful what you wish for.  If it comes it may come in the form you don’t like.  (Kind of like Trump winning in 2020).

In Conclusion

Or not, because it will never be over.

I guess the public impeachment hearings are over, and Rep Schiff in what can best be described as self-righteous indigitation bemoans the fact the President doesn’t trust the deep state and those partisan Republicans refuse to criticize him for not totally believing the bureaucrats who’ve stood against his election.

For me, the one remarkable thing is how Schiff can look into the camera and feign the outrage when he had no problem defending “his president” when Obama was accused of using the government against his opponents.  I guess this really shouldn’t be remarkable to me, it has gone on with increasing regularity since I’ve bothered to pay attention to the politics of our Federal Government.  It was true during the Johnson years, Nixon, Carter, Reagan and everyone else.  What has changed, and it changed in the 1990s when we removed the sense of tradition and now see impeachment as just another political tool to use to vilify the opposition.

As I said at the beginning of this whole impeachment drumbeat if the President is impeached by the house, he won’t be removed by the Senate.  No matter how sanctimonious Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff may sound it is all simply theater.  What this impeachment will do is open the door for every President who doesn’t have control of both houses in the Congress to be investigated with an eye towards impeachment.  Heaven-help the individual who has a minority in both houses for then removal becomes a real possibility.

Neither the deep-state nor the career Washington politicians give a tinker’s dam about the “will of the people.”  It is purely a game of power, not unlike the “Game of Thrones.”

So, Let's Sum Up

What follows is based 100% on hearsay, which is okay since that is the new standard for criminal investigations.  I have watched about seven minutes of the Congressional investigation of President Trump, and none of that was real-time.  I’ve read what others have said and looked at the witnesses’ background, but to determine my position, I’ve watched a couple of news shows, and for the most part, choose as a truth whatever is opposite of what they are reporting

We are entering day-2 of the investigation, which the House leadership would like us to believe is akin to a Grand Jury investigation, although it is public (but only because they weren’t getting a lot of traction on their double-secret investigation).  So far, they've called two career state-department employees who had risen to the rank of Ambassador.   

For those who might not know it, all government service is rank-based.  In the State Department, they have fancy French titles, but for the most part, they are plain old government employees until they reach the equivalent of a full Colonel in the military.  Then they become “ambassadors.”  They’re still plain old government employees, but they just have a little bigger aura of respectability.

Next, we are told they will roll out another Ambassador, one who was appointed by Obama and fired by Trump.  She also has no direct knowledge of the central issue.  I assume her testimony will be as equally damning (from the Democratic perspective), or weak (from the Republican perspective).  At this point, other than pollsters and their 1500 or so subjects, no one really cares what the average citizen thinks.

The two witnesses Representative Schiff called for his opening salvo were at best loyal deep-state partisans.  They had no first-hand knowledge of the phone call that allegedly set this whole shipwreck in motion, but could only report what one of their staff had overheard and speculate on the President’s motives as evidenced by whatever his lawyer Rudy Giuliani was running around Ukraine doing.

In summary:  We can expect the investigation to continue until even CNN drops the gavel to gavel coverage.  I have to wonder what the true agenda for the Democrats is?   The partisan media and all their talking head experts can’t seem to figure it out, and I’m beginning to wonder if the Party Leadership actually has a plan?  Or is this all part of the illusion/diversion while they play three-card Monty with the upcoming 2020 election?

Living in an Age of Ignorance

The United States Government has been involved in funding or directing education in the U.S. since at least the middle of the 19^th century.  The current “champion” for education in the government is the Department of Education, a cabinet-level position created in 1979.  Its principal role is to establish educational policies and oversee the disbursement of funds appropriated by Congress to improve education in the United States and its territories.  In 2019, the President asked for $63.2 billion in discretionary spending.  The Congress actually approved $70.8 billion for education.  The question we should be asking ourselves is has the money we’ve spent actually been effective in raising the educational standards across the 50 states and its territories?

It seems each President (Trump excluded) campaigns on how poorly we fund education and how they will make a difference.  I remember President George W. Bush’s promise to leave no child behind, and of course, President Barrack Obama swept into office promising to fix the failures of Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” and fix what he saw as a decline in public education.  Of course, along the way every educational expert seems to have their own view as to what should be done to address the failures and Make American Education Great Again!

Bill Ayers, the 1960’s radical, brought us “Common Core” which, as far as I can tell has done little to actually improve the next generations' ability to consistently get 4 as an answer to the age-old question of what is the sum of 2 plus 2.[1]  What it did accomplish is to stop every parent from helping with their student's math homework.

Today’s educational policies and dialogue mostly center on how to divide up the dollars available to education in such a way that the professional educators get the most dollars for themselves and their organization.  Those who want more $ for education routinely cite the performance of students in other countries, but I see little to actually reflect a debate on why American Education is different than say Finland.  I see little to reflect the decline in social structure and traditional family values as a contributing factor and see little agreement on paths forward to fix the foundational problems we, as a nation of 350,000,000, face as we try and prepare our young to assume the roles of tomorrows leaders.

It seems obvious, at least to my simple way of thinking, higher education over the past 50-years has shifted from teaching our young the humanities and the sciences to a process of “right-thinking” where there is an intolerance for anything anyone wants to define as an injustice.  At one point this used to be referred to as indoctrination, but today I think it is just the educational standard.  Today’s debate in social media over offensive acts and language is just a logical outcome of that indoctrination. 

It is clearly a tool used by those who wish to dominate society, rather than become a part of it.  The result of this shift is a clear move into an age of ignorance where our history is clouded by modern opinion, rather than understanding the times and the opinions of the day that helped write it.  It is reflected in the vilification of opposing views based on emotion rather than fact, and it is highlighted in the belief one side is right and the other is wrong as if the world around us is cast only in white and black.

These facts alone are enough to raise concerns for those who worry about the legacy we, my generation, leave behind, but when it is compounded by the political hypocrisy of politics and the average layperson’s willingness to accept as truth the views of only one side it becomes even more likely the age of ignorance will flourish.

---

[1] https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2019/04/29/common-core-work-research/

Maybe Scientists Shouldn't Tweet

 Especially, when they put their credibility on public display.  Call me old fashioned but scientists used to focus on answering the great questions and discoveries.  Now they know so much they just focus on selfies.

Trump Will Win in 2020

Trump will win in 2020 for precisely the same reason Sean Spicer is still on “Dancing with the Stars.”

I don’t watch the show but my wife does and she was talking today about how Spicer isn’t much of a dancer, but he’s not ended up at the bottom of the heap despite low grades from the experts.  The experts apparently believe there is a grave injustice in keeping Spicer when there are better dancers.  They are upset with the rules they created and now have to live with.  (Does that sound familiar?)

The reason Spicer survives?  I think it is because the conservatives who like him actually vote, rather than just whine about how bad he is.

In my opinion that is what will keep Trump in office.  Conservatives actually go to the polls and vote, rather than threaten to move to Canada.

Austere Religious Scholar?

“Austere Religious Scholar at Helm of Islamic State dies at 48” was the headline for the Washington Post announcing the death of Abu al-Bagdadi at the hands of United States Special Operations Forces.  The actual obituary referred to him as “terrorist-in-chief” but that was quickly stealth edited to “extremist leader of Islamic State.”  For those who don’t seem to recall Abu al-Bagdadi he was the founding head of ISIS.  A group known for the slaughter of innocents throughout the middle east and Africa.  He liked beheadings, torture, burning people alive, raping and just plain old killing of anyone who didn’t fall in line with his world views.

Almost two years ago the Washington Post decided its new motto should be “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”  I wrote a piece on that just the other day.  It would seem the agenda of the WP is not to preserve democracy so much as it is to cast history in any light that discredits President Trump.  One can argue the news media has always been jaded, but the current crop of woke young journalists don’t seem to have a grasp on how to use the language to do much more than present the woke version of a story.  Facts be damned.

Democracy Dies in Darkness

Or so says the Washington Post.  The news outlet made this their motto in 2017 as they ramped up their anti-Trump coverage of the Presidency.  It was not new to them, or even new to Bob Woodward who’s been using it for some time.  Bob supposedly read it in a Judge’s decision on a 1^st Amendment case and liked the way it sounded.  The interesting thing with the news media, in this case the Washington Post, is how selectively they shine their investigative lights and how little of the darkness they are actually willing to illuminate.

If they were actually concerned with the lighting up the darkness of government operations they would be editorializing for the transparency of the Congress as it decides whether or not the President has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” worthy of removal from office.  Or they would work to substantiate the information provided by leakers to remove any political agenda either they or the leaker might have.  Rather, they are content sit back and report selectively in what can only be called an agenda-based approach.  There is usually some brief report on what the DNC wants to be pushed out to the public, with very little critical analysis.  Any challenge to the reporting is drowned out by opinion pieces on the latest political abuses by the White House, or the GOP.

Other events, some often central to the workings of government receive nary a word in the paper.  The fact the Congress cannot seem to meet even its most basic of responsibilities is passed by as a non-issue.  The responsibility I speak of is the approval of a fiscal year budget prior to the end of the current fiscal year.  As the sole authority to spend federal funds and incur debt this should be JOB ONE for the Congress, but it never is.  Where is the Washington Post on highlighting that failure?  Perhaps because it happens almost every year it is no longer considered newsworthy unless someone decides to shut down the government by not passing a continuing resolution.

In related news:

This past week I learned a new word – thruple.  Apparently, a thruple is a relationship between three people.  Among the political and media social elites thruples are an okay thing, even if there is no equality among the participants.  This comes at the same time as the #metoo movement and grievance groups are railing about how white males are suppressing the advancement of minorities through their mere whiteness.  Apparently, questioning either the morality or the ethical failure of a white female engaging in a relationship with a staffer she employs is beyond question.

Finally, I saw a meme this past week that said something like “We used to believe ignorance was a result of a lack of information.  The internet has proven that not to be true.”  How true and how sad that actually is.

Why is Due Process Important?

We are a nation of laws and a consistent process aimed at protecting the rights of the individual has been a mainstay of our national legal process since our inception.  True, it is a concept deeply flawed by the humans who are supposed to implement those laws and oversee the fair and impartial justice under them, but it is so far the best mankind has come up with.  But if that process does not apply to all our citizens then what is to say it should apply to any of our citizens?

So, we come to the potential impeachment of the President.  The question before us and the Congress is should he be afforded the same protections we are supposed to guarantee to someone accused of a felony or are his “high crimes and misdemeanors” somehow beyond the protections of the U.S. Constitution as it is amended?

From my lowly vantage point, it appears the Congress is clearly divided between political parties and this issue of national importance has been made into a political football with one side writing and changing the rules and the other side crying foul.  It has become a pure political theater with the highest possible stakes.  If it continues, as it seems likely, it will inevitably set a precedent where whoever is president will be subject to the whims of the mob, and there will be no such thing as due process. 

Those who seek to remove the President have shown little regard for respecting the institution of our electoral process and are so emotionally committed to overturning the last election they see no downside to this approach of impeaching someone they despise.  I suspect this emotional approach is similar to the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, where those of the North were so outraged over the Civil War they would destroy anyone other than Abraham Lincoln who stood in the way of their exacting their financial vengeance, unity of the nation be damned. When that happens, as it must, what will be the impact of justice for the common man or woman accused of anything from a petty to horrific crime? 

If many of us distrust the fairness of the legal system today, think of how that will grow when we see not even the supposedly most powerful individual in the country can expect the protections afforded by adherence to a legal due process.

On The Wrong Side of History

The other day The Honorable Ms. Ocasio-Cortez tweeted out something or other about those who work for President Trump being on the “wrong side of history.”  I had to pause for a minute or two so as not to spit out my coffee over that deep thought.  This statement, coming from a representative of a generation who believes they needn’t study history and can rewrite the past to reflect the political thinking of today is truly laughable.

By all indications from the media who we all know they are the Guardians of Democracy (‘cause that’s what they keep telling us), the millennial generation has set themselves up as the truth givers of America’s morality, even if it means denying biological fact and indoctrinating children into the suitability of alternative sexual orientations.

You know who is on the wrong side of history?  Those who would corrupt legal processes to gain and maintain power.  They are the people who cry loudest about the abuse of power while rallying the mob to corrupt those legal processes so they may gain the power themselves.  That is unless they win.  Then they get to write the history as they would like.

If you would like a good example of how this works, I recommend watching the first episode of an old HBO series called John Adams.  In this episode, we see the Sons of Liberty, led by Sam Adams railing against the British, while his cousin John attempts to walk a centrist line based on the law.  In this scene, John Hancock calls for a British Agent to be tarred (and feathered).  That is how mob rule works.  Not so much different now then it was then.

The question for all of us in society today is who will be the heroes of tomorrow since the great moral questions and the political climate is really about control of long-standing political privilege and power.  Will it be those outsiders who attempt to use a corrupt system to turn it against itself, or will it be those party loyalists who appeal to the mob?

Climate Change Hysteria

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has the most amazing twitter feed.  She was showing one of her town hall meetings to talk with what is supposed to be her constituents when this occurred.

I'll be the first to admit I don't know whether this woman is sick or just a troll, the fact we've come to the point where anyone thinks about this as an option to solve the whole climate change debate shows how the fear-mongering of the political left, as well as the idea human life is cheap and disposable, has shaped the discussion on human impact to the climate.

Yea Us.

In my opinion, the fact the audience remained passive and allowed this woman to continue suggests they were at least considering the 
pros and cons of the idea.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez put out a few tweets afterward condemning those who mocked this woman who she says is a mental case.  The fact is the left has conditioned the opposition to these responses by their acceptance of the same thing when someone reacts to a conservative position with insane support seems to be lost on her, as it is with most self-serving politicians.

Again, yea us!

The Dumbest Thing on the Internet Today

This meme is the dumbest thing possible.  You know why?  Because it was posted by someone too dumb to figure out it is illegal to kill school children... period.  It doesn't matter if you use a shotgun with three rounds -- illegal to use to kill school children.  It doesn't matter if you use a machine gun -- illegal to use to kill school children. What about if you use something in between? -- Nope, still illegal.

If you want to argue for gun control, at least use some sense and show why your argument actually improves the safety of those you are trying to protect.  Saying geese have more protections than children just shows you are stupid.

Don't be stupid and expect to persuade anyone who's not stupid.

Transitions

Over the course of almost seven decades on this earth I’ve seen countless transitions in our society.  Some are memorable, some are laughable, and others are best put behind us.  Let’s review.

I was born at the beginning of the 1950s.  We were at war again, this time in Korea as we faced the threats we envisioned from communist expansion.  Here at home, we had Senator Joseph McCarthy attempting to improve his political fortunes by rooting out the communists in our nation.  For some context on this, in the 1930s communism was all the rage among the social elites of Hollywood and the Ivy League.  Joe played on the fears of the nation and the threat of nuclear war to ruin the lives of many good people in an effort to root out the threat of communism to our society.  As we learn in our history various industries created “blacklists” of people who had voiced their support of communism in the pre-WW2 era and during the war when the Soviet Union was an Ally.

In 1952, the nation elected retired General of the Army and President of Columbia University Dwight D. Eisenhower to begin a period of relative calm, albeit with frequent nuclear attack drills at school.  We, as a nation, began to put Senator McCarthy behind us, but its damage had already been done and those identified as communist sympathizers were ostracized.  There also lurked, just below the surface, the issues of racial discrimination and abuse of the minorities in the nation.  We had a large standing military with permanent bases in North Africa, Europe, and the Far East.  The great transition of that decade was the gradual replacement of the New Deal generation leaders in positions of power under Roosevelt to the young Turks who had served in the World War.  Names like Richard M. Nixon, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and John F. Kennedy began to emerge as power brokers on the political stage.  The 1950s are characterized by critics as a “gray decade” where there were no great social upheavals, but that is a false characterization.  The men and woman who had won the World War were busy building their families and chasing the American Dream.  They began the migration of families into the suburbs that continue today.  At the same time, the NAACP successfully challenged the standing policy of “separate but equal” that made the Negros second class citizens despite the amendments specifically passed after the civil war to create a state of equality.  For the record that judgment was “Brown v Board of Education.”

With the election of John F. Kennedy, we see the passing of the torch from one generation to the next.  JFK and his wife were the clear favorites of the social elite and the media fawned over his rise much as English storytellers celebrated King Arthur and Guinevere.  In fact, with his inauguration, Washington DC was crowned the new Camelot.  For three years we had TV tours of the White House and common people across the country strove to emulate the new King and his Queen.  What the media and the nation didn’t pay too much attention to was the role the FBI played in suppressing political dissent and racial equality as J. Edger Hoover kept track of people he deemed dangerous.  Also, the President seemed to stumble from one crisis to another in his foreign affairs.  First, he approved, but failed to support, an invasion of Cuba, then we had a confrontation with the USSR over placement of Intermediate-Range Nuclear Ballistic Missiles in Cuba (in response to ours in Turkey), next the beginnings of the racial struggles of the blacks in the southern states and his rather slow reactions to condemn the political leadership of the states, which were predominately Democratic.  Like Arthur, his reign was destined to be cut short, but the movements of the time went forward under Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Under President Johnson, we saw an increase in civil rights protest and violence in the South, but in Washington, the Republicans supported the President and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by roughly a 70% to 30% in both houses.  With a few exceptions, the nay votes were mostly by geographical rather than party lines.  The sixties also saw the development of more violent extremism in civil protest over the war and civil rights.  The baby-boomer generation was coming of age, but not yet prepared to replace the generation of the depression and world war.  In fact, it would be another 30 years until that the Greatest Generation would pass the mantle of the Presidency to the baby-boomers.

As the 1960s progressed we heard a lot about the peace movement, but as today the name was mostly an illusion.  The members of the movement weren’t all that peaceful, in fact at times they were violently anti-war.  Despite them, my generation created some great music as we moved away from the swing and country music of our parents into rock and roll and rockabilly of Sun Records, the Motown sounds of Detroit, the harmonies of the Jersey boys and West Coast surfer and car groups, and then the English invasion.  Along the way, the President, Secretary of Defense and his political advisors thought they could micromanage a war and the Asian communists would cooperate.  That war cost LBJ any hope for reelection in 1968 and brought us Richard Millhouse Nixon and the beginnings of the open media condemnation of a particular politician/political party.

One of the things an unfunded war, a race to the Moon, and the great social experiments (the Great Society) of LBJ did was to fuel an economy where inflation began to skyrocket.  By the time Jimmy Carter assumed the office of President we saw interest rates on loans and mortgages routinely sitting in the mid-teens, and prices rising on almost a daily basis.  The government, under Nixon, Ford, and Carter attempted to get control of this issue by setting price controls and price guidelines.  From my perspective, they seemed to do very little to actually improve an economy that saw the large manufacturing enterprises of textiles, clothing, steel, and automotive begin to move their plants overseas where the labor was cheaper.  This was all done with the approval, or benign consent, of the government (both Congress and the Executive) who gave little concern over the individual lives that would be impacted.  

In the 1980s we saw the President enter into a period of deficit spending as he began the process of rebuilding and modernized the military, which had borne the brunt of government spending cuts as the previous administrations had diverted funds to social program and attempted to gain control of a stagnant economy and growing inflation.  The Reagan administration’s position was if you could encourage the expansion of industry the money would ultimately trickle down to the poorer workers.  Of course, this was branded as foolishness by those who knew better but had never been responsible for actual job creation. By the end of the decade, President Reagan had won a cold war that had been going on since the end of the Second World War.  The Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of trying to match the economic power of the U.S.  In 1990 we had moved from a world of competing superpowers to the last remaining superpower.  It was a position that would not last long.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, we began another transition as we sought to downsize the recently bolstered military to divert funding to social programs.  Unfortunately for Iraq they misread the tea leaves and thought they could gain the oil of Kuwait while we were distracted.  I suspect they thought the same old dual superpower standoff would protect them.  They were wrong.  What they presented was the perfect tank war the US had built its conventional military to fight.  They used Soviet tactics and equipment and we had Air-Land Battle doctrine we had trained to for almost 20-years.  It wasn’t even close.

The next transition was the 1992 election where we passed the mantle from the Greatest Generation to the Baby Boomers.  I think anyone looking at governments over the next 30ish years would be dismayed at how poorly the Baby Boomers have handled the governing of this nation.  Whether it is the relaxed sexual standards or the loss of faith as a central basis for morality, we have been less than brilliant at setting a course for the nation that offers it hope for success.  With the ascendency of the Boomers, we have brought with us all the ME ideas that have led us, as parents, to demand participation awards for just showing up.

In the 90s we saw the further refinement of personality politics where the faux moral outrage of one political party fueled the impeachment efforts and division of purpose.  It was to become the springboard for the personality politics we enjoy today.  I can only assume it also serves as the basis for today’s faux moral outrage of the other party since as Newton discovered for every force exerted on a body there is an equal and opposite force. (3^rd law)

Along the way, we have discovered a new enemy fueled by the fundamental Islamic faith, whose followers are willing to die to advance the visions of their faith.  I am not sure how this new zealotry will continue, but the terror networks they create are next to impossible to destroy by conventional state diplomacy.

What my generation passed along to its children is, unfortunately, disrespect for civil discourse and the impressions that only those who agree with you are worth listening to.  We see these lessons every day in the new electronic global village our technological skill has created.  It is an environment our children have grown up with and are much more skilled at manipulating than its inventors of my generation, but it seems to be working differently than its inventors imagined.

We have also indoctrinated our children into the belief that youth have a unique wisdom that surpasses that of the older generations.  Perhaps that comes from the same place as the participation trophies?

As we approach this upcoming election it does not appear the boomer generation is ready to pass the torch or Gen X/Millennial crowds are all that ready to assume it.  What is clear though we have transitioned from an age of cooperation within government to one of open hostility between opposing political beliefs.  Serving their own interests, the media is happy to engage in rumor-mongering rather than factual reporting if it serves to further their corporate and personal political agendas.  In an electronic age speed rather than accuracy is the standard for most news outlets.

I wonder, what and when will be the next transition?

Today's Whistle Blower Quote

From CNN:  "The whistleblower didn't have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN. Instead, the whistleblower's concerns came in part from learning information that was not obtained during the course of their work..."

With TDS any hint of scandal, especially hearsay and innuendo is to be spread as quickly as possible.

And the Press blame Trump for America's growing disbelief in the Media's integrity.

Magical Thinking

There was an interesting soundbite on twitter last week.  Democratic candidate Marianne Williamson was opining about how FOX News was nicer to her than the progressive left is.  I commented on this on FB and a young liberal felt compelled to snarky comment, as he does with many of my posts.  He’s dismissive statement was that conservatives have “a much higher tolerance for magical thinking.”  I could only smile at the foolishness, but I believe it reflects the mindset of almost everyone on the left.  I think they believe they are the only smart ones with the answers.  In their mind everyone else is a fool and should be dismissed, even those who believe as they do if they offer even a hint of disagreement.

I believe what Ms. Williamson has experienced is called public civility, which never dominated our debate of political ideas and ideologies, but the commercial media would at least let both views be explained before engaging in a debate on their merits.  Now we see decreasing room for that on the right and almost no tolerance on the left and she is confused the conservatives would be more civil to her than her own progressive movement.  That, in my opinion, is what we see in today’s internet-driven world where companies like FB and Alphabet seek to control the flow of information to suit their corporate ideologies, and individuals think they have found some sort of anonymity in fake screen names allowing them to become as base and vile in their comments/opinions with little perceived risk.  Fortunately, we are beginning to see where old postings are now coming back to haunt the posters, but how long before the worst offenders are brought to task?  But I digress.

I keep coming back to that idea of magical thinking.

So, let’s talk about who has a greater tolerance for “magical thinking” and address the foolishness of my young friend's comment.

Magical Thought #1:  If we just created a big enough government to provide everything for everyone then life would become a utopian paradise.  Karl Marx identified the evils of capitalism (as it existed in the 19^th Century during the industrial revolution), and proposed alternatives to capitalism as a basis to correct the disparity in wealth it was creating.     

“If alienation and exploitation are social problems caused by the nature of the capitalist system, then the solution is to abolish that system and replace it with a better one.”[1]

Of course, over the past 100 years, a number of societies have attempted to replace the evils of capitalism with various versions of Marx and Friedrich Engel’s economic theories where socialism would eventually evolve into the ideal communist state.  As we look at those experiments they have all seemed to fall short of creating the utopia the two economists envisioned in their theories, yet still they remain as the siren song of those who believe the basic nature of mankind would be changed by a society where there was financial equality for all, despite the individual differences in human ability and desire.  The proponents (economists and socialists) long for a time when there is no difference in the wealth of the rich and the poverty of the poor.  In their effort to believe in the utopia of socialism progressives will point to whatever country seems to be working on some aspect of their ideal.  For example, just ten years ago Senator Sanders was praising Hugo Chávez as the model for how socialism could make life wonderful for everyone.  Today, people are eating scraps in the street, fleeing the country, and protesting the oppression of the government.  Health care, if it is available at all, is a benefit of the Cuban regime supporting the government as the state stops imports from the US.  You don’t hear Bernie talking too much about Venezuelan socialism these days.  He has moved on to Medicare for all as he keeps the magical thinking alive.

Magical Thought #2:  If we just pay everyone a guaranteed income we would eliminate poverty and improve the economy.

Along with universal health care (remember “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.”) the idea of a guaranteed basic income keeps floating around in the world of progressive economics.  The idea is if everyone is guaranteed a living income they would be free to look for jobs without concern about losing their basic income.  They were supposed to become more entrepreneurial, develop new products and the economy would take off, and in turn pay the costs of this program.  Finland tried it and found that people who lived on welfare, to begin with pretty much acted as they had before the program, unemployment didn’t go down, the beneficiaries didn’t look for work, and the economy didn’t take off.  Finally, they had to abandon the program when they could no longer find a way to pay for it.

Magical Thought #3:  Gender is a social construct and we should get to choose the gender we prefer to be, whenever we prefer to be it.

This is perhaps my favorite fantasy, especially since it is brought forward by the same people who claim that debating the science of global warming is being a science denier.  Within the progressive left, there is an apparently huge desire to be all-inclusive (except for people they don’t like, e.g. conservatives).  To support this move they have embraced the social minorities of the LGBTQ communities, and have provided them with months of celebrations, flags, and parades.  The politicians seeking out their votes have jumped on board with their pronouncements, one of which is gender is a social construct and we should each get to choose our preferred gender.  Clearly, the science which for centuries has identified two genders (male and female) is to be disputed and ignored.  Just an afterthought, what does the B in LGBTQ stand for?

Magical Thought #4:  If we confiscate all the AR-15 and AK-47 look-alike rifles we will end mass murders.

The Democratic presidential candidates have finally admitted in public when elected they would begin to confiscate all the guns, supposedly to make the U.S. and its children safe.  As far as I can tell the only thing it would accomplish is to give the government greater control and set the standard for whatever future freedom they would like to remove.  It certainly won’t stop the social violence of people seeking notoriety and their brief flash of fame by killing innocent people.  It won’t stop the gang violence that occasionally spills over to other victims, and it won’t alter the fact we are teaching children to fear life because there is a possibility of violence coming into their schools.

What the candidate’s public admission has accomplished is to end the possibility of whatever middle of the road improvements in gun control there might have been when pragmatic politicians sat together to work out potential compromises between the left and the right.  Because of their magical thinking, we will continue to kick the can down the road and harden both sides positions.

---

[1] https://reasonandmeaning.com/2014/11/13/theories-of-human-nature-chapter-14-marx-part-1/