Who Get's to Decide?

As is typical these days there are posts circulating on social media calling for signing of a petition to support the social media giant’s claim they will not support “fascist” posts.  I usually see these things circulated by liberals who are all about closing down what they consider hate speech.  Others might view the speech as dissenting speech, but in today’s world of vulgar and unedited though who really can be sure?  This leads to the question of the day, who decides what is fascist hate speech? 

Is there some all-knowing board of intellectual giants who’ve spent their lives studying the nuances of language and have the complete moral authority to render unquestionable decisions, or is it just some algorithms put together by some 20-something computer nerds who believe what they think is the only right way to think?

I’m guessing it’s the latter, and their decisions could be second-guessed if there is enough outrage, or the bottom line profit margins of the social platform are significantly impacted.

The funny thing about these calls and the people who support them is the mere fact they seek to limit speech, especially speech they don’t like, is a significant part of what fascism is.

Merriam-Webster defines fascism (a noun) as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" (emphasis added).

The other features (dictator, nationalism, and racism) explain why the political opposition to the President is so eager to present him, or his followers as such.  It fits their political narrative regardless of what the actual behavior is.  Ask yourself, who was more dictatorial, the previous President who could ignore Congress, govern with his pen and his phone, and had the unquestioned support of the press, or this President who occasionally says outrageous things, but is challenged at every turn.  And as we see in the Mueller Report, accused of things unsupported by fact.

At the end of the day, how different is fascism from socialism?  Both call for social regimentation and as we see in socialist and communist states (according to Marx socialism is just an intermediate step to the communist ideal), the forcible suppression of opposition views.  Those who advocate for socialism seem a lot closer to the ideal of fascism than a market capitalist would.

So, at the end of the day, should some social media company have the right to limit speech in a nation that has codified the right to speech within its constitution?  My answer would be a qualified (i.e. limited) yes.  As a private entity, they are not limited as the government is, but with multi-billion dollar companies, we are (I think) in uncharted territory as far as their ability to support or challenge the nation-state.

The Art of Messaging, Real or Imagined.

Is the Democratic Party run by real people or just some amalgamated artificial intelligence?  That is my question today. 

For the past 20-years or so we’ve routinely seen the politicians and their media support use common talking points that seem to magically appear out of nowhere.  This weekend we saw another example as at least three prominent Democrats tweeted out their “personal” reaction to the bombings of Christian Churches and Western hotels in Sri Lanka.  In all three cases, the Christians were referred to as “Easter Worshippers”

Of course, this fired up their political opposition with comparisons of the language used to condemn the killings in the Mosque in New Zealand where the shooter was condemned for killing Muslim worshippers. 

It is now a fairly common assumption by the conservative right the DNC is moving away from any support for Christians, while apparently strengthening its support of the Islamic faith. For those outraged twitterites, the use of “Easter Worshipper” is just another in a long line of examples of how far and how fast the Democratic party is moving away from caring about people who hold Jewish and/or Christian beliefs.

As for me, I am left wondering how the brain trust/communication command post of the DNC can so quickly put out the right talking points so spokesman like Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Julián Castro can align their messaging with the current politically approved talking points.

Republicans, on the other hand, seem to have just the opposite problem.  Some idiot State Senator will say something stupid about nurses while talking about a proposed state law, which would affect a few thousand people in her state, and the whole of worldwide social media will explode in condemnation and a campaign of vilification will take off like an out of control fireworks display.

So much for a peaceful Easter. 

Things I’ve Kind of Learned About History from Hollywood

We watched the latest iteration of Robin Hood last night and I was struck by all the history I hadn’t known before so I thought I’d share all this new stuff for those who’ve not yet been enlightened.

First, Nottinghamshire had a draft back then and young Robin of Loxley was drafted into the 3^rd Crusade (1189-1192 AD) (or CE if you don’t like the Latin).  He received a draft notice from the Sheriff of Nottingham and off he went.  I'm left to speculate, but I guess Conscientious Objector was not yet invented.

Apparently, this crusade differed from other crusades in the body armor and uniforms the crusaders wore.  It was not as flashy as that old steel armor with white tunics, and it was less effective than today’s ceramic armor but looked a lot like today's desert uniforms and body armor.  Only the really bad guys back in England wore steel helmets.

NCOs of the crusades were a lot like NCOs of today… they were all about getting into the young lords faces and telling them to straighten up.  The young lords were a lot like Lieutenants.  Eager to serve and oft times foolish in their heroics.

Urban warfare was a thing back then, and the crusader’s formations for clearing a street looked a lot like the tactics used by today’s infantry.  Except they were using longbows and not M-4s.  When confronted with the fully automatic crossbows of their enemy they sent a couple of fast sniper bowmen to flank and take out the position.

Crusaders were known as “troops” as in “I spent time with the troops in the crusade.”

Little John wasn’t English, he was a black Arab who had tried to kill Robin, had his hand cut off in the fight, but came to like Robin when he (Robin) tried to save Little John’s son from the mean NCO who was using beheadings just like modern waterboarding.  Personally, I think waterboarding is a big improvement we’ve made over the past 800 years.

The 12^th Century Nottingham was way darker and more industrial than I had imagined.  There were mines with a lot of flames coming out of the ground, and everyone who was anyone wore clothing that looked a lot like something out of a 1970s Science Fiction movie.

When Robin got home from the Crusades, via the hospital ship, he found his estate had been taken over by the Sheriff for back war taxes and his girlfriend Marian had taken up with a young union organizer named Will.  Little John had stowed away in the bottom of the ship so he could keep an eye on Robin and convince him to rise up against the military-industrial complex that ran the wars and pitted simple people against each other.

England of 1200 was far more diverse and integrated than I had ever imagined.

Little John’s first task was to convince Robin to throw away his long-bow and teach him how to make a reflex bow into a semi-automatic weapon so he could outshoot the bad guys with the Sheriff.  He then put him in a PX-90x training program to build up his scrawny English muscles so he could take full advantage of the semi-automatic bow.

Marian was the first to coin the phrase “If not you, who?  If not now, when?”

Robin, Marian, Little John, and the band of Merry Men didn’t move to Sherwood Forest until the first Sherriff of Nottingham was killed and Will (the union organizer) had been named as his replacement.

Finally, English oak doors are not nearly as strong as I thought, since teams of horses would crash through them without hurting themselves or even slowing down.

I give the film two toes up (the whole thumbs up thing is already copyrighted).  It will teach the younger generation the real history of “the Hood.”

BTW, when the film was released those know-it-all critics panned it.  But I am betting they were all closet MAGA hat wearers.

  

Actions Matter

Socialists running for President are having a tough time this week with this whole wealth redistribution thing.

Bernie Sanders was asked why he hasn’t paid “his fair share” in taxes.  He noted in the town hall his 2016 campaign advocated for a 52% tax rate on the wealthy (which includes him).  When pressed by Martha MacCallum on why he hasn’t paid that (he’s taken advantage of all the tax breaks afforded under the changes passed by Congress and signed by President Trump), his response was purely reactionary, essentially -- well why don’t you?  It seems to be a standard for socialist politicians – you all should pay more, but I won’t unless forced to.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for Bernie keeping his money as long as he complies with the tax requirements, but then I’m not suggesting the rich pay more either.  If you advocate for a high tax rate to pay for government spending, and are not willing to voluntarily pay that much yourself then all you are doing is advocating for less freedom for others.

The exchange:

Marth MacCallum: “So would you be willing to pay 52% on the money that you made? You can volunteer, you can send it back”

Bernie: “You can volunteer too…why don’t you give? You make more money than I do”

MacCallum: “I didn’t suggest a wealth tax”

Bret Baier: “And she’s not running for POTUS”

Then, to deflect the questioning, he launched into the "let's see Trump's tax returns" defense.

Beto O’Rourke was asked by a student at the University of Virginia why his charitable donations are so low when compared to others (averaging about .7% compared to 3-4% as a national average).  His response was: "There are charities that we've donated to that we've recorded and itemized, others that we've donated to that we have not," O'Rourke said. "I'll tell you, I'm doing everything I can right now, spending this time with you, not with our kiddos, not back home in El Paso, because I want to sacrifice everything to make sure that we meet this moment of truth with everything we've got."[1]

Essentially, O’Rourke’s answer is he is so important his time running for office is his donation.

There are a number of studies that highlight the different views of liberals and conservatives regarding charitable donations, but I find nothing that suggests one group is more or less charitable than the other.  The one thing I do find is one group thinks it’s the government's job to provide for the basic needs of the people, while the other group thinks the government’s job is to set the framework for success and let the people succeed or fail under that framework.  The charities the two groups contribute to reflect that philosophical difference.

---

[1] https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2019/04/15/beto-orourke-releases-10-years-tax-returns-shows-366000-income-2017

Countering the Sanctuary City Gambit

As a direct result of HRC’s loss and President Trump’s election, a fair number of cities controlled by Democratic politicians have climbed on the “sanctuary city” train.  They’ve come online to resist the deportation of non-citizens who’ve entered the country without permission, and have offered their protection in the sense kingdoms of old would offer sanctuary to monks, and other travelers who sought their protection.  The difference this time is purely political rather than humanitarian motives of the Lords and Ladies of these cities.

This week, like almost every other week, President Trump created a firestorm on Twitter®, when he suggested he would acquiesce to the Dem’s position and instead of deporting illegals caught in border crossings he would ship them to the cities that had offered them sanctuary. 

Oh, the humanity!  Oh, the outrage! Oh, the immorality!

It is always amusing when politicians and Hollywood actors claim the proposed Presidential actions are immoral.  The same people who have voted to deny human rights to viable human fetuses, who’ve demonstrated their own personal greed, and encourage rape (of the right people), think they have the moral high ground and can define the common morality?  Give me a break.

If you don’t really want these migrating humans in your back yard, then why did you make the offer?  Oh, that’s right, it was really just something you did to make you appear to be more virtuous and appeal to the illegal voters you seek to gain. 

Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, noted the suggestion by the President wasn’t really something he could actually pull off because of the logistics of moving all those people, but his tweet was really a brilliant way to highlight the hypocrisy of the left and perhaps move the discussion of immigration off the current topics of border walls and cages.

It Ain't Spying Unless We Say It's Spying

The other day Attorney General Barr “shocked” the Congress when during his testimony Senator Shaheen (D-NH) asked him why he was investigating the activities of the government intelligence agencies against the Trump campaign.  In the course of the exchange, Mrs. Shaheen said: “You’re not suggesting spying took place.”  To which AG Barr said yes, he was.  He qualified his comment saying he wasn’t sure yet if the activities followed the laws or not, and that was the reason for the investigation.

Of course, this put the opposition spin machines in motion and now everyone from Obama down to Comey is saying they have no idea what the Attorney General could be talking about, but that kind of language is not helpful. It’s as if the entire previous administration has built their response from the 1960s SITCOM “Hogan’s Heroes” where Sgt Schultz was famous for his line “I know nothing!”

My favorite example comes from the former director of the FBI, James Comey, who actually signed the requests that went to the FISA courts to approve the surveillance (spying) of the Trump campaign. His comment, made during a Hewlett Foundation meeting[1] said he had no idea what AG Barr could be talking about.

For the last two years, we’ve seen the former director of the CIA John O. Brennan’s kisser plastered all over ABCNNBCBS and MSNBC talking about how he “knew” the Trump campaign had conspired with the Russians.  When the Mueller team failed to confirm this -- his explanation was he must have been misinformed.  The obvious question is aren’t the people informing the director of the nation’s spy organization – spies?  The same thing goes for James Clapper, as the former director of National Intelligence.  It would seem obvious that his “intelligence” comes from spying, or maybe it was just partisan politics and they make up stuff they think sounds good.

The Patriot Act, passed after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, greatly expanded the governments right to monitor the activities of its citizens so to avoid another terrorist surprise.  For the record, “monitoring” is just a fancy way of saying spying.  There are supposed to be safeguards for the average citizen, but as we’ve seen there appeared to be routine abuses of these safeguards by the previous administration.  There may still be abuses but so far they have not come to light other than in the ravings of people who appear to suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) and whose accusations claiming Trump is a Nazi Dictator have been unsupported by the facts.

---

[1] https://www.newsweek.com/james-comey-william-barrs-spying-testimony-i-have-no-idea-what-heck-hes-1393959

When Words are Meaningless, Actions Replace Them

In this age of instant communication, and near instant outrage and counter-outrage it is almost as if we have universally decided that words have no fixed meaning and can be redefined on a whim.  Political activists are great at this, choosing to alter meanings to fit the political attack or defense, but when they do we can look at actions to define their actual positions.

The President is again, supposedly, in trouble for referring to MS­­-13 gang members as “animals.”  The fact he did this a while ago, poses no problem for those seeking to vilify him and claim some sort of moral high ground.  Those who criticize the President’s words range from journalists like Dan Rather to politically inclined (usually Democratic Party-affiliated) individuals speaking with their own moral authority.  They point out evil men like Hitler used such language to create an environment where the population went along with the killing of those who were so labeled.  At times this self-righteous indignation is almost palpable.  But I wonder, do they ever take time to consider the conflicts within their own position.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC for short), likes to paint itself as the party for human rights.  The party that cares about individuals and their human conditions, but history has shown clearly the DNC is not consistent in their support of human rights, rather they use it as a tool in a kind of “bait and switch” operation as they try and determine what will keep or return them to power.

Today the DNC seems to be all about “black lives” and any candidate who claims “all lives” matter will be pilloried until he or she falls in line.  The same can be said for immigrant lives, where illegal immigrant lives are far more important than those who follow the approved processes.  They are vigorous in their condemnation of children being held by the INS, but strangely silent on the fact these children were transported by adults seeking illegal entry into the country.  As we see with the DNC the rights of children aren’t really that important unless they are creating an illusion of caring.

Of course, the issue of “woman’s rights,” which is really a euphemism for “abortion rights” reflects perfectly the difference in the DNC’s view of human rights.  Women can vote, fetuses can’t.  Therefore, the death of viable infants is not so very important from either a moral or political standpoint.  In fact, the more a candidate supports the concept of infanticide the stronger the support of the DNC and its propaganda arms in the entertainment and news industries, as evidenced by the Hollywood led attempted intimidation of Georgia. 

 Finally, and I find this to be pretty funny, we see a growing acceptance of anti-Semitism within the most vocal voices of the party.  The fact they will compare the President to Hitler the same day we the party members call for the elimination of Israel is rich in its irony. Here, once more, the actions of the party count far more than the words.  Who does the DNC look to and who does the DNC embrace when it comes to their position?  When the media covers their rising stars, what coverage is glossed over, and what coverage is brought to the forefront?

A Fable.

Once upon a time in a quiet kingdom located high in the mountains there lived a group of people who knew themselves to be peace-loving and generous.  Some would even say they were generous to a fault.  Each day they would greet each other and comment on how peaceful and friendly they were. 

The air and water in the kingdom were sparkling clean and the grass had no weeds to disturb the lush green of the open fields.  Even the animals were gentle.  The sheep were guarded by tame wolves (and only occasionally would one or two sheep wander off and be lost).  The cattle, who grazed on the lush green fields, gave the sweetest milk anyone had ever tasted.

The kingdom was so remote even its existence was virtually unknown to the rest of the kingdoms in the distant lands.  One day a stranger happened to wander into the valley and seeing the gleaming castle decided to stop and chat with the people.

The stranger, dirty and ragged from his journey, looked far different from the people of the kingdom.  He was rough-hewn and spoke with a strange accent.  In the course of meeting many people, he asked questions about how things were done, and why things were as they were.  He wondered aloud whether the kingdom was actually as wonderful as it seemed, or was it all an illusion that would come tumbling down at some point in the future?

Suddenly, the leaders of the peace-loving kingdom were afraid this stranger would destroy the harmony they had worked so hard achieve and feared the questions this stranger was asking would only lead to dissension and bitterness among the people they ruled.  So, they came up with a plan to destroy this stranger, but it had to be done in such a way that all the people would believe he had destroyed himself because they were, after all, a peace-loving and generous kingdom.

First with whispers, and then with an open disdain they set out to vilify the outsider.  Soon, there were rumors that if the stranger didn’t leave violence would surely occur.  Fearing these threats the stranger departed in the middle of the night to continue his wanderings, but he left behind a kingdom where more and more people began to question whether the kingdom was really as peace-loving and virtuous as the king had promised it would be.  Could the wolves really be trusted to guard the sheep?

But She is Passionate.

Passion is Not the Same as Right

The freshman representative from New York’s 14^th district gave an impassioned speech, which fired up her followers.  She passionately explained to a Republican colleague how the New Green Deal is not elitist.  She notes within the first few seconds she just recently got health insurance for the first time in her life and caring about the air one breaths and water one drinks are not elitist concerns.  Her followers are thrilled with how impressive she was in her speech, and she is correct caring about the air and the water you use are not be elitist concerns.  Although caring about the air and water someone else uses seldom rises as primary concerns for politicians, unless of course there is some political capital to be made.

Of course, what gets totally overlooked in this speech are the roles and the failures of government (at all the various levels) in providing the essential things like clean water and breathable air in the district she now represents.  Her position has been clearly stated, a more overarching government, as long as it is the “right” government would fix all the ills of the world. 

Unfortunately, her life experiences seem to be focused on the failures of governments led by individuals who share her political views and without realizing it she lays blame for the bad air and water on individuals who seem more attuned to her political beliefs in a progressive/socialist government, and acquiring personal wealth rather than actually improving the lives of the average citizen in their city.  If you doubt this – just check the record for environmental wellness in NYC since the election of Mayors Bloomberg and de Blasio. Within their terms, while bowing to the will of the social reformers and socialist there has been a marked decline in the simple services like sanitation and improvements to utility infrastructure.  Mayor de Blasio has famously said, “there is more than enough money, it’s just in the wrong hands.”  I believe you find Mayor de Blasio’s wife has done quite well financially as city funds are diverted to her enterprises, while essential social services for the impaired have declined despite the rhetoric.

We can look to Flint, Michigan as a textbook example of the failures of local, state, and the federal government to place the needs of their most dependent citizens first, yet somehow a socialist government would make all this right because somehow under socialism greed and self-interest would magically vanish.  Perhaps I am wrong but hasn’t Flint and Michigan governments been predominately liberal/socialist democratic bastions?  During the eight years of the Obama administration just exactly how much did the EPA and the federal government do to fix the failures of Flint?

Sadly, I’ve not found evidence that her kind of government would actually accomplish all she says it will.  In fact, I’ve seen other impassioned socialists make similar claims about how an all-powerful government would make life wonderful for its citizens.  Universally, those impassioned leaders have failed.  Here are a few specific examples.

Hugo Chavez – elected to lead Venezuela, he promised a socialist wonderland where everyone would have free everything.  He nationalized the oil companies, supposedly using this wealth to enrich the people.  In reality, he created a dictatorship, funneled most of the money to enrich his family, and dragged an oil-rich country into starvation and ruin.

Fidel Castro – overthrowing a politically corrupt government in Cuba, Fidel promised to rise Cuba from the cane fields into a perfect communist state.  Along the way, he nationalized the agriculture of the island while counting heavily on subsistence from the USSR to enrich his family and maintain his domination of politics on the island.  When people became a problem he effectively allowed their escape to the US.  The policies of the Castro government have kept the island-nation locked into the economy of the 1950s, in part because of the sanctions placed by the U.S. as it tried to export its communist principles to other nations in the Western Hemisphere, but to a larger extent his unwillingness to compromise on his global vision for a communist/socialist world where political control remains with a few and the workers receive just enough benefit to continue.   What is most fascinating is the fact the communists of Cuba have been lionized by those who would follow his beliefs that Communism is the wave of the future.  These individuals are most often from the affluent class (where they’ve done little to gain their position) or academia.  It is almost as if they seek a return to the divine right of kings.

Of course, we have those traditional socialist leaders who inspired their nations while actually destroying millions of lives as they pursued the workers ideal.  I speak of course of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong. Together they are credited with the killing of anywhere between 7 and 75 million people[1] in an effort to achieve a worker’s paradise.  By the way, this number does not include the deaths resulting from China’s one baby rule.  Both of these socialists were known for their passion, mostly to keep their power, but let’s not quibble with the basis for their passion.

Finally, and I think this is a perfect place to stop, we have that great German socialist.  No, not Marx but Adolph Hitler.  Who better represents the appeal of an impassioned orator’s ability to rise up and instill a sense of power in their followers than Adolph Hitler.  His speeches, first in Munich and then Berlin, crystallized a nation that had suffered at the hands of the French, English, and Americans at the end of the Great War.  The fact is he passionately laid the blame for the depression and inflation that swept the nation at the foot of the German Jews and led his nation into a war that condemned roughly six million Jews to death because of his passionate anti-Semitism, and roughly another ten million from the war he started.

---

[1] The most popular number for Stalin seems to be 20 million deaths from purges, gulags, and abandonment, while Mao is credited or not credited with the deaths from the cultural revolution which could be as little as 3 million or exceed 45 million.