What Kind of World Do We Want?

At the heart of all our political debates is really one simple question.  What kind of world do we want? What separates us all are not dramatic differences in the answer to this question, but rather our understanding of humanity and the potential to achieve the desired end. Mankind has struggled with this question since the time we began rational thought. Yet, here we are untold millenniums later still wrestling with it.

We’ve gone through how many great and lessor civilizations as we attempt to answer that question for the betterment of us?  But it always comes down to societies where there are those with much and those with little. Why? Today, we see a continuation of the economic struggles we saw in the Nineteenth Century and earlier. The same conditions Charles Dicken’s condemned in his famous depiction of Ebenezer Scrooge. 

Oh! But he was a tight-fisted hand at the grindstone, Scrooge! a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner! Hard and sharp as flint, from which no steel had ever struck out generous fire; secret, and self-contained, and solitary as an oyster. The cold within him froze his old features, nipped his pointed nose, shrivelled his cheek, stiffened his gait; made his eyes red, his thin lips blue; and spoke out shrewdly in his grating voice. A frosty rime was on his head, and on his eyebrows, and his wiry chin. He carried his own low temperature always about with him; he iced his office in the dog-days; and didn’t thaw it one degree at Christmas.

Why despite all the political protestations and promises of universal wealth have we apparently not progressed onto a utopia where all mankind is rewarded for their being a part of the great society and sharing in the wealth of the planet?

“Socrates defined men as limited and therefore not capable of reaching absolute truth, he also believed they had an immense capability for attaining an ever more refined idea of the just and the good. This awareness and definition of man as primarily a thinking being is the basis of Western philosophy.”[1]

As Socrates noted almost 2,500 years ago, man is limited, and therefore the solutions we enter into are limited by our understandings. Our founding fathers, in their Declaration of Independence from King George and Great Brittan, noted that “all men are created equal” a wonderful statement intended to dismiss the superiority of the Crown.  But does it truly mean that all men and women are equal in all aspects of life?  It wasn’t true when Thomas Jefferson wrote it and it’s not true today.  If it was then everyone would excel at everything and there would be no elites.  It doesn’t matter if it is in sports, entertainment, industry, politics, or finance.  There are elites in each.  Some are born into an elite status; others earn their way into it and still, others join elites only to fall from grace. For example, King George was born into the elite, and because of his inability to govern lost the American Colonies.  O.J. Simpson was perhaps one of the greatest running backs, yet from his choices he has fallen from grace, spending time in prison and carrying with him the accusation of murder. In the 1800s, with the start of the industrial revolution, we saw the rise of wealth with tycoons like Cornelius Vanderbilt (shipping & trains), John D. Rockefeller (oil), Andrew Carnegie (steel) where a few men created employment for thousands, but almost unimaginable wealth for themselves.  

Of course, over time, lesser men and women who did not achieve their own fortunes came to call them the “Robber Barons” of the industrial revolution.  Don’t we see the exact same thing today? Where those who would seek the power and wealth of the billionaires claim billionaires are immoral for their wealth and only achieved it because the government allowed it.  They, the politicians, if given half a chance would seek to redistribute their wealth to make everyone a little richer?  What doesn’t get mentioned too often is what percentage would be taken by those who control the redistribution system, or what would happen to the industries they’ve created?

Mankind has understood since the advent of the written word we come to this life with a variety of qualities.  Some good and some bad.  For the Israelites, God gave Moses 10 rules to live by. Over time they were greatly expanded until Jesus came to simplify them back into their original form. Other faiths and societies have come to similar conclusions. At their heart is the realization mankind is greedy and selfish and allowed to go unchecked it will lead to our destruction. 

Thus, we are in a struggle today, which has been repeated a thousand times throughout history. Is the path to utopia found in an all-powerful government, which makes grand promises, but at the end consolidates its power and wealth in a privileged ruling class, or do we decentralize power to the individuals and expect those individuals to act towards a common good?

Our founders argued this question and we can see the two sides laid out in the Federalist papers and the “anti-Federalist” rebuttal.  In the end, they reached a compromise where they recognized the potential for abuse by the federal system and allowed the states a degree of autonomy as a check for that potential.  They also established a system of “checks and balances” within the federal system.  Unfortunately, over the years the government has grown so vast and powerful there is a real question as to the legitimacy of those checks.

In conclusion, we return to the question of “what kind of world do we want?”  A world where everything is done for us, or one where we have the authority to choose for ourselves what course our life will take?  For those are the two paths we have.  The history of mankind has shown when we have an all-powerful government, the choices of the individual (at least those not in the ruling class) are limited by what the ruling class allows.

---

[1] https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/according-socrates-what-definition-man-791161

Transitions

The time between the election and the inauguration of the President is one of transition.  Not only for the key political players and their financial backers/ardent supporters but for the common citizen.  It is a time with great similarities to a sporting event where the players on the field move from offense to defense and the spectators’ transition from supporting their team to the condemnation of any event that seems to present a positive gain for the opposition.

We are beginning to see that transition in the media now, where according to the broadcasters the incoming team is above approach.  These are the same “professionals” who just a matter of days ago spent most of their time condemning the current administration as incompetent and incapable of finding their way out a paper bag, despite the evidence that seemed to refute that.  For example, according to the Democratic politicians as broadcast by the media the reason we have over 300,000 dead from COVID is all President Trump’s fault, despite the fact under our system it was the decisions of the various Governors which most affect the death rates within their states.

From a common person perspective, those who have rioted and protested just a few short days and weeks ago claiming America was a fascist blight on the face of the earth are now going to have to claim we are once more a shining light of freedom for that same world.  The irony here is that 99% of the government that were all fascist last week will still be at work after January 20^th.

Those politicians in charge of the major cities, who just weeks ago, were justifying the need to defund the police and open their cities to invasion by anarchists are now going to see a need for some limits on what “peaceful” protest really means.  I wonder how the anarchists and the police forces will deal with these political transitions?

On the fashion front, those who thought little of the current first lady’s wardrobe are going now going to be over-the-top in their admiration of the incoming first lady’s fashion sense as she sets the style trends for the nation.  While I doubt she will receive the same adulation as Michele Obama, it seems to me there will be a big demand for extravagant adjectives seeking to reflect how smart she dresses for someone with such brilliant educational credentials.

Speaking of educational credentials, it seems to me to be an amazing thing to have a big kafuffle over.  Some writer says having an Ed. D isn’t the same as being a real doctor and the world goes crazy.  The Ph. Ds and Ed. Ds of the world are united in their belief that having any kind of doctorate is worthy of being called a doctor, while some lawyers with Juris Doctorates seem to disagree.  I’ve not polled the medical community but the few I know are of the opinion they are the only REAL doctors (at least according to Hippocrates). Personally, I know a couple of good ol’ tobacco chewing country boys with Ed. Ds and I think they are good with nicknames, although Dr. REDMAN is probably also acceptable.  I know Whoopi Goldberg weighed in on this at the beginning of the pandemic and claimed Dr. Biden was “a hell of a doctor” so there is that.

But then we can make a dividing controversy out of any and everything.  Take the recently approved COVID immunizations.  Their release this December is a miracle, at least according to the projections of scientists who engage in the political debate. The first doses are going to the frontline workers and those most at risk in the nursing homes.  This seems to be one thing no one is arguing about, but who should get the next release?  Ah, that is worth arguing about.  Should it be the Presidential transition team, the current White House staff, the members of Congress, or those in the public that want to jump on board?  How about those who don’t want the vaccine?  Should they be forced into taking it to use public transportation, or should they have a small yellow COVID star sewn on their clothing so the liberals know who is unclean and not part of this great social movement?

Finally, I wonder if all the entertainment award shows can get back to patting themselves on the back for being so great instead of having to spend the majority of their speaking parts condemning the government.  I know that is probably too much to ask for and now those same celebrities will have to tell us how great it is to be in a nation that supports a unified world solution (except for China and Russia of course) for all the environmental issues the government will now address through its increased taxes.  While we’ve not yet increased taxes I’ll take Biden and Harris at their word that we must do that to rebuild America in their image.

It's a Curiosity

           It appears the mainstream media has recently noticed that Hunter Biden’s overseas dealings maybe some kind of issue.  This comes on the heels of an announcement the Department of Justice has several on-going investigations into Biden’s financial dealings.  While it would not seem unusual for the press to report these facts it is remarkable, they are just now coming to the forefront.  After the Biden-Harris win.

It is almost as if some hidden power is pulling all the strings in preparation for a transition of the Presidency from Trump to Biden to Harris.  While many of us speculated on the mental soundness of Biden to hold the office it would seem the real kingmakers are leaving nothing to chance.  If they can’t get him out with the 25^th Amendment then they go for resignation in lieu of impeachment as the alternative.

My money is on Harris as President before the summer solstice.

Random Thoughts

We’ve just had a weird election where the rules changed in the middle of the extended campaign creating an appearance of partisan fraud, and the President is on social media making his case (rather poorly in my opinion).  Ultimately, the courts will at some point probably side with the various states that the certification of results is a state issue and that is all that counts.  Will this undermine the next President’s administration?  In the wise words of Bugs Bunny, “hmmm, could be.”  But with an adoring press and social media probably not.

This got me to thinking about the road we’ve traveled to this point.  Elections have always been a contentious thing with good and bad winners, or good and bad losers.  I don’t think John Adams was particularly enamored with his job after coming in second to George Washington, and not too long after that the election of the Vice President became linked to the election of the President.

In the early, to mid-nineteenth century the South would routinely threaten to leave the union unless their favored Democrat (or Democrat-Republican) was elected.  With the election of Abraham Lincoln, they made good on their threat. I guess this would be the ultimate example of “delegitimizing” a Presidency.  After the war, the winners got the spoils and there was a period where only Republicans were elected followed by a relatively even period of swapping where both parties traded power back and forth.  At least until Franklin Roosevelt felt it was his destiny to save the nation and held onto the office for four terms (he died in office or it might have been five terms). 

After the latest of the World Wars (2^nd for those keeping track), both parties were made up of liberals, moderates, and conservative, but with the advent of President Johnson’s “Great Society,” and the recognition of the overt racism still plaguing America that began to shift as the parties seemed to abandon an inclusive approach to appeal to specific population segments.  I often wonder if the creation of the Presidential primary system did this?  For me, it is kind of a chicken and egg question.  Did the primaries create the power of political activists or did the activists lead to the creation of the primaries?

What I’ve seen in my lifetime, the role of the President has gone from an astute politician/administrator, seeking to protect the country from its outside enemies, while working towards what he viewed as best for the nation (meaning he would work with the opposition when he could convince enough members of the other side it was in both parties interest) to the point where we are at today where each party believes only they have the nation's interest at heart and they need to control the entire government so they don’t have to work with those “other guys,” or if they don’t have the entire government they have enough to stop “those other guys” from doing all sorts of bad things.

We as a society, thanks to the internet and social media, have pushed that relationship with mass movements to legitimize or delegitimize both parties and their candidates.  For brevity let's only go back to the very end of the last century where the Florida election held up the concession of Al Gore until the Supreme Court ruled in GW’s (Bush the younger) favor. I think he would have remained a challenged President by the losers if 9/11 hadn’t united the nation at least for the next several years.

In 2009 when Barrack Obama was sworn in – those who didn’t like him spent years on the conspiracy trail claiming he wasn’t really a natural-born citizen and in so doing sowed the seeds of dissent.  The fact he came out of almost nowhere to win the Democratic Party’s nomination and all his records were sealed only added fuel to the conspiracy fire.  For the eight years of his Presidency, the press seemed to find a lot of things to investigate, but those questions weren’t high on their list of things to wonder about.

Then we come to 2016.  A year when both the major parties find as their “best choice” candidates, people who carried as much excess baggage as Jacob Marley[1].  When the anointed Democratic woman lost, the left went wild.  We had women marching where the women wore “pussy hats” to demonstrate their mature response to the loss.  We had street riots where stores were vandalized to demonstrate the principled response to what was clearly a stolen election.  Then there were the never-ending investigations of the Trump campaign and principles associated with the campaign.  The evidence now strongly suggests many of these activities were begun by the previous administration which had, in its words, “a scandal-free administration.”

I’m just guessing here but I assume two things.  First, President Trump will be unsuccessful in his appeals since the Federal Courts are hesitant to step into something that is really a state issue.  (The Dominion Servers issue might be a federal issue which the court could address under the Commerce clause but that seems unlikely to me.)  The second is the media will return to its preferred role of quiet partnership with the DNC where its sole role is to protect the Democratic incumbent whoever he or she might be.

---

[1] Charles Dickens “A Christmas Carol”

How Do We Know Who to Trust?

We are in a time where we’ve seen the obvious political agendas of the news outlets and where opinion is offered as fact. How then do we know whether or not we can trust the results of the election?  Each side will make its claims, each side will say the other is lying, and each side will find fault with something about the election.

In the past, we looked at politicians as trustworthy public servants.  Can the same be said today?  We’ve had four years of the vilification of the President so can we trust him?  Then again, we had eight years of the celebration of a President who claimed his administration was “scandal free.”  Unfortunately, even the smallest amount of research shows that is a pure fabrication.  If we consider President Obama’s time we see:  A gun running scandal that led to the death of a federal agent.  An IRS targeting scandal that called into question the impartiality of the IRS approval tax of free status when it came to requests from conservative organizations.  The unexpected withdrawal of forces from Iraq that led to the creation of ISIS.  The claims  the Islamic riots in Egypt and the over throw of Libyan’s dictator were due to some minor YouTube video.  The failure to help the Ambassador in Libya when he was attacked by violent mobs.  The dispersal of Kaddafi’s stockpiles of weapons after he was overthrown.  How about the cages he built to house children at the southern border?  The list could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.

These same observations can be made of Representatives, Senators, Governors, State officials, and so on down to the lowliest bureaucrats.  How many politicians have enriched themselves and their families while claiming to make life better for their constituents?

So, now we come to the question, who can we trust to reassure us that our vote was counted and the election was fairly run and the results legitimately reflect the will of the people?

Our Constitution delegates the running of elections to the individual states.  It is their job to organize, train and equip the state to run a fair and unbiased process.  For most of the states the job falls within the purview of their Secretary of State and if history is to be understood they have done that reasonably well, although there are always exceptions.  If there weren’t those exceptions the jokes about the dead voting in Chicago, the paying for votes of Irish immigrants coming off the boat to support Tammany Hall, or the resurrection of newly found ballots wouldn’t exist.  The controversy of recounts, having people try to determine what a voter really intended, or what constituted a legal ballot would not be a consideration.

Now, in this information age we come into a new spectrum of data manipulation.  We see in the nature of polls a natural bias that may exaggerate one set of data or eliminate another.  With our transition into massive voter data collection, we also see the potential for vote manipulation.  When one side points this out, and the other side dismisses the possibility we are left with a legitimate question, why would one side not acknowledge the possibility?

My conclusion is a simple one.  One side thinks they have control of the data and the other side does not. I’ll leave it to you to decide how you answer that question.  But at the end of the day, we individual voters really don’t get to say who we trust or not.  Until something remarkable changes our system we must accept the decisions of the individual Secretaries of State, and of course the court challenges that arise from questions about those decisions.  My takeaway from recent elections is we can no longer trust the media projections sent out to support a clearly bias agenda.

And The Beat Goes On.

    It is Saturday, November 7th, 2020, and the Democratic party is giddy with excitement.  The media has projected Joseph Biden will replace Donald Trump as President based on the vote projections for the State of Pennsylvania.  If the vote is upheld it is an interesting choice for a state so heavily committed to the fossil fuel industry, but then when does Presidential voting ever really make sense.  For example, four years ago there was absolutely no way Donald Trump could beat Hillary Clinton, yet despite all the protestations of her and her supporters he did.
    So, what happens next?
    As we are seeing – political rallies are no longer “super-spreader” events as the people mass in the BLM approved massing zones of the major cities to celebrate the downfall of “Orangeman Bad.”  But is the king truly dead?  We can expect to see at least a month of legal squabbling over “every vote” versus “every legal vote.”  
    I assume based on the software “glitch” found in dominion software at least some minor investigations may be made, but if the ruling parties in those affected states have their say it will be quickly asserted that we should ignore the man behind the curtain and the media will assure us there is nothing wrong with the software since the high tech companies are all neutral in their political beliefs.
    To the benefit of the Democratic Party, the RNC and President Trump eliminated any claim they might make about being fiscally responsible.  Biden has pointed out he will increase taxes -- so those people who complained about not getting as big a refund as they were used to under Obama will now have the opportunity again (maybe).  They say they are going to tax the rich, but somehow it never seems to work that way… Maybe it’s because the rich donate all those campaign dollars?
    On a bright note, all the mansions of southern California will be okay since none of their millionaire stars will have to move to Canada.  “We are the world” telethons will return, and the ability of the rich to fly wherever they want with the simple purchase of “Carbon Credits” will become unquestioned as the rest of us transition to a green new deal.
    The questions that will remain unanswered are:
    Will the Democrats be as partisan and vengeful as they have been these last four years?  If we look back to how they reacted in 2009 I think we can assume they will.  Sure, there will be the public displays of serving the “entire nation,” but certainly not the deplorable's or those who didn’t vote for the progressive movement.  Their social influencer type people have already started making up their enemies list of who to remove from the public space.
    Will the government continue to be stalemated by the separate control of the House and Senate?  I assume we won’t know the answer to that until Georgia is sorted out.
    Will the press remain as hostile and questioning as they have been these past four years?  I think this is the simplest of questions to answer, and we should know the answer with certainty by inauguration day.
    They will return to their sleepy little role of broadcasting the state media approved message.  Jim Acosta will be elevated to the head of the White House Press Corp and his tweets will cause many to develop diabetes as they sing the praise of President Harris.
    As a friend pointed out the hardest question is, what will late night talk show hosts (formerly known as comedians) find to make fun of.  For the life of me I can’t imagine what they will do for their monologues except dig up the material they used from 2009-2016 to mock the Republicans and make sure they comply with the new standards of wokeness. Those changes should keep the writers busy as those standards seem to change weekly.
    One final question, which may go unanswered for the next four years.     Where is Hunter Biden?

 

Critical Thinking Theory

If social media has taught us anything it is that almost all of us have given up on the idea of thinking for ourselves.  We’ve transferred our obligation of thinking to someone, or something, else.  We pick the point of view we like and let others tell us what that point of view really means.  Take, for example, a dislike of Donald Trump.

We don’t like DJT, so we can’t like the things he does as President.  We can’t be bothered to actually understand what his administration has done, we look for memes that condemn him, whether they are true or not.  We side with those who oppose him, whether or not they offer a better solution, or are actually honest about their own motives.  It is the modern play on the ancient proverb “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” On the other side his supporters ask “Do I not hate those who hate You, O Lord, and detest those who rise against You?” (Psalms 139:22).

Nowhere is the elimination of critical thought more obvious than in the media.  A career where the idea of questioning would seem to be central to success, but has clearly been replaced by dogmatic commitment to a set of political beliefs. 

At one time our country had progressives, moderates, conservatives, liberals (historical definition), liberaltarians, authoritarians, and humanitarians.  Both parties had them.  I’m not sure how well they actually worked together, but the tension between them seemed to find balance that served the common good.  Thanks to the media’s (and perhaps higher education’s) shift to one side we have sacrificed that balance.  We are now not much better than a teeter-totter where we go up and down based on the struggles of the two parties for political domination.

We citizens have joined in on that ride picking sides where the idea of actually thinking critically about what is best for the nation isn’t really part of the dialogue anymore. But let’s be honest, 99% of us have never wanted to make those nation-shaping decisions.  That is what our representatives are for.  But I wonder?

I wonder how much our growth in population and the physical limits of our government buildings has shifted the balance of power?  For example, based on the 1790 census there was one Representative for every 34,436 citizens (on average).  Today that ratio is about 1:709,760.  The question is when one person is representing that many; do they actually give a true voice to the various minorities of their constituents? 

Oh well, as long as we don’t have to think too hard, I guess it’s okay.  We have an election, and as in every election both sides are saying it’s the most important election of our lifetime.  Didn’t they say that in 2016, 2012, 2008…?  At least we have memes that can show the world what is wrong with those other guys.

Humanity

This polarization of society seems to be destroying our humanity.  I had an interesting question presented to me this morning as I was relaxing after a game of pickleball.  A lady I had just met asked me a question.  She said a young man who was employed to care for the grounds in our community had rung her front door and asked to use the bathroom.  She said he had a look of panic in his eyes.  She asked what I would have done.  It seemed like such a simple question.

She went on to explain her mate, who was a doctor had been completely upset when she allowed him in.  He didn’t have a mask on, didn’t remove his muddy shoes and spent a long time in the bathroom.  Her companion explained they didn’t let their friends in for fear of COVID, how could she let in a complete stranger.

I’ve lived in this community now for two years and the comings and goings of the lawn care workers second nature.  They are in a word ubiquitous.  I don’t think any of them would come to my door unless they saw no other option to take care of a personal necessity.  So, for me the answer was simple.  I’d let them in to take care of their themselves.  Yet there are those who see these workers as servants and perhaps a class below us, or as unskilled laborers who should be treated with less respect because they are only grass cutters.

There are community pools in our community that have bathrooms, and I routinely see residents’ question why these workers may occasionally use them, since the rooms are clearly marked for resident use only. I’ve never bothered to respond to these questions, but it strikes me that people are willing to get on board with causes, but they don’t want to actually have to deal with the needs of individual people.

It is Russians, All the Way Down.

I grew up in the ‘50s and ‘60s, when the fear of nuclear war with the Soviet Union was the threat the government confronted, and in hindsight used to bind us together so we would ignore the racism and other domestic problems the nation faced.  In addition to the fire drills we had, we would also have nuclear attack drills where we would all hide in the halls or under our desks as the hordes of Soviet Bombers flew over our little town on their way to New York City.

Of course, we had the “Red” scare where Senator Joseph McCarthy dug up all the communists in government and Hollywood.  There were “Black” lists where people linked to the communist movement popular in the 1930s suddenly found they were no longer employable and if they were lucky enough could still find work writing under a pseudonym, but for hundreds of artists their fascination with communism led to their ruin.

In the 1980s we finally had a President who had enough of the Soviet Union and embarked on a plan, over the deep objections of his opponents to break the Soviet Union.  By the end of the decade the Soviet Union was no more.  It had been broken up into its individual states. Since then those border countries like Poland have seen their fortunes rise as they left the Warsaw pact to align with the developed countries of Western Europe.

The military of the Soviet Union was always portrayed as exceptional and would destroy the west in any conflict by their shear mass.  Fortunately, for all of us we never had to learn the truth or fallacy of this assumption, but it played well with the military-industrial complex who has sold increasingly expensive weapons to counter the mass and tech China brings as that threat the military-industrial complex must shift to, but that is the way of the world.  Those who design, build and sell weapons must always have an really dangerous adversary to defeat.

Back in 2009, then Secretary of State, Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton drug out an Office Depot “Easy Button” to tell her counter-part we were resetting the Russian-US relationship. 

And who can forget the 2012 whispered conversation between Barrack Obama and Russia’s President Dimitry Medvedev that after the election “He would have more flexibility.” 

 Well let’s fast forward to 2016 where the same two thought it would be a great idea to blame the Russians for interfering with the election to get Donald Trump elected.  Ever since then all the Democrats can see are Russians.  Every time one investigation fails they roll out Adam Schiff with another accusation.

As they scramble to bolster what I would describe as a weak ticket they have to do something to get us to ignore the man behind the curtain.  So, to paraphrase a cosmology metaphor[1] “It’s Russians all the way down.”

---

[1] https://cosmology.carnegiescience.edu/timeline/1610/turtles-all-the-way-down

The FBI

 

Background: The Federal Bureau of Investigations began its existence with an order from the United States Attorney General Charles Bonaparte to establish an organization within the DOJ to investigate matters that its already established agents couldn’t deal with.  These “special agents” would report directly to the Department's “Chief Examiner” who would, in turn, report to the AG.[1]  From this beginning in 1906 would grow the Bureau of Investigation, which would become the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

J. Edger Hoover became the first Director of the Bureau of Investigation in 1924, following the Teapot Dome Scandal.  One of his first acts was to fire the women agents in the agency as he “cleaned house” of all those who could be associated in any way with the bribery.  He then spent the rest of his career attempting to put the agency in the best light while he picked the cases they would investigate and feed to the press the highlights of their successes.  Many of those cases became fodder for Hollywood movies or television shows, always with the complete cooperation of the agency.  He remained the director until his death in 1972.  Along the way the FBI took on the mantel of the supreme law enforcement agency in America, although it was revealed shortly before his death that he had gone after “subversives and deviants” using tactics such as infiltration, burglaries, illegal wiretaps, planted evidence and false rumors leaked on suspected groups and individuals.  He called Dr. Martin Luther King the “most dangerous negro in the future of this nation.”[2]  It is said J. Edger Hoover remained director for so long because he was so highly respected.  It is also said he remained director for so long because his political opponents feared the information, he had in his folders on each of them.

Today: With this as the historical background of the FBI should we be shocked to see the abuse of the agency as it strove to prevent the election of an outsider, or falsified evidence to further its investigations of people the leadership in Washington felt should not be allowed to govern?  There is very little evidence in the history of the FBI to indicate it is a non-partisan organization.  The real question - does its partisan allegiance shift from party to party as administrations change or does it, like J. Edger, keep files on everyone to use to protect what the agency believes is its self-interest?

From my lowly position it would seem those in authority of the FBI believe it is their job to protect those individuals who may be useful to them in future administrations, and the concept of political neutrality be damned.

 

---

[1] https://www.fbi.gov/history/brief-history

[2] https://www.biography.com/law-figure/j-edgar-hoover

Who Do We Turn To?

Within my lifetime, and before, the American people turned to their Presidents to calm the nation and inspire confidence in the face of national disasters and crisis.  We learned about these great men and the confidence they instilled to the nation either in our history books, or if we were lucky enough in real time as they sought to calm the fears of a people looking for leadership.

Theodore Roosevelt, our 28^th President, is perhaps best known for thinking big as he guided the Nation.  With the passage of the Antiquities Act he began designating areas of national importance and in the course of this is credited for creation of the National Park system.  His speech on the role of a Citizen in a Republic[1] remains today a testament to the value of the individual.  He was also the President who began our entrance onto the global stage with the creation of the Panama Canal, and the sailing of the “Great White Fleet.”

When the Spanish Flu of 1918 hit the world, President Wilson and the government actively down played its dangers to avoid panic.  Of course, they were supported in this effort by the “Committee of Information” he had formed when the U.S. had entered the War to End All Wars.  As the committee noted “Truth and falsehood are arbitrary terms. The force of an idea lies in its inspirational value. It matters very little if it is true or false.” His government continued this charade even when 195,000 Americans died in October 1918.  The Philadelphia Inquirer noted “Worry is useless. Talk of cheerful things instead of disease.”[2]

When the Stock Market saw its historic collapse in 1929 and the nation turned to Franklin Delano Roosevelt to save us from the economic disaster before us, we listened to his inaugural address where he said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”  He then began a rather expansive socialization of our nation where the government, rather than industry, stepped in to put people to work, we created a plan to supplement the income for our elders, and created a way to bring electricity to those who were still living by candlelight.

He again came before the American people when our Pacific Fleet, and most of our holdings in the Pacific were attacked by the Japanese.  Did he suggest we panic in the light of such overwhelming losses or did he seek to calm and assure the nation that in the end we would persevere?  Did the media of the day question his leadership for not anticipating the attack and making sure the Pacific Fleet was ready for an enemy we knew was increasing its naval force far beyond the limits of the “Five Powers Treaty of 1922.”[3] 

Then in 1960 we elected the first of the leaders coming from what Tom Brokaw would later refer to as “The Greatest Generation.”  John F. Kennedy inspired us from his inauguration with “Ask not what America can do for you, rather ask what you can do for America.”  Did we question his leadership when he cancelled support for the Cuban Invasion (AKA Bay of Pigs), or when we went to the brink of nuclear war with the USSR over Intermediate Range Missiles in Cuba?  In each case he went on television to assure the nation everything would be okay, and the press adored him for it.

The 1980’s brought us Ronald Reagan, a career actor, who knew the power of the media and used it effectively to persuade the nation we could recover from the financial problems brought on by escalating debts from the Vietnam war.  The deficit spending, he put into military arms took the nation deeper into debt, but Americans went back to work, oil shortages ended, the middle class expanded, and in the end he accomplished what no President since Harry Truman was able to. He destroyed the USSR.

The ‘90s gave us George H. Bush who led the nation through an incredibly short and successful, although some believed incomplete, war and into a financial crisis.  He was succeeded by William J. Clinton who taught us that truth depends on the meaning of the word “is.”

So far this century we’ve had George W. Bush, Barrack H. Obama and Donald J. Trump.  The first the media (both News and Hollywood) enjoyed mocking, but supported when he took us to war, first with Afghanistan and then Iraq.  He rallied a country shocked by the terror of September 11, 2001 and guided the nation for eight years.  Barrack Obama came into office on the tails of an economic crisis (perhaps something that links both Bush’s), and promised to unite the nation as no other President ever had the opportunity to, but after his 8-years the nation was just recovering from the economic failures he inherited but he left a legacy of dividing the nation into white and black unlike any of his predecessors.  Yet, the press and Hollywood adored him at the same level they worshiped JFK.

Now we have Donald J. Trump, who came into office despite the best efforts of the DNC and media to vilify him and his supporters.  With his election began the rebellion of the political, media, and social elite who’ve chosen every opportunity to vilify or mock him for his approach to dealing with them.  Rather than accept their mocking, as did the Bush’s, he chose to directly counter-attack their pundits and analysis as “fake news.”  From the first instant when it was clear he had won the election we’ve seen hysterical predictions of doom for the nation.  We can start with Paul Krugman’s prediction the stock market would never recover, and move on to the “not my President” campaign, and the HRC's claims she won the popular vote, as if that was relevant.  In fact, each of the claims by those who supported HRC were only intended to undermine the legitimacy of his win. 

With his inauguration we began the Congressional investigations into his alleged ties with Russia, which we now know were started by the Clinton campaign, and perhaps Hillary herself.  Each week seemed to bring a new promise from Representative Adam Schiff about some new criminal activity only he had knowledge of, but was just about to be revealed.  Again, rather than concede defeat the DNC and its media outlets sought at each stage to show Trump as an incompetent boob, often at the cost of displaying their own incompetence. Of course, this approach has only served to further divide the nation as we seem to tumble willy-nilly into the future. 

We have before us two critical issues: the physical health of the nation from the COVID-19 virus and our economic well-being.  The question for the average American is who do we believe has the best answer to those challenges?

On the one side we have those who’ve said the President is incompetent and has done a poor job leading the nation these past almost four-years.  On the others who believe the President is the duly elected President, who despite his numerous flaws, is responsible for guiding the nation and should be supported. I think the question is really more basic.  In the middle we have the preponderance of media who have a clear agenda against the President and who cherry pick the information they will provide based on that agenda.

Who seems to have the best interests of the nation as a global power at heart?  Is it the media who thrives on controversy, or the social elites who’ve made their fortunes in a system they now disdain?  How about those in Congress who fail each year to perform even their most basic function of passing a budget on time?  How about the unnamed bureaucrats who actually run the nation with little or no accountability, are they the ones? The Governors of the 50-states?  Should we collectively look to them?  How about the spokespeople of the various political entities struggling to gain the wealth of the nation, do they have our best interests as their core belief? 

In this polarized world we see the average citizen has one of three paths to choose.  On the one hand they accept completely the fear the media describes about the dangers of the virus and seek to remain in isolation and would leave the economy in shambles in the hopes the virus will get bored and move on, or we will find some miracle vaccine that will be 100% effective. The opposing side says “screw the virus” let’s go back to life as it was last year and if you get sick you will probably be okay, but if a few people need to die so be it.  Personally, I suspect those two extremes are really very small fractions of our total population, at least that is my hope.  That leaves a sizeable middle ground who is looking for the best risk analysis on how to reopen the economy while maintaining a reasonable level of personal safety. 

The unfortunate fact of today’s world is we really don’t have a unified choice on who we turn to for answers, as we at least thought we did with previous Presidents in earlier generations?  So, good luck with whichever path you choose.

---

[1] https://theodoreroosevelt.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=991271&module_id=339335

[2] https://history-first.com/2020/03/14/wilson-and-the-1918-flu/

[3] https://www.britannica.com/event/Five-Power-Naval-Limitation-Treaty

It's All About Power and Supremacy

I think we can all agree White Supremacists are to be abhorred.  Those who hold their race is superior to others and has a right, nay a duty, to subjugate other races is the very (read historical) definition of racism.  Unfortunately, that historical definition of racism has been turned on its head to the point that only whites of European ancestry can be classified as racist.  Unless, of course, it suits a particular individual to call someone else a racist in order to dominate the conversation.  It’s kind of like deciding all the sudden you’re an ANTI-fascist and everyone you hate, or who disagrees with you, must be a fascist. By this process, we now identify white supremacists not by their beliefs, but rather by inference.  As Professional Sport teams and players have noted in various protests “If you ain’t with us, you (sic) against us. [1]” 

As the Antifa and Black Lives Matter’s “mostly peaceful” protestors invade the personal space of citizens just trying to live their lives this demand for subservience seems to be growing in fashion. Regardless of how some will portray these demands it is clearly intimidation with the intent to show their power over the helpless. 

After all, politics is all about power.  There are those who have it, and those who want it.  Those who want it are now being empowered by the Democratic party to demonstrate their right to it.  Unfortunately, for the majority of the Democratic party and its voters they don’t understand that once they give authority to those who believe they can demand power by force there will be no way to put that genie back into the bottle.

The real question for the United States, which has seen 240 years of relatively peaceful transference of power and authority is how do we reconcile the wrongs of the past with the desires of the future?

As we debate the changing roles of our various sub-cultures it seems we have put behind us the wisdom of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others who see the evil of any belief that puts one race above another. 

---

[1] https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/broncos-players-join-protests-as-10th-day-of-demonstrations-take-shape-in-denver

As the Political World Turns

In Washington DC, President Trump announced his nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg as an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court.  We can expect the next month to be filled with the vilification of the candidate as a human being, not because she is a despicable human being, but because she is President Trump’s choice and the opposition has demonstrated that to be their only weapon.

Of course, to mobilize their followers we can expect the fear card to be played by each talking head on television who owes their livelihood to the DNC.  We’ve already begun to see those attacks, but apparently, there is a writer’s strike because none of them seem to be new and original.  For example, they are dragging out the old “Handmaiden’s Tail” costumes they used so unsuccessfully to demonstrate conservative women can’t think for themselves.  Then, remarkably, they are attacking her beliefs in the Roman Catholic faith. 

I find this hysterical for those who hold John F. Kennedy as a god.  Probably most of the people on television or in the media aren’t old enough to remember when Kennedy was attacked for his faith and had to give a speech about not listening to the Pope for guidance.  I think George Santayana had some thoughts about history repeating itself.

The biggest fear card the left will play is the absolute conviction the 1973 decision on Roe v. Wade will be completely overturned and women will once more be forced into back street abortions by sleazy doctors who’ve lost their licenses due to their drug addictions and marriage problems.  The only real issue here is there is not one decision that needs to be reconsidered, but at least four, but when have facts ever weighted in with the need to instill fear among those too uninterested to know the facts.  If facts were important, we would talk about the disproportionate number of African-American abortions compared to the whites.  We would consider the real reason Planned Parenthood locates its abortion centers in black neighborhoods.  We would ask why the government should fund this elective surgery, or why we don’t care when life is a life?

The left, it seems to me, is all about causes.  “Black Lives Matter,” but only certain black lives (from all appearances only the lives of those who turn to a life of crime).  Women’s rights matter, but only women who agree with the political agenda of the cause.  Not those who might see life in a different vain.  The “Me Too” movement was all about acknowledging the violence of men against women, but again we see it is only about becoming a tool to vilify certain men the cause may disagree with.  In the end, it is not about protecting women from rapists, it’s about using women just in a different manner than rapists.

In our current climate (and perhaps it was always this way), politicians can never admit they were wrong, but if they could, I wonder how many of the Democrats in the Senate in 2013 had wished Harry Reid hadn’t been so arrogant as to abolish the long-standing process for judicial advice and consent? 

It was that decision that has opened the door for Justice Barrett’s confirmation.  I was sorry to see the tradition abolished in 2013, but forcing the party to live with its choices, especially in an age where we don’t accept personal responsibility for anything seems fitting as we approach an election I think will shock the Democratic party to its core.

Magic Pills

 

We’ve been conditioned to believe the government can offer solutions (i.e. Magic Pills) promising to make our lives perfect.  It’s been my impression these cure-all's rarely perform as we would want them to, and too often lead to requiring other pills to fix the problems created by the first magic pill.  Climate science seems to me like a big campaign to sell such a magic pill.

As I understand the whole issue of climate science it is a bunch of scientists feeding data into a bunch of computers and super-computers in an effort to solve the question “what came first the chicken or the egg.”  Just kidding.  They are trying to determine the causes of our on-going changes in climate and what politicians can do to stop them.  On the surface this seems a lot like asking Deep Thought for the answer to “life, the universe and everything.”  I guess we should consider ourselves lucky it hasn’t taken 7-million years to come up with the answer.[1]

In the Paris Climate Accords[2], signed by the US under the Obama administration and later rejected by the Trump administration, the whole purpose was to:

a)     Hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;

b)    Increase the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;

c)     Make finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.

At the end of the day it was that last statement that was most significant.  The industrial nations are supposed to send money through the UN to the poor nations (with the usual pass through and handling graft) so they can improve their lot in life and the industrial nations feel good about what they’ve done to pollute the earth.  The rich can still fly their planes and sail their yachts but they have to pay some poor slob to use his/her “carbon credits.” (e.g.   Sir Elton John flies Prince Henry and Meagan to France)

As in all things – once the political is introduced into the scientific equation everyone is forced to take a side.  We are no longer capable of finding a moderate solution, it becomes an all or nothing choice.  On the one side are all those people who know they are smarter than everyone else because they are rich, highly educated, are paid to play sports or entertain us, or are just plain famous.  On the other side are all those who want to be left alone to live their lives as they’ve grown accustom to.  Caught in the middle are all those who would like to do the right thing, but can’t decide on what opinions to believe and fear the costs of those choices.  Against this background we have the politicians who seek to become rich and powerful themselves by controlling the spending of our tax dollars.

Today we see the world differently than our ancestors, and in my opinion that is a good thing, the question is does it matter?  If we each took the time to pick up after ourselves, reduce the use of plastics and shift from societies that take convenience over sustainment we would all be better off, but ask yourself, is that likely to happen?  Is there some magic pill we could take the make everyone a little less entitled or more sensitive to the world around them?  From my perspective it seems unlikely.  We need only look at the climate activists who stage demonstrations against the fossil fuel industry to see the mess they leave behind them as they return to their entitled lives.  If these people can’t pick up after themselves then what are the chances the rest of us will.  Everyone seems to believe it’s someone else’s job to pick up after they’ve saved the planet.

Now we have a debate about the number of fires in the western United States.  Of course, those who accept climate science think it is the sole reason for the fires, and the choices of their politicians seem irrelevant.  Those who question the modeling reject that notion and place all the blame of the ineptitude of the politicians.  Neither side is willing to accept that maybe it is some of both, and God forbid a politician ever admit he/she may have a wrong position.  The real question for the climate science crowd is what actual short-term solutions do you offer for reducing the burning of the western United States?  As far as I can tell it all hinges on giant fans and solar panels to power electric cars which would require more electricity across an aging grid, which would start more fires.

Then we have arsonists.  Arson seems to be an increasingly fun way to express your displeasure with something.  Unfortunately, it also tends to start massive wild fires during the season when the west coast is mostly tinder.  Is there some climate change magic pill solution for those folks?

How about Hurricanes?  I’m told there are more Hurricanes in the Atlantic than any time in the last 100 years, but if one of them comes ashore at the exact same place one did about 16 years ago does that mean the climate hasn’t changed in 16 years?

All this reminds me of the big environmental disasters of the last century.

For example, I remember that time we were creating a hole in the ozone because too many women were using hair spray.  Back in the olden days we were able to reach an agreement that women would abandon the big bouffant styles of the ’70 and ‘80s and save the world.  Thanks to the courageous decisions of women worldwide, and the elimination of chlorofluorocarbons as a propellant we’ve at least stabilized and are (perhaps) reducing the size of the hole over the Antarctic.

Even before that we were using dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane or DDT to kill insects to, seemingly, make life better for all mankind by eliminating one of the leading causes of malaria (the lowly mosquito).  Unfortunately, for the larger birds of prey like the Bald Eagle there was an unanticipated side effect.  It caused the shells of their eggs to weaken and dramatically increased infant mortality, a leading cause of extinction.  Again, fortunately, we were able to agree we could live better with a few bugs than we could without eagles.

 Nuclear power is clean energy, but we seem unwilling to really discuss that as a favored choice.  There are some really good reasons most of us tend to shy away from that discussion, at least right now.  Us older folks remember Three Mile Island in PA, and Chernobyl in the Ukraine where the reactors failed.  In the case of the Soviet Union, the Chernobyl disaster created a contamination zone of about 162,150 km².  More recently we had the disaster in Japan, where a tsunami knocked out the Fukushima Diichi nuclear plant.  Of course, scientists promise us new reactors will be much safer than those old reactors, but until we come up with a way to dispose of all the nuclear waste, we still have a potential environmental catastrophe just waiting to happen. 

Finally, as we move on to the “environmentally friendly” solutions of wind and solar power I wonder how we will deal with the unanticipated side effects of that magic pill.  As I understand the manufacturing of these miracles of modern science all require exotic materials and metals to function properly.  As we dispose of the aging and no longer effective solar panels what environmental pitfalls await us?

·      “The problem of solar panel disposal “will explode with full force in two or three decades and wreck the environment” because it “is a huge amount of waste and they are not easy to recycle.”

·      “The reality is that there is a problem now, and it’s only going to get larger, expanding as rapidly as the PV industry expanded 10 years ago.”

·      The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in 2016 estimated there was about 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste in the world at the end of that year. IRENA projected that this amount could reach 78 million metric tonnes by 2050.”[3]

While we are talking about solar panels lets talk about some other environmental issues. When assessing solar panels as a key energy resource, it is important to weigh up any concerns. One of the issues confronting the solar industry is that many of the materials used to produce solar panels can be hazardous. Some potential issues include:

·      Sawing silicon into discs for use creates silicon dust called kerf, with up to 50% waste. Kerf can be inhaled by workers, causing severe respiratory problems.

·      Silica gas is highly explosive, and has been known to spontaneously combust.

·      Silicon production reactors are cleaned with sulfur hexafluoride, which is the most potent greenhouse gas per molecule according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It also can react with other chemicals to produce sulfur dioxide, which is responsible for acid rain.[4]

Then there is the question of what the heavy metals used in the batteries required of many of these systems will actually do as they are disposed of, or even the cost to the individuals who have to dig those metals out of the earth.  I’ll leave that discussion for another day.

---

[1] The answer is 42.  (From “A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy”)

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#1e371b47121c

[4] https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=12014