'Tis the Season

As is our custom, we decorate our home every Christmas, and then place a small fire bowl outside where we sit and visit with neighbors who drive by.  We offer them a small sample of mulled wine, cookies, and dog treats for any pet they may be passing by with. Living in a relatively small gated retirement community we have an opportunity to visit with people we don’t regularly see, some old friends, and often children and grandchildren of other residents.

For example, one night a former player for the Indianapolis Colts, his wife and their two children stopped by to share the fire and the joy of the season. He was a graduate of Virginia Tech, and once his NFL career came to an end they moved back to Virginia.  We chatted about our time in Virginia and players we both new from the state, notably a running back named Terry Kirby who played for the Tabb, Va. High School while we lived there.

The temps were a bit chilly for us long-term Floridians, but for the families just in from North Dakota it was down-right balmy and several came by in shorts and sandals while their retired parents huddled under blankets in the golf cart.

Towards the end of the evening a golf cart with two ladies stopped in to compliment the decorations. The driver recognized me from pickleball so we started up a conversation that covered a range of subjects.  The passenger commented on how she fed stray cats and had caught a couple and had them neutered.  I mentioned the neighborhood cat club, which solicited a profane exclamation from her.  I assured her there was, in fact, a “Kit Kat” club, but made the mistake of saying you had to be a devout liberal democrat to belong.  The driver noted her passenger would fit right in.

We moved on to talk about our grandchildren arriving and how I taught them history.  She asked why they weren’t taught that in school, and I explained they were “home schooled.”  She then expressed her displeasure the Florida Governor wouldn’t allow real American History to be taught in public schools. I disagreed, but knew this conversation wouldn’t go well.  As she reached for a cigarette another golf cart pulled up and I said goodnight and moved to greet the next visitors.

These kinds of impromptu conversations always leave me with questions I wrestle with as I sip my coffee the next morning.

For example, what is “real” American History and more importantly, what is the role of publicly funded education?  

It’s been a while since I’ve offered my opinion on things so as my daughters dog rests by my feet, I figured I’d spend a few moments pontificating.

What is the role of primary education?  We hear a lot of complaints from the right that modern educators are not doing their jobs and are spending time “indoctrinating” the children instead of teaching them the fundamentals of “reading, ‘writin, & ‘rithmatic.” I certainly understand this concern, but as I look back on my own education, I realize teachers and educators have always had a role in the indoctrination and training of young people to fit into society. We were taught to honor our elders, respect the symbols of the nation, and in the words of John F. Kennedy, “ask what we could do for our nation.”  The difference?  Today’s problem is which society should children be indoctrinated to fit into?  The one we had, the one “they” want, or the one we have today?

One of the big problems in answering that question is who gets to decide what is right and how much say should the parents have in that decision?  As we look at the controversies coming with the COVID pandemic we see a modern rebellion with some parent groups when they believe the professionals have overstepped their authority.  This was apparent with the election of Governor Youngkin as Governor of Virginia. The modern educators have come to believe it is their role to begin the indoctrination of children into the society they believe is right for the nation.  One that holds our heritage as one to distain, while proposing a society where all minorities are to be favored over those with a European background.

This leaves open the question, what happens when those who are making these decisions finally recognize they’ve created a society where not all are equal under the law, but where discrimination based on race, gender, skin pigment, and sexual orientation are the acceptable outcomes of a bigoted majority? Where merit is of far less value than the above-mentioned qualities? In my opinion, this is what we see with the President Biden administration where an individual’s sexual orientation if more critical to an appointment than their actual abilities (e.g., Karine Jean-Pierre and Sam Brinton)

Historically, societal norms seem to swing, and the more politicians get involved with those swings the wider they become. If you think I’m mistaken in this I would refer you to the temperance movement where those who found drinking to be an evil of modern society fought for the elimination of that evil. Laws, simply weren’t sufficient.  Limits on the days of purchase didn’t meet the need. We needed a total national abstinence to eliminate this evil. They fought for and passed the 18^th Amendment, the only Amendment to the Constitution with a shelf life.  It was rescinded by the nation in 1933, fourteen years after ratification.  Just an FYI, the 18^th took about a year to pass, and the 21^st took about 9½ months to rescind the original, but that was when we had a Congress that would actually do its job. I can’t recall the last time we actually saw that kind of organization. Today it is far more important to vilify the opposition than actually work with them. But then all are politicians are doing is reflecting what we’ve become as a nation.

The first question was what is “real” American History?  This is almost an unanswerable question, since there is a truth that “history” is a function of the victors.  Those who win and survive get to write the history they choose. Let’s take for example the last world war, where we Americans painted the Axis powers of Germany, Italy, and Japan as the baddies.  Certainly, for the European Americans Japan was the worst of the lot, since they initiated a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor and dragged us into the war, but there was also an racist undertone, reinforced by our politicians and the Japanese themselves.

Now, some 80 years after the war, scholars from my generation and later are striving to rewrite the history to reflect modern beliefs and facts that have come out well after the “Greatest Generation” made their sacrifices to save the world from itself.  I don’t recall ever hearing about Japanese internment camps until I was in college. It was certainly years after that that I came to understand the lingering hatred of Japan by the men who fought in the Pacific. 

In high school, I learned the Soviet Union were our allies, and it was only after the war they turned into an opponent.  Later I came to understand the viciousness of the Communist system and the willingness to slaughter its own people to protect the system and the Joseph Stalin.  America, in my education, was always the good guys, but was that really true? It is reasonable to recognize any government of man is subject to the imperfections of man. Ours is no exception. Perfection is an impossible goal for society, as so many define perfection differently. Whose view of perfection is correct?

Now we come to today, where a minority demands we change the views of history to focus on the abuses of slavery and the nature of those who participated in it. The question is, at what point in our education of minds to we transition from one view of history to a more comprehensive view that addresses the failures of past generations?

My liberal visitor, along with most liberals of today, buy into the idea we should be teaching the history they want, and if that is not done the schools are failing. Too often they defend the schools without acknowledging the other role of the public school system on teaching us about “citizenship.”  The right worries more about liberal “indoctrination” while also failing to understand the necessity of bringing young minds into a position to understand the “why” of history and not only the “what.”

We, in Florida, saw this same outrage a year ago, when the Governor and the Legislature passed the “Parental Rights Act.” Which placed restrictions on what and when issues like gender identify could be introduced to young minds, and what rights the parents of those young minds had in limiting those discussion. The debate became heated as the liberal left waged a propaganda war with the “don’t say gay” disclaimer. Almost no one who was outraged by the law could be bothered to read it. This included the Walt Disney Company, who chose to engage in the warfare and as a result will lose their autonomy in self-government here in Florida.

Politicans

            I can think of few professions that allow humans to operate as spoiled children more than being a politician in a western democracy.  Within the modern era we went from the first industrial revolution with its “age of enlightenment,” through the “Revolutionary Period,” the Imperial Age, the “Victorian Age,” a century focused on World Wars, and the “Information Age.[1]” Along the way, we in the United States have watched our government grow from one fearful of foreign powers to one which seeks to dominate the world stage. Our national identity has shifted from one seeking to remain independent to one which seeks out the largess of government and the protections it promises.

            This shift in the national psyche has created a nation run not by the citizens but by professional politicians seeking as much individual power and wealth as possible, while assisted by an increasingly bloated bureaucracy filled with individuals it is next to impossible to remove, and who increasingly seem to have loyalty not to the nation, but to a single party rule that will expand their own power.

            Within this century we’ve seen our Congress abandon its role as the keeper of the purse to one who thinks that purse is a huge piggy bank that will allow them to spend far more money than we as a nation probably should.  In 2000 the national debt sat at a little under $6 trillion and its ratio to our Gross Domestic Product was 55% (not good, but not too bad).  Today it sits at about $31 trillion, with a ratio to GDP of 123%. It has been over 100% since 2014[2] so this is not a single-party issue.  The last time we had debt-to-GDP ratios like this was WW2, and then the dollars were measured in billions.

            One of the issues in the 2008 election was the fact Congress had forsaken its role in creating a national budget and just spent its days inflating the budget given to it by the President.  This created a “tea party” movement that was the first version of those racist citizens who sought to hold our government in check because they challenged the status quo, then led by our first African-American President.

            During President Obama’s two terms the Congress ebbed and flowed (as it always does) between the Democratic Party and the loyal opposition, Republicans.  But there was a sea change in how the politicians behaved towards each other and the voters. It became easy for them to accuse those who disagreed with policies of being racist, and the loyal media was happy to go along with that.  The opposition spent most of its time trying to explain they were not racist, but no one was really that interested in the facts.  If you couldn’t fit it into a sound bite it wasn’t worth broadcasting.

            Even with the racist club available the Democrats in power were upset they couldn’t snap their fingers and get their way.  So, they began to change to rules of the game, apparently without much thought about what happens when you abandon the rules that forced moderation.  For example, led by Senate Majority Harry Reid, led an effort to abandon the 60-vote majority required for approval of cloture. Cloture is a parliamentary procedure for closing a debate and moving to a vote on the issue. The 3/5 requirement had been in place since 1975, but the Democrats reduced that requirement for “lower court justices to a simple majority” in order to move more approvals through the Senate.  The minority complained about the move and warned of future consequences.  Those consequences became real when the GOP gained control of the Senate and the Presidency.  As a result, there were three justices nominated and approved and all the Democrats could do was rant and make accusations about their ancient past.  Personally, I didn’t feel too bad listening to their childish tantrums other than wondering what future brilliant jurists would think twice about subjecting themselves and their families to this political theater?

            Over the entire four years of the Trump administration, the Democrats were far more focused on destroying Trump than really working to improve the nation.  Can anyone name any outstanding piece of bi-partisan legislation that came from the House through the Senate that made America stronger?  I can’t.  I do know the President made a lot of wild claims about how great the nation was doing under him, some of that a result of his direction to reduce regulatory oversight, but most of it was as much a function of government stalemate where the politicians focused on destroying each other and the nation moved along without them, mostly because no matter what their other focuses where they created trillions of dollars in debt.  When Trump assumed office, the national debt was at around $20 trillion (104%), and when he left $30 trillion (124%). The real question is was all the “science-based” choices we went through with COVID really worth the inflation it has caused?  That is a question with a million opinions and zero real answers.

            So now we come to national disasters and who or what is the cause.  For the left, the cause is clear and beyond dispute, or as they like to say, “the science is settled.”  All these climate impacts, from the draught in the west, and resultant fires, the destruction of tornados in the mid-west, to the hurricanes that have hit the US and its territory of Puerto Rico are all massively worse because they are a result of that growing impact on the climate.

            In Florida, I believe we are seeing massive impacts not because the hurricane was worse than historical ones, but is more accurately caused by man’s arrogance that we can ignore how the weather really works and build whatever we want, where ever we want as long as we can pay the right politicians the right amount of money.  We see build-ups in the barrier islands, where the property is built on the sand, and flooding in central Florida because the runoff has nowhere to go except into the streets and property of private homes.

            Of course. the politicians can’t let a good disaster go to waste so we will spend billions of federal debt to help convince the victims the government is there for them.  We will strengthen Puerto Rico, until the next hurricane when we will again strengthen them, and we will fix Florida while telling the insurance companies they need to keep their rates low, even for those on the greatest at-risk properties.

            As we approach the bi-annual renewal of the incumbent contracts for Congressional representation, and the reelection of almost 1/3 of the Senate it will be interesting to see what Americans truly believe are the important issues?

            According to which political party you prefer it is either the economy, crime, border security, and safety. Or it’s abortion rights and anti-fascism.  I guess sometime after the second Tuesday in November we will really know what the voters of the various districts think are the issues they will vote for or against.

 

---

[1] https://examples.yourdictionary.com/historical-eras-list-of-major-time-periods-in-history.html

[2] https://www.thebalancemoney.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287  

It is a Matter of Trust.

I recently had an exchange with a friend where I noted our views were dependent on the trust one has in the public official making the statements.  His response was along the lines that trust is an antiquated concept.  I like these exchanges as it gives me something to think about. Indeed, is trust an antiquated concept?

As a military professional, I have a very hard time with the idea trust has gone out of fashion. During my career, the lives of the men and women I served with, and who I led lived, and occasionally died, based on the trust we had in each other, and the commanders who directed us.  The entirety of the combat arms of this nation is built on the expectation of trust. We will do the right thing, and if we don’t, we will be ostracized and removed.

In the elite forces, like the US Navy’s SEALs, the US Army’s Special Forces/Rangers, and the US Air Force’s Special Tactics the whole concept of trust is taken to the highest level, but even the average soldier, sailor, Marine, and airman build their career and their lives on trusting those to their left and right.  As a flyer, we place our trust in the maintainers who inspect and repair the aircraft prior to our flight. For us trust is absolute, without it we are nothing.

Now we turn to politics and society outside the military. Is it true in our society and within our political system that trust is an antiquated concept?

While it is true, that we’ve become polarized in our political divisions, at the end of the day the individuals of society do, in fact, place their trust in the words and deeds of the political factions they support.  If they did not our elections would have participation rates well below 50%. As it stands, we don’t do a great job turning out to vote, but our historical average remains above that threshold.

When a political party calls for civic outrage based solely on the rhetoric of the party, we still see that outrage turned into action on the streets, based on shared ideals and the belief that outrage will affect change as promised by the politicians. That alone confirms the trust of party loyalists that their political representatives know what they are doing.

Doing business in today’s world is almost always a matter of trust. We trust the food we buy to be safe to eat. The medicines we take to improve our health, and the products we buy to be delivered and work as promised.  Unfortunately, political involvement and agendas have begun to erode that trust, but without it can our system survive? I believe for most of us the majority of that trust in the “system” remains, while trust in some “experts” may be waning.

It seems to me that trust is the essential ingredient in our educational system. We send our children off to school with the trust the educators will do their best to impart the essential knowledge as they prepare them to enter society. Unfortunately, this does appear to be one area where the idea of trust has been violated and now parents are coming to grips with the agendas that are driving the school systems and the teachers to impart more than the essential skills of academics with their own social mores, rather than leave that to the parents.

What the shutdown of our society during the recent pandemic has shown many parents is the subversive nature of the professional educators as they transition from strictly the role of educator to social indoctrination. Perhaps this is a long-standing approach, but its impacts became most evident with the rise of social media like Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok. Now, as parents seek to regain control of what their children’s education should look like, there is an emerging battleground between professional educators and the family.  I am not involved enough to know with certainty, but as an outsider, it would seem the activists on both sides are driving this confrontation. Unfortunately, it will be the children who are most hurt by this loss of trust.

Perhaps, my friend who comes from this educational background bases his belief that trust is an antiquated concept on that conflict. If so, that is unfortunate.

But then as I consider his words, I am struck by the loss of trust we have developed in our judicial system where equality under the law and protection of society from the wolves who would feed on it is essential.  We see much in the news to drive us to outrage regardless of our political beliefs so perhaps my friend is right, especially when we talk about a nation where respect for the law is the underpinning of our entire society. 

I guess time will tell if trust is really as antiquated as my friend believes.

Thoughts on This Coming Election

“Though I’ve belted you and flayed you,   

      By the livin’ Gawd that made you,

   You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din!”  

Ending of Gunga Din, a poem by Rudyard Kipling

 

As happens in our country every other year, we are entering into a time of transition. We citizens are given our chance to affect the Republic and the country for which it stands. For most of my adult life this was a social obligation I took seriously, but with little concern over the future of the nation. This century, that has all changed.

We began the century with a contested election where Florida became the battleground and the state became notorious for its “hanging chads.” We moved on to 9/11 when Arab/Islamic terrorists killed or injured almost 9,000 innocent citizens who sought only to live through that day. Of course, this led to a war that took us 20 years to end in something far from victory.

We transitioned from a President who followed in his Father’s footsteps and was aided by a Washington insider, to a historic first in the election of an African-American, to a New York real estate mogul, and finally a man who can’t really be sure how he was elected.  Through those years we’ve expanded our global communication network so now everyone like me has a voice and is able to express his appreciation, or outrage. Usually, it is outrage.  We have an entire generation who seems to spend their life expressing their outrage.

Along the way, those who I thought could be bridge-builders chose not to. Those who seemed to lack the experience necessary to run the nation did so with mixed results. Finally, those who’ve spent their entire adult lives as elected officials have been both unable and unwilling to pass the jobs along to the next generation.

For the past two years one party has had control of two of the three branches of government, yet their focus seems to be on building a future few can afford, or on condemning the sins of the past. The party that claims it is inclusive and wants to protect women can’t define what a woman is. Its political elite seem to spend more time in mock protest than in actually doing the peoples work.

The loyal opposition is fractured by those who believe it’s time to be as crass as the former President, those who want to “go along to get along” and those who want to place the historical core values of the nation back on center stage. Which brings up the real question we will decide on this upcoming election.

What are the core values we as a nation really want?  

a) Do we want to keep the “rule of law?”  If so, we seem to have work to do. It is obvious our younger generation has abandoned this idea for the idea of mob rule, and politically correct thinking as the standard of behaviour.  Our law enforcement and legal institutions seem to turn a blind eye on some crimes while vilifying those who don’t conform to the desired standard. I cite as an example the Attorney General’s commitment to identify as domestic terrorists those who protest at school boards which have agendas of their own, while ignoring the protests of those who are attempting to terrorize the conservative justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Or we can look at the district attorneys in Manhattan or Los Angeles who have implemented what their opponents call a “catch and release” where violent offenders are released almost immediately back into society while those who may have defended themselves are held pending a decision on prosecution (Jose Alba, NYC bodega clerk).

We can argue the “rule of law” has never been universally or fairly applied (e.g. African-Americans) but just because we suffer from the failures of our past, is that a reason to abandon the concept that ALL are equal under the law? We should work every day to ensure equal treatment of all accused, but when politics becomes a variable for those charged with doing the work of enforcement and judgement does the foundation of our society stand?

b) Akin to the first point, I ask does the Constitution still have value? With the decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Medical Center, the SCOTUS overturned a judicial decision which had stood for fifty years.  Those who support abortion were and remain outraged over this decision, while those who would end abortion if they could, are overjoyed. If you look at the history of the U.S. Constitution we have 27 amendments, the first 10 came almost immediately after the Constitution was ratified and the first government established. The remaining 17 came in drips and drabs but usually only took a year or so to ratify. Except of course the 27^thwhich took almost 203 years.  

The Congress had fifty years to codify the decision of seven old white men in robes (to use the modern terms of condemnation), but chose not to.  The current court decided the original decision erred in its justification of the due process clause of the 14^th amendment and returned the right of determination to the political side of government. Since the rights of abortion were not inherent in the Constitution and Congress had not amended it to claim that right from the states the court returned it to the states and their citizens.

Now Congress is trying to figure out what they can do, and activist politicians are staging political theater to show their disdain for this check and balance of our government.  They are threatening to “pack the court” and the opposition is outraged over this idea.  If we were actually able to speak to each other and format compromises like we used to do, then there probably are some legitimate reasons for actually expanding the court from nine to eleven, or maybe even thirteen.  Unfortunately, in today’s world that is a non-starter.

Unrelated, except for the traditional for/against opposition, is the ideal of the Second Amendment. Both sides have their emotional talking points and neither side has any desire to listen or understand the reasoning of the opposition.  Those who think the volume of guns is the root cause would abandon the Second Amendment to restrict those guns.  Those who think the amendment is there to protect the rights of the citizen against an abusive government feel equally strongly about its protection.  Of course, the emotional demands mean we really will never explore to find an actual root cause of mass shootings, i.e. what is in the head of those who choose violence in this form and how did it get there?  By the way, it is interesting the government has never released the finding of the largest mass shooting in recent memory, the killings in Las Vegas in 2017.  I wonder why?

c) Do we want the perception of safety or the perception of freedom? As a human we will never actually be completely safe or completely free. Life is a dangerous place, and within a society we must often choose what freedoms we will sacrifice to make society function. This was one of the great debates of our founders as the wrestled with forming a government that would establish us as a nation, while maintaining the maximum number of rights and freedoms for its citizens.  Along the way we’ve increasingly imposed sanctions of individual freedoms, but we are now reaching a point where we will decide if enough is enough or do we want more?

The Democratic party seems to favor the illusion of safety over individual freedom.  They will spy on us to ensure those right-wing extremists are kept in check. While the Republican party offers the illusion of individual freedom, supposedly protecting individual freedoms, unfortunately I see little from them about actually reducing the amount of government available to spy on us, or control our lives. I believe many in my generation have come to value individual freedom from government mandated safety, but that is a very close call.  The younger generations all seem like they want more government to provide more safety as well as all the safeguards for poor life decisions.

That about sums up what I think are the big three issues I’ll be thinking about when I go into the polls this November.  I hope we make wise choices, for if we don’t at some point, we will see the end of the nation-state we call home.

 

The Day Dobbs Killed Roe

Depending upon your point of view today is a day of celebration or a day of infamy. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) today issued an opinion nullifying the previous court rulings of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA v. Casey. Regardless of your feelings, opinions, and beliefs, today is as important a day in the history of the Court as it was in 1955 when SCOTUS ruled in Brown v. Board of Education overturning their earlier opinion in Plessey v. Ferguson.  That earlier decision had allowed the states to continue to discriminate against the African-American minority by creating a “separate but equal” standard of services. In truth, there was never anything equal about those services, ranging from “whites only” fountains up to “whites only” schools.

The questions the earlier court failed to address in Roe and Casey was the grounds for those courts to decide on whose needs were protected by the Constitution, and whether or not abortion was, in fact, a constitutionally guaranteed right. Interestingly in Roe, the state of Texas argued the rights of the fetus was protected under the due process restrictions of the 14^th Amendment.  The court rejected this and refused to seriously consider the rights of the unborn.  They set a standard that assumed a fetus in the first trimester was neither viable nor alive.  They went so far as to point out some religions don’t believe life starts until birth.  That has been the standard those who support abortion have lived with for the past 50-years. 

Casey successfully sought to expand the length of pregnancy where a woman could request an abortion on demand, but without any real review of the correctness of Roe.  This court has found the arguments in both Roe and Casey are not so convincing that the judgement of the courts should be the final determination of when, and for who abortions are performed. With Dobbs they return the right of determination back to the states -- where the people as a whole can decide through their elected representatives what they want to support.

The one thing that really frustrates me is the lack of self-awareness of people who’ve been in charge of the nation since Roe v. Wade.  It’s as if they don’t understand how this government is supposed to work.  In 1864, when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation it was only for the 11-states of the Confederacy.  There were four border states that still had slaves.  Slavery didn’t officially end until we ratified the 13^th Amendment on Dec 6, 1865. The people who support abortion had 50-years to take any decision out of the hands of the court by making a woman’s right absolute with an amendment. They didn’t.

Of course, for the easily outraged this is pure and simple fascism.  Returning the ability to decide what is right for the people of a state to the elected politicians of the state?  Totally unacceptable, who can trust those people to decide things? That’s why we have all those smart politicians in Washington who are routinely elected and reelected for life.  We are slowly abandoning the ideal of Federalism, to be ruled by the Jacobin mob in DC. What is so funny is this is actually what fascism would look like, but whatever?

I’ve been told some of the people who know me are so upset by this ruling they are emotionally broken, but thankfully live in states who are good with abortion.  Some are threatening to move to other countries, as if restrictions on abortion don’t exist there, and some will join in with the movement of the mobs to attack those who support the lives of the unborn. It is funny how people who think killing of children in a school is terrible, but limiting the killing of a potential life is worthy of violence.

There is a severe thunderstorm outside my window right now, and I am afraid one will grow throughout our nation as the Biden Administration and the Democrats in government condemn the actions of the court, argue for its abolishment, and look aside as domestic terrorists attack those who they disagree with.

What is Truth?

For most of us, this seems a relatively simple question.  Truth is factually correct information.  But is it?  How do we separate truth from fiction, or fact from opinion? In this age of an overabundance of data, sorting through this to find the truth is a daunting task, and one most of us can’t be bothered with. We tend to take shortcuts to find an answer we like, rather than wonder about the truth. 

A quick search of the question, (what is truth?) returns some interesting perspectives.  From a religious standpoint, we can find: “Truth is a self-expression of God.”  Psychology Today says: “Truth is a property not so much of thoughts and ideas but more properly of beliefs and assertions.” Then, of course, you have the exchange between Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson in the movie “A Few Good Men.”

But what happens to society when people no longer believe in the institutions we’ve developed to provide for a stable social construct? 

Does the court system deal in truth? Perhaps, but in our advocacy system, the defense is actually charged with obscuring the facts to present an alternative version of reality. So, in a sense, it is left to the jury to decide what is true and what is not.  Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don’t.

Does the entertainment industry deal in truth? I think most would agree it does not. But we seek those whose celebrity comes from that industry to tell us what is true. This leads me to a core problem with our social construct today. Is the way we receive our information from a fact-based system, or an entertainment-based one? Are any of the public “news” channels focused on truth, or do they only offer the opinions they believe will draw the greatest number of viewers?

We talk about our first amendment right to “free speech” but the constitution only places limits on what rules the government can implement, and the idea of “free speech” will mean not all speech is true. Whose job is it to decide what is true and what is not? The most recent pandemic of COVID-19 played out against this backdrop. There were politicians, activists, entertainers, and experts all weighing in on what was true. For the average person, it fell down to who could, or should, you believe?

As the virus played out in its mutating forms we saw, in real time, the struggle to control the flow of information and the increasing polarization of opinions based not on a seeking of the truth, but on the control of the population, allegedly to control the virus. Did it work?  I’m not sure how you could possibly tell that one method was superior to another since, as far as I can tell, seeking truth was never an objective.  What I do know is as of today, here in the United States, there is a statistically insignificant difference between states that exerted maximum control of the populations, and states that began to ease restrictions as soon as they could.  The top four most populous states in the nation are California, Texas, Florida, and New York.  The top four states in the nation for COVID deaths are California, Texas, Florida, and New York.

As we look towards our government and social media, do the institutions operate to provide truth, or do they operate to control and limit power?  What is the truth?

Experts are Confusing.

We live in a world of experts. All you have to do is look at any of the social media feeds.  Everyone has all the answers, sometimes without even knowing the questions. In this world of experts, it is becoming increasingly difficult to know what to do, who to do it too, and what will happen when it’s done. To illustrate this, let’s start with a big question and work our way down to a little one.

Question 1:  How was the universe created?

Answer:  Experts believe it was created by a “big bang” and it is expanding outward until someday it will stop expanding and collapse back within itself.  Other theological experts believe God created the universe with intelligent design. Depending on the theology it is working as a clock wound up or God is tinkering with it like a clocksmith.  

My confusion:  If the universe started from a single big bang, what was there before, and what caused that single big bang?  If it is expanding outward – what is it expanding into?  From a theological standpoint, if God created the universe how come it’s expanding at all?  

My theory: we are just a giant loaf of bread and right now God has us on the counter while the yeast rises.  The reason we have global warming is the yeast creates an exothermic reaction, or we are about to be put into the oven.  That solved let’s move on to the next question.

Question 2:  Why is there war?

Answer 2: War is a competition for resources, control, and wealth.  OR, it is just caused by men with small penises. 

My confusion:  How do experts know what size penis a Dictator, King, or President has?  Also, what happens when Queens start wars?  Does that mean it is a competition for wealth?  The Egyptians never seemed to need a massive empire like the Macedonians, does that mean Alexander the Great, wasn’t really that great in the manhood department?

My theory: War is caused by women, who’ve cleverly found a way to blame men, except when they are in charge and have beheaded anyone they could have blamed.

Question 3:  What is the greatest risk to U.S. National Security?

Answer 3:  The greatest risk to U.S. National Security is a) nuclear war, b) global famine caused by climate change, c) a few white supremacists, d) parents actually questioning school boards or e) insurrection.  Each of these answers has experts who will explain why these are all threats to national security because you know a single threat would be mundane.  You can never have too many threats.

My confusion:  Is it possible to prioritize threats without political agenda?  Can we agree that one threat is more likely to destroy the nation than another?

My theory:  No, it is not possible to prioritize threats without a political agenda.  The importance of a threat depends solely on your point of view and the ability to get in front of the right megaphone to yell out what you think the problem is.  With that in mind, I think the biggest threat to us as a nation is obesity, we will all gain so much weight the population of the west coast will cause the continent to flip over.

Question 4: What is the greatest threat to Public Health?

Answer 4:  This seems to change on almost a daily basis as various experts come forth to tell us what the latest health risks are. It was all pretty simple before the Chinese discovered the Wuhan Virus, now known affectionately as COVID-19. With its arrival, we shut down the world with government mandates until we could get enough personal protective equipment (i.e., masks and rubber gloves, along with social distancing) to stop the spread.  When those didn’t work, we rolled vaccines that were supposed to stop people from getting the virus, and when those didn’t work some went back to government mandates. Now that every rational being seems to be burned out with COVID we are moving on to a new set of “greatest threats.”  Of course, there is “monkeypox” but that hasn’t emerged as the vehicle of choice for the experts, so we are coming up with things like insurrection, assault weapons, and angry young men.

My Confusion:  The number one threat to public health used to be the disease or diseases that killed the most people, although automobiles had a strong lobby and never really got traction as #1.  Smoking and cancer stood out for a long time, but then we started getting the “real” scientists involved.  (By real I mean the internet scientists) and things like gender identity, bullying, and questioning the government experts raised concerns that disinformation was becoming a real threat.

My Theory: Identifying a single greatest threat would risk the other threats losing government funding and the people who like to spend other people’s money would be upset when their political donors don’t get their fair share, so they will continue to funnel money back to the politician.

Attempting to Do in Fifty Days What You’ve Not Done in Fifty Years

Or

Never Let an Emotional Issue Go to Waste.

The leaking of a draft decision in the case of Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization indicated the high court may overturn a previous court’s ruling in Roe vs. Wade, that a woman had a right to abortion, throughout the nation.  All those who see opportunity in this have risen up to defend or condemn the potential ruling.  Facts don’t really matter here.  Those who are pro-abortion are outraged, while those who are pro-life rejoice.

What does matter is how the politicians of the two sides are going to react!

We see the feigned outrage of the DNC as Senators, Representatives, Governors, and even the President (and his spokespeople), come before the nation to condemn the court, and vow action to undo the decision to return the right to decide on any limits to abortion to the states in accordance with the U.S. Constitution[1].  The Democratic members of the House and the Senate, as well as the President, believe they can craft a law that either makes abortion a national law or limits the ability of each state to decide its own standard.  I believe this is simply a politically opportunistic folly, that shows how little our politicians really know about the Constitution, and the belief they will be able to change the composition of the Supreme Court to move it to the politically liberal side to overturn whatever ruling comes out of the Dobbs case.

Now let’s be clear, in the almost 50-years since Roe v. Wade there has been little if any effort to codify a woman’s right to choose what to do with her pregnancy. In fact, since 1972 there has been only one amendment to the Constitution approved.  The 27^th Amendment, first proposed in 1791, but finally ratified in 1992, sets limits on Congress to give themselves pay raises.

So now the left thinks they can write a law that will “codify” a woman’s universal right to abortion before the fall elections.  All I’ve got to say is good luck!  Even if they wrote such a fanciful law would it stand the scrutiny of a court that defers to the Constitution as a principle?

Of course, there are those “radical” politicians who think this can all be corrected if we just pack the court with enough radical justices to make the Constitution irrelevant.  Again, good luck in achieving that before the mid-terms.

---

[1] Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 

 

Just an Opinion on the Faith of a Progressive

         I’m told someone serving in the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has taken the unprecedented step of releasing a draft opinion of the court as it is being debated and written by the justices.  Of course, it is not some mundane matter, but over abortion rights in the country.  As a disclaimer I’ve not read the draft, nor do I intend to.  There is nothing I can do about it.  To be honest, while I have my opinion on the issue, aligned to my faith, and the moral questions people who support abortion on demand will not and cannot answer the Court's opinion is what it is, and will not directly affect me. 

What I observe in the media that lives for these kinds of events is the outrage on both sides, as the issue enters the public forum.  Those who’ve sought to overturn the SCOTUS rulings in Roe vs. Wade and the subsequent cases, which expanded the limits of abortion on demand are rejoicing, but are upset with what they see as a politically driven breach of procedure.  While those who’ve advocated for unlimited abortion are now mobilizing for what they believe to be a historic fight for their freedom to kill those whose lives are inconvenient.  All the usual players have taken the stage, with all the usual rants and opinions.

What I like to observe and comment on though is how those who have no faith in a higher power, putting all their faith in the rule of man are now reacting.

Those people see the nation falling into an age of darkness because of the men and women who may vote to overturn a social ruling of the court to comply with their view of the role of government in the determination of life and individual rights.  I would simply point out that those zealots for abortion have had 50-years to codify the SCOTUS decision into the constitution, but have failed to do so because so many disagree with it and it is a polarizing issue – one they use each election to fight over rather than resolve.

I think it was Chuck Colson, of Watergate fame, who talked about God and faith and pointed out the conspirators of Watergate couldn’t hold up under the pressure of inquisition for a year, while the Church has withstood the questioning of man for over two-thousand years and still keeps the story of the Resurrection alive.

When you chose to place your faith in a politician, political party, or even a SCOTUS ruling you are indeed standing on thin ice.  All the outrage, inflamed rhetoric, or blood-flinging protests will not end the lack of substance in what you believe to be logic and reason.  How quickly you abandon science when it is proven life begins before birth and then when confronted move to outrage.  How fascinating it is to watch you move from the defense of “birthing persons” to “women’s rights” when it comes to a desire to end an inconvenient life.  

I expect we will see all the old and distasteful images of the pre-abortion era flung out as those who’ve placed their faith in man seek to condemn the judgment of man. 

What Happens When Reason is Replaced?

What happens when reason is replaced with rage?

At the end of the eighteenth century, both America and France had revolutions to change the status quo.  Both revolutions replaced a monarchy.  In the United States, we severed our union with King George III, of Great Britain. The French chose to redefine the monarchy of King Louis XVI.  Our revolt was spurred, in part, because of dissatisfaction with British taxation, without having a voice in Parliament.  The French were in the middle of failed economic policies by the monarchy, but more importantly, there were famines, droughts, inflation, and taxation of the poor, but not the privileged class.

The paths our countries took after the revolution reflect two radically different approaches.  Our revolutions took place at the last stages of the “Age of Enlightenment” or the “Age of Reason” where science became a central idea among the intellectual community and theorists in Philosophy and Political Science began to write on how governments should serve the people, and how all ideas should be questioned and resolved towards a common good.  Our political leaders, schooled in these ideals applied themselves to creating a government to serve the people, provide for general prosperity, and provide for a common defense.  But they knew a government unchecked would eventually grow to be a self-serving institution. To help prevent, or at least slow this process,  they ensured there were a series of rational checks and balances to the power of a single branch.

France, on the other hand, seemed to reject the very concepts of "Reason" we found so inviting.  As the revolution evolved, it moved from reason to madness.  Initially, the revolution sought to limit the authority of the monarchy (roughly similar to what the British had done with the Magna Carta), increase the power of the third estate (the middle class) limit the power of the clergy and the nobility.  But as time went on and discontent with the progress grew there came an insurgent movement by the Jacobins and the peasants against the landowners.  In the end, the revolution and its counter-revolution resulted in the execution of the King, Queen, a lot of nobility, and anyone the revolutionists in power thought deserved to die.  It was the Age of the Guillotine. From the ruin of the revolution, Napoleonian Bonaparte rose to create his first empire.

Why the difference.  Both started with the progressive philosophies of the day, why did one end with an outcome that led to successful self-governance, while the other replaced a King with an Emperor?

Perhaps it is what we see in our urban areas today.  We have the rich, the powerful, and those who depend on the rich and powerful for their survival.  We can speculate as to the cause of this, but are we developing a class of citizens incapable of reason and who seek only their own interests?  While those in power seek to remain in power by responding to the emotional demands of those who cannot see self-interest is, in the end, destructive?

Those who control the power of the state, and their allies who benefit from the largess of those in power, seek to keep the third estate powerless and in chaos so it cannot rise to challenge the power of the first and second.  What better way than to ensure there is sufficient rage amongst those who refuse to see a different path?  But what happens, when there are shortages as there were in France.  When shelves are bare, energy expensive, and working no longer offers hope of a better life.  Will the elite suggest when there is no bread, we should eat cake?

I Believe in Free Speech, BUT!

        I respect free speech, but I don’t like (fill in your adjective of choice).  This really isn't a First Amendment argument or defense, for most of the outrage comes from private institutions or students in our colleges.  Over the past couple of years, this line has entered increasingly into our vocabulary as the term “Cancel Culture” has fallen from favor and the progressive movement has had to deal with the criticism of trying to control speech with demands that certain types of speech much be outlawed.  

        Social media is a prime example of this approach where they somehow have given themselves the power of what speech is permitted and what speech must be condemned and the writer silenced.

During the pandemic, anyone who questioned the statements of the official party line of the CDC and Dr. Fauci was condemned as spreaders of disinformation.  It was only the official party line that was approved.  Rachael Maddow went on the air to explain to her viewers that if you didn’t get the vaccine, you were condemning the human race, but if you did get it you could never catch the virus and it would magically disappear and we could return to normal.  Was that information or propaganda?  By the way, at last count, she has had to take off on several occasions due to either having COVID or her partner having it.

The difference between speech and speech censorship was highlighted by a couple of events recently.  In December, as a part of a defamation lawsuit by John Stossel against FaceBook[1], the lawyers for FaceBook admitted in court that FaceBook “fact checkers” were merely offering opinion and while FaceBook (a private company) could ban you based on their opinion, the company could not be sued.

Then we have a conservative satire site “The Babylon Bee” banned from Twitter for mocking the Biden Administration’s Admiral (Dr.) Rachael Lavine as their “Man of the Year.”  Twitter’s CEO said Babylon Bee was suspended for their “hateful” content.[2]  To get back in Twitter’s good graces Babylon Bee has now celebrated the fact Admiral Lavine is 100% woman, although she has both x and y chromosomes which back in in the pre-woke era was considered the genetic makeup of a man[3].

Now we have the “I support free speech, but I reject disinformation.”  Several people have said this to me, but none of them can actually tell me how they can separate information from disinformation. 

Was the whole “Trump is in conclusion with Putin to cheat on the election” information or disinformation? Evidence continues to grow this whole affair began as a dirty trick in the Clinton Campaign.  Did the mainstream news even attempt to find the truth, or did they simply push the DNC approved line?  

How about the Hunter Biden story?  In the days before the election everyone with any credibility rolled out the idea this was just disinformation by the New York Post, now 18 months later the New York Times, the Washington Post, and ABCNNBCBS are begrudgingly admitting maybe there is some corruption between Hunter, the PRC, and “the big guy.”  Of course, the election is now in the rearview mirror, so job #1 accomplished.

---

[1] https://nypost.com/2021/12/14/facebook-admits-the-truth-fact-checks-are-really-just-lefty-opinion/

[2] https://www.newsweek.com/babylon-bee-seth-dillon-twitter-ban-censorship-rachel-levine-trans-debate-1689870

[3] https://www.genome.gov/27557513/the-y-chromosome-beyond-gender-determination

The United Nations.

If any organization reflects the difference between an idea and the reality of humanity it is the United Nations.

Created after the second world war, by a group of victors who imagined a new world order that would lead us to a utopian future where men would talk with each other as equals and we would avoid the four horsemen of the apocalypse, Conquest, War, Famine and Death, foretold to us in the Bible.[1]  The United Nations was a vision of the Progressives of the day, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt (and their foggy bottom boys), Winston Churchill, the Allied Nations, Nationalist China, and Joseph Stalin.

As we look at the history of the United Nations and its move towards that utopian world one has to ask, has it earned its keep?  Has it stopped conquest, war, famine, and death?  As best as I can tell not too effectively.  It has a lot of subgroups all working on the big issues, but as we see in today’s vote of condemnation over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it can’t even settle a simple question like are the Russians indiscriminately killing civilians, and should Russia be kicked off the Human Rights Council?

Speaking of the Human Rights Council, who does the UN believe are the countries best equipped to speak to the issues of human rights?  Funny you should ask.

The council is made up of one President and four Vice Presidents. The current President is Ambassador Villegas, from Argentina.  According to Human Rights Watch^[2] Argentina’s problems include police abuse, poor prison conditions, and endemic violence against women.

Other members include Armenia, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Eritrea, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany Honduras, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Libya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Marshall Island, Mauritania, Mexico, Montenegro, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, Pakistan, Paraguay, Poland, Qatar, Rep of Korea, Russian Federation, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uzbekistan, and Venezuela.

I know we can all find abuses in any of these countries and clearly, those without sin should cast the first stone[3], but there are truly some rogue states in this council who have no standing when it comes to defining how to protect human rights.  Coming immediately to mind are India, Pakistan, Gambia, Somalia, the UAE, Cuba, and Venezuela.

Today, the UN voted to sanction Russia and remove it from the council.  The vote was 98 for, 24 against, and 58 I don’t want to get involved.  So, who voted against sanctioning Russia?

Votes against included Russia (no surprise) and all the countries who like Russia like China, Syria, Cuba, Vietnam, Belarus, Yemen, most of the ‘stans, etc.

Those who abstained were mostly 3^rd world countries that had little to gain and much to lose if Russia comes back from its pariah status.

In an interesting display of “I’ll show you”  Russia claimed they couldn’t be suspended because they quit!  Not the whole UN mind you, just the Human Rights Council.

---

[1] https://www.learnreligions.com/four-horsemen-of-the-apocalypse-4843887

[2] https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2022/country-chapters/argentina#

[3] Bible John 8:7 

It's Subtle

 Without realizing it the Academy Awards this year showed us what America is like.  We have a problem with black-on-black violence.  Everyone has an opinion as to why, but no one has a solution on how to fix the problem.  We stand amazed that this kind of thing can even happen.

We can resign from an institution, we can promise ourselves we'll do better, but at the end of the day, the problem will actually continue to exist.

There are those who will fly into outrage this is all caused by white racism, the former President, or even climate change, but let's be honest, those are all bizarre rationalizations for why one man attacks another.

Then there are those who will cite the problem with declining male masculinity or the value of a husband protecting his wife (which seems to run counter to the societal view that women should stand up for themselves.

The news is not interested in really reporting on this unless it supports their agenda, and then it's usually only to point out how someone is a victim.

Reflecting on the Inquisitions

As we should all know by now the role of the Senate to offer their “Advice and Consent” to a President’s nomination to the position of Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is no longer just a simple act required of the Senate by our Constitution.  It has turned into our version of the Spanish Inquisition.  In the end, thanks to recent changes in Senate rules it has evolved into a political circus.  If it mattered, we could trace this back to a particular Senator from New England and a candidate for Justice who once worked for Richard Nixon, but at this point, it really doesn’t.

Today, whichever party controls the Senate will get their way.  It is only a matter of how spectacular or subdued the opposition will be.  If we know nothing else, we should understand the Democratic party has the support of the entertainment industry and can, on-demand, roll out all the theatrical outrage it requires.  The Republican party seems to be a bit more subdued in its star power but can, when necessary, rise to the occasion by mocking the obvious hypocrisy of people who will stage their own racist attacks simply to spark interest in their career or people who’ve slept with powerful men and women to get to the top and once there accuse those women and men of being rapists (but only when it serves some higher purpose).

I wish for a time when these inquisitions could be handled in the cellars of the Capital with the candidate hung from the rack, but kept away from the prying eyes of the opinion media.  A time when the candidates were not allowed to answer with mundane answers like “I can’t comment on any issue that may come before the court. Or. I will follow precedent in all matters.”  A printed copy of the inquisition and the answers could be made available to the interested media who could then offer their opinions on what the questions and answers really meant which is after all, what we need.  Someone to explain what a question and answer really means.  If you doubt me watch the news, that is almost exclusively what they do.

Questions I would like to see asked:

·       In your opinion what is the role of the SCOTUS?

·       Do you believe SCOTUS can establish new rules for society?

·       How many cases have you argued before Federal Courts?

·       How many times have your judgments been reviewed and overturned for conflict with existing law?

·       When confirmed what are the most significant cases you hope to arrive at the court for justice?

·       What is the role of Executive departments like the Department of Justice?

·       What is the role of the Legislature?

·       How would you handle ambiguous wording in a law?

·       How could the legislature restructure the Judicial Branch?

·       What is the role of the states in a federal system?

·       What are fundamental rights, and who provides for them?

Thankfully, I’m just an interested bystander and my concerns will never rise to the level of the political elite, so I can sit here in the quiet of my study opining away.