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.

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. 

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

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.

Should We End Title IX?

In the words of the U.S. Department of Education, “The Department of Education is committed to expanding and protecting opportunities for students to learn. Title IX of the Higher Education Act promises equal access to education for all students and it protects them against discrimination on the basis of sex.

Title IX was enacted to ensure: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”[1]

“On March 26, 2021, the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division issued a memorandum to federal civil rights offices and general counsels addressing the application of Bostock[2] to Title IX, determining that Title IX’s prohibition on discrimination “on the basis of sex” includes discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.  See Letter from Pamela S. Karlan, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, to Federal Civil Rights Directors and General Counsels (Mar. 26, 2021).

On June 22, 2021, the U.S. Department of Education issued a notice of interpretation clarifying that “[c]onsistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling and analysis in Bostock, the Department [of Education] interprets Title IX’s prohibition on discrimination ‘on the basis of sex’ to encompass discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.” Enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.  With Respect to Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Light of Bostock v. Clayton County, 86 Fed. Reg. 32,637 (June 22, 2021”[3]

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for equal access to education (including sports) my question is simply if we are to reach the true goals of gender equity, why do we need a law outlining what we can and can’t do?  Why not simply say, a college or university receiving federal funds can only have one team in each sport and all interested players must be included on the roster?

That way everyone gets to play and get their participation trophy based on how well they do against everyone else, sex and gender choices become irrelevant.  Of course, there are those "Deplorables" who believe women should participate equally against their own sex, and men should participate against their own sex, but clearly, the courts and our Federal Government feel this is an outdated concept.

Let’s take the current controversy over Lia Thomas, who previously identified as a male swimmer, but now identifies as a female.  (Insert preferred pronoun here) began swimming and competing early in her life and was, at one time ranked 6^th in Texas.  After arriving at Penn State he began his transition and choice for a new identity.  If Penn State had a single swim team, competing in non-gender specific races there would be no issue.  But like all things nowadays conservatives take one side and liberals take the other. 

My Governor, Ron DeSantis, has declared “for Florida” we will only recognize the second-place winner of the Woman’s 500-meter freestyle as the National Champion, while NBC sports has celebrated this momentous (?) moment in women’s sports as a giant step forward for the rights of the transgendered.

Of course, we could separate sports and education as some would want by going back to colleges that only admitted certain races, or have courses that only were open to certain sexes, but I think we all agree that would be a giant step back.  Rather than have all these financially strapped colleges and universities who are barely able to get by with their billion-dollar endowments, why don’t we let them cut the number of athletic teams in half or more by only fielding one team where the fastest is on top and the lowest on the bottom?  That way sex and gender are no longer a concern and all get to compete equally.  After all, isn’t that what inclusion and equity are all about?

---

[1] https://sites.ed.gov/titleix/

[2] Bostock was actually a case regarding Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights act where the court held in a 6-3 vote an employee could not be fired for being gay or transgendered.  DOJ has issued its opinion based on what it views as an applicable cross-linkage.

[3] https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ix

The Corruption of Science.

As a kid, I remember being taught some basic science and led to believe science was the pursuit of truth and understanding.  Like most children, I accepted this as a reality in itself, but times have changed.  We see in today’s world that science and politics have blended together and if you disagree with the politics, you are called names.  They can be simple names like “science denier”/ “climate fanatic,” or rude names like “deplorable”/ “Karen,” or vicious names like “homophobe” and “racist.”  Once the name-calling begins all reasonable conversation ends.

As I look at people who call themselves scientists, I realize they can only exist if someone is paying for the science.  I think that has almost always been the case.  It was no different when I was a young boy, it was just the teachers never wanted to point this reality out.  Leonardo DaVinci was a brilliant man, but without sponsors, he would have ended up an unknown beggar.  If we look at the scope of his work we can see the brilliance of his mind, but every once in a while, he had to do something to make a living.  That could have been painting the Mona Lisa, or designing a battle tank.

Galileo and Copernicus studied the stars, and taught at universities, but without sponsorship would we know of their work?  What happened when the Catholic Church, took issue with their findings? It took a generation of more discovery before the Church was willing to alter their position, during that time they were both condemned as heretics, although Copernicus had died before the Church could hold him accountable for his sin. In 15^th Century Europe who had the power to tell the Church, they were wrong?

The same thing holds true today.  Who has the power to tell the government they are wrong about the science they’ve paid so much for, or more importantly what scientist is willing to question the science and risk their future research because of the people who pay for that research question his loyalty?  Are the inquisitions of today any different than the inquisitions of the 15^th century?

For the past 50 years, the world’s scientists have been warning us of the devastation of Climate Change.  Anyone who questioned those predictions was condemned for denying science.  First, we were to enter an ice age, then we discovered global warming.  The oceans would rise as the ice caps melted, the polar bears would die, the coastal cities would flood, there would be world famine and nuclear war.  Over ten years ago Psychologists were predicting everyone would become so depressed by the crisis that mass suicides were likely.  Al Gore gave us until 2010 before the end of the age of man, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is planning on 2030, unless of course, we change our path and abandon fossil fuels and spend a lot more money on something painted green.  NASA, NOAA, and even the DOD have jumped on the bandwagon telling us the end of the world is near.  So, it must be true.  I kind of miss the days when you got these kinds of warnings from some long-haired, wild-eyed dude on the corner.

Now we have the science of the Wuhan Virus, which for political purposes can’t be called by where it originated, so it is COVID-19.  We were told the world population would be devastated if we didn’t listen to all the policies all the politicians put into place at the recommendation of all the government experts who know exactly how this virus will perform.  We’ve gone through lockdowns, mask mandates, school closures, vaccines, boosters, and huge economic impacts yet still the virus continues to kill thousands despite all the assurances that if we only do all the things “some” of the experts say we will be okay.  Unfortunately, those experts don’t take kindly to other “experts” suggesting alternative strategies.  So once again the political opinion media gets called in to assure those who listen to only one side that the other side is responsible for all the bad stuff happening.  

As far as I can tell neither side is really willing to look at the data to see what strategies are effective, and which ones only give the illusion of help.  We have people who wear masks 24/7 to protect themselves and we have those who refuse to be vaccinated because they fear their DNA will be altered and they will wake in the morning with a strong desire for a banana and a branch to hang on.  Of course, our political elites and their media friends all have their opinions, which as far as I can tell are based solely on which government official they like.

Then again we have the fringe “social scientists” who believe basic biology is passe and that a six-year-old should be able to decide what gender they should be, based I assume, on its lifetime of experience.

Finally, just before the age of Trump, we developed “internet fact-checkers” who were supposed to research all the internet rumors and tell us what was real and what was false.  Unfortunately, those same “fact-checkers” have been proven themselves to be political town criers who offer little more than the approved government taking points/opinions, as long as the government is controlled by those they agree with.

I guess it is safe to say I will never view science and those who claim to be scientists with the same idealist view my 10th-grade chemistry teacher tried to instill in me. 

 

With Apologies to Billy Shakespeare

To mask, or not to mask: that is the question:

Whether ‘tis nobler in the public to suffer

The slings and arrows of an outraged public

Or to take arms against a sea of fear,

And by opposing end it?  To die: to sleep;

No more; and by sleep to say we end 

The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks 

That flesh is heir to, ‘tis a consumption

Devoutly to be wish’d.  To die, to sleep;

To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub;

For in that sleep of death what dreams may come

When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,

Must give us pause: there’s the respect 

That makes calamity of so long life;

For those would bear the whips and scorns of time,

The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s conformity

The pangs of guilt, the law’s ignored

The insolence of office holders spurned by the rules

The patient merit of unworthy rules, 

When he himself might quietus make

With bare nostrils? Who would burden bear, 

To wheeze and sweat under such a dreary mask

But that the public dread the plague of increase

The undiscover’d cure forsakes for a grand control

No survivor of that evil does rebuke

And makes us rather bear those ills we have

Than fly to other we know not of.

Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;

And thus the native hue of resolution

Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of though.

And individuals with little regard to science 

Think ill of those who challenge the mob

And loose the condemnations of virtue

And by losing, condemn virtue to its own.

 

As we progress forward with a society more divided than we can recall in our living memory I choose to share a few observations.  Observations admittedly biased by my own history, and opinions of a global civilization that spans 10 or so millennia.

Pandemics have been around since more than a handful of humans lived together as a family group.  As we think back to Egypt and the Hebrews it is alleged the Hebrews and Jehovah brought a variety of plagues upon the heartless Pharaoh in an effort to secure their freedom.  The last was the death of the first-born male of each Egyptian household, which was not marked by the blood of an innocent lamb. This was a big deal because culture called on the first-born male to carry on the family lineage.

Those of us who had a history class in high school probably learned about the black death (bubonic) plague of the 14^th century that cut the population of Afro-Eurasia down by somewhere between 75 and 200 million people.  Of course, there have been a whole bunch of smaller plagues as time went on ranging from Small Pox to the flu.

Speaking of the flu, some may recall Spanish flu, (named back when using a location was fashionable) which caused the pandemic of 1918-1920.  A plague that infected about 1/3 of the world’s population (500 million-ish) and killed somewhere between 17 and 100 million people. Early in this latest pandemic, originating in Wuhan (choose your preferred source) China, the world’s experts took pains to point how much deadlier this SARs virus was than the flu. But let’s start this discussion with a review of what we call “THE FLU.”

NOTE: For this discussion, I am taking my information from the University of Alabama-Birmingham site: https://uabmedicine.org/-/flu-strains-explained-and-how-the-vaccine-works

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, there are four types of flu.  Three of them can affect humans and the fourth affects cattle.  Of the three types we need to worry about (A, B, and C) A and B are the most dangerous and there are respectively 18 and 11 subtypes. The annual flu shots many of us get each year are made to prevent the CDC’s best guess as to which subtypes will be most likely to spread around.  For example, for the 2020-21 season the flu vaccine cocktail was designed to address the Hawaii/702019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus, the Hong Kong/45/2019 (H3N1)-like virus, the Washington/02/2019 (B/Victoria lineage)-like virus, and he Phuket/2073-like (Yamagata lineage) virus.  The first two were Type A the last two Type B subtypes.  Some years the CDC guesses right and the resulting flu season seems mild. Other years they are not so right and flu takes a heavier toll on the workforce and our children.

So, what’s my point?  Each year the flu viruses mutate and the CDC has to give its best guess as to what will prevent widespread illness and possibly death.  Up until President Trump, the decisions of the CDC were pretty much accepted by us all and it was viewed as a non-political government agency.  That all changed with this pandemic.  You can blame whoever you want, Trump and the Republicans, or Pelosi and the Democrats, but at the end of the day the CDC was put between a rock and a hard place and it will never again be viewed as god-like and non-partisan.

Now we come to COVID-19.  We are now up to the Delta variant, and I assume it is just a matter of weeks before we hear about the Echo variant.  The virus will mutate as it infects people and is altered by the biology it encounters.  BTW, the fact it mutates does not mean the earlier versions will disappear, it just makes the probability of creating a vaccine that will counter the most recent strain, as well as the previous strains harder. For the average American there is an open question, will this plague behave like the flu, or will it be like smallpox where the vaccine will ultimately be able to stop it for all humanity?

The sad thing is we never see the experts discuss this, which strongly suggests they don’t know, and are afraid to even speculate.  This leads to the question of goals and objectives.  The more cynical of us see this as a pandemic as a huge profit maker and political tool those in power will keep going as long as possible, while the more fearful seek reassurance they are doing everything the experts want in an effort to eliminate all risk to them and their loved ones.  In today’s world of virtue-signaling and social condemnation, this means flooding social media with all the memes they can think of about how important wearing a mask is.

To what purpose do we wear a mask?  In the beginning, it was to protect us, although science suggested the average surgical or cloth mask did little to stop the virus itself since it was so small it would filter in between the strands of material.

Then it was to reduce the spread when coupled with social distancing, until such time as a vaccine could be developed so hospitals would not be overwhelmed.

Next, it was to protect others who might not have had the opportunity to receive the vaccine.

And now we return to protecting ourselves even though we’ve been vaccinated since we may still get COVID and just won’t know it (e.g., asymptomatic) as well as protecting others and stopping the spread.

The fact our media and politicians chose to approach this pandemic as a political opportunity has divided us on what is the right thing to do, but even if we knew there was a “right thing” history has shown a lot of mankind would choose another path.  That stubbornness seems to be a human trait.  For example, let’s look at our professional athletes, some of whom are happy to guide us in what they believe to be the morally right path.  How many of them have been vaccinated?  If you don’t want to ask that question then let’s look at another example.  Performance-enhancing drugs – we are told they are bad, but until everyone started getting caught using them how many athletes decided they didn’t need them to compete, or better yet how many athletes did?  In my opinion, the average professional athlete is not the sharpest pencil in the pack.

So, at the end of the day, should you wear a mask?  The answer to that depends on you and you alone.  If it makes you feel safer then by all means do so.  If you think it will save someone else from you then of course.  If you want to show you are part of the crowd that wants everyone to wear a mask then it’s probably a good idea.  If you refuse the vaccine, then it might make you feel safer, but then again it might make you feel the government is controlling your life so that’s a tough call.  If you think everyone should wear a mask to make you feel safer then stay inside your house with your mask on and leave everyone else alone.

I Care About People (and Other Progressive Lies)

A while back a young progressive-liberal defended her support of BLM with the statement “I care about people.”  Suggesting those who didn’t support the BLM rioting didn’t understand and certainly didn’t care about the lives of the African-American minority.  That thought; “I care about people” has been ruminating around in my brain for a while, and I think my initial thoughts on her statement were actually correct.

Progressives don’t actually care about people; they care about causes.  Caring about people demands personal involvement, caring about causes just requires some sort of positive affirmation of the cause, some outward sign showing you are onboard with the popular movement and therefore a part of the in-crowd.  The latter is far easier than the former, as we see with the corporations who’ve made political statements regarding the changes to the voting laws of Georgia that have absolutely zero effect on the corporations themselves. These public corporations are guided by the major stockholders and the CEO’s all of whom are millionaires or greater, so they really don’t care about the poor or middle class, except as they may affect the corporations' bottom line, and they appear to be betting the woke generation will have the greater impact to their profits than the old-timers.

Let’s review the causes.

Black Lives Matter – a cause that purports to seek equal treatment of African-Americans by law enforcement.  It has chosen as its heroes several felons who’ve died while being taken into custody by police.  It routinely portrays the victims as innocents who suffered at the hands of police brutality.  The narrative is one side has no responsibility for their personal past or actions at the time of the arrest, and the other side is just one example of the systemic racism of America.  To support this narrative the organization has raised millions of dollars and the “trained Marxist” founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors has used that money for what?  As far as I know, she has increased her personal wealth, just like a capitalist[1]. I haven’t seen much work on improving the lives of the African-American community other than rioting.  In fact, a rather famous liberal-progressive, Representative Maxine Waters, has interjected herself into the trial of Raymond Floyd’s alleged killer suggesting if he isn’t convicted the people should take to the streets and riot.[2]  In no case does it seem this cause is at all interested in actually halting the criminal behaviors that lead to these confrontations in the first place, or improving the actual social conditions leading to those criminal behaviors.

A lot of politicians, and progressives are celebrating the conviction of the Minneapolis officer for the death of George Floyd, but as the saying goes; “It ain’t over til the fat lady sings.” Everyone will speculate as to why the jury ruled as they did, but the officer and his lawyer will probably appeal.  What we do know is the rioting will be kept to a minimum by this jury since the mob got the ruling they demanded. Those who support the BLM cause will say justice was served. Those who believe the police officer should have been acquitted will call it a travesty of justice.  Justice, you see, is a value statement and depends on the values of who is reporting it. 

Pro-abortion (AKA Pro-choice) – When the Supreme Court of the United States decided to legislate a new legal standard in the decision Roe vs. Wade the women of America rejoiced.  My generation saw this as a liberating new standard in keeping with the sexual revolution.  Women would no longer be required to carry to term any of the “mistakes” they may have made during their romances or experimentations.  The abuse of children would end as people who didn’t want children wouldn’t be forced to have them.  The financial and social outlooks of young women wouldn’t be damaged by having an unwanted child holding them back.  Today, we have an ongoing and seemingly never-ending fight as those who support the murder of a fetus demand the government pays for the privilege to do so.  You will note the not subtle condemnation of those who support abortion, for we have now almost 50 years of experience and it is obvious to even the most biased observer that abortion has not made the world better.  All the problems that existed before legalized abortion still exist today, in fact, it seems pretty obvious we’ve created a whole new set of issues as many of the problems have gotten far worse as we alter our moral standards regarding personal responsibility and the value of families, the role of responsible parents and education of children.

The SCOTUS said they could not tell when life began, but without a question, medical science has now made a fetus viable almost from conception and yet those who support abortion wish to ignore the reality that life begins inside the womb and not just when they want it to. Those who favor the killing of the unborn have made this a national cause, without regard to the life of the fetus.  It is clear - the only life that matters to them is a post-puberty adult.  With this argument how far away from the time we decide the lives of the handicapped shouldn’t matter either are we?  According to Planned Parenthood, African-American women (who make up 14% of the 14–44-year-old population) accounted for 38% of all abortions in 2018.  We can certainly speculate on the societal effects of destroying these many African-American lives, but this focus certainly supports the idea that abortions are racist, but then the pro-abortion crowd and the BLM groups really don’t support any argument that would weaken their political positions.

A living wage – The cry this past year is to raise the national minimum wage to $15.00, up from the current $7.25.  Just as in every other debate we hear the doom and gloom over how it will only cause prices to rise, or employees to be laid off.  Both of those seem a certainty, and those who are truly unskilled, or handicapped by some disability will suffer if the jobs are automated because they become too costly.  But despite the protestations of the conservatives, the wage will be raised.  It is inevitable.  The ripple effect will be the lowering of the economic well-being of those who make more than the minimum wage as their buying power will be diminished.  The fact that most of the voices demanding this new minimum feel themselves immune from the fiscal realities of increased government mandates do not speak well of their ability to think critically about things like cause & effect and supply & demand.

What I never hear discussed is how the government has altered the industrial basis of our society to create a condition where such a large number of people are unable to progress from an entry-level job, paying a minimum wage, into a more rewarding and productive job paying a viable wage to support the individual and his/her family.  Why is that?

It was, after all, the government who responded to the lobbyist’s push to enter into trade agreements which incentivized businesses to abandon manufacturing in the US and send their products to places like Sri Lanka, Burkina Faso, and of course China to be made by marginalized people or even slave labor. If I recall these discussions correctly the left argued that this was a great way to help those poor unfortunate countries develop into modern societies.  The fact we left those who worked in these industries to deal with the closed factories, and lack of opportunity was just a small price to pay for progress, wasn’t it.  After all, we are the richest nation on earth and so what if we create a greater dependence on the government for our daily needs.  That’s what government is for, isn’t it?

Universal Health Care – Affordable health care is a right and according to the progressive-left, it is an inalienable one at that!  The only problem I see is when the woke generation rejects the idea of a higher power than government how can you say any right is natural or inalienable?  If the rights of the people come from the people and government represents the will of the people then if the government can give and take a right it can’t be inalienable.  While I’m all for universal health care what is the minimum acceptable standard?

The supporters of universal health care believe the current standard of care must be improved, and the problem with our system is the “for-profit” profiteers who enrich themselves at the cost of the masses.  Early in the pandemic, I listened as the woke young progressive liberals lambasted the “for-profit” system for not having enough intensive care facilities to support the expected surge in demand.  As I actually researched this claim, I came to find out there was actually a negligible difference between the administration of “for-profit” hospitals and “not for profit” facilities.  The fiscal reality is that both types have to contain costs if they are to survive.  If we go to a universal care system that obligation to remain affordable simply shifts to the government, and can anyone tell me how the government system will contain costs?  There is nothing that suggests a single person in decision-making authority in the Government gives a damn about constraining cost growth.  There are two fundamental truths in government spending.  If you don’t spend everything you asked for this year you will get less next year, and you are spending other people’s money so when you negotiate a contract be generous.  If you doubt his second truth look at the union contracts teachers in Democratic-controlled states and counties have been able to negotiate.  In Chicago, for example, when the government was actually willing to send students back to school, who had the final say as to whether they would or not?  Was it the parents or the government? No, it was the union.

Now let’s compare the performance of national health care systems like Spain, England, Italy, and Germany in their response to this pandemic?  Did they respond quickly to keep the mortality rates down? Now a year later we can look at the figures and see most of the European countries are running between 1,500 to 1,950 deaths per million of their population.  How does this compare to the United States?  We are at about 1,760 deaths/million so it appears national health care hasn’t made a big difference.  How about in distribution of life-saving vaccines?  Did the national systems develop and field a vaccine quicker?  How about distribution?  Are we seeing the national systems outperform the United States?  All indications are they have not.  Of course, China would appear to be the exception, but who among us believes China is accurately reporting on the disaster they unleashed on the world?

College Debt Forgiveness – Economics majors like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Harvard College Professors like Elizabeth Warren have made a lot of noise about how student debt is weighing down the nation and how much better life would be if we taxpayers just assumed that debt and relieved the individuals from any responsibility for the choices, they made on selecting their options after High School.  This seems to be in keeping with the liberal-progressive view that personal responsibility is a cumbersome carry-over of past generations and the Government should actually be responsible for all the decisions made by its erstwhile voters.  I’ve not paid a lot of attention to how they would actually fund this other than making the billionaires pay “their fair share.” But it is safe to assume the colleges who’ve raised tuition to such astronomical levels to pay their professors half a million dollars a year to teach one course won’t be asked to dip into their endowments to help out.  I’m all for letting everyone have a free Ph.D.  The question that comes immediately to mind is how many PhDs does it take to man the counter at MacBurger Queen?

 

 

---

[1] https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/marxist-blm-leader-buys-1-4-million-home-in-ritzy-la-enclave/

[2] https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/19/politics/judge-derek-chauvin-maxine-waters-mistrial-appeal/index.html

Emotions versus Reality

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF):  The debate over the $15/hour minimum wage seems intended to make more people dependent on the government, not less.

Thanks to the invention of the worldwide web of everything, and the social media tools invented to let us share cat pictures, become social influencers, and YouTube stars we are now able to share our deepest emotions and opinions with anyone who will view the videos, or read the writings.  This is just such a thing.  I post my opinions to a blog, share them on social media and it is read by a couple of dozen people.  

A byproduct of these things is some of the shallowest thinkers now believe their own press and think their emotional appeals will carry the day.  We see that from such Hollywood heavyweights as Rob “Meathead” Reiner who spent the last four years of his life focused on condemning the very existence of Donald Trump on Twitter^® or Alyssa “Who’s the Boss” Milano, who like Rob spent the last four years condemning Trump, and advocating for the #MeToo thing, as long the men were Republicans or disgraced Hollywood producers.  She didn’t seem to care too much if they were Democratic politicians, but then she must have seen some kind of moral difference.

To an extent though these, emotion-driven, Twitter^® tirades served their purpose.  The nation now has a new President.  He may be really old, apparently senile, and a career politician with almost 50 years of non-accomplishment, but he will carry the nation forward with increased energy costs, increased debt, and support for the most radical aspects of social evolution, at least until they can get Kamala Harris installed to replace him.

Forgive me, but this is a long way to get to the subject of emotions versus reality.

I’d like to talk about the emotional appeals from the left to raise the minimum wage for the unskilled labor force.  A group of people who make up a significant portion of the service industry.  For those who may not be familiar with what the service industry is, it is made up of the restaurants you can’t eat in if your state is governed by Democrats, it also has “fast food” places like Micky D’s, Burger King, and Taco Bell et.al.  The retail stores we find in the malls, and shopping centers, the gas stations where you pump your own gas, except in New Jersey where according to the State, it is unsafe for you to do that and an unskilled worker is hired (at presumably minimum wage), and finally, it includes all the entertainment establishments where you go to unwind after a hard day of self-isolating.

People who fill these unskilled labor positions mostly come from those who didn’t think high school was all that important, or some of the more advanced social “studies” programs in liberal arts colleges who are having a hard time translating a Bachelor of Arts in Italian Medieval Art Collections of the 14^th Century into a high paying executive job with a Fortune 500 company. Of course, there are also the “soon-to-be” superstar singers and actors who are waiting tables until they are discovered and thrust upon the nation as the next great thing.

The thing about these “unskilled” jobs is soon all the unemployed coal miners who were told they should learn to code will be writing the code to teach a machine to do every one of them.  Heck, we already see that in the self-checkout lines and self-ordering machines popping up all around the country.  Several years ago my neighbor, who manages a Styrofoam cooler manufacturing facility shared a conversation he had with the multi-millionaire owner.  My neighbor wanted to invest in a new machine and was concerned about the cost.  The machine took fewer humans to operate, had better reliability than the old machine, and would pay for itself in reduced costs in a few years.  His owner approved the purchase and also said, anytime you can replace an employee with a machine it was a good decision because machines don’t complain or need days off.

Look around, we are in the digital age.  The big manufacturing companies have gone to robots everywhere they can.  As the United Auto Workers Union fights for new wage increases has the membership grown since the 1970s?  The answer is a simple no.  It reached its peak in 1979[1] with 1.5 million members, today it has about 391,000 active members and 580,000 retired.[2] The only question is how long will the retirement funds hold out for those members?

So as the Democratic party, and its voters, argue for this wage as the new minimum should we assume they are all blind to the economic reality they would create, or is there some other reason?  Are the billionaire supporters of the plan going to all the sudden change their business models or will they just lay off people to ensure their profits?  As I look around it seems to me companies like Amazon^® are already positioning to automate their workforce future and cast aside those unfortunate individuals who don’t have the technical skills to adapt.  Of course, the caring Democratic party will pick up the cost of sustaining these unfortunate victims with the expanded welfare programs they will put in place.  They will become wards of the state and the state will rob them of their dignity.

As people are paid this new minimum will the quality of their lives go up?  Perhaps for a brief time, but as we’ve seen with every other minimum we’ve set -- inflation will inevitably catch up and they will be right back struggling to survive, although with each rise there will be fewer and fewer entry positions to enter and grow out of, so at the end of the day the transition from unskilled to skilled laborer become more restrictive. I wonder, what groups benefit most from this new reality. I doubt it is poor and uneducated the DNC promises to help each day.  Is it?

---

[1] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/04/uawm-a01.html

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

Is There Plan, Or Just a Bunch of Policies?

We would like to believe the Government plans for things -- but does it?  During this past Presidential campaign, the complaint of the Democratic candidates was President Trump didn’t have a plan for the pandemic.  Once elected, President Biden promised a plan that would have 100 million people vaccinated within his first 100 days in office.  As the weather becomes uncooperative, there are delays in getting the vaccines to the people.  I am reminded of two simple truths in military planning.  First, the plan never survives the first contact, the second we never finalize the plan we just run out of time to make changes.

As I look at all the policy changes being implemented it sure doesn’t look like the government has an overarching plan to make America better than it was.  Rather they seem to be implementing policies that made good sound bites, but in the end, will do little to make life better for the most vulnerable of us.  For example:

There is a great push to make $15.00 the national minimum wage. There is also the rallying cry for “a living wage,” whatever that is.  At the same time, the government policy is to allow unfettered access into America by those seeking its refuge.  These two policies would seem to limit the economic well-being of the poor while growing their dependence on the state for survival.  Of course, we can argue the morality of replacing humans with machines, but all the moral arguments in the world won’t stop the inevitable.  Machines improve productivity and when they are cheaper than the human, they become the choice of every business there is.  One has only to look at the auto industry to see this reality.  As union wages grew and robot technology developed how many union members were replaced by the robots who could do their job better and cheaper?  The same can be said for cashiers at supermarkets and fast-food places.  Can you go into a Walmart these days without seeing a self-checkout lane?  Of course, there are those who will resist such a place but they will not stop the move if it becomes the economical choice for the store. 

But replacement by machines is only one side of the problem.  As much as the socialists of the DNC think the government controls all things, that is simply not the case in a predominately market-driven economy.  The law of “supply and demand” would seem to be unavoidable.  As we bring more unskilled labor into the United States who will they displace as they attempt to find employment? It certainly won’t be the University Professors, will it?  They will displace the minimally skilled for sure, but should we assume only the minimally skilled? Wouldn't we assume those with a wide range of talents seeking to escape the failures of their own country would seek a better life here?  That is, after all, the American model. Those with marketable skills will also begin to displace the salaried employees making far above the minimum.  In fact, we already replace a lot of our potentially skilled workforce by importing cheaper skilled labor to work in our high-tech companies?[1]  Why shouldn’t we expect those categories of exemption to expand as the government meets the needs of its high-tech donors?  What a wonderful way to keep the profits of those companies high while reducing labor costs, and limiting the potential of our own citizens to find jobs that would help them escape the trap of poverty.

And then there is the myriad of policies to make the world green, save the environment for future generations, and enrich those who can profit most from the policies.  Like my Mom used to say, you’ve got to break some eggs if you want to make an omelet, and so it is with the policies of this administration.  One of the President's first acts was to stop the building of an oil pipeline.  There are, of course, good things and bad things with this decision.  One side will point out how the oil that would flow through the pipeline won’t stop, it will just be moved by other means (like the railroad system Warren Buffett owns). Those who favor this decision will point to the environmental risks of pipelines that leak, and the need to begin our transition away from carbon-based fuels.  Caught in the middle of these debates are the human beings who work in the oil fields of North Dakota, Montana, and Canada who will perhaps lose their jobs, and the average American who will pay a higher price for fuel to run their car or heat their home.  Again, the poorest among us will be the ultimate victims.  But as John Kerry pointed out the skilled labor building the pipeline can then find work in some kind of green factory assembling solar panels.  My question to John would be “isn’t it cheaper to hire the recent immigrants from South and Central America for these simple tasks?” 

Aside from the grandiose “Green New Deal” proposals of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez where we abandon trans-oceanic air travel for trains, is there really a plan that makes these environmental policies practical, affordable, and actually does eliminate man’s impact on the environment?  If joining the Paris Climate accord is any indication I’m guessing not.  As we see in most environmental protests, the activists tend to leave a lot of garbage behind, expecting someone else to clean up after them. We are pushing policies for the sake of enriching someone; the question is who?

Finally, we have new policies ranging from “diversity for all” to elimination of “hate speech.”  It will be interesting to see how science, morality, and the law are shaped by these favored policies of the new Democratic Reich.[2]

 

---

[1] https://www.wegreened.com/niw/EB2

[2] Purposely chosen to acknowledge our societal debt to Charles Godwin, creator of “Godwin’s Law”  This in no way refers to Robert Reich, although I am sure he would love to be part of the new Reich.