I Don't Know Why, But We Do

People love causes.  I don’t know why, but they seem to believe they are highlighting some wrong that needs to be fixed, or some social ill we can address if only we would send enough money, or create an environment where the problem is highlighted so everyone can adjust their approach.

Here in America, we especially love social or humanitarian.  It gives us a chance to just send money as a salve for our conscience.  We can send a few dollars to “Save the Seals” while we put on our fur coats against the winter chill.  We can write a check to “Adopt an Antarctic Orphan” on the same day we give Planned Parenthood our credit card.  We can feel good about ourselves because we are involved without bothering to leave the comfort of our easy chair. 

In the olden days, we would all tune-in to Jerry Lewis and the Muscular Dystrophy TV marathon to watch the tote board climb as millions of dollars were raised to fight a terrible disease.  To solicit the greatest sympathy there would be adorable children rolled out as “poster children.” We were told all those dollars were going to research and treatment so we could eliminate this plague when in reality only about 70% of the funds raised are spent on treatment or research.  By the way, the American Cancer Association Incorporated won’t even tell us how much of their fundraising goes to the actual work of curing cancer.  

Don’t get me wrong, all fatal diseases are terrible and if we could find a cure that would be great, wouldn’t it?  On the other hand, if we lived forever what would happen to the earth?  We are crossing approaching the 8-billion humans on earth number and it seems every day someone is complaining about how mankind is destroying the earth.  Some believe we need to end the use of fossil fuels and then everything would be green. Unfortunately, I am reminded of a line from the Muppets, “it’s not easy being green.”  At some point, all those people will displace all the farms and we’ll be condemned to eating Soylent Green as we send our elderly to the recycling centers.

Social media is the modern forum for soothing our need to seek social justice and improve the planet.  Now we can do so without having to actually spend a lot of time or money.  We can find a meme that speaks to our causes, post it so all our “friends” or the “public” can see it, and move on to address the next great social issue. Of course, if enough people all agree with this meme we can be seen as a social influencer and supposedly drive the conversations in the way we think best. The difference in today’s world is we want the government to fix everything, and one side will accuse the other of not doing enough or of causing the problem and the other side will call them names. I don’t know why politicians think this is a good strategy but it is the one they and the media are in love with.

For example, today I saw a meme that made me cringe.  It went along the lines of “You were never told to surrender your civil liberties; you were asked to help each other stay healthy and survive.” People write this, and worse people believe it.  I don’t know the thinking of the people who write this, but I can assume the people who post it don’t understand what civil liberty is all about for if they did the meme would die a quiet death. Every time a government demands a certain behavior from its citizens some restriction to civil liberty is imposed.  For the most part, a majority of us will usually agree with that restriction if we understand it is for a “common good,” but as the government becomes more draconian those small surrenders add up to a complete loss of some civil liberty.  To avoid this debate over what we should or shouldn’t do for the pandemic, let’s go back to the turn of the century when Congress rushed to pass the Patriot Act and, in the years, following only added to the act in the name of protecting all Americans. 

I can think of no other act that so obviously took away civil liberties, and expanded the nature of government spying on its own citizens in the name of security.  Our founding fathers in declaring independence from the English monarch declared all men had the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  With the Patriot Act, our government clearly said liberty was less important than security and we’ve happily gone along with that view. 

Unfortunately, we average citizens let this happen by casting our votes for the same people time and time again.  I don’t know why, but we do.

Completing the Transition -- Journalist to Social Influencer.

Sam Donaldson

Today’s example of completing the transition from a neutral media journalist to a social influencer is Sam Donaldson, ABC.  Sam, along with many of his old peers, has completely shrugged off the idea of reporting actual events as they teach their prodigies how to report and has now gone all-in for Bloomberg who I assume he sees as the Democratic savior for the nation.

I guess we’ll see how that goes, but I’m not sure Sam is anymore in touch with those in the heartland who love the energy of Trump in reviving the economy and addressing their concerns about the survival of the nation then is Michael “he’s more scared than a cat in a dog pond” Bloomberg. 

Just who does Sam think he will persuade?  Millennials?  Other reporters?  The minorities in the inner cities?  The farmers in Nebraska or the ranchers in Montana?

I’m not seeing an overwhelming legion of Sam Donaldson faithful, but then every endorsement Bloomberg can buy is one more Bernie won’t.

Living in an Age of Ignorance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Who Get's to Decide?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learn to Code

Recently, "Learn to code" became an internet trope (or was it a meme?). These new phrases are so confusing since their usage seems to change daily.

Of course, the recently out-of-work journalists to whom this advice was offered were all morally outraged and their still working colleagues rushed to their defense with the insightful claim "learn to code" is now actually a racist statement, unlike when it was used to tell the out of work coal miners during the Obama administration.  Back then it was just friendly, although it sounded a lot like snide, advice.  But that was in another time, and with other people who clearly had the miners best economic interest at heart.

Imagine my shock when in today's e-mail I received a solicitation from Microsoft to support an organization who promised to use my donation to help girls "learn to code."

Thankfully, I have been paying attention to the still employed social justice warriors in the media and I know this is clearly an anti-feminist and racist attempt to subvert the fight for social justice and would only serve to divert people from the grievance study programs so important in today's world.

Asking a girl to learn to code -- what an outrageous demand.  We are better than that.

What's Next?

         It really shouldn’t be hard to know right from wrong, but it sure seems to be getting that way.  The airwaves, including the world-wide net of everything, has opinions blasting at us non-stop 24/7/365, all variations on one of two themes “We’re right” or “They’re wrong.”  It doesn’t matter the subject; the public faces of whoever will weigh in with why it is right or wrong and the public faces on the other side will counter with why the first faces are stupid.  It will go that way, back and forth until it’s time for the next news cycle.

         People are now being whipped into a frenzy by those who know very little but sound like they know everything.  It is almost as if those who call themselves journalists have taken a page from the announcer’s script at a WWE match.  In their efforts to become rich and famous they are willing to cast anyone as the bad guy, broadcast opinions as facts, or ignore the duplicity of one side or the other.  Don’t even get me started on the entertainment industry.  When you’re listening to someone who happens to have a stage and an opinion telling us that he or she knows best, or is famous as a singer or an actor (neither of which requires a degree in “being brilliant”) then you’ve given up your right to free will.

         Chuck Schumer (D-NY), has claimed the Kavanaugh confirmation signals the end of bi-partisan confirmations.  I’m sorry Chuck that boat left the dock in the 1980’s with Ted Kennedy’s attack on Bork, it left the harbor during the Obama administration, and reached the open sea back in 2016 when the people chose to elect Donald Trump to the White House and the DNC chose to encourage as much anti-Trump hate as possible.  From his selection of Neil Gorsuch until today I ask, has there been one iota of democratic support or any kind of thoughtful deliberation on a middle ground that is best for the nation?  I can say this for Senator Schumer, he is easy to understand.  His words today, or any-day, have little to do with reality, they are scripted simply to gain media and supporter attention and keep him with as much power with the party as possible.  But I digress.

         The original idea of the #MeToo movement was a good one.  Encourage women who had been victims of sexual harassment and abuse to report that abuse, to highlight an unfortunate reality in the law enforcement agencies and courts who often show far more concern to the abuser than to the victim, and to help others understand how sexual abuse affects those who’ve been caught up in it.  The unfortunate reality is it became a political tool almost immediately with very little effort to remain non-partisan.  Its spokespeople chose to hold one political side to one standard while allowing the politicians they like to get a pass.  In so doing it has opened itself up to all the backlash we see today.

         Here are my takeaways from the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, but I doubt those screaming in the streets will see it the same way.

a.     Victim Rights (regardless of sex) should be protected and defended.  The victims should be listened to with all the humanity possible, and their stories investigated with as much rigor as we would a murder. 

b.    To be effective that investigation must be done quickly, quietly and outside the public forum.  Once anyone involved chooses to make that investigation public the victim and the accused become part of a public circus (in the sense of a Roman Circus) where the rights of neither are protected and both are subject to intimidation and/or character assassination.  The counter-argument for this is it would allow the legal process to cover up abuse, as it has in the past.  That is a human problem I am not sure how to fix.  The choices are a process supported by our constitution or a public lynch mob.  For me the constitution wins out.  (note:  If you claim to be concerned with a past abuse and wait until that abuse can be used as a political club than are you really all that concerned about the victim?)

c.    False accusations occur and if you believe one gender or the other is always right or always wrong then you are a sexist and you don’t make your choices based on reason and fact, but rather on totally irrelevant emotional beliefs.  Any process that assumes guilt as an entering argument is flawed and runs contrary to what our forefathers believed to be a fundamental right for its citizens.

d.    Public media, and its “journalists” have absolutely no desire to seek or know the truth, although some will claim that is their role.  Their singular purpose is to make themselves as famous as possible, make money, and perhaps rake some muck along the way.  Anything that suggests otherwise is simply chaff.  This holds true for any and every medium from the print to the internet.  It is as true for FOX as it is for ABCNNBCBS/MSNBC.  It’s as true for the NY Times as it is for The National Enquirer, and it as true for Huffington Post as for Breitbart.  Of course, they all hire inspiring writers who all tend to think alike and believe they know what is best for all the rest of us.  These same reporters will sacrifice any victim without a second thought if it will further their storyline, although they like to play the role of guardian and will from time to time protect their sources, this choice is also a selfish one, for they know their access to gossip and unsupported storylines depends on people thinking they can keep secrets.

e.     The young in our society no longer seem to understand why our government exists, how it should work, and what binds us together as a nation.  They have been taught that everyone has a right to a participation trophy, and if they don’t get their way they should have a public tantrum to show how unhappy they are.  As a result, they willingly join in with those who have an agenda to overthrow the society we have and create something where those with the agenda will be swept into power and enriched.  Their loyalty is usually based on emotional promises and little else.  (BTW this is what swept the communists into power as they overthrew the corrupt government of the Czars.  The communists shaped the USSR at the cost of some 62-millions[1] of its citizens as they made the ruling class rich within the workers’ paradise.

f.     The left talk quite a bit about how angry and evil the right is, but all the public information supports the idea this is simply a transference of their own anger and incivility to those who don’t agree with their positions.  I haven’t seen a lot of reports of conservatives hounding public officials out of restaurants, protesting the right of free speech on college campuses, pushing claims that speech they don’t like is really hate-speech, but perhaps I am living in a sheltered world where I miss all those angry conservative protesters in the halls of Congress, or the twitter feeds filled with profanity aimed at our legislators from such political commentators as Kathy Griffin.

g.     One of the original fears in the Kavanaugh confirmation process was the claim he would shift the political balance of the court and they would overturn the courts 1973 decision in Roe v Wade and remove a woman’s right to abortion on demand.  This is a big dollar issue for both the left and right, as evidence with how much money Planned Parenthood spends on candidates who support the abortion industry.  This is such a “hot topic” issue we have the likes of Chelsey Clinton claiming as a deeply religious person it would be un-Christian of her to limit the rights of a woman to abort her fetus.  Of course, there are other deeply religious woman who are not democrats and believe the rights of a fetus capable of sustaining life (or upon conception) should be equal to the rights of the woman.

         Justice Kagan made an interesting point recently, she bemoaned the loss of Justice Kennedy as a middle ground for the court and its shift toward the conservative right.  The question this raised was why should it be the conservative who is the middle ground?  Why couldn’t a liberal?  That kind of sums up the whole world of the progressive left.  They can’t be the middle ground.  It also reflects the problem with knowing good from evil for the left.  When the goal posts keep moving it is impossible to have a consistent good.

---

[1] https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

When Will We As a Society End the Madness?

In the face of another mind-numbing school shooting I am watching the usual suspects say the usual things, but one question from someone who advocates for taking guns away caught my attention.  “When will we, as a society, end the madness and protect our children?”  That is a fair question, the only problem with it is the idea that society can end the problem as if there is some magic solution.  If we do X then everything will be okay.  That is the fatal flaw in the left’s approach, they think if they destroy the NRA and remove all the guns from society things will be better.

We have spent the last 60-years creating this society.  It has been formed through the social evolution of both the right and the left where we move to the extreme and each social group demands their supremacy and vilifies those who don’t support them.  We’ve funded an entertainment industry that makes billions of dollars off the violent nature of man while creating an economic elite who feel it is their right to tell the average person how life should be lived.  We’ve encouraged that same entertainment industry to vilify family and family values, suggesting on almost every medium the parents are stupid and if it wasn’t for the kid's everything would unravel, or that one race is superior to another.

At the same time, I see social postings from my generation who talk about how they were disciplined as children and today’s children have it too easy.  But where is their acknowledgment of their choice not to disciple their children, or condemn the social evolution that took place in front of their own eyes?

We want the madness to end but believe it’s someone else’s fault it exists and it is someone else’s job to fix it.  Whose job is it?  Surely not the government’s?  It can’t even implement a simple thing like a reasonable immigration standard or agree on a budget before the government shuts down.  How about the teachers?  Don’t we now want them to teach morality to a generation of children, whose parents have spent a lifetime questioning the morality of their parents?  They are the ones who’ve allowed the bullying to take place while advocating for social justice for the misunderstood.  Clearly, they can fix the problem since, according to some, they’ve created it. If we just throw them some more money the problem will go away?

Maybe we can turn to the entertainment industry who are more than happy to weigh in on the evil of guns while guarded by armed security.  They will have an answer while pushing the latest gun-filled mega-epic.

How about all the millennials who fill the social media space with thought-provoking and insightful posts like “your [sic] a whore.”  I am certain they have the solution, unfortunately, it would require our abandonment of the Constitution.

Here is an idea I’ve not heard discussed much by the experts in the media.  Maybe we should think about the role of a family in society and how important the parents are to creating a good person and start with that as a way to change the narrative.

Silly me, that would never work.  How can you get a click-bait headline out of “Child successfully integrates into society thanks to good parents.”

The Road Not Taken

All things are possible.  Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26)

“Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” (a quote made famous by Robert Oppenheimer originally from the 1944 Prabhavanada and Isherwood Translation of the Bhagavad Gita[1])

As we look toward the future there are always two options.  We can look forward to a better future with optimism, or we can see the deep, depressing gloom of a world lost.  The question each of us must answer individually is which path shall I take?

It is so easy in today’s world to choose the darker path because those who feed the information stream scream out all the ills of the world.  There are a variety of motivations for this, profit, fame, pettiness, or just selfish pleasure, but in the end, it all contributes to pushing us towards the negative.

For me, Robert Frost’s poem “The Road Not Taken” serves as a guide to follow my own heart and not be persuaded by the shouts of those who find pleasure in their own voices.

---

[1] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/now-i-am-become-death-the-destroyer-of-worlds