Death of society by subtle suicide
It’s almost an art form. Maneuvering large swathes of society, by careful and calculated manipulation of culture thru subtle shifting of the meaning of words and concepts, toward a self-centered but flexible worldview by euphemistically softhening and obscuring otherwise destructive behaviors and practices. A partial list might include:
Equity, standards based testing, evidence based medicine, women’s reproductive rights, climate change, fair share, living wage, people of color, gender fluidity. All of these are words and concepts that, on their face, have an appearance of compassion, legitimacy and maybe even nobility. Sadly, each has been hijacked by Marxist ideologues to shift culture away from critical thought, individual rights and responsibility and to enable a relative few to exercise god-like sovereignty over a thoroughly confused and uneducated population. Sadder still is the remarkable level of effectiveness and success these poisonous thought processes have demonstrated. If there is any good news, it is that very effectiveness which has begun to sufficiently irritate and activate people of good conscience that many are beginning to push back and demand honesty and transparency among our elected servants and a level playing field for debate among the media monopolies. So, what do these very reasonable words and phrases mean as they are practiced. As presented, these behaviors, practices or worldview lenses are presumed to be beneficial based upon the notion of implied beneficial intent. In each case listed (there are likely many more!) the implication is that fairness, dignity, rights and outcomes will be improved by their adoption and integration into the culture. Here’s the definitions for these words and concepts, as they are pitched to the public; followed by the actual effects of their application.
Equity – a governmental mandate requiring equality of outcome that will right systemic racism in America. The reality is that pre-determined reward, regardless of desire, ability or determination paints the populations it is designed to “pay back” as incapable of self determination and too lazy to even serve their own self interest. Although described as necessary to address and correct ” historical” roadblocks placed in the way of certain under, mis or unfairly represented groups, by citizens who are white, the practice of racial, economic or educational equity is the definition of racism and denigrates and marginalizes the very groups it purports to serve.
standards based testing, this is an attempt to level the playing field of k-12 education by lowering academic standards of excellence to give the appearance of satisfactory performance by a greater percentage of students. In practice, it serves to dumb-down the quality of education and reduces incentives to achieve excellence among both teachers and students.
evidence based medicine, a noble sounding (but hollow) assurance that Dr’s are practicing medicine, diagnosis, treatment and intervention only with peer reviewed, exhaustively randomized tested and board approved practices and procedures. Because the practice of medicine is so (necessarily) outcome and patient focused this shift has served to turn the doctor patient relationship into a cold, chart/matrix based investigative process designed to fit into a 15 minute slot of time and, statistically, result in a favorable outcome. It has taken the practice of medicine from a place of compassionate relationships and individualized care to an (almost) faceless assembly line process judged more by numbers seen than excellence of medical outcome.
women’s reproductive rights, a basket phrase encompassing the entirety of health needs that are unique to women. Wonderfully noble and thoughtful as this phrase sounds, no matter how this is spun, in practice, it is a blatant deception that is the most destructive application of euphemism in human history! Women’s reproductive rights is the phrase we have come to accept for softening the horror of the murder of an unborn child by a medical professional.
climate change, a fuzzy description for a model based view of the interrelatedness of our climate, atmosphere and human endeavor run against a set of fabulously complex chemical, and biological interactions from which men and women have manufactured a religious movement in which they are gods. In practice, this very vague but lofty concept is used to lower standards of living, induce fear and broaden power of those who see themselves as smarter, more compassionate and destined to rule. It is a religious chant given apocalyptic importance by its adherents. The evangelical fervor of its most ardent faithful would rather see human beings die or unnecessarily suffer from its sacrificial demands than consider that our planet is in a nearly constant state of change. In spite of this deception, America and to a lesser extent Europe, have made staggering advances in the use, extraction and disposal of plastics, fossil fuels and nuclear waste . A reality that is of no consequence to the faithful. The religious rigidity of the enlightened ones is like a fire that always demands more and is never satisfied. In other words, a god.
fair share, this is a noble sounding attempt to compel the most successful and productive among us to shoulder their “fair-share” of the cost of governance and social equity. In practice, it is a bludgeon wielded by the clever and connected to froth up the ignorant and covetous against those who are wealthy. It’s a toothless exercise that is beautifully deceptive in that the very people who are its target are the ones who write or directly influence the laws enabling avoidance! Brilliant!
living wage, a most compassionate sounding aspiration aimed to guarantee that every human being earns or is given enough money, food stamps, medical care, education, etc to “live “. Once again, the complexities of this unicorn are beyond daunting! Who is it that determines what a living wage is to me? Is it based upon my hopes, aspiration or ability? The reality is that the ones who give themselves the right to define the quality of your life, or mine, see your life as little more than a management equation for them to solve. What you want or need or dream is utterly irrelevant to them. Comply and you may exist at a level of mediocrity that your betters will give you. You are nothing more than an unavoidable irritation that needs to be quieted.
people of color, a clever description that neatly homogenizes every non white person into a helpless block of victimized people hopelessly cast into inferiority and in desperate need of highly educated,socially detached, unskilled but wealthy and mostly white benefactors.
gender fluidity. Sorry, can’t wrap my mind around this fantasy! This is the ultimate cosplay and is a gross deception to give a false and gossamer thin veneer of legitimacy to unbridled hedonism and to introduce devastating confusion into young men and women. It is a runaway evil determined to obliterate considerate, cooperative society.
Each of these word salad magicians tricks is crafted to allow self proclaimed wizards of oz to operate in secrecy (while in plain sight! ) until the damage they are unleashing is beyond stopping. The best way to discover the definition and outcome of this societal poison is to observe the results manifesting in our world. Applying this acid test of the reality reveals that none of these produce what they promise, rather, the opposite is in the evidence.
An Unexpected President
An Unexpected Presidency
We live in very interesting times. Almost 2 years ago, we elected a man to be president of the United States, who, by almost any measure, was most unlikely to win and, in the minds of many, a crude, rude, bombastic, egotistical, thin skinned, vulgar, reality show personality with precious few redeeming qualities and lots of money; who, they viewed as utterly, laughably unqualified to run for the presidency let alone be the president! Yet, win, he did, and handily! What in the world happened?
Here’s what I think. Donald J Trump stepped onto the political stage at a point in America’s history at which the trust and confidence the nation had for politicians, of all stripes, was at a dismal low. He roared onto the scene with no regard for the usual promises and pandering that passes for campaigning. Instead he audaciously tossed his hat into the ring with the intention to win. A business like approach; define the objective then explore, dissect, select and execute a flexible but methodical plan to achieve it. Politicians do not seem to have the discipline or integrity to operate in this manner; they are too busy with a damp finger in the wind, capriciously shifting position and conveniently reversing themselves based on polling and advice of hirelings. They create problems and then propose themselves as the keepers of the ways and means to “solve” them. People were feeling hoodwinked by their own elected representatives! Trump’s plan was actually pretty simple. Counter attack every slight, accusation or dismissal and continue until the “offenders” were destroyed or rendered irrelevant. In the primary, it worked with devastating effectiveness against a field of gifted republican politicians. They were out of their league and unprepared for the street fighting style Trump had brought to the contest; he had not come to debate and score style or substance points, he came to be the last man standing. And, he was.
Particularly irksome, to many, is the reality that Donald J Trump is brilliant, a very quick study and consistent. Equally disturbing to the same crowd is his utter lack of concern for his critics, anyone and any institution he perceives as “unfairly” or “inaccurately” commenting on his performance or intent. He is ruthless to defend himself, his administration and his supporters. Unfortunately for the haters (and there are many) it is that attitude that wins him almost unshakable loyalty. Here, is another unfortunate perception of the typical politician, loyalty is situationally evaluated and sacrificial disassociation common. Those of us who support Trump have never wanted to rule the world but we are fed up with the deception and derision we’ve gotten at the hand of the professional political class and Trump picked up a huge bull horn and stepped onto a platform large enough, that they can hear us now. Most in the professional political class has lost any real or reliable connection to the rest of us and whether deliberately or not, they leave us feeling like we should be grateful that they are so willing to help us know what to think, how to think and whether to think, at all. Imperial arrogance has met an unapologetic and relentless populist and pragmatist who never gets tired of poking them in the eye.
Those who dislike Trump don’t simply hold a different viewpoint, with regard to policy or direction, they exhibit a primitive, sort of visceral (almost instinctive) hatred which seeks his utter destruction! Unfortunately, for them, Donald J Trump sees their unveiled hatred as the barn door sized target he can hit at will, to keep them frothing and foaming at irritating irrelevancies and denying them the ability to focus on anything but their anger and frustration at him and his supporters. Many see the strategy as that of a thin skinned, petulant, boor striking out because he can’t help himself. That’s not how I see it. Trump is brilliant. He knows that keeping his detractors fully occupied with regular whacks at the hornets nest of their astonishment that he is the president and their collective irrationality over manufactured faults and failures (of his and those who support him), enables him to maintain resolute focus on the agenda he has in mind. They run around with their hair on fire and he fires out a tweet, like a puff of breeze on an ember, and another 3 or 4 days of hand wringing, wailing and distraction is unleashed. He has effectively exposed his opposition as petty, mean spirited and angry. Has he galvanized his opponents to action? Absolutely! The action they have chosen tho is, day by day, revealing that they have no legislative agenda, they actively do and advocate for the very behaviors they accuse Trump, and his supporters, of encouraging, they are desperate to gain control of the narrative, and they do not believe the American people are smart enough to see their hypocrisy and duplicity. Does Donald J Trump turn people off with his style and rancorous, bombastic personality? You betcha! I’m one of them but I do like the direction he’s going, I get a kick out of the consternation he causes the media and his most ardent detractors and I very much appreciate his unshakable America first attitude.
There is an election coming, in November. It is, traditionally an opportunity for the out of power party to rebalance the legislative scale. Because Trump has been so successful at discombobulating both the Democrats and many “establishment” Republicans I predict that there will not be any appreciable shift of power in either the House or the Senate; Republicans might even experience gains in both. Before these midterm elections:
I believe the weird money pit, called the Mueller probe, investigating allegations of collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia will blow up and, eventually, be forced into a decidedly different direction. By election day, the rabid hysteria over allegations of: misogyny, racism, untold ‘obias, and general unfitness for the human race of Trump and his supporters will be exposed as misdirected projection by self-righteous control freaks, fearful of discovery! China will come to the negotiating table, as will our other trading partners, and trade tariffs will come off as free trade becomes more normalized. Wages in the US will continue to rise and unemployment to drop. A form of DACA will find bipartisan support and the president will sign it into law. A showdown of such great intensity will form, around border security, that legislation will be taken up, to improve and modernize our horrible immigration laws, that will also find bipartisan support (the screeching naysayers will be exposed and marginalized). Both Iran and N Korea will be brought to the negotiating table to forge pathways for them to be less aggressive participants in the global community. California, New York and possibly Illinois will consider legislation to secede from the United States; Washington, Oregon and Massachusetts will, unsuccessfully, beg to be included. Trump haters heads will explode!
Will all of this happen? How should I know? I sure hope so (not the secession part) but, my opinion is probably no better than yours.
Crowd control
I’ve been absent from my occasional rants about our government in general and our president in particular since he won reelection. My disappointment, that we have become such a lazy and ill-informed electorate, has been a challenge for me to overcome. That a man who: ran on nothing, presided over a country in worse shape than when he took office, who left the women, minorities, and middle-class he crows about being a champion for in worse condition and declining, won re-election is beyond mind boggling! It’s depressing! I actually intended to quit posting as I felt that the stuff I write is mostly read by people with similar attitudes toward government and governance and I was simply singing to a receptive and friendly choir and having no impact on anyone’s thinking or thought process. Ok, so what, choir, here comes another familiar tune! I’m exasperated and I’m going to rant some more!!
I have come to recognize president Obama and his political team for their possession of an exquisite grasp of mob management for political gain. It is remarkably simple to move apathetic people in a predetermined direction. I do not believe the president has any particularly strong leadership skill but I do believe he has an innate understanding of people, odds and emotional manipulation. In other words, in place of leadership he substitutes precisely targeted manipulative crowd control. His ability to use every medium available to demonize, denigrate and demoralize any one standing in opposition to him; however regular, rational or reasonable they may be, is breathtakingly frightening to behold! To our president, and those who think like him (about 20-30% of the country), government control and federal spending are the best drivers of a “fair” country and robust economy. We have been led to believe that printing money, and expanding government (both jobs and regulation) has ushered in an “improving trend” to our tepid economy. That he has been even marginally successful at selling this dangerous fallacy is stunning. Why do enough of us believe that things are getting better and re-elect a man who has failed by almost any reasonable measure when the reality is we are more like bullfrogs slowly boiling in a pot of water; heated by our own ignorance and self-centeredness?
It is because we live in an age in which reality is defined in 30 to 60 minute blocks of time during which we watch caricatures of people living slices of their home, work, recreational and sex lives, skillfully manipulated for dramatic effect and tension, on our TV and smartphone screens as substitutes for living our own! Those shows are supposed to be for entertainment people!! not social studies guides for patterning your life!!! Next, we accept that those on our 24 hour news channels are giving us all the news but search to find the ones most sympathetic with our own world view and declare them the “truth tellers” relieving ourselves of the tedious responsibility to dig for and discover real truth! Here’s the bombshell, the president (all presidents) and their minions know that is what most of the country will do so they don’t have to work very hard to manipulate you. They already know you are lazy, not likely to verify anything they say, are easily herded by your emotions rather than informed thru your intellect and that you are likely to vote for the one who promises to make your life rosy!! They are clever and you are gullible.
Because we live in an age of unbelievable access to information, interconnectedness, and blistering speed of delivery, there is becoming a serious overload on our ability to process. As valuable as the ability to communicate in actual real time is, that ability carries within it a grave danger because it offers precious little time to process, digest or understand all to which we’ve been exposed. Have you noticed that as soon as anyone (a public figure in particular) has made a statement there is immediately a search for what, how, where and to whom similar, and hopefully contradictory, statements were made by the same person? Have you also noticed that the more supposedly “important” that person might be the less it seems to matter that they are at one time this way and now are precisely saying the opposite but, with nary a blink they forge on? They know that you are overloaded with information and count on the likelyhood that you will not make the time or have the determination to give careful thought to the discrepancies (that’s why the Benghazi fiasco stays out of your mind!) The escape route being used today, by those who seek to manipulate you, is that they have “evolved” or “in-artfully” expressed themselves, implying that they have become more “enlightened” and you are less so, if you don’t agree. In effect telling you to ” move along, there’s nothing to see here”. My friends, you are the ones carrying the knife in an information nuclear war!! So, what should you and I do to combat this insidious barrage of carefully crafted mis-information aimed at corralling you into a form of slavery to which you would never give permission if you understood what was happening? KEEP YOUR KNIFE SHARP AND, THINK FOR YOURSELF!!!
The answer is both simple and a great challenge. You must know who’s you are (that’s not a misspelling) and what you believe. You must know why you believe what you believe and, you must know by what means or force the outcome you envision for your life, and the lives of those you will influence, will be made manifest. Whether you actively choose to know these things or not is irrelevant. There will be an outcome to your life, others will be affected by it, and not choosing your own thoughts and belief system insures someone else will choose both for you. Politicians and any others who seek mastery over you rely on sloth and indifference to enable the take over! Over time, you will always act according to the stuff you really believe and the outcome of your life will shape itself around the decisions you make (or allow to be made for you) moment by moment. Do not allow yourself to simply be a dumping station for someone else’s agenda.
We are in amazing times. In the coming decade we will see things happen in the world like we have never seen before. Some of it will be more frightening than you’ve ever seen and some of it will be more wondrous than you’ve ever see. We are nearing the launch point of the greatest E ticket ride in history. You matter. Do not allow any other human to possess the keys to your happiness, especially slick politicians !, or or you will eventually wake up wondering why the conditions and destination, of your ride, have made you so miserable!
The coach
In 2007 a powerful international franchise showed disturbing signs it was losing it’s edge. It was in financial free-fall, it was weary from nearly 7 years of grueling international contests and the coach, at the time, was at the end of his contract term. Energized by a mixture of frustration, anger and fear, the owners got together & determined to hire a new head coach. What they wanted was someone who could: restore confidence, rebuild team cohesion, understand the complexities of the game, attract great talent, return the franchise to financial strength & certainty and win. After a grueling search; a coach of great promise seemed to appear and, altho the owners were not unanimous in their choice, he was hired. This man exuded confidence, spoke with great eloquence, mesmerized nearly everyone with the power of his claims of ability to right the financially floundering franchise and promises of a new dawning of cooperative excellence.
For the first two years of his tenure, the new coach was given an unprecedented free hand to do what he believed best; he carefully installed his own hand picked coaching staff, called in the finest, like minded, consultants, made fundamental changes to the core and fabric of the franchise, silenced every dissenting voice and implemented his strategy. At the end of those two years, the team was losing more money per year than in all the years of it’s existence, it increased it’s debt to such heights that credit agencies downgraded its credit rating for the first time in its history, its win-loss record climbed to frightening levels then settled back to a steady state of decline worse than when the new coach was hired! The opposing international teams began to mock the once respected team and many of the teams that had once been unable to compete in the same league began to openly challenge and sometimes defeat it. The players began to be discouraged, the fans disappointed and the owners, furious. When challenged to explain the lack of improvement and his abysmal record, the new coach said it was his predecessor’s fault, that the other teams were making it very difficult for him to make the progress he had promised, that there had been severe weather problems and other large franchises were also under deep financial stress which unexpectedly slowed the progress he’d expected and, that all he needed was more time. The coaches response irritated the owners sufficiently that they came together in 2009 to slow the unhindered damage they felt the new coach was doing to the franchise. They found and installed assistant coaches who, they hoped, would force the head coach to lead with a style and result more in line with their desire and more like the promises he had so boldly proclaimed when he was hired. Despite the new composition of the coaching staff, the health of the franchise continued to flounder and decline. The head coach blamed the newly installed coaching staff and the new staff felt bound to execute the will of the owners to get the franchise back to financial health and its former winning ways. The divide between the head coach and his new staff and the owners became more and more stark and the owners more concerned that they would not or could not work together to right the ship.
Knowing the new coach had an iron-clad 4 year contract the owners found themselves faced with a choice. For many, it was obvious, the coach, and much of the staff, must be replaced. For others less so and and they wondered; if we replace him, who will we get and if we don’t, what will we get? For some, a stubborn, emotional allegiance to the coach prevented them even seeing the stagnant and declining state of the franchise and they would keep him regardless, clinging to the lofty but broken promises of the previous 4 years.
So, dear reader, what will you choose to do on November 6th 2012. You, after all, are the owner.
As I’ve ranted away about the fiscal, social and other silliness heaped upon us by our elected representatives, in the Federal Government, I’ve begun to really understand why I so strongly gravitate toward conservative/traditional values and candidates. In the process of my ranting, I have discovered that not everyone with whom I am friendly agrees with my viewpoint! Some, are even hostile toward it, and sometimes, me! Never-the-less, I try to maintain at least cordial relationships with several very progressive, one committed socialist and, (I think) one actual communist; believers. Having heard their arguments, read some of the information they rely upon to form their worldview, looking at the political humor they find amusing and enduring the sometimes vicious misrepresentations they use to diminish those, (like me), with whom they disagree, has pushed me to research and support my own viewpoint and attempt to discover why the divide is so deep.
Here’s what I’ve discovered.
On matters of money:
There at least two competing economic theories that underpin financial decision making in governments. One, championed and developed by Lord Maynard Keynes,( labeled Keynesian or Neo-Keynesian economics) is the one most embraced by both the European and the American governments. This theory suggests that it is the role of government to manage the fiscal health of the nation. In order to work, the Keynesian model requires a very strong, centrally planned governmental structure. In practice, the Keynesian theory encourages and endorses: that the real value of money is irrelevant, a progressive tax system which levy’s the heaviest taxation on the most productive, the idea of printing money as a fiscal management tool, offering stimulus to smooth out slow or down economic times, establishment of a single payer healthcare system, public education and other tax base supported social program funding. The Keynesian model supposes that these will offer “safety & security” for those living under its banner. That is why we hear democrats saying things like “for every dollar of stimulus invested, there is $1.73 of economic growth”, “health care, housing and education are basic human rights and must be provided by government”, “food stamps represent the best type of stimulus for our economy” and “the wealthy need to pay their fair share”.
The other economic theory is Austrian, or Free Market theory which has been championed by Adam Smith, Ludwig von Moises, Milton Friedman and others. This theory suggests that money should be backed by something inelastic (like gold or silver) to maintain and describe its real value, that those who earn money should be able to keep it and spend it in whatever way seems best to them, that people are free to both succeed fabulously and fail fabulously based on their choices, will, grit and determination, that the marketplace, supply and demand in and of themselves will act to insure that only those products or services which consumers actually want or need will survive and that competition will create efficiencies, cost control and constant improvement over time. That is why we hear conservatives say: “every one should have access to and freedom to choose (or not) health care, housing and education”, “you can’t spend your way out of deficits”, “let the market decide” and “get the Federal government off the back of job creators”.
The Keynesian model attempts to place governmental modifiers in place to minimize or eliminate financial upheaval; the Austrian/Free Market model recognizes that financial upheaval is a natural component of the marketplace and its occurrence clears out that which doesn’t serve genuine need and rewards that which does.
I support candidates who are most likely to lean in the direction of Austrian modeled economic policies.
On matters of governance:
I have recently explored two old guys whose political theories seem to best define the differences between a progressive liberal and a traditional conservative; Aristotle and Plato.
Plato believed that there is a necessary element of constrained tyranny in the practice and attitude of those who govern. His belief was that the highest form of good governance was achieved when men of the Aristocracy were united with those of the “Warrior” class to govern the lowest class, the farmers, merchants, craftsmen and other “Lower class” citizens. Plato believed that this group of “Ruling class”, if constrained by laws, would apply benevolent philosophical “wisdom” to ruling that would limit their own greed and thirst for power and that the “Lower class” would be allowed to live good lives of well disciplined behavior at the hand of the well educated, Aristocratic “Rulers” and under the watchful eye of the highly skilled and well equipped “Warriors”. The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness. . . . This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears above ground he is a protector. . . having a mob entirely at his disposal . . . . —Plato
Here’s a graphic of Plato’s view of best governance:
Plato, like all progressive liberal thinkers, was an idealist who looked at reality with a certain irritation believing that dedication to the ideal was more important than negotiating the often contrary course of reality.
After attending Plato’s Academy for 20 years, Aristotle disagreed with much of his philosophy and came to believe that the best form of governance arose from a well educated middle class (the Lower class of Plato) which exercised control of law over the “Rulers” and the “Warriors”. He believed that the middle class represented the bulk of the citizenry, produced the strength of the nation and, given a strong rule of law, would constrain the governors (Ruling class) which would also constrain the power, over the citizen, of the military or police (Warrior class). He saw the various forms of government of his day as either “True” or “perverted and despotic”. [T]he best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class, and that those states are likely to be well-administered in which the middle class is large, and stronger if possible than both the other classes . . . . —Aristotle
Here’s a graphic of Aristotle’s range of possible “good” governance models.
America is not a democracy but a constitutional republic and that is for good reason; A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group. Democracies degenerate eventually to service of small, well organized and funded,selfish special interest groups in which those who find themselves in a voting minority have no rights whatsoever. Republics give the individual the voice and opportunity to reject and possibly even overturn the vote of the majority, if that decision cannot find legal basis under the constitution. A constitutional republic is a particularly potent type because of the inherent protections contained in the governing document, its constitution.
I vote for candidates who lean toward autonomy of the individual, the sovereignty of our various States and who hold the Constitution as a dead work of just laws not subject to popular whim or political expediency.
On matters of foreign policy:
There are two different schools of thought, about America’s place and purpose in the world, that matter to me. One, termed “isolationism”, is that the United States will intervene in international external affairs only after precipitous imbalances of power require a response from her. This has been the policy of the majority of our Democratic presidents from Wilson-Obama. The actions of this type foreign policy are generally that America is best served if she is stubbornly reluctant to be active in maintaining power balances in the world and that staying out of the “power management” business: makes us more likeable, hopes the imbalance might resolve itself and we might not become forced into committing money and lives to the effort. The result of this thought process has been that each conflagration we have been “dragged” into has cost enormously more, in terms of money and lost American lives, than being active in the power management business (interventionism). In World wars I & II we were bystanders until we could no longer remain in our disengaged, neutral position. By the time we engaged the wars, we were poorly prepared for either and paid a horrific price, in men killed, for our reluctance to play an active, early role, regardless, paying a generational losing price, we prevailed. The combined loss of U.S. lives in those two wars was a staggering 500,000!
The other foreign policy view is one of active involvement in the maintenance of balanced power in the world (interventionism). This view recognizes America’s unique world place and uses that place to directly influence the balance of power to avoid or minimize catastrophic power imbalances. After WW II we employed this thought process to “manage” the cold war. Interventionism is costly too, but not nearly so costly as isolationism. From WW II ’till today we have engaged power imbalances in Korea, Viet Nam, The Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq and elsewhere. Many have described this interventionist policy as the policy of endless war and they do have a point. There is a price to be paid for being a world power and leader and, whether we like it or not, America has been placed in that role. Our policy of intervention is controversial but the realities (for American soldiers, sailors airmen and marines) is that fewer of them die under it. Since WW II, in all the “endless wars” we’ve engaged, we have suffered the loss of slightly less than 100,000 American lives.
I vote for candidates who have an appreciation for America’s unique world place, who value a massively strong military capability, who are little concerned with what the rest of the world thinks of us and who will boldly take steps to maintain the power balance in the world.
On social matters:
We have spent the last 100 or so years trying to get back to the oppressive democratic socialism of Europe, that we fought the Revolutionary war to break away from, thru relentless application of noble sounding but hopelessly ill conceived social engineering. From social security, in the early 20th century to the affordable healthcare act of 2010, progressive liberal presidents have pushed social “feel good” programs without regard to the realities of their execution. To those receiving benefits from these “safety nets”, they are a precious commodity. Sadly they are also doomed to eventual failure and that failure will devastate the millions who have become utterly dependent upon them.Courageous Acts of congress During that same period, our federal government (from both sides of the political isle) has attempted to codify every element of human life serving only to emphasize what divides us and minimize that which unites.
In order to preserve and improve the means to pursuit of a satisfying life, the government (federal) must get out of the lifestyle management business. It is the right of the individual and an authority granted to the States to do what they want in the areas of social justice, lifestyle choices, education, health and healthcare, and legacy matters.
I will vote for candidates who strongly support the constitution, voice their stance on the rights of individuals and states and commit themselves to working to reduce the size, scope, reach and role of the federal government.
So, when November 6th, 2012 arrives, it will not be difficult for me to make my choice. I am not a Republican but those who are, generally, fall into acceptability based on my worldview. I’m not looking for someone rigidly like me, I’m looking for someone who is similar enough that traveling with them will not seem like a death march.
Heavy Weapons
Early Friday morning, July 21st, an almost unbelievable act of evil was suffered by mid-night movie goers in Aurora Colorado. To label the murder of 12 and injury of 58 as anything less than a heinous act of massacre and individual terrorism would be irresponsible and heartless. Predictably, because guns were used to commit this evil, questions are raised about private ownership of weapons by American citizens. I suppose the questions are legitimate but what do they bring us? It always comes down to parsing the wording and intent of the 2nd amendment by the constitutional framers. When the words “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights among these are the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” were penned in the Declaration of Independence they carried with them the great weight and wisdom of recognition from whom rights come and that those rights should not be infringed (in America) by mere men. From the grievances outlined in the Declaration, our constitution was constructed. The framers set out to create a constitution that would establish these rights as the bedrock foundation of American governance and serve to guide future elected officials in governing at the consent of the governed while placing stringent limits on their power. I explore each phrase of this statement from the Declaration of Independence here: https://2ifbyc.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/protecting-life-living-free-and-pursuit-of-happiness-are-over-rated-throwbacks-to-colonial-america/
Regarding the 2nd amendment; what relationship might it have with inalienable rights?
It seems clear that both the rights and their inalienability provided the urgency and drove the exactness of the wording of stringent governmental limitations which the Bill of Rights outlines. Rights are not the same as privileges. Privileges are granted by men who are duly elected into, or who seize by force, authority over other men and, as such revocable by other or the same men. Rights are God-given, and legally, irrevocable. Bearing arms is only a right because armed citizens can exert deadly force, if necessary, to protect their own or another persons life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. We exercise our rights, like a muscle and they strengthen and, because they are rights, they carry a great burden of personal responsibility that we exercise them properly; they do not give us license to infringe on those of others in exercise of our own. Privileges can be earned, revoked, abused, capriciously given and are a form of reward.
The debate over private possession of weapons is not new. Well before the discovery of gun powder it has been at the center of the tension between government and the governed.Each horrific event involving a murderer and the use of weapons rekindles the debate over armed citizens and, what is an appropriate or socially acceptable level of private citizen armament. The 2nd amendment was among the first 10 added shortly after the ratification of our constitution. The drafting of the Bill of Rights was initiated at the behest of and out of concern by Thomas Jefferson, that the constitution, as ratified, failed to definitively address specific rights and protections for citizens against governmental intrusion and over-reach. After the States held their constitutional conventions, the first 10 amendments (which became the Bill Of Rights) were specifically and very closely written to further restrict federal powers under the Constitution. The purpose, as stated in the proposal to congress, was “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, (and to add) further declaratory and restrictive clauses ” The right to bear arms was not designed solely to give a “well regulated militia” the wherewithal to resist an invading aggressor or oust an overbearing federal government but equally, to afford individual citizens a perpetually protected, powerful means to protect his own life, pursuit of happiness and liberty.
Many argue that the framers would be appalled at the advancement of lethality in individual arms and weaponry, and would seek to legislatively limit their availability to regular citizens; I disagree. The single shot weapons of the time, if possessed by common men, gave them rough parity with the foot soldier of a “professional” army of the day. The cannons, warships, arsenals and manufacturing of mechanized weapons and more devastating engines of war were not only too expensive for the average citizen but were also too big and bulky for ease of practice or hauling about. I believe the framers would see most any shoulder fired weapon, of roughly equal lethality and firepower to that of a well armed infantryman, as fair game for possession by citizens. Altho I have no desire to own a fully automatic weapon or a grenade launcher for my home defense, I don’t object to them being in private ownership.
Hunting is often offered as a “reasonable” test or benchmark for defining the acceptability of privately owned weaponry. Since every state has different laws on what is and what is not a legal hunting weapon, using the hunting argument opens up an unbelievably arbitrary and capricious method subject to unlimited interpretation.
Inevitably, the heavy weight rigidity of the NRA finds its way into the teeth of this argument. Altho I am not a member, I see the hardline defense of the 2nd amendment, by the NRA, as a necessary counterbalance to the relentless efforts by many to parse the amendment and slowly but very surely remove all weapons from the hands of regular citizens.The number of oppressive and unnecessarily restrictive gun, knife and other hand or shoulder operated weapons possession laws across America is clear evidence of the marching trend toward greater and greater control of guns (weapons), of all sorts.
Those who think like me often call discussions calling for more restrictive gun laws, at the federal level, “slippery slope” legislative actions. Those who argue from the other side of the fight typically disdain “slippery slope” arguments dismissing them as mere red herrings, used by the simple to avoid application of rational thought. A thought process which makes it simple, but dangerous, to dismiss them as irrelevant. Dismissing these arguments as irrelevant represents a line of thinking which believes men are capable to reign in or steadfastly act nobly despite their hunger for power (benevolent dictatorships) and desire to control other men (for the safety and protection of those men). John Hay said famously in 1872 “The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it.” Another, from Daniel Webster in 1842 (an early conservative and staunch elitist) about the nature of those who govern: “There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters”. And, one more set which may define our divergent views, from Aristotle and Plato: From Aristotle, and descriptive of my viewpoint: “Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms” And from Plato, altho Plato would not be supportive of my view-point, his statement emboldens it; here it is: “This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector”
Ultimately, thinking people will either come to agree with Plato’s belief that tyranny is a noble and necessary element of effective governance and that those governed need the strong hand of the state to guide them or, they will gravitate in Aristotle’s direction believing that best governance is found where the government genuinely serves the governed and protects broad freedoms with minimal oversight or intrusion. The U.S. constitution is among the finest examples of an attempt to compel governing bodies to act in tightly restricted roles which, I believe, aligns closely with Aristotle’s philosophy.
This argument will continue to rage and we will likely see more restrictions on gun sales. They will sound reasonable, they will claim to only affect those weapons “more appropriate” to possession and use by the military and police forces and, they will increase the angle and slipperiness of the slope to an eventually disarmed citizenry.
I’ll close with this quotation from Mahatma Gandhi “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India,history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms,as the blackest.”
Think about it.
It’s still a balloon
The balloon is burst and the goodies are all gone!
In an earlier essay, I wrote about the devastating effects of cowardly acts of bloated government which have been sold as “courageous” such as: the social security act of 1935, the medicaid act of 1965, establishment of the department of education (originally established in 1867 but only lasted one year) re-established in 1979, and the mother of all, the affordable health care act of 2010. All of these “acts of compassion” were proposed, in their current forms, by democratic presidents, usually in the face of fierce opposition but most passed into law with by-partisan support despite the contention. The exception is the affordable healthcare act (Obamacare) which was passed using legal but unusual parliamentary maneuvering, clever deception and a congressional democratic super majority to circumvent legitimate debate. In an extraordinary twist, the supreme court applied tortured argument, by the Chief justice, to manipulate the wording of the act to enable a finding of constitutionality; actually changing the legal language of the law without referring it back to the congress for further debate. Those of us who vigorously oppose these federal government programs are labeled cruel, heartless, bigots, greedy, and all manner of other unsavory label. The reality is, for the majority of us, protecting the least able among us is critical, having access to affordable, high quality, and necessary medical care is not as difficult as it is being made to be, and access to excellent education is highly desirable but doesn’t demand “religion of the state” status and, we look at our constitution and cannot find authorization for the federal government to engage itself in any of these matters to any great degree; they are state and local matters. The great failure and tragedy of these ill-conceived laws is the long term unintended consequences. So far, not one of the federal acts mentioned has performed as promised. In particular, all are over budget, overstaffed, under performing and stealing the individual dignity and self-worthiness of the very people they purport to serve and, to some peoples thinking, save. What is true is that we are a nation whose bankruptcy is already real we just haven’t filed, yet. However noble sounding and intended government social programs may be, they cost money and we are out of that. The liberals who argue that people, like me, are misanthropic idiots because we have been saying; since the beginning of our republic; “these type federal social programs are a descent into socialism and will be the death of us”; are compassionate air-heads. They fail to understand that just because you can stretch a balloon to gargantuan size by slowly filling it with air (government programs), eventually it will reach its elastic limit and the thin skin of reality (the money available) will tear, releasing a great stench and spilling out all those programs. The ones who will be most damaged by the fallout will be the very people who have been duped for nearly a century now into trusting that the buckets full o’ cash were endless. There is no more money. Taxing the rich only brings in enough, if we tax them at 100% of their income, to run this clown show for a week or two. Cutting defense (one of the few things in which the federal government is charged to be engaged) is somewhat meaningless as it represents only about 20% of of the federal budget (liberals love to note that that 20% represents 58% of discretionary spending). Are you , dear reader aware that, because our federal government has been allowed to get involved in so many “greater good” programs over the past 100 years, discretionary spending represents only 35% of our total federal budget. What that means is that without massive intervention, which will be painful and contentious, we can only tinker with 35 cents of every dollar the federal government spends! Medicare, medicaid, and social security represent a whopping 70% of the total budget and, altho all are “paid for” by taxes none is even close to paid for (the unfunded liabilities of these three programs is approximately $110 TRILLON). With the passage of Obamacare, the burden on our faltering economic balloon is unbearable. Our fiscal balloon is stretched to transparent thinness and will burst if we do not begin to let some of the federal government gas out of it. If we continue to whistle past this graveyard it will burst, and all that will be left is that which is real and, George Bush will not be the culprit.
November 6th, 2012 is our chance to introduce new consequences of an election. It’s your country, your money and your decision; choose deception shortsightedness and destruction with the current administration or choose confrontation, contention and constitution and vote in as many constitutional conservatives as possible.
Navigational Aids & Large Slow Circles
I’ve come to believe that the movement of people toward a vision or ideal is similar to the effect of walking in a large slow circle when lost in the woods or desert. All of us have slight differences, in our leg length, foot placement and stride, between our right and left leg and, generally poor directional sense. The result of our slight anatomical differences, when coupled with our poor navigation skills (or lack of navigational aids), is that we tend to walk in very large diameter circles, as we attempt to find our way in the wilderness. Eventually, and very predictably, we arrive back at the place we started; in other words, we are consistent and predictable until, or unless, we are acted upon by some force or influence (by choice or some form of acquiescence). It seems we are also psychologically wired with similarly consistent and predictable social tendencies. How else can we explain the irresistible movement of people toward social ideals? As I’ve attempted to understand those who see life thru a tell–me–what–to–do and protect me from myself lens, so very different from my own, I’ve been asked; do I think anyone is really smart and persuasive enough to maneuver vast numbers of people toward social policy in either a government-is-the-answer to everything liberal, socialistic, direction or a government-is-usually-the-problem traditional/conservative and more laissez faire (free market capitalism) direction? The question was asked by a man and friend, in local politics, and his question was modified by the statement “I’ve been around politics and politicians a lot, for a long time, and I don’t think they’re all that smart, or persuasive!”. So, a little over a year ago, I began to write this essay but have stalled repeatedly. It finally dawned on me that if I were lost in the woods I might easily chose to follow someone else who acted sufficiently confident and persuasive and who I chose to trust as better qualified to get us to our destination than myself. As long as their confidence in the direction we traveled matched up well enough with my own hope for a suitable destination, or kept me fearful that failure to follow them would lead to dire consequences; I would follow their lead out of either fear or hope. My following would necessarily lead me in their long slow circle and we would both end up at their predictable and consistent destination, pre-determined by their peculiar tendencies. I would not be following, necessarily, because I desired or even understood the destination but more, because I didn’t trust my own ability to either define or discover my own!
My answer to the question, then, is this; If we do not determine the path of our own lives and whom we will serve and follow, we will become part of the agenda of those all to willing to do it for us. Whether actively or passively, we will all choose to serve or follow someone or something and we will reap the consequences, good or ill, of our choices.
Learn to navigate your own life and choose wisely, whom you will follow, my friends! Navigational aids can never replace the navigator! Lighthouses are bright and bear an urgent message but, they are not along rugged coasts to tell mariners how to avoid the deadly rocky shoals, they are there to alert them that they must choose to do something to avoid them!
Codified!
Cataloged, systematized, arranged in an orderly manner. In other words, give it a name and put it on a list (usually in the form of a law or statute). We are a nation obsessed with the notion that we must try to identify, define and pass judgement on every aspect of human existence. I believe our obsession is born out of genuine desire to protect the least able from being taken advantage of by either nefarious intent or ignorant action. Unfortunately, even in our best moments, we are unable to grasp the range of misfortune that might befall our fellow sojourners. Further, despite our best effort, the unintended and unfortunate consequences of our attempt to make life “fair” or put limits on evil only makes life more difficult to enjoy without fear of infraction and vulnerability to prosecution. Those on the progressive left aim to make life “fair” and those on the religious right seek to punish and control evil; both teams are jousting at windmills. Life is not fair, life is just and that means it is sometimes wildly un “fair”. similarly, it is not possible to define, legislate or effectively control bad behavior because I or you define it as “evil” or contributing to “evil”.
In discussion with one of my 3 liberal friends, I was challenged to defend my stance on, mandated healthcare, homosexual marriages, prostitution, and “soft”drugs, like marijuana, all of which I oppose legalizing. That does not mean I want them to be declared illegal. This is the whole point of my essay; attempting to define all that we do as human beings as either “legal” or Illegal” is nothing short of an exercise in popular futility. Zealots from all compass points of the debates surrounding control of human behavior find themselves constantly defeating their own arguments while trying to proselytize others to their peculiar point of view. Here are some arguments common to the various camps which very frequently cross purpose in a given conversation. Many who support abortion on demand, as a woman’s right to choose, can also be found adamantly bewailing the slaughter of baby harp seals, for their fur, because an innocent life is lost. We who believe homosexual marriage is anathema to good society might finish our sentence with a statement that anyone divorced who remarries is committing adultery and that both the divorce and the remarriage tatter the fabric of society. Those who hate government in all its forms will demand their right to say so and that that right be protected by the…government. Those who lobby for universal healthcare punish and vilify those who pay the most taxes, which would be needed to pay for it. Those who chant for use of “green energy” as an alternative to fossil fuels, drive or fly to their conferences in gas and avgas guzzling cars and planes and sit in buildings heated or cooled by coal fired generators. Those who sit in the lotus position humming for tolerance and projecting peaceful thoughts to heal the world have no tolerance for those unenlightened souls who believe competition hones and enlarges the human condition. Those who clamor for “separation of church and state” practice a more fervent religion than do most people of faith and would have our country practice the religion of atheism as our chosen state religion. We are passionate about our stuff but wildly irrational and contradictory in applying consistency to our argument! As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “What you do speaks so loudly I cannot hear what you say.”
You see, legislating human behavior in all its manifestations is not possible nor is it necessary. Our constitution contained THREE federal criminal statutes or laws. Those were (still are) ; Treason, Piracy and Counterfeiting. that’s it, THREE! At the turn of the 20th century, we had added dozens of statutes to the U.S. Code and by 2008, there were an estimated 4,500 crimes covered in federal statutes, according to a 2008 study by retired Louisiana State University law professor John Baker. Did we become a nation given to worse and worsening behavior? Or did we begin to look at people, life and lives and something to be controlled, restricted, legislated and , codefied.
I have always told my children laws do not prevent crime in any way, they simply give society a way to measure and identify when and to what extent an arbitrarily established criminal act has taken place. So, it is not correct to say that this or that thing should be “legalized” it is more appropriate to quit making so much behavior illegal or criminal! I am not advocating abolishing our laws (altho getting rid of 3/4ths of them would probably be a good idea) I am advocating that our governments, at all levels, get out of the business of trying to legislate human morality.
Let’s stop trying to make life fair and quit defining behavior as criminal or evil just because we don’t agree. Let’s not allow the powerful define what Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness looks like in your life or mine. If you are an adult (yeah, we need to define when that is), it is your right to assume the responsibility to make the choices for your life that meet your definition and reap the consequences, both good and bad. You do have the right to do with or to your body what you want; you do not have the right to have me approve of or embrace your decision or pay for the consequences of your decision. You do have the right to drive a car that uses solar energy to power it; you do not have the right to tell me I must. You do have the right to believe that humans are parasites killing mother earth but you do not have the right to expect me to agree or suffer, at the hand of yourself or your agents, because I disagree. You do have the right to live in any kind of intimate relationships you want but you do not have the right to teach my children that your choice is normal and noble, it’s simply your choice. You have the right to hate me but you do not have the right to hurt me because you hate me and I do not have the right to hurt you because I disagree with you. I have the right to do what I think best to earn a living and feed my family but, I do not have the right to make you buy from or support me. You have the right to raise your children in the way that seems best to you but you do not have the right to tell me what is best for mine. I have the right to happiness but I do not have the right to force you to participate or contribute to my happiness. I have the right to good health but I do not have the right to compel you to pay for it. We all have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and in those three things, we have everything we need to live well together.
We all like to eat!
When a person or business succeeds, there is food on the table. The more a person or business succeeds, the more food there is on more tables. The previous two statements cannot possibly be true. President Obama has said that the wealthy among us need to pay their fair share; why? So more people can have food on their tables. There you have it, if those who produce and provide the jobs which produce the stuff people want would just quit being so irresponsibly greedy, everyone would have more food on the table. Hmmmm? these two thought processes seem to be at odds with one another! Which one is contained within the frame of reality and sustainability and which is framed in the illusion of smoke before a mirror? Surely there is some source of evidence that could help a brother out with understanding which is better, isn’t there? Absolutely, there is and it’s overwhelming! The repository of this vast store of knowledge is about 3 thousand miles East of Washington D.C. It’ s called Western Europe.
Now, before my 3 liberal friends jump on me about the Wall Street/Washington Siamese Twin connection, let me place your minds at rest. The indistinguishable intentions of both Wall Street and Washington elites (politicians and lobbyists) are power and control, at any cost. I’m talking about the vast majority of Americans who want to: eat, have a sense of control over their (usually very small) bit of the world and, take care of the most downtrodden among us and to believe their government is championing their right to run their lives the way that seems best for them.
What does the evidence suggest? A very short story for illustration: I had an acquaintance who once boasted of being injured while in England and receiving both excellent and FREE! medical care. It just doesn’t get any better than that! When I thought about that statement, I had to wonder, how does a doctor in England put food on his table? How do the makers of the equipment, the dressings and medications the doctors used to fix my friends boo boo put food on their table? And, what about the nurses and administrators of the clinic or hospital he used for free? He never mentioned that any of them appeared either hungry or worse emaciated but if they work for free, is their food free too? Then it dawned on me, it wasn’t free, someone must have paid for it and because it cost my friend nothing out of his pocket he only thought it was free! Ah hah! Who then, who was the benevolent dear that paid for his free care? It turns out that most of Europe and England in particular has all their healthcare providers on the government payroll! So, the government is the payer, right? No. In a single payer system, the checks come from the government but, here it comes, wait for it…..Governments have no money because they do not produce anything!!! Governments spend other peoples money which they take by taxing them!
Most countries have a document called a constitution or something similar. That document usually outlines what the responsibility of the government is and what the relationship between the government and its subjects or population looks like. In America, our constitution is very specific and severely limits the power of government over both individual states and individuals within the republic. In the area of taxation, there are also very specific reasons Americans are taxed and those reasons are what have kept us from sliding into the financial quagmire Europe has created for itself, up until the last 60 or so years.
Because Europeans have allowed the thought process articulated by President’s from FDR to Obama to take root in their society, wealth is kept for the protected privileged and closely and very costly “managed poverty” is spread around to the rest. The most recent and glaring example of the end game of the government-is-the-answer to everything mind-set is Greece. Governments corrupted by greed and unaccountability have made promises that can’t be kept and are under siege by angry people demanding their (man given) fix er, rights; violently if necessary because; they want to eat! Yeah, but we aren’t as bad off as Greece. Neither was Greece a few years ago! Greece has a debt to GDP ratio of about 130% America about 93% and projected to reach 140% within the next 20 years. So, if you are (like me) a baby boomer, you could just ignore this issue, clamor for no changes to medicare, social security, or education and allow the much more expensive and less effective than ever before healthcare act (Obamacare) to stand and leave the mess to your children but, if that’s the way you think, you wouldn’t have even read this far!!
We all like to eat and I want to select what I want to eat not have some government weenie do it for me, for my own good! I want to run my small business because my customers and I like it not because it makes sense to anyone else. I want you to do what makes you feel valuable and accomplished and I want the government to retreat to its constitutionally limited place in my life and yours and get out of the social and marketplace manipulation business! I want to eat steak and lobster when I can afford it and I want lots of thriving businesses paying lots of people lots of money so they can too!
Two if by Sea 