It is time to eliminate laws that require registered voters to declare political party affiliation. A voter should not have to tell the state - or anyone - which political party they prefer.
As someone who ran for office 3 times, I know that those running for office can get copies of voter registration rolls to they can contact possible constituents. That means that the data is publicly available, and it means that data can then be used by unscrupulous political party operatives to intimidate or embarrass those who don't support their candidate.
Don't fool yourself into thinking this intimidation doesn't happen. It does, and far more often than anyone realizes.
Voting booths are supposed to ensure privacy so individuals can feel free to choose whom to support. It is long past time to remove party affiliation from voter registration cards as well. This would encourage candidates of all political stripes to address all voters without "cherry picking" only a select few prospects.
Some states allow a voter to remain undeclared on their voter registration. But a significant number of states still require party declaration in order to vote, and some even will invalidate a vote by those who "cross party lines".
States should not be forcing voters to declare who they will vote for before an election. That's plainly un-American and is a probable violation of 1A (right of association). I look forward to a lawsuit by someone in a forced-affiliation state to sue the state to permit them to choose "none" on their voting registration form.
It's long past time for this to change. It's long past time for states to stop coercing voters into telling the state which political party they support and provide a way for a voter to register to vote without declaring which party they want to vote for.
Yes, this could screw up the primary system... if you believe that political parties should only allow certain voters to support a candidate. I prefer to think that voters want to support a candidate of their choice in secrecy, without coercion, and with a free conscience.
Party loyalists will always exist, as will those who donate to a political party in support of its candidates and its platform. But states should play no part in coercing voters to indicate which party they support before they cast their vote anonymously and in secret.
Sunday, July 15, 2018
Friday, July 13, 2018
Legal, but not ethical
Watching the Strzok hearings, something is becoming very clear: Strzok is using legal technicalities to put up a defense for his actions. Those legal technicalities are meant to generate "reasonable doubt" whether his actions were based on bias or not. He indicates that his texts contained "political speech" and they are hence protected under the First Amendment.
In fact, he's correct. His political speech is protected and he cannot be fired or otherwise discipllined based on his political speech. If this was a situation where pure legalities were being used to make a determination of legal responsibility, he'd be able to make a case for "not guilty".
However, he's not writing a computer program where a mathematical test is either true or false. Nor is he taking a test where his answers will be graded solely on their correctness.
He's testifying in front of Congress, where human beings are assessing the totality of his testimony against the totality of a situation that involves both him, his girlfriend, multiple others in the FBI, non-business texts, extremely powerful political figures, and a record of involvement in multiple investigations.
If this was a stand-alone situation and he was the only one involved, his defense would fly.
But in front of Congress, he's displaying arrogance, "holier-than-thou", and acting as someone who thinks most of the elected Congressional representatives are complete idiots. (Whether they are, or not, isn't the point.) He's forgotten something rather important: you never directly insult those who will be making decisions that will affect you for the rest of your life.
Human beings are involved here. He's pissing off (by pissing on) the members of the committee. His body language and his anger at some questions is proving that he may be incapable of separating his emotional feelings from his job assignment. The transcript won't indicate this anger, but the video does indicate his anger - and the video testimony will permanently damage his reputation for fairness. He's proving that he may understand the legal issues involved, he doesn't understand or recognize the ethical violations he has committed.
And if he can't demonstrate the ability to act in an ethical manner in front of the Congressional committee, then he's giving strength to the argument that he did not act in an ethical manner in the past.
He's claiming his anger is based on his "passion" to defend the Constitution -- but his anger only rises up when he's being asked about the texts that seemingly reveal significant bias against Trump and toward Clinton, or when he's asked to explain his behavior with regard to the investigations he was involved in, or when he's asked some very direct questions that would require some very embarrassing answers.
Strzok's legal defense holds. His defense of his conduct as "ethical", fails miserably.
His attempts to build "context" around the texts is a complete failure, demonstrated by his multiple explanations to their meaning and, in one case, saying that he doesn't remember the text but he remembers being angry when he sent it.
The more he talks, the less believable he becomes.
There's a concept in politics: "When you're explaining, you're losing." Strzok's explanations ring false. There's a simple reason why:
His behavior was legal, but it was not ethical. The IG said so. Case closed.
Moreover, Strzok was working on some counter-intelligence operations as part of his job. He was married and had a girl friend (Page). These facts would have made him a target for a foreign intelligence agency: he was already violating his oath to his wife and making himself possibly subject to blackmail and worse, and he had access to information that a foreign intelligence agency could use.
In every security briefing I've ever received, we are told to watch for - and report - behaviors by other employees that could be used to coerce them into actions that could threaten national security. Strzok is exactly the kind of person that we are told to watch for. The report is made anonymously. The investigating agencies do their work in total secrecy. If there is nothing to it, nothing is done and the report is filed as "no action necessary".
BUT if an action is required, the individual is interviewed by someone higher in the chain than the FSO (facility security officer) - and that interview is also done in complete secrecy.
Then, if an action needs to be taken, the appropriate action is taken.
These investigations happen fairly often. The reason you never hear about them is that you should never hear about them. And until there is something to reveal, you don't know about them.
Strzok was married and had a girlfriend. Unless they were a willing threesome - and even if they were - this was a situation that could have been used to put Strzok (and Page) into an embarrassing situation and thus push them toward complying with demands made by a foreign power.
Strzok thinks he's smarter than anyone who he works for. He's arrogant, and believes that he is serving a higher purpose. We're lucky that he wasn't working directly with the Russians.
Like Robert Hanssen did.
In fact, he's correct. His political speech is protected and he cannot be fired or otherwise discipllined based on his political speech. If this was a situation where pure legalities were being used to make a determination of legal responsibility, he'd be able to make a case for "not guilty".
However, he's not writing a computer program where a mathematical test is either true or false. Nor is he taking a test where his answers will be graded solely on their correctness.
He's testifying in front of Congress, where human beings are assessing the totality of his testimony against the totality of a situation that involves both him, his girlfriend, multiple others in the FBI, non-business texts, extremely powerful political figures, and a record of involvement in multiple investigations.
If this was a stand-alone situation and he was the only one involved, his defense would fly.
But in front of Congress, he's displaying arrogance, "holier-than-thou", and acting as someone who thinks most of the elected Congressional representatives are complete idiots. (Whether they are, or not, isn't the point.) He's forgotten something rather important: you never directly insult those who will be making decisions that will affect you for the rest of your life.
Human beings are involved here. He's pissing off (by pissing on) the members of the committee. His body language and his anger at some questions is proving that he may be incapable of separating his emotional feelings from his job assignment. The transcript won't indicate this anger, but the video does indicate his anger - and the video testimony will permanently damage his reputation for fairness. He's proving that he may understand the legal issues involved, he doesn't understand or recognize the ethical violations he has committed.
And if he can't demonstrate the ability to act in an ethical manner in front of the Congressional committee, then he's giving strength to the argument that he did not act in an ethical manner in the past.
He's claiming his anger is based on his "passion" to defend the Constitution -- but his anger only rises up when he's being asked about the texts that seemingly reveal significant bias against Trump and toward Clinton, or when he's asked to explain his behavior with regard to the investigations he was involved in, or when he's asked some very direct questions that would require some very embarrassing answers.
Strzok's legal defense holds. His defense of his conduct as "ethical", fails miserably.
His attempts to build "context" around the texts is a complete failure, demonstrated by his multiple explanations to their meaning and, in one case, saying that he doesn't remember the text but he remembers being angry when he sent it.
The more he talks, the less believable he becomes.
There's a concept in politics: "When you're explaining, you're losing." Strzok's explanations ring false. There's a simple reason why:
His behavior was legal, but it was not ethical. The IG said so. Case closed.
Moreover, Strzok was working on some counter-intelligence operations as part of his job. He was married and had a girl friend (Page). These facts would have made him a target for a foreign intelligence agency: he was already violating his oath to his wife and making himself possibly subject to blackmail and worse, and he had access to information that a foreign intelligence agency could use.
In every security briefing I've ever received, we are told to watch for - and report - behaviors by other employees that could be used to coerce them into actions that could threaten national security. Strzok is exactly the kind of person that we are told to watch for. The report is made anonymously. The investigating agencies do their work in total secrecy. If there is nothing to it, nothing is done and the report is filed as "no action necessary".
BUT if an action is required, the individual is interviewed by someone higher in the chain than the FSO (facility security officer) - and that interview is also done in complete secrecy.
Then, if an action needs to be taken, the appropriate action is taken.
These investigations happen fairly often. The reason you never hear about them is that you should never hear about them. And until there is something to reveal, you don't know about them.
Strzok was married and had a girlfriend. Unless they were a willing threesome - and even if they were - this was a situation that could have been used to put Strzok (and Page) into an embarrassing situation and thus push them toward complying with demands made by a foreign power.
Strzok thinks he's smarter than anyone who he works for. He's arrogant, and believes that he is serving a higher purpose. We're lucky that he wasn't working directly with the Russians.
Like Robert Hanssen did.
Monday, June 25, 2018
It is to weep
And now we see that mere political ideological differences may result in more than just words.
Yesterday, Maxine Waters said, in part, "Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere." And then, "We want history to record that we stood up, that we pushed back, that we fought and that we did not consider ourselves victims of this president."
In any other universe, Maxine Waters would be guilty of incitement to riot.
But in the current political environment, where falsehoods and overexaggeration are reported as fact, where pictures are taken out of context or cropped to inflame passions, and where the tactics of bullying and intimidation have been normalized and are now expected, it is hard to find truth.
Where facts are absent, truth is hidden. When those charged with reporting fact report falsehood instead, truth is impossible to find.
And when those trusted with leading this nation peacefully begin speaking in terms of violence, the worst is about to happen.
I once posited that this nation would not survive in its current form past 2050. I still believe that - only now I worry whether my prediction was too far in the future.
When law is ignored because it is "inconvenient", lawlessness reigns. And what we are seeing is the beginning of lawlessness on a grand scale - and the call to lawlessness is coming from elected representatives to Congress.
This is madness. The same people who were elected to debate the merit of new bills, pass bills into law, and examine whether existing law should be repealed, are now proposing that "inconvenient" laws should be ignored rather than changed. They have abdicated their offices, given up, surrendered, and are leading this nation to ruin.
Congress has the power to change law. It should do so, rather than using a crisis merely to inflame.
But we all know why Congress will not act. It will not act because it would be "inconvenient" to act. It will not act because the same representatives who passed the original laws might have to admit that they may have been wrong. It will not act because action would require courage, and our elected representatives to Congress have revealed themselves to be cowards.
And now, political shaming has led to calls to insurrection.
This cannot end well. The genie has been let out of the bottle. Those who oppose current policy have been given license to act in violent ways ("...we fought...").
No, that's not merely political hyperbole. As Ms. Waters continued to speak, her speech became more and more reflective of a demand for civil disobedience of a physical nature.
Someone will be hurt. The response will include firearms. And the worst will begin.
Yesterday, Maxine Waters said, in part, "Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere." And then, "We want history to record that we stood up, that we pushed back, that we fought and that we did not consider ourselves victims of this president."
In any other universe, Maxine Waters would be guilty of incitement to riot.
But in the current political environment, where falsehoods and overexaggeration are reported as fact, where pictures are taken out of context or cropped to inflame passions, and where the tactics of bullying and intimidation have been normalized and are now expected, it is hard to find truth.
Where facts are absent, truth is hidden. When those charged with reporting fact report falsehood instead, truth is impossible to find.
And when those trusted with leading this nation peacefully begin speaking in terms of violence, the worst is about to happen.
I once posited that this nation would not survive in its current form past 2050. I still believe that - only now I worry whether my prediction was too far in the future.
When law is ignored because it is "inconvenient", lawlessness reigns. And what we are seeing is the beginning of lawlessness on a grand scale - and the call to lawlessness is coming from elected representatives to Congress.
This is madness. The same people who were elected to debate the merit of new bills, pass bills into law, and examine whether existing law should be repealed, are now proposing that "inconvenient" laws should be ignored rather than changed. They have abdicated their offices, given up, surrendered, and are leading this nation to ruin.
Congress has the power to change law. It should do so, rather than using a crisis merely to inflame.
But we all know why Congress will not act. It will not act because it would be "inconvenient" to act. It will not act because the same representatives who passed the original laws might have to admit that they may have been wrong. It will not act because action would require courage, and our elected representatives to Congress have revealed themselves to be cowards.
And now, political shaming has led to calls to insurrection.
This cannot end well. The genie has been let out of the bottle. Those who oppose current policy have been given license to act in violent ways ("...we fought...").
No, that's not merely political hyperbole. As Ms. Waters continued to speak, her speech became more and more reflective of a demand for civil disobedience of a physical nature.
Someone will be hurt. The response will include firearms. And the worst will begin.
Saturday, June 9, 2018
Hey NFL, QuitCherBitchin
Received via email from a friend. Yes, it's a "chain letter". But as a 10 year Navy vet, I completely agree. I won't change the text or address, but - in my opinion - this goes for the NBA as well.
===
To the NFL and its players,
If I have brain cancer, I don’t ask my dentist what I should do. If my car has a problem, I don’t seek help from a plumber! Why do you think the public cares what a football player thinks about politics? If we want to know about football, then depending on the information we seek, we might consult with you, but even a quarterback doesn’t seek advice on playing his position from a defensive tackle!
You seem to have this over inflated view of yourselves, thinking because you enjoy working on such a large scale stage, that somehow your opinion about everything matters. The NFL realizes the importance of its “image” so it has rules that specify the clothes and insignia you can wear, the language you use, and your “antics” after a touchdown or other “great” play. But somehow you and your employer don’t seem to care that you disgrace the entire nation and its 320 million people in the eyes of the world by publicly disrespecting this country, its flag, and its anthem! The taxpaying citizens of this country subsidize your plush work environments, yet you choose to use those venues to openly offend those very citizens.
Do you even understand what the flag of this country means to so many of its citizens before you choose to “take a knee” in protest of this “country" during our national anthem?
You may think because you are paid so much that your job is tough, but you are clueless when it comes to tough. Let me show you those whose job is really tough.
You are spoiled babies who stand around and have staff squirt GatorAid in your mouths, sit in front of misting cooling fans when it’s warm, and sit on heated benches when it's cold. That’s not “tough” that's pampered.
You think that you deserve to be paid excessively high salaries, because you play a “dangerous" game where you can incur career ending injuries. Let me show you career ending injuries!
You think you that you deserve immediate medical attention and the best medical facilities and doctors when injured. Let me show you what it’s like for those who really need and deserve medical attention.
You think you have the right to disrespect the flag of the United States, the one our veterans fought for, risked limbs and mental stability to defend, in many cases died for. Let me show you what our flag means to them, their families, and their friends.
You believe you are our heroes, when in reality you are nothing but overpaid entertainers, who exist solely for our enjoyment! Well, your current antics are neither entertaining nor enjoyable, but rather a disgrace to this country, its citizens, all our veterans and their families, and the sacrifices they have made to ensure this country remains free. You choose to openly disgrace this country in the eyes of the rest of the world, yet with all your money, still choose to live here rather than in any other country. People with even the slightest amount of “class” will stand and respect our flag.. Where does that put you? You want to see heroes… here are this country's heroes!
You can protest policies, the current government, or anything else you choose, that is your right. But when you “protest” our flag and anthem, you are insulting the nation we all live in and love, and all those who have served, been injured, or died to keep it free. There is nothing you can do or say that can make your actions anything more than the arrogance of classless people, who care about themselves more than our country or the freedoms for which our veterans and their families have sacrificed so much, to ensure you have the “right” to speak freely. Our country is far from perfect, but if you can point to any other country where your freedom and opportunities are better than they are here, then you just might want to go there and show respect for their flag!
===
To the NFL and its players,
If I have brain cancer, I don’t ask my dentist what I should do. If my car has a problem, I don’t seek help from a plumber! Why do you think the public cares what a football player thinks about politics? If we want to know about football, then depending on the information we seek, we might consult with you, but even a quarterback doesn’t seek advice on playing his position from a defensive tackle!
You seem to have this over inflated view of yourselves, thinking because you enjoy working on such a large scale stage, that somehow your opinion about everything matters. The NFL realizes the importance of its “image” so it has rules that specify the clothes and insignia you can wear, the language you use, and your “antics” after a touchdown or other “great” play. But somehow you and your employer don’t seem to care that you disgrace the entire nation and its 320 million people in the eyes of the world by publicly disrespecting this country, its flag, and its anthem! The taxpaying citizens of this country subsidize your plush work environments, yet you choose to use those venues to openly offend those very citizens.
Do you even understand what the flag of this country means to so many of its citizens before you choose to “take a knee” in protest of this “country" during our national anthem?
You may think because you are paid so much that your job is tough, but you are clueless when it comes to tough. Let me show you those whose job is really tough.
You are spoiled babies who stand around and have staff squirt GatorAid in your mouths, sit in front of misting cooling fans when it’s warm, and sit on heated benches when it's cold. That’s not “tough” that's pampered.
You think that you deserve to be paid excessively high salaries, because you play a “dangerous" game where you can incur career ending injuries. Let me show you career ending injuries!
You think you that you deserve immediate medical attention and the best medical facilities and doctors when injured. Let me show you what it’s like for those who really need and deserve medical attention.
You think you have the right to disrespect the flag of the United States, the one our veterans fought for, risked limbs and mental stability to defend, in many cases died for. Let me show you what our flag means to them, their families, and their friends.
You believe you are our heroes, when in reality you are nothing but overpaid entertainers, who exist solely for our enjoyment! Well, your current antics are neither entertaining nor enjoyable, but rather a disgrace to this country, its citizens, all our veterans and their families, and the sacrifices they have made to ensure this country remains free. You choose to openly disgrace this country in the eyes of the rest of the world, yet with all your money, still choose to live here rather than in any other country. People with even the slightest amount of “class” will stand and respect our flag.. Where does that put you? You want to see heroes… here are this country's heroes!
You can protest policies, the current government, or anything else you choose, that is your right. But when you “protest” our flag and anthem, you are insulting the nation we all live in and love, and all those who have served, been injured, or died to keep it free. There is nothing you can do or say that can make your actions anything more than the arrogance of classless people, who care about themselves more than our country or the freedoms for which our veterans and their families have sacrificed so much, to ensure you have the “right” to speak freely. Our country is far from perfect, but if you can point to any other country where your freedom and opportunities are better than they are here, then you just might want to go there and show respect for their flag!
Friday, June 1, 2018
Unfriendly Persuasion (yes, a cinema reference)
Roseanne is Roseanne. Her shtick hasn't changed in forever. She's been rude, crude, offensive, and intentionally provocative over her entire career. One wonders whether she was like that before beginning her career, but it doesn't matter: we knew exactly what to expect when Roseanne was in the spotlight. This is neither to condone nor condemn her recent tweets. It is merely to note that, with Roseanne, "you get what you pay for".
Samantha Bee is Samantha Bee. Although relatively new on the scene, her shtick hasn't changed either. She clothes her insults in the vestment of political "satire". Just like Roseanne, it's hard to separate Bee's political policy ridicule from personal insult.
America has always had "insult comics". My personal hero is Don Rickles, whose act was all about making gentle fun of members of his audience. But gentle fun: people loved being a target of Mr. Rickles because they knew that he wasn't being personal. He was being funny. He never used profanity, he never broke the wall separating "public" from "private", and he always ended his show by thanking his audience for being "in on the joke". Always funny - but never truly insulting.
Joan Rivers, Rodney Dangerfield - even Groucho Marx, whose ad-libs were both clever and hilarious - made us laugh without feeling uncomfortable. Insult comics all, and all were funny. How many of us walked away laughing after hearing their routines, and repeating some of the funniest lines to each other?
But over time, the separation between "political" and "personal" became blurred, and today we have people like Barr and Bee who intentionally offend in order to make a point. It's instructive to watch their audiences. There are a lot of uncomfortable laughs ("Should I find this funny? Should I laugh?"), but not much else. And those laughs are mostly the result of an inventive way of using some form of profanity. Neither Barr nor Bee is truly funny.
I have a theory about that.
It goes something like this: "You're not listening to me and you won't agree with me, so I'm going to embarrass you in public to force you to agree with me and to force you to do what I say."
The problem is that the person who is being attacked is often not the person being embarrassed. In point of fact, the person making the attack ends up apologizing. Any political point of the attack has been lost in the meanness of the words being used. It has been both hidden and erased by the ferocity of the words used.
And that, I think, is the point: to destroy any reasonable political discussion by poisoning it with personal animus. The political becomes personal - and the personal becomes the point of the attack.
This is nothing new. The use of "forcing the political to become personal" has been going on forever in American politics... or has everyone forgotten about Hamilton's duel with Burr? Personal disgust between two political opponents ended up with one of them dead and the other's career destroyed.
(Heh - it's a good thing that dueling was outlawed hundreds of years ago. I can think of dozens of political opponents who would willingly face each other with single-shot flintlocks at 30 paces!)
One can make the argument that the election of Trump has changed the face of political discourse, but I prefer to think otherwise. I think the election of Trump has uncovered the cross-party and cross-ideology hatred that has been simmering all along, and Trump's use of non-traditional media to bypass the left-controlled traditional media "wall" has only uncovered the pot.
It has been said that Trump is not the disease: he is a symptom. In that, I somewhat agree. But I think Trump is less a symptom than a result: after being ignored by those who espouse ideologies that play well in coastal liberal enclaves but not in "flyover country", and after a compliant media that assisted a leftist ideology while hindering a conservative ideology, the reaction was the election of someone who had no history in the political "swamp" (unfortunate term, but DC was built on a swamp after all) and who could not be easily "controlled" by either side.
Trump's election is not a rejection but an acknowledgement of the coarsening of political discourse, of which Barr and Bee are partly responsible. But they are only two. There are dozens of others who have been provided media platforms and encouraged to insult their ideological opposites, and who only make themselves seem silly and childish when doing so - while also failing to convert anyone on the other side of the aisle.
Barr and Bee are both the result of the "if you don't listen to me, I'll get personal" school of politics. They both probably know that they probably won't convince anyone, as their form of persuasion is anything but gentle. But they continue in the hope that "somebody will listen".
A word to both: to convince, cajole.
Samantha Bee is Samantha Bee. Although relatively new on the scene, her shtick hasn't changed either. She clothes her insults in the vestment of political "satire". Just like Roseanne, it's hard to separate Bee's political policy ridicule from personal insult.
America has always had "insult comics". My personal hero is Don Rickles, whose act was all about making gentle fun of members of his audience. But gentle fun: people loved being a target of Mr. Rickles because they knew that he wasn't being personal. He was being funny. He never used profanity, he never broke the wall separating "public" from "private", and he always ended his show by thanking his audience for being "in on the joke". Always funny - but never truly insulting.
Joan Rivers, Rodney Dangerfield - even Groucho Marx, whose ad-libs were both clever and hilarious - made us laugh without feeling uncomfortable. Insult comics all, and all were funny. How many of us walked away laughing after hearing their routines, and repeating some of the funniest lines to each other?
But over time, the separation between "political" and "personal" became blurred, and today we have people like Barr and Bee who intentionally offend in order to make a point. It's instructive to watch their audiences. There are a lot of uncomfortable laughs ("Should I find this funny? Should I laugh?"), but not much else. And those laughs are mostly the result of an inventive way of using some form of profanity. Neither Barr nor Bee is truly funny.
It goes something like this: "You're not listening to me and you won't agree with me, so I'm going to embarrass you in public to force you to agree with me and to force you to do what I say."
The problem is that the person who is being attacked is often not the person being embarrassed. In point of fact, the person making the attack ends up apologizing. Any political point of the attack has been lost in the meanness of the words being used. It has been both hidden and erased by the ferocity of the words used.
And that, I think, is the point: to destroy any reasonable political discussion by poisoning it with personal animus. The political becomes personal - and the personal becomes the point of the attack.
This is nothing new. The use of "forcing the political to become personal" has been going on forever in American politics... or has everyone forgotten about Hamilton's duel with Burr? Personal disgust between two political opponents ended up with one of them dead and the other's career destroyed.
(Heh - it's a good thing that dueling was outlawed hundreds of years ago. I can think of dozens of political opponents who would willingly face each other with single-shot flintlocks at 30 paces!)
One can make the argument that the election of Trump has changed the face of political discourse, but I prefer to think otherwise. I think the election of Trump has uncovered the cross-party and cross-ideology hatred that has been simmering all along, and Trump's use of non-traditional media to bypass the left-controlled traditional media "wall" has only uncovered the pot.
It has been said that Trump is not the disease: he is a symptom. In that, I somewhat agree. But I think Trump is less a symptom than a result: after being ignored by those who espouse ideologies that play well in coastal liberal enclaves but not in "flyover country", and after a compliant media that assisted a leftist ideology while hindering a conservative ideology, the reaction was the election of someone who had no history in the political "swamp" (unfortunate term, but DC was built on a swamp after all) and who could not be easily "controlled" by either side.
Trump's election is not a rejection but an acknowledgement of the coarsening of political discourse, of which Barr and Bee are partly responsible. But they are only two. There are dozens of others who have been provided media platforms and encouraged to insult their ideological opposites, and who only make themselves seem silly and childish when doing so - while also failing to convert anyone on the other side of the aisle.
Barr and Bee are both the result of the "if you don't listen to me, I'll get personal" school of politics. They both probably know that they probably won't convince anyone, as their form of persuasion is anything but gentle. But they continue in the hope that "somebody will listen".
A word to both: to convince, cajole.
Saturday, May 12, 2018
Teddy Roosevelt's Realpolitik
3 prisoners came home from North Korea with Pompeo. NPR and the other MSM outlets were totally incapable of saying "congratulations" to Trump and Pompeo. Instead, they've been trying to find ways to "suspect NORK of bad intentions": maybe this is all Trump will get, etc.
Amazing.
Well, not really.
Meanwhile, the MSM's "NUCLEAR WAR WITH IRAN!!!!PANIC!!!OMG!!!" drumbeat is getting louder and louder.
What the MSM doesn't understand is that Iran came to the table because of sanctions, not because they were being browbeaten by Obama (um... heh...). They left the table because they were paid (off) by Obama - whose envoy, Kerry, sent pallets of cash (yes, really, pallets of cash) and came home empty-handed. At least 3 Americans were left behind as hostages in Iran.
A hostage situation with a multi-billion dollar payoff - and Obama didn't even get the hostages back.
Once upon a time, there was a TV show named Star Trek. Don't laugh: some of the writers had already "made their bones" as bonafide published authors in fiction & science fiction. In one episode, Kirk is being held hostage by a government that wants to, er, put Kirk "out to stud", so to speak. In a brilliant bit of script writing, Nimoy (as Spock) makes the following observation:
"We must acknowledge once and for all that the purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis."
Sometimes you have to stop trying to speak softly... and start swinging TDR's "big stick".
Trump, whose reputation as a "disruptor" is well earned, has been using his disruptive influence and (not really) unpredictable nature to put America's opponents off-balance. As a partial result, Kim sent home 3 hostages without anything more than a promise for a possible meeting. That's a foreign-policy success, no matter how you cut it.
Iran is a different situation.
I think that the Iranian regime might fall by the end of this year,. It already has serious domestic problems and significant internal unrest. Iran's economy has become so resource-stretched with its attempts to "change the face of the Middle East" that its financial footings are upside-down: it can't sell enough oil to support all of its anti-peace initiatives. There is widespread unemployment, modern goods are becoming impossible to get, and inflation is in (at least) double-digits per quarter.
And now, with Trump pulling out of Iran's blackmail scheme - aka the JCPOA - Iran is looking straight at another set of sanctions. And the power of those sanctions is strong because they threaten to end business relationships between the US and any country or corporation that does business with Iran. It's a chain reaction: if a company in Germany sells to Iran, they will be banned from selling to the US.
If you think that's not a threat, think about this: between the US and Iran, which country has a strong economy capable of paying its bills? And which country do you really want to do business with on a long-term basis?
Exactly.
The US spent the USSR into bankruptcy. The USSR fell because it had no financial or political support from member countries, and internal disharmony was tearing it apart. Reagan and Gorbachev were "there at the end": Reagan pushed the last domino over and the USSR fell. Gorbachev allowed a "soft landing" rather than starting a nuclear war. Together, they both realized the futility of continuing the cold war. The time had come to "move on" - they both realized it and ran with it.
The difference between the USSR and Iran is that Iranian Mullahs look forward to being martyrs to the cause of Islam. But they and their hard-core supporters are the only ones looking forward to the end of the world and a reward in paradise. If you look beyond Iran, you find that the Iranian Mullahs are widely despised and hated for spreading terrorism and endangering everyone - Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
Yes, there are pockets of Muslims whose core belief is to "be a martyr to Islam!",but they are being depleted through their own suicidal activities. Rather than building up huge armies of new followers, they're becoming outcasts and are being abandoned - by Muslims and no-Muslims alike.
Islam may still be an actively anti-modern religion, but so was Christianity - in the Middle Ages. Christianity went through The Reformation, and the "murder all the pagans everywhere" ethic was abandoned in favor of teachings that mostly concentrated on living in peace (the exceptions prove the rule - again).
Islam has not yet undergone its own Reformation, but there are true Islamic moderates who actively seek a way to put aside the Qu'ran's demands to "kill the unbelievers" and concentrate on teachings about peace.
There's a reason that G-D made the Hebrew slaves wander in the desert for 40 years. He wanted the generation who had grown up as slaves, and who could only think of themselves as slaves, to die off. In the movie "Look Who's Coming To Dinner", Sidney Poitier tells his father "You think of yourself as a black man. I think of myself as a man". Look at Sharpton and the other black activists of his generation, most of whom are incapable and/or unwilling to acknowledge that they are the ones keeping race hatred alive.
It takes time for things to change. But, change will happen. It's inevitable. It's the primary process of life. Change is unstoppable.
There are very few American Muslims who came here legally, became citizens, and want to commit Jihad. The overwhelming majority came here to get away from the requirement to "kill thy neighbor" and just want to live peaceful and quiet lives (once again, the exceptions prove the rule). Yes, there are organizations - such as CAIR - that aim to promote Islamic-based hatred of nonbelievers, just as there are Sharptons who want to keep race hatred alive. But they are the exceptions - there are far more American Mullahs who love America and preach a quiet and peaceful life.
Just as with Christianity, Islam needs a Reformation. It will happen to American Muslims. It's already happening to them. I have met some local Muslims (mostly at cultural events) and I have politely asked questions. They all universally answer that they just want to be left in peace - to live quiet lives where they believe they are safe from the secret police and the incredibly evil "if you are a true Muslim" demands from fundamentalists. Talk to some of the Somali immigrants (I've met many at cultural events). They're some of the nicest folks you'll meet, and most will make amazing American citizens.
It is the average American Muslim who most fears what Iran is teaching the world about Islam, and who would be the first to beg the Iranian Muslims to stop preaching hatred and war.
The day of the Iranian Reformation is coming. And when it does, the average Iranian will be glad to rid Iran of nukes, terrorist activities, and the evils of Muslim fundamentalists.
Amazing.
Well, not really.
Meanwhile, the MSM's "NUCLEAR WAR WITH IRAN!!!!PANIC!!!OMG!!!" drumbeat is getting louder and louder.
What the MSM doesn't understand is that Iran came to the table because of sanctions, not because they were being browbeaten by Obama (um... heh...). They left the table because they were paid (off) by Obama - whose envoy, Kerry, sent pallets of cash (yes, really, pallets of cash) and came home empty-handed. At least 3 Americans were left behind as hostages in Iran.
A hostage situation with a multi-billion dollar payoff - and Obama didn't even get the hostages back.
Once upon a time, there was a TV show named Star Trek. Don't laugh: some of the writers had already "made their bones" as bonafide published authors in fiction & science fiction. In one episode, Kirk is being held hostage by a government that wants to, er, put Kirk "out to stud", so to speak. In a brilliant bit of script writing, Nimoy (as Spock) makes the following observation:
"We must acknowledge once and for all that the purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis."
Sometimes you have to stop trying to speak softly... and start swinging TDR's "big stick".
Trump, whose reputation as a "disruptor" is well earned, has been using his disruptive influence and (not really) unpredictable nature to put America's opponents off-balance. As a partial result, Kim sent home 3 hostages without anything more than a promise for a possible meeting. That's a foreign-policy success, no matter how you cut it.
Iran is a different situation.
I think that the Iranian regime might fall by the end of this year,. It already has serious domestic problems and significant internal unrest. Iran's economy has become so resource-stretched with its attempts to "change the face of the Middle East" that its financial footings are upside-down: it can't sell enough oil to support all of its anti-peace initiatives. There is widespread unemployment, modern goods are becoming impossible to get, and inflation is in (at least) double-digits per quarter.
And now, with Trump pulling out of Iran's blackmail scheme - aka the JCPOA - Iran is looking straight at another set of sanctions. And the power of those sanctions is strong because they threaten to end business relationships between the US and any country or corporation that does business with Iran. It's a chain reaction: if a company in Germany sells to Iran, they will be banned from selling to the US.
If you think that's not a threat, think about this: between the US and Iran, which country has a strong economy capable of paying its bills? And which country do you really want to do business with on a long-term basis?
Exactly.
The US spent the USSR into bankruptcy. The USSR fell because it had no financial or political support from member countries, and internal disharmony was tearing it apart. Reagan and Gorbachev were "there at the end": Reagan pushed the last domino over and the USSR fell. Gorbachev allowed a "soft landing" rather than starting a nuclear war. Together, they both realized the futility of continuing the cold war. The time had come to "move on" - they both realized it and ran with it.
The difference between the USSR and Iran is that Iranian Mullahs look forward to being martyrs to the cause of Islam. But they and their hard-core supporters are the only ones looking forward to the end of the world and a reward in paradise. If you look beyond Iran, you find that the Iranian Mullahs are widely despised and hated for spreading terrorism and endangering everyone - Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
Yes, there are pockets of Muslims whose core belief is to "be a martyr to Islam!",but they are being depleted through their own suicidal activities. Rather than building up huge armies of new followers, they're becoming outcasts and are being abandoned - by Muslims and no-Muslims alike.
Islam may still be an actively anti-modern religion, but so was Christianity - in the Middle Ages. Christianity went through The Reformation, and the "murder all the pagans everywhere" ethic was abandoned in favor of teachings that mostly concentrated on living in peace (the exceptions prove the rule - again).
Islam has not yet undergone its own Reformation, but there are true Islamic moderates who actively seek a way to put aside the Qu'ran's demands to "kill the unbelievers" and concentrate on teachings about peace.
There's a reason that G-D made the Hebrew slaves wander in the desert for 40 years. He wanted the generation who had grown up as slaves, and who could only think of themselves as slaves, to die off. In the movie "Look Who's Coming To Dinner", Sidney Poitier tells his father "You think of yourself as a black man. I think of myself as a man". Look at Sharpton and the other black activists of his generation, most of whom are incapable and/or unwilling to acknowledge that they are the ones keeping race hatred alive.
It takes time for things to change. But, change will happen. It's inevitable. It's the primary process of life. Change is unstoppable.
There are very few American Muslims who came here legally, became citizens, and want to commit Jihad. The overwhelming majority came here to get away from the requirement to "kill thy neighbor" and just want to live peaceful and quiet lives (once again, the exceptions prove the rule). Yes, there are organizations - such as CAIR - that aim to promote Islamic-based hatred of nonbelievers, just as there are Sharptons who want to keep race hatred alive. But they are the exceptions - there are far more American Mullahs who love America and preach a quiet and peaceful life.
Just as with Christianity, Islam needs a Reformation. It will happen to American Muslims. It's already happening to them. I have met some local Muslims (mostly at cultural events) and I have politely asked questions. They all universally answer that they just want to be left in peace - to live quiet lives where they believe they are safe from the secret police and the incredibly evil "if you are a true Muslim" demands from fundamentalists. Talk to some of the Somali immigrants (I've met many at cultural events). They're some of the nicest folks you'll meet, and most will make amazing American citizens.
It is the average American Muslim who most fears what Iran is teaching the world about Islam, and who would be the first to beg the Iranian Muslims to stop preaching hatred and war.
The day of the Iranian Reformation is coming. And when it does, the average Iranian will be glad to rid Iran of nukes, terrorist activities, and the evils of Muslim fundamentalists.
Thursday, May 3, 2018
Persecution of the Law-Abiding
I'm sure you heard about Kyle Kashuv, one of the "Parkland" students, being interrogated by school administrators after posting a picture of himself at a gun range with his father (and being called a Nazi by one of his teachers). Now, another school in the US (Lacey, NJ) may have disciplined two student for posting pictures of safe gun use at a range during non-school hours. The circumstances of the NJ students is unclear, but it appears that they were suspended and, after legal threats, the suspension was wiped from their records.
The term I'm going to use for both of these incidents is "malicious persecution".
It's one thing for schools to be upset about wrongful or illegal student actions on school property, whether those actions were taken during school hours or not. And a second thing for schools to be upset about students committing crimes during non-school hours. In both cases, I would require definitive proof that the students did indeed commit the offenses. And if the proof existed, I would have no problem with disciplinary action.
But when a student is safely and properly exercising a Constitutional right during non-school hours, in the proper venue, and with competent adult supervision, the school administrators need toFOAD learn to live with it. I understand that guns are a hot topic right now, and that the overwhelmingly liberal teachers' unions are vehemently anti-gun. Too many ideologically-driven grade school teachers are willing to preach against Constitutional rights and spend classroom time ranting about how evil guns are. The result is the intentional miseducation of their students.
Punishing students for exercising their Constitutional rights is wrong - and, if I had anything to do with it, I would censure, suspend, or fire any school administrators who are overstepping their bounds in order to make a political point. In loco parentis does not mean usurping and, in the case of Kyle Kashuv, completely ignoring the will of the real parents while insulting both the children and the parents.
The overwhelming number of grade school teachers do the job they were hired to do: they teach. But there are "bad apples" in that barrel too.
So, a word to those "bad apples": stop forcing your personal political views on students. Your job is not indoctrination: it is education. These two concepts do not belong together in a grade-school classroom.
And here's a thought for you:
If you don't think anyone under 21 is mature enough to own a rifle, how can you then say that those same under-21 individuals have "something valuable to say"? Is it possible that they're merely repeating what you have been saying, and doing it without understanding why you're saying it?
And, for that matter, is it possible that you're merely repeating what others have been saying, and - as an adult capable of mature and logical reasoning - you're doing it without understanding what you're talking about?
The term I'm going to use for both of these incidents is "malicious persecution".
It's one thing for schools to be upset about wrongful or illegal student actions on school property, whether those actions were taken during school hours or not. And a second thing for schools to be upset about students committing crimes during non-school hours. In both cases, I would require definitive proof that the students did indeed commit the offenses. And if the proof existed, I would have no problem with disciplinary action.
But when a student is safely and properly exercising a Constitutional right during non-school hours, in the proper venue, and with competent adult supervision, the school administrators need to
Punishing students for exercising their Constitutional rights is wrong - and, if I had anything to do with it, I would censure, suspend, or fire any school administrators who are overstepping their bounds in order to make a political point. In loco parentis does not mean usurping and, in the case of Kyle Kashuv, completely ignoring the will of the real parents while insulting both the children and the parents.
The overwhelming number of grade school teachers do the job they were hired to do: they teach. But there are "bad apples" in that barrel too.
So, a word to those "bad apples": stop forcing your personal political views on students. Your job is not indoctrination: it is education. These two concepts do not belong together in a grade-school classroom.
And here's a thought for you:
If you don't think anyone under 21 is mature enough to own a rifle, how can you then say that those same under-21 individuals have "something valuable to say"? Is it possible that they're merely repeating what you have been saying, and doing it without understanding why you're saying it?
And, for that matter, is it possible that you're merely repeating what others have been saying, and - as an adult capable of mature and logical reasoning - you're doing it without understanding what you're talking about?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)