The Virtue Signaling Pandemic

Truth Gunner Uncategorized

Everybody who is anybody is jumping onto social media, a podcast or in front of the nearest TV camera to showcase their bold, courageous stand on the most important social issue of our time… or at least what’s trending this month.

While watching the parade of declarations, I can’t help but notice how easy it is to appear noble and principled without the tedium and risk required to actually BE principled.  If you can check the following boxes, you too can look like a paragon of social justice.

  • Is it free to jump on this bandwagon?

It’s harder to take a stand when your position might actually cost you something.  Make sure there are no real financial/career/social/intellectual consequences at stake so you have nothing to risk.

   Example: “I’m not coming to work today in protest (as long as I get paid and still have my job).

  • Am I immune from criticism?

If you can get an angry mob spun up, let them work for you.  It helps if your position has no identifiable opponents to debate.

Example:   “Anyone who questions or challenges anything I say is an evil, hateful person who    must be banned from the conversation.”

  • Can I avoid offering any tangible solutions for the problem I claim is so deeply important?

This becomes a thinly veiled variation on the universal message ‘I stand for more good and less bad’.  Everyone has to nod their head to that.  By offering no solutions – or even suggesting where to start – you don’t have to acknowledge any costs or consequences. In fact, you don’t really have to define the problem in any specific terms.   Nothing sticks to you.

Example:   “We stand against injustice and support equality, freedom and safety.”

  •  Can I get credit for ‘raising awareness’?

This allows you to self-aggrandize while absolving you of any actual responsibilities.  Look up “Ice Bucket Challenge”.  Tens of thousands of people found temporary fame on YouTube while doing absolutely nothing to help people with ALS.  The magical terms ‘raising awareness’ or ‘sparking change’ shift all the responsibility to unnamed grownups in unnamed locations who will do the unnamed work of actually making things better, whatever that is.

This is the definition of virtue signaling. Seems to be as much an epidemic as Covid these days. Unfortunately, it does nothing to make lives any better.

Beware the Abundance of Caution

Truth Gunner Politics, Uncategorized , , , ,

This morning I listened to Kevin Warren, Big 10 commissioner, explain in a press conference that he was cancelling the B1G conference basketball tournament.  He spent 13 minutes repeating how important is to ‘show leadership’, ‘do the right thing’ and that he ‘talked to a lot of people’, without elaborating on any of what that means.

He used the term ‘fiduciary responsibility’ about half a dozen times.  I’ll save you the time and trouble of looking in up in Collin’s dictionary:

fiduciary 

ADJECTIVE

designating or of a person who holds something in trust for another; of a trustee or trusteeship

a fiduciary guardian for a minor child

Gosh who’s gonna argue with ‘doing the right thing’?  Especially when it’s ‘crystal clear’, and part of your fiduciary responsibility?  But nothing in these phrases indicate he even understood the factors in play, much less how to weigh them.

When a reporter asked what had changed to make him decide to cancel the tournament, he replied with “I don’t think anything changed,”

Huh?  Something changed Kevin, an hour ago we were going to play a 4 day basketball tournament and now we aren’t.  Please tell us you don’t make decisions like this based on how your morning coffee is settling.  My guess is that Kevin had just been notified that in a few hours the NCAA would announce cancellation of the men’s and women’s basketball tournaments, so there would be no big dance for the B1G tournament winner to attend.  Which means conference commissioners had a brief window in which to take the stage and look principled.   Kudos to the Commish for grabbing his glimpse of the PR spotlight before getting upstaged by the NCAA.

But noticeably absent from his press conferences was any quotes from the CDC or WHO, no statistics, no worse case scenarios about what might happen if the tournament went on as planned.  Maybe cancelling the tournament was the right thing.  But if so, it should be easy to defend in public statement without overworking the weasel-phrase generator.  Simply saying with conviction that ‘we want to do the right thing’ and that it’s ‘crystal clear’ doesn’t absolve anyone of acknowledging the costs and consequences of their actions.

Here’s some questions I wish journalists would have had the courage to ask:

  • Commissioner, what specific data from the CDC or other health departments convinced you that holding the B1G tournament was a risk was too great to take, and why was it OK to play yesterday’s games but not the rest?

 

  • Commissioner, the student athletes – the ones you said this decision is all about – came to these schools to compete and this tournament was the last chance for many of them to play organized basketball at a national level. Do you think they feel robbed of their opportunity because you are panicking about what you don’t know?

 

  • Commissioner, have you considered the hundreds of part-time workers who won’t get B1G paychecks – ticket takers, concession stand workers, security people, ushers, maintenance people, janitors, Uber/Lyft drivers – because you are ‘doing the right thing’? These aren’t CEOs or spoiled professional athletes, these are people working 2 jobs to try to pay the rent, single moms putting food on the table, college kids paying for books…  did you take into account your ‘fiduciary responsibility’ to them when weighing  the hypothetical risk of holding the events as scheduled?”

 

  • Commissioner, what specifically makes you believe we will ever be able to have public NCAA events in the future – won’t there always be a threat when you have thousands of people in an arena? How is the situation unique this year and how will you know when it’s safe to resume conference play?

Tough questions, but being a major conference commissioner comes with big responsibilities.  All the stakeholders deserve to know that their interests were given due consideration.

But let’s be real – life will go on without the B1G Tournament, and despite hardships felt by those workers immediately affected the financial impact won’t cripple the greater economy.

But the bandwagon affect has been scary to watch.

Public gatherings are being canceled at unprecedented rates – school events, college classes, reunions, St Patrick day festivals, corporate meetings, rallies, church services..  all of the announcements I’ve seen are sparse on the details, and they all seem to feel it’s safe to say something vague about ‘abundance of caution’.   Apparently the socially acceptable response to these announcements is to stand and offer a polite golf clap to the courage and leadership it took to reach such a bold and difficult decision.

Let me be clear – I don’t envy anyone in the position of having to decide whether to cancel a public event.  And I don’t minimize the tradeoffs they have to weigh, especially with so much still unknown about Covad-19. I’m not even really that upset with Commissioner Warren.  I’ll say it again, maybe cancelling sporting events is the right thing to do right now.

But we are witnessing an insidious force that extends far beyond Covad-19:  The sweeping and unchecked power that can be wielded over our economy and lifestyles by getting the right powerful people to say the magic words “abundance of caution”. It’s almost like shouting ‘Expelliarmus’ and watching the dark forces of skepticism vanquished before your eyes.   Imagine if someone figured out how to manipulate this power for their own, more directed purposes?

Indulge me for a moment:

Here’s a site listing some of the church shootings in the US since 2012.  No one can dispute the tragedy of each case, people died.  Suppose some threats were to materialize against people of a certain congregation or denomination.  Is it so hard to imagine local or county officials urging people of faith to stop having public gatherings out of ‘an abundance of caution’?  Should we all stand and golf clap at their bravery as we cancel church?

Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos all had their approved speaking appearances at UC Berkeley abruptly cancelled by campus police due to ‘an abundance of caution’ over protest threats. They didn’t get their legally afforded opportunity for free speech, but we should say thanks to campus police for keeping us safe?

Is it hard for anyone to imagine the Democratic National Committee cancelling the rest of the 2020 primaries and awarding the nomination to Joe Biden over Bernie Sanders out of ‘an abundance of caution’ that crowds and campaigning will spread coronavirus?  Should Bernie supporters just take another one for the team?

On 9-11, Al-Qaeda and all of their global sympathizers celebrated the crash of the twin towers and the Pentagon, which were symbolic targets of American financial and military power.  They rejoiced that three thousand Americans were killed, but the enduring legacy was the damage done to the US economy and disruption to our way of life.  Such is the goal of terrorism – make people feel unsafe, lose faith in their institutions and leadership, and alter their way of life.  Somewhere in the world today, two terrorist are communicating with each other in coded messages:  Omar:  forget the plutonium, all we need is a new strain of the flu.  We visit a few airports, train stations and shopping malls and let ‘abundance of caution’ bring the Great Satan to its knees! We’ve been working too hard all these years!

Here’s a thought:   Let’s take that $50B allocated to combat Covad-19 and issue level 4 hazmat suits to every person in America, and make it immediately mandatory that they wear it in public from this day forward.  If you’re not on board with this, then spend some time thinking about how/where/when we should define the boundaries for the ‘abundance of caution’.

With any decision you get all the data you can, weigh your options, weigh the consequences and costs of being right and wrong about each, and then make a move.  Sometimes abundance of caution is the best route because the costs of being wrong are so severe.  And maybe that’s what’s going on today with Covad-19.   But are right to demand that the data is really being gathered, the costs are really weighed, and our leaders are considering all of our best interests and not those that are trending best on social media.

Journalists need to be reminded that it’s not rude or crass to ask leaders to prove that they have done their homework before they impose the burdens of their decisions on us.  It’s OK to challenge ‘abundance of caution’.

We don’t have to golf clap on cue at every press conference.

New Greener Deal: Save the Planet, Kill the People

Truth Gunner Uncategorized

Perhaps Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) is more enlightened than we’ve given her credit for.

I’ll be the first to admit that academic credentials aren’t a reliable indicator of intelligence and they certainly aren’t a prerequisite for common sense.  So maybe, as AOC suggests, we should rethink what we humans are entitled to in this world.  I’m up for the challenge.

Let’s start by stating the problem in its simplest form:   Humans are ruining the earth –  building things, destroying things, taking up space, using things, killing things, eating things, polluting things… constantly consuming and never enhancing.  So vulgar. So primitive.  Shame on us.  Bad humans!

But it didn’t used to be this way.  No, there was a time before industrialization when man didn’t rape and pillage the earth for her natural resources.  We killed the occasional woolly mammoth to feed the tribe (circle of life thing) but we didn’t bulldoze rainforests, destroy the atmosphere with our industrial toxins and overharvest our oceans to the brink of extinction.

What went wrong?  Did we become more savage than our caveman ancestors?  Or have our offenses become so egregious that Mother Nature can no longer use her innate balancing mechanisms to compensate for our crimes?

Regardless of the cause, the green movement tells us we have some repenting to do.  Our reparations include shunning fossil fuels, cattle production (they fart too much), mass transportation (or individual transportation for that matter), luxuries of air conditioning and heating, selfish procreation, etc.  (Self-flagellation adds a tragically masochistic legitimacy to many liberal campaigns today but I’ll leave those observations for a different discussion.)  Most of us aren’t so simplistic to suggest these sacrifices are necessary to deter nature’s fury, as a Fay Wray sacrifice might appease Kong and deter him from unleashing his fury on his otherwise disrespectful intruders.  That would sound silly.

On the other hand, if we are ‘sinning’ against nature we should understand the principles we’re violating rather than just list individual transgressions.    Implicit to the guilt trip cruise the green new deal is pitching is an acknowledgement that we have been abusing nature, neglecting her, not listening to her, hurting her feelings, not letting her sit at the grown-up’s table.  Unless we change our ways we will repeat our mistakes.

  1. Let’s think about that. How have we disrespected nature by rebuffing her corrective gestures?

Foundational to any climate change driven agenda is that that humanity has been driven to the brink of disaster by our insatiable appetite to ravage the earth and atmosphere of her generous natural resources.  But this wasn’t a problem 200 years ago when the population of the earth was about 1/6th of what it is today.  Without as many people we wouldn’t need as many planes/trains/ships and automobiles or the fuel required to move them around, fewer factories making goods, less electricity/gas/coal/oil to them run, fewer food animals to eat, less real estate developments to develop and pollute…  By unanimous consent we would not have a climate crisis if we didn’t have so many pesky people!  Hmm.  Could this be what nature has been trying to tell us?

Maybe plagues were natures’ function for keeping human population growth in check.  The Black Death of the 14th century was one big corrective event, wiping out 200M people with smallpox.  The Justinian plague of the first century claimed only 25M  but by some estimates wiped out half of the European population.   Businesstech magazine published an article in October of 2014 that estimated the number of deaths that can be attributed to various diseases.

  • Cholera – 40M
  • Influenza – 50M
  • Smallpox – 500M
  • Tuberculosis – 1B
  • Malaria – 1B+

But we humans have selfishly developed vaccines for each of these, thereby denying nature her cleansing process to preserve balance and harmony in our world.  AIDS has only been around since the 80s but has already claimed 36M lives.  Yet we spend trillions worldwide trying to ‘fix’ it as if it’s a problem.  Are we telling nature to shut up while the grownups talk?  And what about artery bypasses, transplants, cancer therapy, cholesterol lowering medications, low sodium diets… aren’t we throwing off the balance of nature by living past our expiration dates?

I just wish someone who lectures us so passionately about our sins toward mother earth would have the guts to follow their argument to its logical conclusion.

Here are a just a few policies we might see in campaign 2020:

  • No more vaccinations. Not fair to cheat nature, we all take the same chances. If nature selects you to survive, say thank you and life a productive life for future generations.  If not, feel good that you gave up your spot to someone who probably had more to contribute.

 

  • No healthcare coverage after age 75 – you’ve used up all the resources you’re entitled to, don’t be globally selfish. No surgeries, transplants, gene therapy or medications.  Take comfort knowing that the trillions you would have sucked up in health care costs will go to a better cause like building windmills and solar panels.

 

  • Ban health clubs and fitness gyms. Survival of the fittest is nature’s way, so if you need an artificial environment to stay healthy you’re cheating.  Keeping it fair is the only way the system works.

 

  • Revoke seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws. Just good Darwinism.

 

If you believe this stuff, say it out loud. But maybe record it first so you can hear what it sounds like. Could save yourself some embarrassment.

 

 

 

Virginia’s Circular Firing Squad

Truth Gunner Uncategorized , , , ,

News this week has been full of scandals, mostly in the Virginia line of succession for Governor.  The two week timeline has had an exhausting pace.

On Jan 30 (Groundhog day) Governor Ralph Northam (D-Virginia) severely botched an interview where he was asked about Virginia’s new law that loosened restrictions on abortion.  Democrats generally celebrated the bill as a victory for women’s reproductive rights, but Gov Northam took a dump in their punch bowl by describing a hypothetical situation in which a deformed newborn could be left to die after birth.

“There may be a fetus that’s not viable. So in this particular example, if a mother’s in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

In a rare moment of bipartisan unity, all politicians’ jaws dropped simultaneously.  The Governor of Virginia just described -not abortion- but infanticide.

Republicans have long opposed abortion and they’re objections are presupposed.  But supervised death of infants after birth?  After birth it’s no longer about the woman’s body, it’s unambiguously about an infant life.  Even the Democrats can’t defend this, at least not publically, yet every current and future presidential candidate would be asked to weigh in on the topic.  Governor Northam was now a liability to the party.  Something had to be done.  Quick.

Completely by coincidence, just hours after the disastrous interview a ‘racist photo’ from the Governor’s medical school yearbook surfaced (oh year, I forgot to mention he’s a pediatric neurologist).

Let’s be clear – this photo is from a medical school yearbook.

In 1984.

That’s 35 years ago.

And nobody found it until the Governor became a national embarrassment to the Democratic Party.

The news broke first from a conservative news outlet who was contacted by an ‘anonymous tipster’ and within a day the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus and multiple Democratic presidential candidates called on Northam to resign.  But if this damning torpedo was in the Republicans’ arsenal, wouldn’t they have fired it during the campaign?  Why wait until now?  In fact, why should Republicans try to oust a guy taking a wrecking ball to his own party!  As the Napoleon maxim goes, “Never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake”. (Note to Republicans: keep this in mind when AOC gives her press conferences about the New Green Deal and eliminating cow farts).

But Democratic fratricide makes perfect sense.  Follow me through the strategy steps:  Express outrage at the racism, eliminate the toxic agent, replace him with the Lt Governor (D) of Virginia – Justin Fairfax – a young, personable fresh face who happens to be black.  So not only is he immune from racism, but every future public appearance signals how virtuous and diverse the Democratic Party is.  They were turning lemons into champagne! Governor Northam is toast, disaster minimized!

Well, for a few hours.  Vanessa Tyson, a professor at Scripps College in California came forward and accused Fairfax of sexual assault in 2004 (that’s 15 years ago).  She gave a detailed and salacious account of the encounter and even reported the story to the Washington Post in 2017 when Fairfax was running for office.  The paper decided not to publish her claims for lack of corroboration.   We’d be interested to know the Post’s journalistic standards that declared Justice Kavanagh’s accuser credible but not Ms Tyson.  But let’s be fair:  All of us need to be consistent here:  During the Kavanagh confirmation I felt strongly that the accused are innocent until proven guilty, and a person shouldn’t have his/her career and life destroyed solely on allegations in the distant past.

I believe this in Fairfax’s case as well.

But the spotlight here is on presidential candidates like Cory Booker, who gave an Oscar-worthy, on camera speech about the bravery of women who step forward and should be believed at face value on such allegations.   Your similar thoughts now on Lt Gov Fairfax, Candidate Booker?

I honestly don’t think the Fairfax scandal was politically motivated.  He didn’t actually deny the encounter, he just claimed it was consensual.  (Should have checked with your PR firm to wordsmith that response first, Justin).   It’s hard to make this one disappear.  Republicans will make sure it doesn’t.

So Democrats have to consider the 3rd in line, Attorney General Mark Herring (D).  The Democratic silver lining was that at least they can keep it in the party.  But alas, Herring too was hung on the party’s own gallows.   Almost immediately after we knew his name headlines reported that Herring had donned blackface to emulate a rapper in a 1980 college party. An added sting being that just 2 days earlier Herring publically declared it is no longer possible” for Gov. Ralph Northam to remain in office because of his racist past.   Ouch.

Democrat leadership has to be thinking “Geez the racism stain was supposed to work FOR us!” 

The political bloodbath continues in Virginia, the outcome being uncertain.  But there is substantial regret about the weapons brought onto the battlefield.

Lots of proverbs appear as low hanging fruit here – Glass houses, reaping what you sow, careful what you wish for, shooting yourself in the foot, goose and gander… fill in your favorite one liner here.

But I hope we use this opportunity to think deeper into our responses to such situations.  Here are a couple thoughts:

  • Develop consistent values, not convenient ones.  If you are going to express outrage at racism, sexism, socialism, wealth, environmental destruction, reproductive rights, etc then bite the bullet when it hurts people and organizations you care about.  Hypocrisy destroys credibility.  We’ve learned in recent days that lots of celebrities have appeared in blackface – Tom Hanks, Sarah Silverman, Jimmy Kimmel, Joy Behar..  Saturday Night Live regularly features ‘Black Jeopardy’, which is a funny parody of black culture.  Surely SNL don’t own an exclusive right to satire.  I may not agree politically with some of the people in this saga, but I don’t see racism in any of these claims.  Keep your policy debates inside the rails.  This selective feigned outrage is what all of us hate about politicians.

 

  • There has to be some statute of limitations on inappropriate behavior. This doesn’t mean we discredit claims of misconduct, but what should due process look like? And does poor judgement 15 years ago disqualify a person from public service for life?   What would an appropriate sentence be – execution?  Life in prison? 20 years hard labor?  Depriving a person of their livelihood for the rest of their life?  Don’t just preen on your moral high horse, give some thoughtful consideration to a response you can justify.   And how far back can we go in someone’s history to assassinate their character?  Does questionable humor, an ambiguous romantic encounter or a few underage beers as a teen discredit a person for life?  I challenge any of us to say with a straight face we have never done or said anything inappropriate, never laughed at the wrong joke, never made a juvenile mistake in high school.   And where does it stop?  Junior High?  Grade school?  If a classmate of Cory Booker comes forward and claims she suffered permeant psychological damage because he said she had ‘cooties’ back in the second grade should he drop out of the presidential race because he is a lifetime sexist?   Absurd.

This is what happens when we weaponize social values rather than live them.   Each of us will inevitably fail to live up to our own standards at some point. Perfection is not a requirement for advocating values and being a virtuous person.  Demanding it from others is disingenuous.

So let’s call for it to stop.

Congressional approval rating might soar all the way into the high teens if our representatives focused as much on making American’s lives better as they do calculating their next political ‘gotcha’.

Time To End Offensive Christmas Music

Truth Gunner Politics, Uncategorized , , ,

2018 has brought a long overdue awakening of holiday songs that have oppressed and offended people for decades.  Radio stations’ courageous banishment of the outrageous “Baby It’s Cold Outside” inspired us to make a difference.

We at the government’s Department of Offensive Holiday Lyrics and Traditions (DOHLT) initiated a broader survey of seasonal music.

Our findings are shocking.

Here are just a few you should be aware of.

Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer/Run Run Rudolf;    A poor animal is shamed and ostracized by his peers for a physical anomaly, then exploited when his handicap is deemed beneficial to the heavy handed sleigh driver.   Nothing to feel good about here.

Sleigh Ride and Jingle Bells:  Both of these popular songs implicitly endorse the enslavement of horses for entertainment in the name of holiday revelry.  Have we no shame?

The Christmas Song:  Where do we start? ‘Open Fires’ dump poisons into the air, which is destroying our planet. We couldn’t find any studies on the concentration of chestnut smoke in the atmosphere but it’s gotta be killing something somewhere.   We suppose ‘the Turkey’ could be a protected free-range bird was noticed in the woods, but it likely refers to something more nefarious that would horrify our PETA friends.  And that ‘mistletoe’ suggests the same kind of promiscuity that started this whole awakening.  We also object that it only applies ‘to kids from 1 to 92’.  It’s both arbitrary and heartless to exclude those 93 and above from good wishes, even if poorly expressed.

The Little Drummer Boy   We checked with the musicians union and they are pretty sure this child’s percussion performance violated some fundamental rights.  If he played his own arrangement he should get retroactive copyright royalties for every time this song has been played.  If he pirated someone else’s beats he should have given proper attribution.  Then there’s the whole child labor problem.  He should have been provided with counsel before this gig. In any case, we can no longer support a musical celebration of this exploitation.

It Came Upon a Midnight Clear:  This song romanticizes a time before man has polluted the planet and brought us to the edge of extinction from climate change.  There are no more clear midnights thanks to our manmade toxic atmosphere.  Might as well be called ‘Whistling Past the Climate Change Graveyard”.  How can we scare people into compliance with this kind of feel-good fantasy?

The Most Wonderful Time of the Year:  Pretty subjective, blatantly excluding anyone who likes spring summer or fall.  Let’s not build those walls.

Santa Baby/ I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus:  Don’t even go there.

White Christmas: Racist

God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen:   Sexist.

Grandma Got Run over By A Reindeer:  C’mon man.

 

We could go on but you get the point. The best way to make sure you aren’t offending someone this holiday season is to avoid Christmas music altogether.  Have some fruitcake and some eggnog if you must, but keep this good cheer nonsense to yourself.

We at DOHLT are proud to make this contribution for a better society.

P.S:  We were inspired by our respected colleagues at WUSSI who made a similar analysis of the NFL’s offensive team names.

http://truthgunner.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-new-politically-correct-nfl.html

 

 

 

How far can I throw my toys?

Truth Gunner Politics, Uncategorized , , , ,

 

The Kavanaugh confirmation process has been perhaps the most profound illustration of partisan politics in my lifetime.  I can’t recall seeing a congressional hearing that was actually substantive, but this one is embarrassing.  In addition to the Democratic senators desperately hurling spitballs at Kavanaugh and hoping something will stick, the hearing has been interrupted several times by choreographed protests from the public gallery.  ABC News describes the situation this way: ”The protesters are part of a nationwide campaign to disrupt the confirmation process. A broad coalition of activist groups, including abortion rights groups, gun control organizations and labor unions.”  Senator Feinstein offered an ambiguous, halfhearted apology to Kavanaugh for ‘the circumstances’ but also stated “it was imperative everyone understand how strongly Democrats and progressives feel about Kavanaugh’s ascension to the nation’s highest court.”  Apparently a disregard for civility and disrespect for public decorum are critical measures for the strength of these feelings. We should be very impressed.  

Sadly, this is not extraordinary.  The left has long conflated protest and purpose, assigning nobility to the former that must be earned by the latter.  Martin Luther King was driven by a strong purpose that necessitated protest.  His legacy is the change he brought to race relations in America.  But purpose requires conviction, thought, justification, rationale, persuasion, and appealing to a sense of reason and fairness.

That’s hard.

Skipping straight to the more visible protest actions is an attractive shortcut. Rosa Parks was a heroine for refusing to bow to an unjust social policy.  Colin Kaepernick can’t even explain what he is protesting, much less his purpose. But Nike wants to paint him as a hero.

Conservatives are typically not predisposed to such public tantrums, which is perceived as soft conviction for their values.  They don’t take to the streets, disrupt public discourse, turn over cars, smash windows and set things on fire, or drive people out of resturants so they get categorized as spineless sheep who can easily be bulldozed back into the basement by a strong, vulgar display of offensive behavior.  So this becomes the strategy of the left.

What is especially bewildering is that after losing a presidential election they were supposed to win – and losing to a brash, inexperienced ‘buffoon’ – the left still refuses to acknowledge the 62 Million+ voters who have a voice in American democracy.  Instead they are indignant.  They are enraged that the Democratic process has worked against them.  They feel cheated.  Something must be broken. The entirety of the Democrats’ focus in the past 22 months has been to find a way to invalidate the results of the 2016 election, in other words to force conservatives back into irrelevance.   This is not lost on the Trump voters.  Nobody on the left has suggested a policy to reach out to them with an alternative plan to channel their frustration.  Instead, the unspoken strategy of the left is to create a political process that does not include them. What Democrats and pundits don’t recognize is that the more voters feel ignored and marginalized by Washington and the media, the more they are galvanized against their oppressors.  These relentless efforts to disenfranchise them just pours fuel on the fire, which the left won’t even acknowledge exists.

Which brings us back to the Kavanaugh confirmation process.  Since Roe v Wade the left has realized that it’s far more convenient to advance an agenda via courts than the laborius process of persuading the electorate.  Laws to legalize abortion would have never passed in 1973 but the Supreme Court made legislation irrelevant. Gay marriage failed nearly every state ballot initiative but Justice Kennedy alone made it legal.  No one can rationaly defend a law that the US should have no borders but the same effective result can be achieved if a few justices declare as unconstitutional any efforts to enforce such policies.

This is why the left is so panicked about this judicial appointment.  It’s about to get much harder to find new constitutional rights in the Supreme Court.  Rather than campaign to appeal to ALL the people, Democrats still shun the process that wins elections and codifies laws of the land.

They still believe the most effective policy is to throw their toys out of the crib harder and farther.

 

 

Rage at the Border

Truth Gunner Uncategorized

 

Even the marginally informed cannot claim to be unaware of the situation at the Mexican border where immigrants are being detained from entry to the United States. Despite the media’s effort to sell this as a the second coming of Adolph Hitler America has always had laws to manage our boarders.  Most of us have not cared enough to understand, much less influence the nuances of US immigration policy, which betrays the rage featured in every media forum.  But a logical proposal – even an emotional one – to resolve the situation is as scarce as rocking horse droppings.  A reflex reaction to distressed children is common and understandable.  Some have found a brand new way to exploit this.

Here’s scenario to create context:  Suppose a stranger showed up at door holding a gun to a child’s head. He demands you let them in and give him what he wants or he will shoot the kid.    Of course you would comply but would also call authorities at your first opportunity to have the man arrested for his cruel endangerment of a child.  Police catch the man and arrest him.  Without any relatives or guardians to take custody the child is placed with child protective services.   At his arraignment the man explains he was never really going to hurt the child, he was just using him for leverage.  Still pretty despicable, right?  Exploiting children to get what you can’t get for yourself?

So why are we so quick to overlook behavour of a parent who deliberately brings children to an environment in which they will be separated?  Would you do this to your kids?  It’s a logical question easily obscured by hysterics and a claim of moral high ground.  We can agree that the practice of forcibly separating children from parents is seriously flawed, but so is the practice hijacking an emotional situation as a vehicle to vent hatred towards a president you didn’t vote for.

A legal ruling a couple decades ago that alien minors seeking entry to the US – even accompanied minors – cannot be detained for more than 20 days.  No doubt the 9th circuit, humanitarians to the core, ruled this as a response to the perceived barbarity of detaining children.  Picture children crying in cages and you can imagine their sympathy.  But shortsightedness in this legislation and subsequent ruling left us with the situation we have now in which the only way to reunite illegal immigrant children with their detained parents is to release both, meaning anyone who brings a kid to the border with them gets a free pass.   Kinda like getting into a theme park free if you bring some canned goods.   The law isn’t new but previous administrations sidestepped the problem by not enforcing it.  In fact most of the venom spewed towards Trump is because he has instructed his administration to enforce the law (that bastard!)   Would we prefer a president-king who took it upon himself to ignore the laws and make up his own?  Oh, wait… seems like we had someone like that recently.    Apparently this practice makes the president a virtuous patriot if you voted for him and an evil dictator if you didn’t.   Pretty subjective criteria.

This hole in the system must be fixed.  Pardon the remedial civics lesson but the president doesn’t write laws.  Congress rarely seems to write laws either, but they are supposed to.  Democrats and Republicans have become so mired in the swamp of campaigning and finger pointing that they have lost focus of their responsibility to refine and pass laws that benefit our country.   But little of the outrage for the border crisis is directed at Congress.  In fact, most of the anger is absent any tangible proposals to correct the problem, which begs the question whether finding a solution is really the goal.  In the infamous words of Rahm Emanuel, “You can’t let a good crisis go to waste”.

Here’s a list of thoughts to consider before lecturing the rest of us on the morality of an immigration program:

  1. The United States (and EVERY country in the world) has an existential duty to define and protect territorial borders for the same reasons you have doors and fences at your home. Not everybody gets in, even if the ‘vast majority of them are good, honest, hardworking people’.  Before arguing that immigration policies are racist, tell us how many immigrants with no screening or background checks you are willing to have come live with you.
  2. Getting into the US is not first come first served. True, we are all decedents of immigrants.  They got here by meeting the requirements of US immigration policy.  You and I (speaking broadly here) did not. If your argument is that we should level the playing field among those born inside our borders and those trying to enter (a proposal that may have some merit) then tell us the criteria we should use to qulify Americans.  And include the explanation you would give to those who don’t make the cut.
  3. If you don’t want to be separated from your kids, don’t put yourself in a situation to be separated from your kids. This is common sense to any responsible parent.  President Trump gave fair warning months in advance that crossing the border, kids in tow, will not give you a free pass.  Immigration advocates have been in place to communicate this policy to families before crossing the border.  Missing from the CNN and MSNBC videos of weeping children is fair questioning of parents to explain why they put their kids in this environment.  Apparently they were counting on a feckless administration to overlook their behavior.
  4. If the law needs to be changed, do your part to change it. Think about the problem, listen to proposals, contact your representatives and senators, do something constructive.  Read a few pages from a civics book if you need to.  Or watch that Schoolhouse Rock video about a Bill on Capitol Hill.
  5. Don’t talk about asylum until you understand what it means. The 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees non-refoulement order recognizes asylum as protection in cases of persecution relating to race, caste, nationality, religion, political opinions and membership and/or participation in any particular social group or social activities.  Wanting a better life for yourself and your family is a virtuous and understandable objective, but it does not qualify for asylum.  And if you are legitimately seeking asylum you stop fleeing in the first country that offers shelter from the prosecution you claim.  It’s not a hall pass to get wherever you want to go.  To march hundreds of miles across one country to get to another more desirable belies a claim that you’re fleeing persecution.  Here’s where the non-sequiturs start piling up, along with legal hair splitting to create loopholes so keep this in mind:  Common sense doesn’t require a law degree.

 

Three thoughts in closing:

Celebrities, politicians and media personalities have spent decades perfecting the art of virtue signaling.  Sanctimony and demagoguery are extremely powerful sentiments to leverage, especially when speeches cost your nothing and no results are demanded. Hold people accountable for their vitriol.

Second, the past several decades have produced civil rights heroes whose leadership and self-sacrifice have paved the way for others to rise above oppression.  It’s convenient today to mimic the tone and anger that mobilized crowds to action but without the measurable purpose or change that previous champions fought for.  This is not about sitting in the back of the bus, whites only restaurants or women’s suffrage.  Just because you say something with a trembling voice or shed a tear on camera (Rachel Maddow) doesn’t mean your arguments are off limits from criticsm.

Third, democracy needs debate, sometimes impassioned debate, to work through complexities of difficult issues.  Reasonable people can disagree on taxes, foreign policy, universal health care and the role of government in society.  And reasonable people refine arguments to enforce their views or reveal the flaws in alternative proposals.  This is how public policy should be defined.  Consensus is nearly impossible in a nation of 300M+ so some of us will live under laws and policies we disagree with until we can effect change using our constitutional mechanisms.  This form of constructive public debate is unrecognizable on the current immigration topic.  Those arguing for strong borders can state their case about defending and maintaining national interests.  Opposing arguments (and I use the term loosely) appear to focus only on hating Trump.  Disappointing.

This is a topic that deserves reasoned debate, not abject spleen venting. You don’t have to agree.

But be civil.

 

 

 

 

Liberal Morons and Conservative Idiots

Truth Gunner Uncategorized

One side basks in the sunshine of common sense, the other is abject idiocrasy.  An objective assessment of the distinction between  American liberals and conservatives is scarce these days. We feel the visceral differences to be sure, and we wonder how otherwise intelligent people can defend such ridiculous positions on issues.   Even in academia, well ESPECIALLY in academia, an impartial analysis is nearly extinct.  Many universities vehemently – even violently- protest guest lecturers who don’t match their ideology (ref. University of California Berkeley v Mio Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, etc).  For Americans, politics embody a moral and social philosophy that defines the way we should interact with each other.  Witness either the hate you feel today towards Trump or the hate you felt a few years ago towards Obama:  They are both rooted in resentment of being governed by someone who doesn’t respect your beliefs or share your values.  Very territorial stuff.

Those precious few willing to make an effort can find some case studies that may help us understand how liberals and conservatives can look at the same set of circumstances and reach radically different conclusions.

Consider one such case in the news today:  Controversy over Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFBP). Here is text from the CFBP website:

In July 2010, Congress passed and President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The Act created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The CFPB consolidates most Federal consumer financial protection authority in one place. The consumer bureau is focused on one goal: watching out for American consumers in the market for consumer financial products and services.

The act passed in the wake of a crisis in which tens of thousands of homeowners (well, home borrowers) were foreclosed on and financial companies went out of business.  President Obama appointed Richard Cordray to lead the fledgling agency, who spent the next 8 years defining and enforcing new rules about ways businesses, particularly financial businesses, interact with consumers.

Fast forward to 2017.   In November Cordray announced his resignation from the CFPB to run for Governor in Ohio.  He appointed CFPB Deputy Director Leandra English as his interim successor in (what he believed to be) accordance with the CFBP line of succession process defined by the Dodd-Frank Act.

Not so fast, says the Trump administration.  His legal team argued that the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (FVRA) gives the president the authority to appoint an acting head of the agency, and that this authority trumps (pardon the pun) the line of succession specified by Dodd-Frank.   President Trump appointed Mick Mulvaney, also the White House Budget Director, to the job.  In other words, he appointed a fox to run the henhouse.

Mulvaney had publically criticized the CFPB, calling it a ‘sad, sick joke’, a bloated government agency abusing authority with no congressional or executive oversight.  He went as far as drafting legislation to abolish it while a congressmen.  Lawsuits were immediately filed by English and other CFPB advocates claiming the agency was created to be immune from political bias and the President’s appointment is exactly the kind of wrecking ball Dodd-Frank intended to prevent.

You may find the legal arguments interesting if you’re into that sort of thing, but none of the judges ruled against the President’s appointment of Mulvaney, finding the authority of the executive branch prevails under the conflicting laws.    To further stir the pot Mulvaney announced in early February that the CFPB would be asking for $0 in the upcoming budget, relying instead on the $177M surplus it had accrued.

Liberals screamed (and still are) that Mulvaney is deliberately destroying the agency created to protect consumers.  “It says ‘Consumer Protection’ right in the name!!”

Conservatives rejoiced at another project to ‘drain the swamp’.  Both sides claim the other is not acting in the best interest of US citizens, instead masquerading as wolves in sheeps’ clothing.  Reporters are no less bias in their attacks, with headlines like “Consumer Protection Bureau to Lose It’s Fangs Under Trump”, “Mick Mulvaney is Gutting the CFPB; Putting Consumers at Risk”. “Trump Team is Determined to Rein In the CFPB”, “Mulvaney Calls the CFPB to Serve the Public”,

Who is right?  Can either side really be the evil spawn of Satan the other claims it is?

For further analysis, let’s look at the case of the CFBP and Payday Lenders.

Payday lenders offer short term loans to people who need cash before their next paycheck.  Unlike loans for a car or college payday loans are usually less than $400 and intended to be very short term. These lenders typically charge a fixed fee per $100 borrowed, which can vary from $10-$30.  For example, a 2-week payday loan of $100 may cost $115 to pay back.

Standard interest calculations using these terms reveal that these lenders are charging 400% annualized percentage rate (APR)!  Is that fair???  Well, it might be if that $15 will let you keep your car instead of paying $10 a day to ride the train to work.

Consider the costs of these payday lenders.   As with any loan the interest rate is directly related to the risk the lenders are taking.  Because these are unsecured loans (meaning no collateral can be recovered in case of default) the interest rate is already higher than on a car or home loan.  Those seeking payday loans are usually living paycheck-to-paycheck (else they wouldn’t need the loan) and pose a high risk of default. Most banks and credit unions won’t even offer a loan to such applicants, considering them a bad risk. Even at 20% APR – a very high rate for most traditional lenders – the interest payment on a $400 loan for 2 weeks would be less than $1, which couldn’t cover the administrative costs of processing a loan request, let alone compensate for the risk.  Traditional lenders won’t touch these kinds of payday loans for these reasons.

Critics of payday lenders claim they take advantage of desperate low-income consumers by forcing them into unreasonable terms.  CFPB advocates are proud of their success in shutting down these ‘predatory lenders’.

Defenders claim the government has no right to shut down the only lenders willing to offer credit to these low-income consumers.

Who is right?   Are payday loans a lifeline for consumers or a rope for them to hang themselves with?

If you’ve read this far, you probably already have an opinion to defend on this issue.  And you will argue (maybe heatedly) with anyone who is too blind to see your side. But how can reasonable people reach such diametrically opposite positions? We speak the same language, drink the same water, breathe the same air, we support liberty, justice, baseball… how can we be so different?

Reality is – tho many of us don’t realize it – that our thinking does not proceed from the same foundation.  To illustrate, ask yourself (and someone you disagree with, if you dare) this question:  What fundamental role should government play in the lives of citizens?

Liberals believe that government is the only force big enough and strong enough to protect citizens from the ravages of big industry and subjugation by the rich and powerful.  People need someone to watch out for them.

Conservatives believe that government does nothing efficiently and is nearly always a hindrance to free market forces that ultimately benefits consumers.  People need to take responsibility for their own decisions and their consequences.

Let’s apply this to the payday lender case;

Liberals see a class of weak, underprivileged people being preyed on by money-grubbing businesses who have a vested interest in keeping them poor.  Lending money sends them into a spiral of dependency they cannot escape.  These consumers will forever be oppressed unless the government defends them.

Conservatives see a market opportunity that the government shouldn’t interfere with.  Payday loan seekers have a need, and the free market responds to meet it.  Why prevent that? Nobody is forcing consumers to borrow money, and these terms are not deceptive, but rather the real-world cost of a service they need.   We cannot blame the lenders for the financial decisions of their clients, everyone needs to accept responsibility for their own actions.

How can we see this objectively?

It’s become overused and even a punchline, but a very wise lens through which to view such issues is WWJD – What Would Jesus Do?  Would Jesus be a democrat or a republican?  Christians on both sides of the aisle think the answer is obvious.

Whichever side you’re on, give it a second thought.  I doubt Jesus would accept being forced into one of 2 boxes.  In fact, I think he would have some harsh words for both camps.  Far be it from me to speak for The Almighty, but allow me some license for a moment to create a context.

To democrats, He might say something like:

I appreciate your concern for those in need.  While I was there I spent a lot of time helping them, even when the ‘leaders’ of the time thought it was undignified. Frankly if my people were doing what I asked you wouldn’t need so many government programs to take up the slack. But any good ambition that spreads high and wide provides openings for motives to mutate beyond their good origins.   Ask yourselves if you’re helping people because you care about them or because you want them to depend on you?  Believe me, I know people want to hear that someone is going to save them from their bad decisions.  But I’m the only one who can really do that, so don’t make promises you can’t keep. 

To republicans, he might say something like this:

Your merit based philosophy is consistent with what I said about ‘reaping what you sow’. Also recall the parable of the talents and note how the stewards were rewarded based on the fruits of their ambition.  But don’t assume that all the poor and needy are there because they are lazy.  You’re not in heaven, you’re on earth:  Sometimes bad things happen to good people and they need a helping hand.  Think about the good Samaritan story:  Don’t be those first 2 guys!  You are proud of what you have and feel like you’ve earned it, but my Father could take it all from you in an eyeblink.  He lets you accumulate wealth so you can help those in need. Don’t donate for a tax write-off or to be celebrated – do it because you share my compassion for others.  Remember that left hand/right hand thing?  Believe me, nobody up here cares what your net worth is anyway. 

I’ve come to believe this is why our country is so evenly separated in any given election.  We need each other to be kept in check so the worst of us doesn’t take over.  God help us that we don’t get so consumed with destroying each other that we lose sight of the virtue in us both.

To be sure, there are plenty of small thinkers with lots to say. Before trying to reason with them you might be recalling that ‘pearls before swine’ philosophy.  Fair enough. But not everyone who disagrees with you is a moron.  We need to find a way to put away the knives long enough to listen to each other, especially those of us who share the same faith. That’s the common ground we need to remind each other of.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Looking for Answers in a Florida Tragedy

Truth Gunner Uncategorized

Tragedy struck the US this week as a nineteen year old guy killed 17 students at a Florida high school.  While we all mourn some of our politicians just can’t pass up the opportunity to exploit this incident for their own agenda.

Gun control advocates use any shooting as evidence we need tougher gun laws.  CNN, barely even trying to masquerade as an objective news organization anymore, shoved as many high school classmates as they could find in front of a camera who would express outrage that our leadership (President Trump) practically pulled the trigger himself by not revoking the 2nd amendment and making guns illegal.

This is a common tactic used by both sides – pick a sympathetic victim, put them in front of a camera, and dare your political opponents to disagree with them ‘cuz that would be just mean.  Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff infamously quoted “never allow a good crisis to go to waste”.  Sadly this is the sewer our politicians live in.

Conservatives do it too.  They will scour the nation to find a heinous crime committed by an illegal immigrant and cite it as proof they are ruining our country.   “Kathryn Steinly would be alive today if we had tougher immigration laws!”  Shame on both sides.

Average Americans don’t see these disasters as political opportunities despite the way our politicians and sycophant media spins them.  We feel a blur of guilt, sympathy, anger, and fear that we don’t know how to process.  So we polarize around platitudes:  More Gun Control.  Police should have known.  Should have seen the warning signs.  Fix Mental Illness.  Find a scapegoat person, policy or process to execute so we can go back to believing that nothing like this could ever happen where WE live, not in OUR town, not to OUR kids.

But the world is more complex than we want to see.  And complex problems usually aren’t corrected with quick, simple bumper sticker solutions.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights aren’t that verbose so the founding fathers had good reason for calling out the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms’.   A cogent debate would have to consider centuries of governments history in which an armed citizenry was the only defense against tyranny.  One side would surely argue such a concept is antiquated and society has evolved far past this barbaric distrust.  I wonder sometimes if gun control zealots realize they are advocating giving ALL the guns to Trump and his government.  Does that make you feel comfortable?

I won’t pretend to give the topic due attention here, but I am annoyed by the non-starter position that we can somehow put the genie back into the bottle and get rid of all the guns in America.  Utopian suggestions are pointless for real-world problems.

Another common fallacy is “They should have seen the signs”.  What signs are guaranteed tipoffs that a person is about to go on a killing rampage?  And do we want to live in a society where the police can kick down your door and drag you to jail because a neighbor said ‘He seems weird’ or ‘he was bitter about his breakup”?  How many people could claim right now that you ‘were not very social’, ‘seemed angry often’, ‘said racially insensitive things’, ‘and sometimes yelled at others’?  Are those the signs we’re talking about?  Would you feel better looking at the inside of a jail cell knowing that maybe somewhere a tragedy may have been averted?

Then there’s the mental health angle.  Nobody denies that a person who murders 17 schoolkids or concert goers is mentally ill, but nobody tries to define the threshold that defines mental illness.  Politicians have recently illustrated how subjective these claims can be by declaring that the President must be ‘mentally unfit for office’ because he doesn’t think and act like they do.  If this is the standard we use then half the population can judged mentally ill by the other half in any given election cycle.

Does the mental illness label apply if a person get depressed?  Do they surrender their right to own a firearm if they consult with a mental health professional?  This doesn’t seem like a dichotomy we should force on a person who wants help.

Nobody argues that mass shootings are awful, horrible, terrible evil.  We wish the evil away, and we all feel for the victims and survivors.  We crave comfort in answers, in remedies, in assurances that it won’t happen again.  But finding a solution to a problem sometimes requires connecting more than 2 dots.  We need to be willing to entertain those discussions.

We can be passionate, but anyone who thinks there is a ‘simple solution’ hasn’t spent enough time thinking yet.

Outrage is All the Rage

Truth Gunner Politics , , , , ,

A January 22, 2018 letter to the WSJ from Cynthia Cross of McLean Virginia reeks not only of outrage at President Trump’s (alleged) ‘loathsome’ comments about s-hole countries, but her righteous indignation at his lack of compassion for foreigners.

“Why would we want to admit people into the U.S. from these countries? Because, Mr. Trump, those people are most in need of a better way of life—they, not citizens of relatively affluent and safe countries like Norway, are the “tired,” the “poor,” the “huddled masses” for whom our nation is a true beacon. Our immigration policies should serve those whose famine-stricken, war-torn and impoverished countries render them most desperate to immigrate. The fact that our president doesn’t understand this strikes me as a far bigger problem for our country and the rest of the world than his disgraceful language.

 

This moral preening looks honorable, but doesn’t fit when applied to personal values.  I wonder how many poor, huddles masses Ms. Cross is currently accommodating in her home?   Even a superficial glance at American society exposes hundreds of thousands – if not millions – in need of even basic life necessities like food and clothing.  If helping those less fortunate is the real goal, we need not look internationally to find opportunity.

 

Or perhaps Ms Cross simply can’t understand the America First foundation of Trump’s presidency.  Eight years of apologizing for America’s success by the previous administration has created a warped sense of American guilt, as if our prosperity has come at the expense of others.

 

Such penance demand is a fallacy.

 

I don’t know if Ms Cross has kids, but if so I’m guessing she – like any good mother – makes sure they have food to eat, clothes to wear, a safe and sound education and healthcare.  Does she not care about kids in Somalia?  Why do her kids get to come first?   Put this argument a nationwide context and America First becomes more understandable, and in fact honorable.  Are the slums of Baltimore less worthy of attention than the slums of Haiti?

 

I also scratch my head at the cognitive dissonance that leads Ms. Cross to be outraged at the loathsome and vulgar categorization of ‘s-hole countries’ but in the next breath call them impoverished, war torn and famine stricken.  To-MAY-to or To-MAH-to?  What should we call a country that allows – in fact causes – its citizens to wallow in poverty for generations?  A question rarely asked is why more people aren’t outraged at the Mexican or Haitian leaders for fostering an environment people are so eager to flee?

 

Yet America pays more guilt tax than any other country. After the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, $13.5B was donated and pledged for relief, over $4B of which came from private donations.  My daughter even took up the cause, soliciting contributions from friends and family to send away.  We feel good about ourselves for showing compassion, and rightly so. But 7 years later, where are Haiti’s schools, hospitals, infrastructure, electricity, sanitation and jobs?  Do we think another $20B will solve the problem?   Or is the best way to help Haitians while preserving their culture and heritage to tell them to give up and become Americans?  Perhaps a real solution is more complex than can fit on a poster, a tweet, or a 2 minute celebrity rant at an awards show.

 

But even posing such discussion topics elicits venomous accusations of heartlessness and xenophobia, which further hinders reform that can help people.  Immigrant championing is the vogue bandwagon for virtue signalers, especially for those who defer the solution to a ‘Rich Uncle Sam’, as if he is a real person responsible for solving the problems they can’t be bothered with.

 

How refreshing it would be if Trump bashers would offer some tangible, constructive ideas to solve real problems instead of hijacking public discourse to vent their abject yet unsophisticated hatred.