Free Speech

It seems that people are finally becoming aware of the suppression of  free speech, even though it merits barely a mention from the main stream media which seems to instead spend its time trying to increase its already 90%  negative coverage of President Trump (in their own suppressive attempt to silence him or at least manipulate the public’s view of him).  It seems that the failed attempt to bring conservative Ann Coulter to speak at UC Berkeley has finally made even some Democrats aware of the narrow-minded suppression that goes on at college campuses these days. 

This is a start. But if the realization limits itself to just well-known conservatives whose speech is silenced at colleges, that realization is very limited.  For many years now the liberal/progressive agenda has been becoming more and more aggressive in its attempts to silence any opposing ideas.  That becomes visible when students violently react to a speaker with those opposing ideas, claiming they have a right to silence that opposing thought.  But these demonstrations only scratch the surface of a sickness that has been growing in our democracy for years.

Why do so many believe that they have a right to silence any viewpoints with which they disagree?  Why do they believe that it is appropriate to label as hate speech any position that does not fully conform to their agenda?    Why do they think that anyone who holds a position that they find objective should, or indeed must, be silenced?  And that, in light of that, it is both their right and their duty to use any means necessary to silence that speaker?  And why have college students not learned about the necessary benefit to both their education and our democracy of the exchange of differing ideas?

To think that attacks on free speech just suddenly appeared (or, as many Democrats would have one believe, that it is due to Trump’s election) is to ignore the subtle but effective suppression of free speech that has been going on for years.  For example, while political correctness may have some underlying noble goal, it is really just a form of suppression of free speech.  If people are forced to use only those words and phrases deemed acceptable, then their freedom to express themselves is compromised.  Not only are they not able to choose their own words, the fact that they must speak in a certain way has an even more chilling effect in that they often choose not to speak at all.  That is, their position, their ideas, are silenced.  And, as others witness this, their speech too becomes silenced.  Perhaps their ideas or their word choices would be offensive, but that is not a reason for them to be silenced.  Indeed, by allowing all viewpoints to be expressed, people can evaluate all, and choose to accept some while rejecting others.  This is how societies grow and stay free.

The chilling effect is pervasive throughout our country today.  People hold their tongue about how they really feel about issues for fear of being attacked for their position, either verbally or, as is becoming more and more likely, physically.  Yes, there are some who are still willing to speak, but they are labeled by the Left as provocateurs, and therefore properly silenced in any way necessary.  Their silencing has a ripple effect.  Fewer people are willing to risk speaking a viewpoint that does not conform to the accepted agenda.  People are afraid to express their viewpoints.  Think of one of the key characteristics of a dictatorship:  the people fear speaking out; they are not free to express their thoughts.

Democrats argued that President Trump wanted to or will become some sort of dictator.  But who has been behaving as dictators for the past several years? Clearly, it is the Left who are willing to accept no voice other than their own, who feel that tolerance by others of their viewpoint is not good enough but that everyone must be forced to believe what they believe, to speak only as they speak.  Anyone who does not fall in line with their agenda is silenced:  by being demeaned, mocked, rejected, or attacked.  When the people had enough and elected Mr. Trump, the Left was unwilling to accept the voice of the people and so, instead of working with the current administration, being a loyal opposition, they have done and continue to do everything in their power to destroy that administration and in so doing they silence the voice of the people for which it stands.

So, I am glad that at least some Democrats have become aware of what is happening to free speech on college campuses.  But I am more saddened by the fact that many others not only support the suppression, but also the right to violently object to opposing ideas.  And that so many think that this is a right is indicative of how dangerous and chilling the Left can be.   Many compare the current demonstrations to those of the 60s, but while the 60s demonstrations were mostly peaceful, when they did become violent the authorities stepped in.  Today, even the authorities fear involvement – they are afraid to enforce valid laws because doing so would come against that loud, ugly and suppressive voice of the Left.

I really do hope that this Ann Coulter-Berkeley incident awakens many.  I hope that people begin to see the subtle brainwashing that has occurred for many years, how students have been educated not in the principles of a strong democracy but in the suppressive principles of the Left.  The chilling effect of this is not something that can be undone overnight, but people can begin by demanding that there be a tolerance for varying viewpoints and an understanding that a democracy requires the free exchange of many viewpoints.  People must be willing to accept that all will not think alike and that it is beneficial, not harmful (not even micro-aggressive), to hear viewpoints other than one’s own.

What’s Wrong With a Special Dance?

My local news presented a story with the following facts:  A young boy with autism went to his middle school dance where the dress code required a button-down shirt.  He arrived in sweatpants, collarless shirt, and hoodie; he was turned away for failing to meet the dress requirements of the dance.  He was taken to the office where his parents were called to bring him a change of clothes so he could attend.   He is comfortable in the sweat outfit, not comfortable in the required attire, so rather than change he went home in tears.  His mother posted the story on Facebook, and soon there was a call for the community to support the student by wearing his favorite color one day.  Then a do-good group and the parents hosted an alternate school dance where he could wear the sweatpants outfit and the other students came to celebrate him.  The school has apologized, called it a miscommunication, and vows to work with the parent in the future. 

The story was presented sympathetically to the student, with the underlying message that the school was somehow uncaring or wrong.  The newsreader who presented the story was all choked up with sympathy for the boy and for the wonderful people who made the alternate prom happen and the community that came together to support the child.  This was clearly supposed to be a feel-good story.

So, what’s wrong with this you say – a student gets to have his own dance and wear what he wants where it is all about him.  Well, here’s one thing that is wrong:  we are sending the message that if you don’t like the rules then that’s OK, you don’t have to follow them and indeed you will be rewarded for not doing so, for being upset about being told you must.  We are sending the message that when something happens that one doesn’t like all they need is to post on social media and they will be loved.  The parents are sending the message that the child, because of his autism - because of who he is - is some sort of victim.  And, the school, with its apology, suggests that its rules are really meaningless and that it’s OK to violate them. 

What should have happened? First, the school, rather than apologize for a reasonable rule, should have simply reaffirmed this reasonable dress code and that students who want to come to the dance must indeed dress as required.  They are sorry if some don’t like it, but that’s the way it is. If not in place, they might create some procedure for requesting an exemption.   In reacting this way, the school would be teaching students that life is filled with choices and those choices come with consequences.  Here, there was a dress code.  The student had the choice to comply and go to the dance or not comply and miss the dance.  When he was not dressed appropriately he had the opportunity to change and attend the dance.  Students would begin to learn that life is filled with rules and obligations, and that while one is free to follow or not follow those rules, each course of action results in its own consequences.  That is, the school could teach the lesson that we don’t always get to have everything our way and do everything we want.  And not having things our way, choosing not to follow reasonable rules, does not make one a victim.

And, the parents might also have taken a different approach.  Since the student was in middle school his parents were likely (or should have been) still quite involved in his plans for the dance.  They would have known the dress code and should have told their son what he was required to wear.  If he regularly has trouble wearing clothes other than those he is comfortable in, then they should have taken extra steps to understand if any dress code was in force and if it would allow him to wear his choice of clothes.  If they thought the dress code was unreasonable, here was a wonderful opportunity to teach their son how one can have a dialog with a rule-maker and advocate for a change to a rule (and also an opportunity to perhaps teach that while there are ways to challenge rules, one does not always win that challenge).   What they should not have done was wait until their son was turned away and then make their child into some sort of victim on social media while they participated in attracting media attention to him as they sought to make him somehow so special that even reasonable rules should not get in the way of anything to which he (or they) feels entitled.

Once aware of the requirement for a button-down shirt, and, if unable to get it changed or an exemption for their son, if the parents thought their son would be too uncomfortable or if he was unwilling to comply with the code, then they should have gently explained to him that those were the rules and if he could not follow them then he would not be able to go to the dance.   If they wanted to have a party on their own with whatever dress code they liked that is fine, but it should not be billed as an alternate prom, presented in order to excuse the student’s failure to comply with the rules, and certainly should not be funded or sponsored by people who are in essence supporting the idea that rules are not important and if you are not comfortable with them you needn’t follow them and may also be rewarded for not doing so.

Of course it is easy to sympathize with the student and his parents.  He is autistic; the mother wants him to fit in but he has difficulty doing so.  As would any mother, she wants him to be happy.  But a parent’s job is far more than just providing immediate happiness or gratification for one’s child. Aren’t there times when even an autistic child will need to follow a simple dress code?  And, if the child cannot do so, then isn’t it important that he understand that because of who he is he will not always be able to participate in some things?  (And no, this is not cruel and not biased against the autistic.  It is realistic.  We all have things we can and cannot do and we need to learn that in life our abilities will to some extent guide our choices and that with our choices come consequences.  Hence, if we choose not to meet a particular requirement because it is uncomfortable for us or because we just don’t want to, then we need to understand that there will be consequences of not meeting that requirement.  And those consequences should not include a production of an activity replicating the one that our choice to not meet the requirements caused us to miss).

Sadly, what this story really underscores is that today we seem to be teaching not responsibility, understanding, and cooperation,  but selfishness, victim-hood, and entitlement.  A selfishness that includes support for violating rules and condemning those who imposed the rules in the first place.  These were not unreasonable rules; many schools have dress codes for their dances and proms and a button-down shirt is certainly not out of the mainstream of such requirements.   Here was an opportunity to teach how one can go about getting rules changed; here was an opportunity to teach how to deal with life’s difficult situations without playing the victim.  Do we really want to teach our children that they can always do whatever they want, ignore whatever rules they want and yet still have that for which the rules were a prerequisite?  That approach to life, that focus on immediate happiness, gratification, and entitlement is more suited to a toddler than to an adult.  Unfortunately, we already see this sort of mindset in many adults, and many more who continue to foster it.  Parents, schools, and society at large need to find the backbone to teach and demand a less selfish and more mature way of interacting with the world.

Reflections on Earth Day and the March for Science

I love Earth Day.  I participated in celebrations on the first Earth Day in 1970.  Since then I have tried to do my part daily for the earth (my cloth shopping bags are close to 40 years old and still going!). Every year on Earth Day a variety of groups get together to celebrate this wonderful planet that we call home, to share new innovations and ways to protect Mother Earth, and to come together as one people together on one planet.  It is always a wonderful day, a day for everyone, a day that, until now, has not really been politicized.

That is why I am so saddened this year by the March for Science taking place on Earth Day.  I have nothing against science or with scientists standing up for what they do. Indeed, much of Earth Day has always been about science.   But, I always thought that science was the one thing that would not become politicized.  But no, we now have a March (also referred to as a Protest) that, while it may have some good underlying intentions, is being commingled with a political movement and co-opting Earth Day.

There are many things wrong with this.  First, this politicization of Earth Day will prevent the attendance of many who might otherwise come out to celebrate and learn about the Earth (and in the process learn about and appreciate science).  Earth Day will become just another day to march or protest for or against some political cause, to chant and scream and to hate anyone who disagrees with one’s viewpoint on whatever.  It will engage some in the now political cause, but it will also alienate many others.  Earth Day this year is not a day for everyone to come together and celebrate Earth; rather, it is a day to take political sides.

Beyond my sadness in losing the essence of Earth Day, is my sadness in losing the objectivity associated with science.  When science begins to align itself with or against one party or another, it loses at a minimum its appearance of objectivity.  Can one really trust the hypotheses or reasoning of a scientist who is clearly aligned with, perhaps even a spokesperson for, one particular point of view?  By creating this sort of question, the scientists may be defeating their own purpose behind the march – to assert the importance of science and its objectivity.  If they create a climate in which science is open to question for its lack of objectivity, then they have weakened, not strengthened science.

But, beyond creating the question of objectivity, there is the deeper question of whether, when one is so personally and deeply involved in and committed to a particular point of view, that person can in fact be the independent and objective thinker that science requires.  We all, even scientists, are human.  Much as we might like to think that we can be completely objective, we all have beliefs and biases that to some extent affect our lives.  The stronger these beliefs and commitments, the stronger is their influence.  Hence, if one becomes an avid and active believer and advocate of a particular political view then that will have to in some way affect that person’s thinking.  And, when that thought is applied to scientific examinations and conclusions it is indeed possible that the scientific thinking will no longer have the objectivity necessary to support strong and valid scientific conclusions.

This is not to say that scientists cannot or should not hold political views or that they should not express those views.  But to coalesce themselves into a single group with a clear political voice biased in one particular way does seem to interfere in some way with their necessary scientific objectivity.

So, I will miss attending Earth Day celebrations this year; I do not want to attend a political rally nor do I wish to become involved in a political protest or debate at what should be a unified celebration of Earth.  I hope that next year Earth Day will once again become a peaceful and apolitical celebration where people of all political persuasions are welcome and where everyone can come together to share, discuss, and learn what we can do to protect this wonderful planet that we call home.

Just Whom Should a Representative Represent Anyway?

So, I succumbed to the hype and around the time the Georgia polls were closing last night I checked for the results of the special election for U.S. Representative for the 6^th Congressional District, the election to replace Republican Tom Price who is now in President Trump’s Cabinet. 

The initial results were reflected in ecstatic posts by Democrats and the media.  With one percent of the vote in, Democrat Jon Ossoff had over 60%.  Wow, they were going to show that Democrats had new found power, that the referendum on Trump successfully proved that the nation was overwhelmingly anti-Trump.  They elatedly proclaimed that this was a sign that times were changing and the Republicans were in decline, etc., etc.  When I checked back again later the elation seemed to have quieted; the news feeds were far less busy.   There were comments about things being very close, and discussions (if Tweets can be called discussions) about whether this would go to a runoff.  Later still, the verdict was in:  yes, it would go to a runoff. Things were then very quiet, but only briefly.  Then the headlines started telling me that this should scare the Republicans and Trump, that it is a wake-up call to them about how unpopular they and their president are, etc., etc.

Now, let’s just consider the facts of this special election to fill a seat vacated by a Republican.  To win, a candidate needed to get more than 50% of the vote, otherwise there would be a runoff.   A number of Republicans (11) threw their hats in the ring, probably hoping, but not expecting to exceed 50%, but rather to lead that pack and become the top Republican candidate in the runoff election. (The runoff does not require the two runoff candidates to be of opposing parties; rather, it simply pits the top two vote-getters against one another).   Jon Ossoff also threw his hat in the ring, and, as a progressive Democrat, he quickly became the hope of the Democrats to not just win the seat and not just take a previously Republican seat, but to show the world that Trump was in decline. 

The Democrats decided to make this election a referendum on President Trump.  They poured over eight million dollars into Mr. Ossoff’s campaign.  That money came from individuals outside of the District and most from outside of the State.  But, then, Mr. Ossoff himself does not reside in the district that he is running to represent.

So, what was this election about.  Sadly, the Democrats and the media chose to make it not about the people who will be represented by the winner of the election.  It was not about the needs of the district or the people who reside there.  Nor was it really about the candidates.  All the arguments presented seemed to be those of the Democrats against President Trump.  Did these folks forget what the job of Mr. Ossoff would be if elected?  Do they even know anything at all about the district or its people?  Do they care?

The job of a Congressperson is to represent the people of his or her district.  It is not to simply spout a general party line against the incumbent president.  Of course, if they are a member of the opposition party they will likely have more disagreement than agreement with the policies of an administration headed by the other party.  But their JOB is to represent their people, to listen to their concerns and be THEIR VOICE in Washington, not simply the voice of their party’s playbook.

Maybe this election was not a wake-up call at all.  Maybe it was just that there were several Republican candidates who split the Republican vote, while one highly funded Democrat was able to get a larger percentage of opposing votes for himself.   Maybe now that there will be a runoff, the two candidates, one Democrat, one Republican, will focus on what they can bring to the job of representing the people of Georgia’s 6^th Congressional District, instead of what they or their party thinks of President Trump.  I hope that the people demand that, and that they elect the person who is best suited to be their voice in Washington, regardless of that person’s party.  I hope they vote for the person, not one or the other party.

Maybe it is the politicians and the media who need the wake-up call – a call to remind them that elections are not just about proving some grand point that the presidential election result was some sort of mistake and the people have now changed their minds.  Maybe they need to be reminded that an election for a Congressional seat is about who can best understand and represent the people of the district being represented.  I realize that letting it be simply a local election involving local issues does not create the hype for a great story that the media is constantly seeking.  But, really, while whichever voice is chosen will have some larger consequences in Washington, the bottom line is that it is about the representation of the people located in District 6.  

As is often said, “all politics are local.”  While those local politics have national and international ramification, to turn every election into a referendum on the president is to ignore the people who make up the electorate and our democracy.  Elections are not just about winning to prove a point.  They are about governing and finding the best people for that job, regardless of party.  If we could just remember that, if we could get rid of the us vs. them, our party is good and theirs is bad mentality, if we could remember that a U.S Representative represents the people and not the party, this country would be in far better shape.

I stand with Arturo Di Modica

I agree with artist Arturo Di Modica, the creator of Charging Bull, that Fearless Girl should be removed.  I agree that Fearless Girl interferes with the artistic image of Charging Bull; it has become impossible to view Charging Bull without having that view interfered with by Fearless Girl.

It is no secret that I find Fearless Girl offensive and a poor representative of the power of women (see http://ps.pinkspolitics.com/2017/03/fearless-girl.html).  While Di Modica’s statue is fully capable of standing on its own, the Fearless Girl only exists because of the Charging Bull.  Not only does this demean women as being somehow incapable of defining themselves and rather only being capable of being defined by another (in this case a male), it also shows the lack of artistic capability in the sculptor and sculpture itself.

Di Modica’s statue is original.  It stands on its own.  It reflects the artistic and creative vision of the artist.  In contrast, the sculptor who created Fearless Girl (Kristen Visbal) did not create a work of art that can stand on its own but rather had to appropriate the work of another as part of her presentation. She chose to create a statue that is fully intended to and does interfere with the work and the creative dynamic of another artist.  She likely did this for both political and financial gain.  But the act, like the sculpture itself, shows enormous disrespect for another artist and his work.

Let the Fearless Girl statue be placed where it can stand on its own.  That would be the true test of it as a work of art, just as it would be the true test of the supposedly strong female that it allegedly represents.  But, sadly, this supposed representative of women only gets its power via the destruction of another – in this case a beautiful statue that the current women’s movement has changed into some sort of representative of their hatred for males.

It is sad when a political movement and its supporters (including the mayor of NYC) believe that it is OK to destroy people and things outside of the movement to make a point.  Yet, it is reflective of our society today which is so full of hate and blame.  I realize that art has, throughout history, been used to make political statements.  But usually that is done without interfering with, usurping, or destroying the work of other artists. 

Di Modica has filed a lawsuit.  I hope that he wins.  I hope that Fearless Girl is moved.  If she is really the great work of art that many claim, then she should have her own space where she can stand and be viewed on her own.  If she needs a bull to exist, then let her artist create that bull, or whatever else is necessary.  Do not appropriate the work of another artist, destroying that work’s dynamic and originality, in an effort to support a work that apparently cannot stand on its own.

Wishing for Quality, not Attack, Journalism

Tuesday evening the major networks began their nightly news, spending close to five of their 30-minute programs, on what they apparently believed was such a major story that it deserved to hold the lead position.  That story was that Sean Spicer, President Trump’s Press Secretary, was “in trouble”:  the report was that he had compared Hitler favorably to Assad, that he had attacked Jews, during Passover no less! And that he should be fired.  They played the tape from the news conference.  Then they told us that Spicer “attempted to clarify” and finally the story ended with the fact that Spicer had apologized. 

So, then, it really was not much of a story.  Moreover, any normal person with any common sense at all understood that Spicer was simply attacking the horror of Assad’s random and indiscriminate use of bombs loaded with chemical weapons.  Period.

But, the news and the anti-Trump brigade saw an opening and viciously attacked.  Meanwhile, they wasted valuable time out of their 30 minutes.  Time when they could have been providing actual news.  After all, it’s not like nothing else is going on – China, North Korea, Russian support of Assad, good economic news at home, etc., etc.  Surely any of those was more deserving of the lead story position.

Andrea Mitchell claims that it is the job of the news to be adversarial.  Apparently others in the profession agree and agree to the extent that they believe adversarial attacks of little significance are more important than major news stores.  Funny, I always thought the job of the news was to inform us, to give us the facts so that we could use our own minds to assess those facts.  How silly of me, and how wrong that belief has become in this day and age.

This all might be entertaining or funny if it weren’t so sad and so detrimental to our country.  By failing to inform us the media is participating in creating an uninformed electorate, that is, a people who are ripe for picking by those more interested in tearing our democracy apart than in supporting it.  By clearly picking sides in political debates, by taking positions that affiliate with a particular political party, the media easily becomes a propaganda arm of that party.  And by acting as attack dogs against individuals, the media models a behavior better left on some elementary school playground.

It is becoming more and more difficult to watch the news, and even more difficult to take it seriously.  I hope that others feel this way, because that means they must realize that what they are getting on the news is neither a total nor an objective picture of what is going on.  I have no idea what, if anything, can make the news return to quality journalism, but I hope that it does happen, and sooner rather than later, because without access to quality journalism and a fair and objective media, we lose the informed electorate which is a cornerstone of our democracy:  And, when the cornerstone crumbles and falls, the entire building that it supports loses stability.

Misogyny and Responsibility (or lack thereof)

In the news recently was Hillary Clinton’s statement that misogyny played a role in her loss to President Trump.  This would seem to be her latest scapegoat, and, while it would be easy to spend this entire post talking about her and her list of the many blameworthy people or ideas that she asserts caused her loss, what I want to talk about is, more generally, the inability of so many today to take responsibility.  Hillary and her lengthening list of blame is a prime example of someone who cannot do that – cannot admit that she herself may have been responsible, at least in part, for her loss.

Sadly, this type of behavior is not uncommon.  Whatever is wrong, whatever failures one has, seem to be most frequently proclaimed to be the fault of someone else.  Whatever happened to being able to say something like, “yes, it was me, I messed up”?  Is everyone so afraid to admit that they are not perfect, but simply human?  Think about how many times you have heard someone whose job application has been rejected place the reason for the non-hire onto some sort of discrimination against themselves (They didn’t want a woman; they didn’t want a person of color; they wanted a person of color; they had to hire a woman; they wanted someone with different political views; they wanted someone older, I was too old for them, etc., etc.). It is far rarer to hear someone take some personal responsibility (I didn’t really prepare well for the interview; my abilities really didn’t match those of the person hired; etc.). 

Similar blame/failure to take responsibility is seen in more abstract situations and as a motivating force behind many activist movements, especially those based on identity.  The women’s movement blames men; minority movements blame whites or white privilege; people not living the life they would like to lead blame those who are; Republicans blame Democrats and vice versa, etc., etc. 

All this blaming reveals and results in several problems.  One is that it is divisive.  When one’s own failure is made the fault of someone else, that someone else becomes the “bad guy,” someone to dislike or even hate.  That dislike and hatred builds into anger, a very destructive emotion.  When groups of people build an anger against another group, not only is there very little likelihood of understanding, there is also a strong likelihood of developing a mob mentality that is totally incapable of seeing the individuality of the people within the groups.  Again, this sort of thinking is destructive.

A second problem is that when one blames others rather than taking responsibility for their own acts, they do not have the motivation to look within themselves and consider how they can improve.  Hence, they are much more likely to repeat the same failures and never succeed to their goal.  The same is true of the many activist movements: if they simply base their movement on blame and hatred of some other group they are less likely to take the actions necessary to actually improve their own situation.  Moreover, rather than empowering the group’s members, such approach demeans them by sending the message that the members themselves are incapable of success. 

If we are to grow as people and as a nation, if we are to reach whatever goals we may have, the first step is to take responsibility for our actions and, when our steps falter, when we fail, we must accept responsibility for that failure.  Then, we must self-assess, not blame; we must consider how we can do it better next time, take the action necessary to improve, and move forward.  Then, when we succeed, we can take responsibility for that success as well.

So, back to Hillary Clinton.  To her, and to the many like her who play the blame game, I say, “grow up, put on your big girl pants, and take responsibility.”  And, to the many movements based on identity and blame I say, “Look to what you yourselves can do to improve your situation, rather than building anger against and hatred for those on the outside; empower, rather than demean those within your group.”  

I am not sure why taking responsibility is such a difficult task today.  Perhaps it stems from the coddling that begins with things like every child must get a prize so that no one's feelings are hurt. Perhaps it stems from a fear of competition.  Perhaps it stems simply from an insecure need to be perfect.  Regardless of the why, it is time for individuals and society to stop the blame game and become accountable.  Such accountability, self-awareness, and individual responsibility are, I believe, among the necessary ingredients for the better society that so many are seeking.

Self-Serving Hypocrisy and Hatred Do Not Serve America Well

There are so many things in the news that reflect the hypocrisy and hatred that run rampant among the Left.  They evidence a concern not for the good of the country, but for their own power.  Here are just a few.

• Sen. Nunes has been forced to step aside from his position as Chair of the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia investigation.  This because the Left has filed several accusations with the Office of Congressional Ethics.  This is essentially another political hit and it is just further evidence that the Democrats are more concerned with attacking anything Republican than in getting to the bottom of the leaks and the possible political spying by the Obama administration.   I really don’t think they want the truth, but only anything upon which to grasp in their unceasing attempts to undermine the Trump administration.

• Earth Day, a day on which people of many diverse views used to come together to celebrate and learn about our earth, is now morphing into the March for Science, a highly political event with the sole purpose of attacking those who do not agree wholeheartedly will each and every one of the movement's positions on global warming and its causes.

• Reports reveal that Elizabeth Warren’s female staffers earn about $20,000 less per year then her male staffers.  This from the progressive senator who claims to advocate for women’s rights. 

• Illegal immigration is down significantly since President Trump took office.  This piece of news is either ignored, or twisted somehow into a racist attack by the administration on minorities.  Actually, it just means that laws are being enforced and that when laws are enforced, fewer tend to attempt to break those laws.  Not really a bad thing. 

• Someone who leans very left recently commented on some of President Trump’s policies and actions that were actually quite positive from that leftist’s perspective: “Not bad at all, these surprisingly functional actions, very encouraging assuming they are true.”  Always a “but” from the Left:  “assuming they are true” as if it is an impossibility that could be so, displaying an extreme hesitancy to accept that Trump could do anything that is not evil or against which they cannot mount an attack.  If the Left would stop their constant attacks and instead objectively look at what the current administration is attempting to do, they might find that there are things with which they actually agree and can support; they might find that they could actually work with other Americans for the good of America.

• The figures vary, but it appears that there will be billions of dollars saved by the roll-back of many of the Obama era regulations.  Many of these regulations are duplicative and therefore unnecessary; others have not served the purposes for which they were enacted; others are examples of government overreach and involve things that are more properly left to state regulation.  There may also be some that arguably should remain.  But to simply blindly and in lock-step attack each and every roll-back reflects not a concern for the country, but only a hatred of the current administration and anything it might do.  It does not reflect a true interest in the good of the country.

This list could go on and on.  I have already, in previous posts, addressed the selfishness of the Democrats in regard to the Gorsuch nomination.  I have addressed the narrow-mindedness and intolerance of many of the identity-based and Democrat-driven groups and movements.  The bottom line is that today’s Democrats have absolutely no interest in working for the good of the country. Their actions reflect only a selfish interest in their own power and a reflexive hatred of all things Trump as well as a need for payback of some sort for the fact that they lost the election to this man who is not like them, but who understands the people they so desperately need to sustain their power. 

This is a sad situation.  It will not change on its own.  The hope for this country is what it always has been: not the politicians but the people.  If the people can stop believing everything they are told, if they can open their eyes, ask questions, look at things with objectivity, then they will demand more of those elected to serve them and this country.  When the people no longer tolerate the self-serving power-hungry politics currently on display 24/7 from the Democrats, then America will be OK.

The Illness of our Democracy

Yascha Mounk, a lecturer on political theory at Harvard, suggests three symptoms of a failing democracy: first is the strength, or lack thereof, of the public’s support for the democracy; second is public support for non-democratic forms of government; and, third is whether anti-system parties or movements are gaining support.    Examples of these symptoms abound.  The illness did not crop up overnight and in many ways it is the result of many years of identity politics and a selfish focus on immediate gratification rather than the responsibilities that a democracy requires of its citizens. 

Much of the public is willing to accept, back, and defend actions that demonstrate a lack of support for the democracy.  For example, despite the fact that most legal scholars agree that Judge Gorsuch, while a conservative, is a very mainstream and qualified judge, Democrats nearly unanimously support a filibuster.  The filibuster and the resultant invoking of the so-called “nuclear option” are less actions than results of a system which is not functioning.  The sham of the Democrats pretending to objectively question Gorsuch and their however rationalized filibuster show an interest in their political power and playing a game of payback rather than care for our democracy and its systems.  The Democrats already did away with the 60-vote requirement for other judicial positions, and their filibuster is performed with the knowledge that it will produce the removal of that requirement for Supreme Court justices as well.  They have no interest in compromise or in supporting our democracy but only in their selfish political posturing.  Understanding and the idea of compromise, necessary ingredients of our democracy’s health, are becoming nothing more than a memory.  The Democrats seem to have no interest in serving the people or our democracy, but only their own self-interest and their own power.  

There is also a dangerous acceptance of the suppression of free speech and free thought, characteristics of non-democratic forms of government.  Not only do we see speech codes and political correctness often exceeding rationality, we have people believing it is OK  and even their right to shout down and silence those with whom they do not agree.  But, perhaps more frightening, and more threatening to the health of democracy, is the inability of politicians to be objective and of the people to become informed citizens.

Take for example the change in the Russia/leaks/unmasking commentary since news emerged that Susan Rice, a close advisor to President Obama, intentionally, and with no apparent non-political purpose, unmasked the names of then candidate Trump and his team and sought out information about their conversations for the year prior to the Trump inauguration.  It is certainly interesting how Mr. Schiff and his fellow Democrats suddenly have nothing to say about the likelihood that Team Obama was spying on Team Trump.  Perhaps even more interesting is that the media has suddenly lost all interest in this story and seems to have done so as soon as it became apparent that they could no longer claim that the story was completely unfounded and could no longer use the story to attack President Trump’s credibility. 

With such obvious bias and apparent inability to be objective on the part of the media, one wonders where to find the actual facts about anything without (and this is essentially an impossibility) doing the full research on one’s own.  And, with the obvious bias of elected officials who should be putting the country (including serious and likely illegal spying and leaking) ahead of the power of their political party and themselves, one wonders how we can truly have confidence in the state of our democracy.

Related to the lack of free speech and especially reflective of the third symptom is the lack of tolerance for any views other than one’s own and a suppression of those views by leaders that demeans the very groups to which they present themselves as saviors.  We see this in the many movements today based on identity politics and non-acceptance of diverse viewpoints.  The women’s movement claims to speak for all women, but won’t tolerate a woman with an anti-abortion position or one who holds conservative Republican or fundamentalist Christian views.  Groups that represent various minority groups claim to speak for the entire class and cannot tolerate a member of that class holding a different or diverse viewpoint.  Rather than accepting that individuals, even those within an identifiable segment of society, can hold many different views and have different hopes and dreams, the current groups driven by identity politics are unwilling to accept such freedom of thought.  Not only does this demean the very group represented by assuming the inability of its individual members to think for themselves, it also reflects the narrow-mindedness that is the enemy of our democracy and symptom of its illness.

Today’s identity based movements use blame as fuel and fail to truly empower the individuals making up the movement.  They pit one group against another in an effort that tears our democracy apart.  Thinking that the members of any identity group must all think and act alike is terribly demeaning to the true spirit of the group’s members.  Thinking that the way to their empowerment is to attack, blame, and hate another group is not empowering but degrading and divisive.  And, it is a symptom of a sick democracy:  suggesting that those who do not hold your views, that they could not possibly hold other views of their own free will and hence those views must have been imposed upon them by some evil force or entity is not the thinking that supports a healthy democracy.  Tolerance and understanding of the views of others is a key ingredient in a healthy democracy; this intolerance for views other than one’s own and an acceptance and support of those who perpetrate such bias and intolerance and ultimately undemocratic views, is a symptom of a very ill democracy.   It demonstrates the third sign of a failing democracy: that parties and movements that are anti-system and non-supportive of our democracy are gaining support.   

It is not President Trump or his administration who are destroying the health of our democracy. I’d like to think the Trump administration is trying to heal it, though I am not sure that they can; they certainly could use the support of those who care about our democracy and can definitely do without the lock-step of the Democrats trying to undermine them at every turn.   Trump was elected by the people and is trying to serve the people and keep the campaign promises that got him elected.  It is the Democrats who are furthering the illness by not respecting our democratic institutions, by failing to accept or even hear any viewpoint other than their own, by trying to de-legitimize and destroy the duly elected administration and instead present their anti-system party as the only appropriate leaders for our country. 

Our country is in trouble.  People need to wake up, educate themselves, think for themselves, and go about the business of healing what has become a very ill democracy.  This illness did not happen overnight, but it became serious over the last eight years as many people became blinded by immediate and selfish gratification and the effects of a very strong game of identity politics played by the Democrats.  Many do not know, others have forgotten, what our once healthy democracy looked like.  It is time to educate, to remember, and work to heal this very ill democracy in order to keep it from dying.

Freedom, Free-will, Thinking, and Dreams

I believe that thinking and freedom go hand in hand.  And, connected to both is the concept of hope.

Freedom requires free will, and free will involves asking questions, especially “why?” whereas those without freedom, without free will, have no need to ask questions because they merely accept what is and what will be as a given over which they have no control.  Those with free will have hope, because they know that they have the ability to make their own decisions and act in a way that they have chosen with intent of good outcomes for themselves or others; they have the power to act towards outcomes they choose.  Those without free will do not have this power and hence are left with hopelessness.

Thinking is a necessary part of free will.  If one is free to take actions that determine how one lives, then one must be able to understand the results of the various actions available.  One must be able to ask questions that allow an assessment of the various courses of action possible and the likely consequences of those actions.  That also means that one must be able to understand the answers to those questions and how they relate to the many aspects of one’s life and environment and the world in which one lives.  Again, if one has no free will, no choice, then there is no need to ask those questions or have that understanding because they are totally useless to one when all such choices are made by others.

In the political world there were many people during the last eight years who felt hopeless.  These were the many forgotten Americans who believed that Washington was creating rule after rule that put them in a position without choices, a position where they were left only to accept that which was happening to them and their country, but had no ability – no freedom – to change things.  They were hopeless.  Many of these people voted for President Trump in perhaps their last gasp of hope that things would change and the government would no longer fully control their lives.

But I think there is perhaps an even greater hopelessness in the Democrats.  The rank and file who have supported the Democrat agenda over the last several years seem to be in fear that if the government does not fully care for them, making all their decisions and providing all their needs, that they will not be able to survive.  They have given up or are willing to give up their free will to the government.  This may or may not be a conscious choice; it may be their last act of free will.  But, in the end, it must certainly leave them without hope, without the dreams and the self-esteem that come with a knowing realization that one has control over their own life.

It is this sort of hopelessness that allows governments to become overpowering, perhaps totalitarian, perhaps dictatorial.  And, such governments leave the people ever more hopeless as the leaders ride that hopelessness to ever greater forms of power.  The antidote for this is not more government.  The antidote for this is education; an education that demands that students ask questions and think; not an education that tells students what to think, but one that opens possibilities by teaching them not only how to think, but also that yes, they can think - for themselves.

We do not see this sort of critical thinking today.  Rather we see people blindly following what they are told.  In the political arena we have people simply accepting the voice of their party’s leader.  No questions are asked: not to evaluate the stance of the leader, not to determine if following that stance is the action that one wants to or should take, not to make a free choice to take that stance or to choose another course on a particular issue.  Just look at the typical votes in Congress – all Democrats voting one way, all Republicans the other.  No thinking, just accepting.  Look at the voters who vote for one candidate or another simply because they have the word Republican or Democrat attached to their name.  No evaluation of the particular candidate, no thinking, just accepting.  Sleepwalking.

But this sleepwalking, this accepting, this lack of thinking, in the end cannot lead to anything other than nightmares as it destroys the hopes and dreams of free-thinking people.