"Debate" Part 2

Second verse, same as the first.  But angrier.

I commented on part 1 of the Democrat “debate” in yesterday’s blog post (HERE).  My overall thoughts remain the same:  Frightening that any of these people could actually become the head of our country and terrifying what that would mean for this country (more details in that post). 

But, there were a few differences in the second “debate,” probably because the second night candidates were coached based at least in part on the first night and reactions to it.  So, there was more Trump bashing and there was more anger.   Especially from the women (except, of course, the love guru, Marianne Williamson); I think that Democrat women think that being angry somehow proves that they are strong.  Yet I have no doubt that Kamala Harris’s angry and self-righteous attack on Joe Biden was prepared and memorized long before the debate began – she just needed to find the right opportunity to use it.

Actually, the toxic anger spread from Kamala to the rest of the group on stage, making the “debate” even less useful than the first night.  Does anyone really think that anger and hate are the best way to govern?

There were a few other things that especially bothered me.  First is the number of candidates who indicated that their preferred method of governing was to ignore Congress and the will of the people and to govern instead via a stroke of the executive order pen.  Yes, executive orders are at times useful and necessary, but in a democracy that should not be the first choice; that sort of rule by fiat is far more suited to a dictatorship.  But, then, the further left a candidate goes, the more he or she is entering dictatorship territory – a place where the state tells us what to do, what to think and where the people have no real voice at all.

I was also bothered by the belief, expressed most articulately by Pete Buttigieg, that those who oppose the Left’s position on the border have no right to call themselves Christians or to ever invoke the name of God again.  I would argue that those who use religious teachings to support their secular agenda do not understand that the values and teachings of the Christian and other religions can be expressed in any number of ways in the secular world.  I happen to think that the directive to love or care for those in need is better expressed in terms of the migrants by doing what we can to stop those caravans that put people in danger and also that simply opening our borders in the long run is not the most loving act toward either those seeking to enter or those already here.  What the Democrats don’t understand is that religious laws are not political policies and by trying to use them to further a political or personal agenda suggests that it is they who are not following God’s teachings.

I heard many on the stage refer to climate change as an “existential threat.”   I’m not sure, but I think that using the word existential in this phrasing is not really correct.  I think what they want to say is that climate change is a threat to mankind.  They want to make that sound fancy, so they use the word “existential” but that word, while defined as “relating to existence” is specifically related to human existence as viewed in the theories of existentialism.  Existentialism is a philosophy that emphasizes individual existence, freedom and choice.   So, I don’t really think that existential is the right word here.  As my middle school English teacher always said, don’t use a big word just to try to impress people if you don’t fully understand its meaning and its connotation.

Finally, the overall problem with all these candidates was summarized by Bernie Sanders when he said that “we can transform this country.”  I don’t think most people want the country transformed.  I certainly do not want the country transformed.  I want what it is to remain, but improve, as it has done and continues to do since its creation.  Trying to improve something that is less than perfect is far different than “transforming” it to something else.

The Democrats do not really like America and would change it to something else.  For some that something else is socialism.  For others it is something else that they may or may not articulate.  But for none is it a country that holds traditional American values including individual freedom and responsibility.  They would change our Democratic Republic, the shining star of freedom, into something fundamentally different.  And that is the most frightening thought of all.

Thoughts on he First Democrat "Debate"

After getting over the jokes and laughs at the ridiculous show that was the first Democrat debate, I realized I was actually horrified that one of these people could really become the head of our great country. 

The first question is:   How could that happen?  The answer is “sadly, too easily.”   We have a very ill informed electorate, partly because many people themselves make little effort to be informed, partly because our education system has failed to teach many about our system of government and the need of the electorate to be informed, and partly because the media no longer takes seriously its job to inform the electorate and rather chooses to be a propaganda arm for its chosen political views.   

In any event, as Thomas Jefferson told us:  A well-informed citizenry is the cornerstone and at the heart of a democracy and is the best defense against tyranny.   Based on this, our democracy is currently in grave danger!

The next question is: if anyone of these candidates were elected, what sort of a leader would they be?  From the “debate” we saw that each candidate went out of his or her way to claim their victim points:  African American, Hispanic, woman, veteran, poor upbringing, (even upbringing by conservative parents as a negative!), etc., etc.   We learned that they like to place people into identity groups and pander to groups that they believe will respond to that pandering with votes.  

We also learned that they are unable to acknowledge that for the first time in many years our economy is good and growing, unemployment, especially for minorities, is at all time lows; instead, they insist on telling us that the economy is bad. (They need it to be bad so they will have victims to which to pander and make promises) Similarly, they find fault with most everything that is currently going well for our country and at the same time choose to blame the President and Republicans for anything that is not perfect.

These two things alone show us that these candidates are not interested in uniting the country.  They will continue to tear us apart with identity politics and victimhood.  In furtherance of maintaining such underclasses dependent upon them and their power they will reverse anything positive for the people of this country that gets in the way.  And, they will continue to create hatred between identity groups.

Indeed, they are not interested in maintaining an identifiable country as evidenced by their stands for open borders.  They would rather play some blame game about the illegal immigration crisis, using that blame to gain points for their power, rather than deal with actual facts.  Thus, a man who chose to take his daughter across the Rio Grande in order to enter this country illegally, and who with his daughter perished, is not responsible; rather, it is the fault of the President and republicans (none of whom told him to cross a dangerous river to enter the country illegally).   Individual responsibility is not relevant when you can use an individual act to stir up hatred for a group you dislike.

There is, in these Democrats' view, no personal responsibility for that father’s decision – why should he wait for a slower legal process when he can put his daughter in danger and they can use the horrid result to cast blame for a crisis that they themselves are at least in part responsible for creating?  Not, in my opinion, the sort of approach I want to see in the leader of my country.

These candidates are also not interested in the assimilation of immigrants into our society as evidenced in part by their choice of using a language that is not the language of this country.  Pandering!  And, I’m wondering how immigrants from countries other than those speaking the foreign language answers prepared by the candidates felt about their exclusion.  I feel insulted that as a voting citizen these candidates chose to speak Spanish, to pander to some other audience just to score points.  

We learned that the law does not really matter to these candidates, or only matters when it furthers their agenda.  History is in many cases a mystery to them, as are a complete understanding of relevant facts on an issue.

During its founding, America came together under the slogan “united we stand, divided we fall.”  Yet, the main modus operandi of these Democrats seems to be to divide us in order to obtain and retain their own power.  Their currency is hate.  And, the frightening thing is that there are those who accept their ploys and pandering and even take them seriously. 

So, humorous as the “Democrats Have (no) Talent” show was last night, it should be a wake up call to everyone in this country about the direction we are headed if we continue to tolerate the beliefs and antics of these people.  Unless the electorate realizes the importance of  being informed, and then truly and fully inform themselves, it is not outside the realm of possibility for anyone to be elected, no matter how threatening they are to our country and its core principles

Jury Verdicts, Lesson One

I am becoming more and more concerned about the inability of many to respect fairly rendered jury verdicts.  This has implications beyond the decision in any one particular case.

The purpose of trial is to allow all parties to present their evidence and their interpretation of it to an impartial fact finder (either a jury or judge) and allow that fact finder to sort out that evidence, weigh conflicting evidence, assess credibility, etc.  Once the objective fact finder has determined the complete and accurate facts, the relevant law will be applied to those facts and that will result in the verdict.  The law essentially believes that once all sides have presented their evidence, the truth with come out and will prevail.

If one is unhappy with the verdict, it can be appealed or otherwise questioned within the judicial process, but, with very limited exceptions, one cannot appeal the jury’s actual finding of fact.  What one can appeal is that the wrong law was applied, or that the jury, due to evidentiary decisions by the court, did not receive relevant evidence or received evidence that was not relevant but affected the decision.  There are many other legal bases on which one can appeal.  An appellate court will, however, defer to the trial court on the purely factual findings because the fact finder was able to hear and see all the evidence and the witnesses and was therefore in a better position to assess credibility.  That is, the appellate court will not second guess the fact finder on purely factual findings.

This concept, that the one who hears and sees all the evidence and witnesses is also the one best able to determine the facts in a given case, applies to all those outside the role of juror/fact finder, even the parties to the case themselves.  No one but those assigned the role of impartial fact finder in a particular case is in as good a position to determine what to and what not to believe, how to understand facts and circumstances. 

After a verdict is rendered, one who is unhappy with it ought not to try to relitigate those facts in the press or elsewhere in the public arena.  The proper recourse is to file an appeal.   Not only does using the media rather than the courts represent a misunderstanding of our justice system, it also reflects a disrespect for the participants in that system, including the jurors.  It keeps emotions stirred up, not allowing the closure that our objective justice system allows.  It reflects a refusal to respect the objective standard of Truth inherent in our judicial system, and instead supports a Narrative Truth that looks not to evidence but to the story that one would like to believe. 

This narrative rather than objective approach to justice is demonstrated by Oberlin College’s reaction to the recent large damages verdict against it.  In that case, the day after the 2016 election, some Oberlin students were arrested for allegedly shoplifting at a local shop (Gibson’s).  The students were Black and claims of racism immediately arose.  Clear evidence showed that Gibson’s was not racist in either this instance or in the past; the students were charged (in a separate case) with shoplifting based in part on witness testimony and videos,  and they pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, stating that Gibson’s was not racist.  Nonetheless, the College and some of its administration supported student protests against Gibson’s, dropped contracts they had with Gibson’s, and otherwise encouraged negative action and publicity against Gibson’s.  After presentation of evidence a jury awarded actual and punitive damages to Gibson’s, its owners and employees for libel against it by the College itself and an administrator.    

The College now refuses to accept that the jury performed its duty of fairly assessing evidence from both sides and reaching a determination about the facts (in this case that libel resulting in actual damages occurred).  Instead, the College repeatedly states that the evidence did not support the jury’s decision, that the jury decided incorrectly because it did not agree with the College’s interpretation of the facts, or that the jury did not understand the case and its implications.  All of these assertions demean the jury and question its ability to listen to and assess evidence.

The College seems to now want to make the case about student rights and the First Amendment, neither of which were issues at trial.  The case was against the College, not the students, the allegations were for libel, interference with business, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and similar claims.  The question at trial was whether the College and its administrator had indeed acted as alleged and whether Gibson’s was entitled to receive compensation for the damages to it caused by those acts.  The jury found the answer to both questions to be Yes.

Nonetheless, the College, unwilling to accept that decision, now rehashes and presents its case in the media.  The College seems determined to convince the world that it was wrongfully found liable.  Now, there may very well have been some errors made at trial and some may be appealable and even arguably so substantial as to make some part of the verdict reversible or amendable.  But those are questions for the appellate court, not for the court of public opinion.

Oberlin College, through its post-trial behavior, is teaching its students to devalue our judicial system, to devalue objective evidence and objective truth.  It is teaching its students to place the narrative above all, to not accept outcomes of a fair judicial process when they disagree with the result.  Oberlin is teaching the students that it is OK to disrespect a system of fairness and objectivity whenever one simply doesn’t get one’s way.

It may seem insignificant to claim that a verdict one does not like is incorrect - of course one is not happy when they or someone they care about loses a case – but it is actually highly significant and detrimental to our way of life.  A failure to accept fairly rendered verdicts simply because they do not fit one’s narrative is reflective of a disrespect for our laws and our judicial system, both of which are at the core of and essential to our democracy.  When enough people in a society no longer support or conform to the standards of that society, then the society itself is in peril. 

The narrative approach to truth, justice, and even reality by its very nature ignores objective truth and in so doing denies the fair and equal justice that is the ideal to which our justice system, our society, our democracy aspire.  It is more consistent with various forms of government in which individuals have few rights and little voice.  Watching the narrative approach become more and more popular and prevalent is frightening to anyone who loves this country and everything for which it has stood for over 200 years.

Two Realities Tangled Within One Country: The Demise of A Society

Every society has governing principles that maintain order within that society.    These principles establish standards, provide methods for resolving disputes, and protect certain rights.   The specific details of these principles will be based on underlying values that the individuals within that society share or have decided are ones that should be respected and honored.  Without that agreement and respect for the laws and common standards of conduct, lawlessness likely prevails and the society fails. 

This country was founded on values that are primarily Western and Judeo-Christian and that include a value in the individual, in a work-ethic, independence, and respect for others, both like and different.  These values are reflected in laws that protect the individual and which demand from the individual a responsibility for both self and society.  Similar requirements and protections appear in religious law and even in modern western philosophers such as Ayn Rand who recognized a morality that is objective, absolute, and secular and has life as the basis of its value.  Our society does not demand that we all think or act alike or that we hold the same beliefs or pray to the same God, but it does demand that we all respect this shared belief in the value of the individual.

Further, this society has chosen to use objectivity as a standard for judging violations of our governing principles.  This standard of objectivity has been codified within our laws.  Hence, when there is an alleged violation of one of our codified standards, we go through a process designed to make sure that any judgement on that allegation is rendered as fairly as possible.  This includes investigations, demands for untainted evidence, sworn testimony, and substantial proof before punishment or compensation for injury.  It takes place within a judicial structure and not in the court of public opinion.

This objective standard exists because this society has recognized an underlying and important value of objective truth, in part as a way to protect the individual.  This is a truth based on facts and evidence.  While reaching the perfect objective Truth may be an ideal, this society has made it aspirational to come as near as possible to that truth.  We have chosen to seek that truth using tools of the mind – such things as logic and reason.  And, while we also value tempering judgments with compassion and understanding, our legal system, the reflection of our societal values, is based upon facts and objectivity.

This reality has worked well for this country and within it we have been able to evolve and succeed.  All members of the society do not always agree (nor should they) but we have agreed to live within and play by the same core societal standards.

But, now, a critical mass within this country has decided that those standards of behavior do not work for them and that they therefore will play by different rules; rules with which the entire society does not agree.  We have a second reality sharing space with the original reality of this country.

The new reality values a different truth:  Narrative Truth.  This is not evidence or fact based, but outcome based.  It says that one can ignore objectivity if it gets in the way of one’s narrative.  The narrative seeks a goal that has subjectively been determined to be “good” by some number of people. 

In the narrative truth reality, cases, violation of laws and our societal standards are tried not using the objective rational of our judicial processes, but in the court of emotion and public opinion.  This Truth sees little value in accepting decisions based on actual evidence that do not further its proposed narrative.  Rather than accept logical, fair, and final decisions and move on, those valuing Narrative Truth will continue to fight in the hope of remaking the narrative to the result they prefer.

Hence, we saw those of the narrative based persuasion argue that the lack of evidence did not matter when they wanted to find Justice Kavanaugh guilty of sexual abuse while able to ignore actual recorded evidence of sexism or bias by Joe Biden whom they may need for an upcoming narrative.   We see people determine guilt or innocence based on immediate reaction and emotion rather than evidence in occasions of violence including police shootings and arrests.  We have the Democrats refusal to accept the Mueller investigation’s conclusion and indeed, even their refusal to accept the valid results of the 2016 election. We see people ignoring crimes or bad acts when to call someone out on those acts would weaken a narrative. 

The narrative Truth is more concerned with the goals or needs of the narrative than it is with the goals of objectivity in order to protect all members of the society.  This combines with a more general replacing of the respect for life and value of the individual with the value of self and State combined with disregard for individual others.  There is an importance upon self and immediate gratification leading to an acceptance of violence, death, and self-destruction. 

We hear people called liars, we hear the term “fake news” and other epithets about the reality of which we are not a part.  But for members of each reality, their world is indeed right.  Hence, for example, when a narrative that all women must be believed is a core of those who value a Narrative Truth, the value of a person’s innocence without evidence to the contrary is irrelevant.  Their narrative truth that an innocent person can be guilty if a narrative demands it is consistent with their values and principles.  It is right for them, but very wrong for those living in a reality that values objective Truth.

NYC Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza recently gave a presentation about “white supremacy” culture.  A graphic from Carranza’s lesson explained that “objectivity” is a negative concept “because it can lead to the belief that there is an ultimate truth and that alternative viewpoints or emotions are bad.  Teachers were instructed to reject “objectivity,” and “written documentation” along with “perfectionism” as part of the Chancellor’s effort to “dismantle racism.” Carranza identified these values as tools of the “white-supremacy culture.”

Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not.   But objectivity and written documentation have long been valued by the American culture.  Other cultures (and seemingly the Chancellor as well) have other values. 

For another example, a video from a Mosque in Michigan recently reportedly showed the Imam educating students about the role of “wife-beating”:  it should be conducted in a way that does not cause serious pain or any red markings and as a reminder to the woman that she “misbehaved in cases when words (of admonishment) do not make her change her ways.”

This was spoken from a cultural standpoint that accepts this standard of behavior.  The point here is not to judge it right or wrong, but to demonstrate that there are many different value structures.  Each significantly different structure will result in a different set of societal principals.  It underscores the point that all societal rules are subjective and are dependent upon the underlying values, morals, and mores of the particular society.  What is wrong for one may be very right for another. 

For a society to function, the members must accept the core standards of the society.  Without that collective support, a society will ultimately weaken and fail.  When two realities share space, when one tries to supplant the other, things do not go well.  Each will fight, often to the death, for its own survival.

That is very much what is happening today in America: two realities, one country housing two societies with very different guiding principles.  We certainly do not follow one another’s guiding philosophies and mores, despite double speak claiming that we all support the same principles.

Every day we see the Left refuse to accept legal decisions and processes simply because they do not like them.  They weaken our country not only by not supporting its core principles, but also by vocally asserting that those principles and the actions taken under them are both wrong and unjust.  They signal to the world that America is no longer united and that our society is thus less strong and more open to attack.

One cannot have both a culture of life and a culture of death, nor a culture of objective Truth and one of narrative Truth.  They form the basis for two very different societies.  They cannot co-exist.

We whine, complain, try to fix this or that overt symptom, but what we really need to do is honestly accept and face the fact that we are living with two realities fighting for the same space, each trying to destroy the other. 

I would argue that while the Right still favors a Democratic and Capitalist Republic which values the individual, the work ethic, and personal responsibility, that the Left more values the State, the collective, and either a pure Democracy which is simply mob rule, or some form of State sponsored Dictatorship which denies the value of the individual.

So, here we are. There may be some sort of middle ground, but that would require an open, fair, and honest discussion of what is and what is not negotiable within each reality’s value system.  Such a discussion, of course, requires a respect for the other, something that the Left’s philosophy does not seem to include.   Yet, if we cannot find core beliefs and standards to govern our society, then we must accept that we are no longer one country, that reconciliation is not possible, and move forward to face how to deal with that situation.