On Screaming, Children, and Politics

Allison Hrabar, a DOJ paralegal and a member of the Democratic Socialists of America was among the group that accosted the Secretary of Homeland Security earlier this week and screamed at her while she attempted to eat dinner in a restaurant.  Hraber stated, “It feels really good to confront people who are actually responsible, which is what we have a unique opportunity to do in D.C.”  Sadly, this statement reveals much about the approach of many towards the responsibilities and problems of adult life.

“It feels good.”  Look at that statement.  It is not about constructively discussing an issue with others holding varying positions and viewpoints.  It is a self-centered statement.  It is not about productively presenting one’s views to another or about working productively to change a policy or law with which one doesn’t agree.  It is about confrontation and how that makes the confronter feel good.

Since Trump was elected many who favored another candidate or just didn’t want to see him as president have engaged in a perpetual temper tantrum.  In part, this is ginned up by opposition and establishment leaders who need soldiers in their fight against Trump and his threat to their power.  But it also reflects the sad state of the mind and maturity of many in this country, not to mention a lack of education about how our country works.

Throwing a temper tantrum makes a child feel better.  Tantrums and screaming are how children, who (appropriately developmentally) are self-centered,  show they are upset or frustrated, often because they cannot get something or do something that they want.  “Tantrums are common during the second year of life, a time when language skills are starting to develop. Because toddlers can't yet say what they want, feel, or need, a frustrating experience may cause a tantrum.” (https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/tantrums.html)

With only developing language and reasoning skills, a tantrum is the only way young children know to deal with a frustrating situation.   “As language skills improve, tantrums tend to decrease.”  The part of the brain that regulates emotion and controls social behavior should begin to mature about age four.  Additionally, the often irrational outbursts result from the fact that toddlers and preschoolers think magically, not logically.  This results in confusion and fear of events that are understandable to adult minds but not to children. The heightened arousal that this anxiety creates results in the child screaming or throwing a tantrum  (https://www.parenting.com/article/toddler-temper-tantrums). 

Tantrums are developmentally appropriate for young children.  They are not, however, appropriate in adults.   By the time they are 8 or 9, most children have learned to otherwise deal with the strong tantrum causing emotions.  When tantrums continue past the appropriate developmental age, it is either because the behavior is being rewarded or because there is a problem with the child’s development of the skills of impulse control as well as negotiation, problem solving and communication skills  (https://www.understood.org/en/learning-attention-issues/child-learning-disabilities/executive-functioning-issues/why-does-my-child-still-have-temper-tantrums).

I think there is a clear correlation between the behavior exhibited by many anti-Trump folks and a child’s temper tantrum.  These protestors are so overwhelmed by emotion that they can’t think. They seem self-centered, making everything about them. They are unable to have a rational adult dialog in which they discuss facts and issues.  So, they scream.  They shout down opposing views rather than respond and hold a dialog with those who disagree with them.  They end conversations by name-calling.  They simply cannot handle those who do not hold their views – like a child throwing a tantrum when mom says “no” they scream at anyone who disagrees.  Just like the toddler who is incapable of having a rational discussion with mom, these political screamers seem incapable of having a rational conversation about any issue with more than one viewpoint.

I don’t know why this is, but I have a few guesses.  First, I think we have a number of people who are used to always getting what they want.  In that sense, they are like spoiled children and when told no, they scream.  But, why not instead respond by opening a dialog to understand the viewpoint that is contrary to theirs?  I think because the education in critical thinking and problem solving is sadly lacking.  A number of people in this country seem incapable of understanding and evaluating facts; and, they seem incapable of separating fact from opinion.  When rational and logical thinking skills are under-developed, one will operate by emotion.   Add to all this the fact that many in this country have very little understanding of our country’s history or its government and how and why that government works. 

All of this can be used to the advantage of one who wants to create turmoil.  With little understanding of our government, with little capacity to critically think about issues, and with hearty emotions without a mature impulse control, it is easy to use emotional propaganda to incite what essentially amounts to a tantrum. 

I understand why those who are focused primarily on their own power find it useful to encourage these tantrums.  But I am so very troubled that this has become a predominant form of expression in this country.  Even those who should be our leaders have fallen to this unproductive and often destructive form of expression. 

In the past week we have seen many examples of childish behavior.  For example, the leader of the House Hispanic Caucus, Michelle Lujan Grisham, led her group to scream until blue in the face outside a meeting in which the president was attempting to resolve the border crisis.   She said this was the most important issue in her history as a legislator.  Yet, instead of attempting to address the problem productively with dialog and through legislation, she chose to simply scream.   Name calling (another childish coping behavior) has become almost the norm as leaders, entertainers, and just common folk hurl obscenities at the president, his family, and members of his administration.  The famous who launch obscenities are cheered by their peers as well as their followers.  Threats made to kidnap the president’s son and leave him with pedophiles, to rape the Secretary of Homeland Security, to kill and rip out the hearts of ICE agents are among just a few of the very troubling assaults that this week alone seem to have gone unnoticed or excused. 

When a 2 year old throws a tantrum I can ignore it knowing she will grow out of it.  I cannot ignore such behavior when it comes from alleged adults.  It will not stop unless we all refuse to encourage and accept it.  We must find a way to teach these screamers that: 1. They are likely being used by those who actually care very little about the screamers’ emotional issue, but are instead using the emotions in their own campaigns to retain or return to their own power; and, 2. That the screamers’ emotional position may indeed be valid and have a place in a discussion on an issue, but that discussion must take place in an adult and rational manner in which people with varying positions listen to one another and rationally problem solve toward a solution.

Please, screamers, stop screaming.  Use the ability that exists within your mind and think.  Listen to others, take time to research and evaluate facts before forming an opinion and then actually have a mature and rational dialog with someone holding a differing viewpoint.  Listen to their opinions and the rationales for them and try to understand that issues can have many possible and reasonable solutions, that those holding views alternate to yours are not the enemy, and that mature adults can discuss these things without name calling and can problem-solve with one another to reach good compromises.  This is what we used to do in this country and I pray that we begin doing it again.

Stop Letting Them Use Your Emotions to Control You!

The issue of the day is immigration.  We see photos of a crying little girl.  We are told babies are being torn from their mothers’ breasts.  We are told children are being placed in “concentration camps.” Of course, these are selective assertions, some of which are blatantly false.   All of this is used to motivate anti-Trump sentiment while making people so emotional that they can’t, don’t want to, or refuse to objectively look at all the facts and, more importantly, to THINK for themselves. 

Regarding emotional facts and their use as propaganda, Psychology Today states:

Propaganda traffics mostly in emotions, and not just negative ones. Propagandists appeal to our fears but also to our courage, our hatred and our love. The fact that propaganda is at heart an emotional manipulation also does not mean that our emotions and "emotionality" are bad. It means that our emotional system can be manipulated to destructive ends.

The antidote to the process of propaganda is the process of finding factual truth. The best way we have for doing that is through scientific inquiry, which referees competing claims systematically based on evidence. The propagandist process subordinates the facts to an agenda, even at the price of distorting or ignoring the facts altogether.

(The Con of Propaganda by Noam Shpancer Ph.D., https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-therapy/201702/the-con-propaganda )

The current propaganda attack about immigration plays to your compassion.  That human compassion that so many are feeling about the children at the border is a noble emotion.  But, sadly, it is being used to manipulate and exploit that emotion in a very un-noble and political agenda.

In the current emotional propaganda on immigration and children, you are not shown the actual housing for the children or the many services that are provided for them there.  You are not given the facts and statistics of the immigration laws, the numbers of those attempting to cross our borders illegally without any attempt to follow our very generous legal immigration laws and procedures, you are not told the numbers of criminals attempting to cross our borders, the child trafficking that occurs across the border, the number of “catch and release” families that have been allowed into the U. S. and then never followed through with appropriate paper work to become legal and indeed disappeared without returning for court hearings.  You are not told that there has been an enormous increase in the numbers of adults trying to cross with children that they fraudulently claim as family members.  And, you are certainly not reminded that those who are separated from their children are those who have broken our laws and committed an illegal act.   These are all facts that are relevant to this issue, as is the simple fact that we are a country of laws, not men (see earlier blog post On Law and Freedom, http://ps.pinkspolitics.com/2018/06/on-law-and-freedom.html ). 

I encourage everyone who is being swayed by the propaganda offensive  to listen to today’s briefing by the Secretary of Homeland Security which gives a much fuller picture of the problems at the southern border as well as actual facts about separations of children from parents:  https://www.c-span.org/video/?447252-1/homeland-security-secretary-nielsen-calls-congress-fix-immigration-policy&vod

We have laws and we cannot let emotion alone negate those laws.   We cannot let our sound and good emotions be manipulated for political gain.   If we become a country of emotion, not law, then we are certainly well on our way to anarchy.  Children on a playground let emotions rule their behavior.  Adults may be guided by their underlying emotions and values, but they create rules and then follow them while demanding that they be enforced.   At least, that is what adults in this country used to do.

Our government, as it should, is simply enforcing the law.  Congress makes the laws.  People who, upon examination of all relevant facts, would like to see the laws changed, should contact their Congress people.  I think that most everyone would agree that we need to resolve and update our immigration laws.  But we have a process for doing that, and it is not done by manipulating emotions and demanding that laws simply not be enforced.

Do not let emotional photos and misleading or incomplete facts keep you from using your mind.  Yes, consider the heart-wrenching facts and your emotional responses, but also consider other emotional facts that are more likely to cause feelings of fear or anger than compassion (such as the number of criminals illegally crossing and then lost in our country or the parents who separate themselves from their children and send them across the border alone or with criminals.) 

Objectively consider these things along with the existing law and what is the role of law in our society.  Those reciting the emotional anti-administration narrative also demand that the President and the executive branch “pause” enforcement of the law out of compassion.  Consider what a slippery slope this would create:  if whenever we have compassion that in some way conflicts with the enforcement of a law we just suspend the law, we eventually could have very few laws being enforced and those that are being enforced would be enforced subjectively and unevenly.  Moreover, by allowing this emotional control one sets the stage for even more manipulative propaganda.  And, propaganda is rarely used for the benefit of others, but rather for the benefit and power of the propagandist.

Perhaps you want to be a part of the fight for open borders or simply to unseat President Trump.  You have every right to make the decision to take that stand.  I only hope that it is indeed your decision to do so based upon all the relevant facts and not simply a result of emotional propaganda.

Ask yourself whether this is the direction you truly choose, or if your compassionate heart and legitimate emotion about children is instead being used by those whose agenda has little to do with children or immigration and more to do with amassing foot-soldiers in a far more calculated political agenda?  An agenda which is ultimately intended to create and maintain the power of those who are tampering with your kind heart.

On Law and Freedom

“A government of laws, and not of men.”

       – John Adams, Novanglus Essays, No. 7.

This quote keeps coming to mind as I listen to the cacophony of voices objecting to the separation of minor children from parents at the border.  The rhetoric is for the most part directed at the President as the name calling cast his way becomes more and more horrific.    I understand that when people are shown a picture of a crying 2 year old allegedly about to be separated from her mother that there is something wrong with their hearts if they do not ache for the poor child.  But, that heartache does not mean that we should not enforce our country’s laws.

Let’s take a breath for a moment and consider the facts.  John Adams also wrote  “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, or inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” (Argument in Defense of the British Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials, Dec. 4, 1770).

So, what are some of the facts relevant to the separation of children from their parents?  First, we have immigration laws that prohibit illegal border crossings.    When adults illegally cross the border, they are placed in an adult detention center until it can be determined if they have a justifiable reason for entering the United States.  If not, they are returned to their side of the border.  If they have children with them those children are not placed in the adult detention center (would you really want that crying 2 year old or any other child placed in adult detention where a variety of criminals are also residing?).   Instead, those children are placed in a facility specifically designed for them.  No, it’s not home, but it has clean beds, activities, 3 square meals a day.  It is safe for a child until he or she can be reunited with his or her parents.   (We should also note that not all children placed in these centers crossed with their parents or other family members; some were unaccompanied minors and some were with adults unrelated to them who were crossing with the children for a variety of reasons, some very questionable at best).

It may seem cruel to separate these children from their parents, but this is simply a result of enforcing laws that are on the books.  No one complains when someone is placed in detention for breaking other laws and when so placed is separated from their child.  When someone breaks the law there are consequences and, when that someone has minor children then those children will likely suffer some of those consequences. 

And let’s also not forget that the parents of these children are knowingly committing an illegal act and choosing to bring their children into that illegal situation with all of its consequences.  These parents could choose to follow the legal immigration procedures and in so doing not subject their children to the possibility of separation from their parents.

Does this sound cold?  Perhaps so, but actually it is far fairer and more in line with our government and its freedoms than is an inconsistent enforcement of law.  For, when only some laws are enforced, then we become not a government of law, but of men.  And, when we let one or another decide which laws to enforce, or against whom those laws will be enforced, then we are turning over our power and our freedom.

This idea of the rule of law and its connection to freedom is not new.  John Locke wrote that freedom means being subject only to laws made by a legislative body that apply to everyone. (“The liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact, according to the trust put in it” Second Treatise of Government, 1690). Aristotle wrote that “It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens.” (Politics, Book 3) The Oxford English Dictionary definition of “rule of law” includes “the principle whereby all members of a society are considered equally subject of publicly disclosed legal codes and procedures.”

John Adams first wrote the phrase “a government of laws and not men” in an essay published in the Boston Gazette in 1775.  In 1780 the Massachusetts Constitution used the phrase in the section outlining the separation of powers.   More recently, the term occurred in  the 1996 State of the Union Address  when President Clinton used the phrase in the context of immigration.  He spoke of his administrations “strong stand to stiffen the protection of our borders,” and then stated, “We should honor every legal immigrant here, working hard to become a new citizen. But we are also a nation of laws.”

We have a legislative branch of government which writes the laws.  The legislators are the duly elected representatives of the people of this country.  Once those laws are enacted we should be able to expect that they will all be enforced and enforced equally.  It is the job of the executive branch of our government to enforce those laws.  It is not up to the executive branch to decide which laws it will and which it will not enforce.  It we allow our executive to do that, then we are turning over our power to one person or group to rule us, perhaps at their whim, but even if done with what we see as compassion it is far more in line with an autocratic rather than democratic form of government.   It is this rule by a select or elite few and their ability to unfairly and arbitrarily apply rules that our founders hoped to protect us from as they created our Constitution and its separation of powers.   

So, next time you see the crying 2 year old, or hear the anti-Trump verbiage about his not stopping the separation of families at the border, remember that all he and the executive branch are doing is enforcing the laws – all of them.   They are doing their jobs.   It is not his or the executive branch’s place in our democratic republic to pick and choose which laws to enforce.  And really, is that a power that you would hand to any president?  That is, would you really rather have a government of men than of law?  A government where the ones in power could select what laws apply and to whom?

If you do not like a particular law, then demand that your legislators rewrite it.  Do not ask that it be ignored.  If the laws are subjectively enforced, then we no longer have a government of laws, but of a selective few who hold power at any given moment.  Wouldn’t you rather have a government in which the people, through their designated representatives in Congress, make the laws and then trust that the executive branch will enforce ALL those laws and apply them equally.    For that is what freedom is.   And that is why I stand behind the full enforcement of all the laws, even when it separates a mother from her child.

Depth of Thought – The Cake Case

For years many have been watching and arguing about the case of the Colorado baker who would not bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.  The case has been wending its way through the courts and outside of that process the arguments have, for the most part consisted simply of a re-articulation of one or more of the following phrases: “gays are protected/gays have rights”; “religion is protected/its expression is a right”; “gays are good/bad”; “religion is good/bad.” The line between two sides was well marked and as a result there was no hope of real communication or understanding, let alone any resolution.

Enter the Supreme Court of the United States and its final decision in the case issued this morning.  While the decision may not resolve the entire debate, and I am sure that folks will now begin a debate about the opinion itself, what that opinion also does is give us a good example of depth of thought and understanding.

Here is a link to the full opinion:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf.   I encourage everyone to read it.

Actually, the full opinion/decision consists of several opinions.  Justice Kennedy wrote and delivered the opinion and judgement of the court with which Chief Justice Roberts along with Justices Breyer, Alito, Kagan and Gorsuch joined.  Justice Kagen also wrote a concurring opinion (an opinion which agrees with the ultimate conclusion of the majority, but for different or additional reasons) with which Justice Breyer agreed.   Justice Gorsuch also filed a concurring opinion with which Justice Alito agreed.  Justice Thomas filed an opinion that concurred in part and concurred with the judgement; Justice Gorsuch joined that opinion.  Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion (one which disagrees with the holding/ultimate judgment of the court) and Justice Sotomayor joined in that dissent.

This may seem like a lot of opinions about one case and one might wonder why, instead of 59 pages the Court can’t simply state that the bakeshop won 7-2.  

We need these 59 pages for many reasons.  Following is the one that is the point of this blog.

These opinions, while displaying a depth of thought about and understanding of the issues involved in the case, also underscore the complexity of those issues.  Each opinion explains the basis of the author’s position and why, in that author’s opinion that position is superior to other differing yet also reasonable positions.  They reveal each author’s attempt to understand the complexities of the issues involved as well as to understand the reasoning behind each position on those issues.  These opinions are, in effect, a written dialog between the members of the court in which they present their understanding and support for their positions while listening to and respectfully responding to differing understandings.

This decision puts to rest the particular case of Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, but, this and other debates over this and other issues will undoubtedly continue.  What we all can learn from this opinion is that issues are far more complex than day to day rhetoric and sound bites allow.  In this opinion we have an example of the depth of understanding that we all should make an effort to achieve on all issues. 

It is only with respect for and understanding of opposing views such as we see displayed in this decision that we can ever have a true dialog which, if not able to completely resolve an issue at least allows us to continue a reasonable, respectful, and rational dialog rather that simply engaging in hate-filled debate.  Taking sides and throwing about rhetorical solutions solves nothing.  Depth of understanding and an open dialog which includes both explanation of the support for one’s assertions along with an open-mindedness to understanding of opposing reasoning is the only way that a free society can truly move forward and ultimately resolve the many issues with which it is faced.

So, read the opinion.   Whether or not you agree with the Court’s decision in this particular case, read this opinion as an example of how one can support one’s position with more than simple buzz words and phrases.  Read the opinion as an example of the sort of explanation and support that gives strength to the assertion of any particular conclusion. 

We are not all Supreme Court Justices, but we can all use this opinion as a model for our own discussions with others on issues and as a model for the type of understanding that we should strive for before asserting a particular position on an issue. When faced with someone with whom you disagree, try to emulate the sort of respect, discussion, and understanding that is apparent in the opinion.  Obviously, it requires work to reach this level of understanding about any issue, but that work is far more productive and positive than simply shouting down and not even listening to those who disagree.  Let depth of thought be our goal for it will lead to understanding and real dialog.

Jobs Report, Politicians, and Courage

Today the monthly job report for May was good news for anyone looking for work in this country.  The economy added about 223,000 net new jobs in May and the jobless rate hit an 18 year low at 3.8 percent.

This should please anyone who cares about the well-being of this country and its people.  Yet, in checking my afternoon news feed, the first headline I see is: “May Jobs Report is Great News for Everyone Except Democrats” and similar stories focused on how this will affect Democrat chances in November.

And therein lies a huge problem in this country.  Rather than caring about the well-being of the country, too many politicians care more about their own political success and power.  Rather than support and cheer successes of opponents when those successes are good for America, they prefer to cheer only when their opponent fails, not realizing that a failure of any politician, even an opponent, is a failure for the country if the opponent was working for the country's good. 

People, and especially the majority of politicians, take sides and rigidly sit there, attacking successes of those not in their own party and cheering failures of their opponents.  Am I crazy to think that there was once a time when people actually cared about the country, a time where politicians put that country first and above any particular party?

Currently in my state there is a race for Congressional Representative (the seat will be open because the current incumbent, a Democrat, is running for a different office, so the field is wide open).  The primary will take place next week and there are currently 5 (there were 6) Democrats vying for the chance to represent their party in the November election.  One would hope that any one of these people, if ultimately elected, would represent all the people of the District upon their arrival in Washington.  This, however, is likely not the case.

In a debate last month, the first question put to the field of 6 candidates was whether they would stand with the Democratic party and vote to impeach the president.  The first 4 answers were basically a simple “Yes.”  A fifth was more of a “yes, eventually.”  Only one candidate gave the thoughtful answer that he would want to let any investigation play out and then review all the facts before arriving at a decision on this issue.  Responses to most other questions followed a similar pattern.  Of course, the candidate whose answers were deep, thoughtful, and not just a regurgitation of party line is running behind in the polls. 

These 5 (previously 6) candidates are a microcosm of problems with politics and political leadership today.  Most simply say they will make things better or take care of this or that problem but provide no concrete plan of how they will do so.  Many voters seem to be willing to accept platitudes without more.  Most (candidates and voters) fail to see the depth and interconnections of many issues.  They seem to accept party rhetoric without thought or investigation of actual facts.  Many are playing the identity politics game:  the woman, the Native American, the son of immigrants, the homosexual.  While they (and many of their followers) may think that alone is a reason to vote for them, I would prefer to vote for someone for less superficial and more substantive reasons.  I would prefer to vote for a candidate with the courage to think for him or herself.

Sadly, across America we have candidates and voters who are willing to make major decisions based on such superficiality.  I realize it takes work to understand the duties of a particular elected office and to research and understand the substantive abilities and qualities of a candidate.  But this is work that it is any American’s responsibility to undertake.

Today we have many elected representatives not representing the entire body of their constituents, but rather representing their party.  Now it is fine to run on a party ticket; that allows voters to understand generally how the candidate will lean on various issues.  But, once elected, the representative is supposed to represent the people of the district – all the people – and not just those who are members of the same party.  But, because a majority of our politicians don’t seem to understand that, we have little more than robots in Congress:  individuals who fail to think for themselves but simple repeat and vote for the party line, regardless of whether that is best for their district or for the country.

And what is the result?  The answer is what we see daily:  two sides securely dug in, unwilling to actually carry on a dialog with those with opposing views and seemingly only capable of name-calling and otherwise attacking those who do not walk in lock-step with their and their party’s rhetoric.

I, personally, see this problem far more entrenched in the Democrats.  Perhaps that is simply because they are currently out of power or still looking to unseat the duly elected president whose election so shocked them to the point that many still think of him as illegitimate.  I don’t know.  But I do know that when we see things like Democrats being upset with a very positive jobs report, when we see them so focused on finding something – anything (as they grasp at straws) – with which to charge the president, when we see them and their supportive MSM ignoring the many accomplishments of this administration and/or actively tearing them down, then I do know that when I see this I become dismayed about the future of our country.   

So, today I will pray that there will be some Democrats, even those facing elections in November, who will have the courage to stand and applaud this jobs report along with other accomplishments of this administration that are positive for our country.  I will pray for the courage of politicians to care more about the country than their party of themselves.

(Note:  the specific election to which I refer above is that for Congressional District One in New Mexico; the candidate that I see as having courage to think for himself and go beyond mere party rhetoric is Paul Moya).

On Speech, Values, and Roseanne

I stopped writing this blog about 6 months ago in part because a busy life got in the way and in part because I assumed that after a year people could see the things I was observing and writing about for themselves.   Well, that assumption proved erroneous.  So, while the busy life continues, I return to the blog in the hopes of waking even one person from the stupor that lack of independent and critical thinking creates.

Today is about free speech or lack thereof along with a definition of racism.  Let’s begin with that definition:  Racism is defined as “the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.”  Someone is a racist when the show or feel “discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another”.   Disagreeing with an individual of another race is not racism, although of course someone who is a racist might disagree with a particular of another race.  But, it does not follow that everyone who does so is a racist.  Similarly, name calling does not necessarily prove racism or that someone is a racist; it is often simply a reflection of someone’s poor judgement or bad behavior.  That is so even when the name-calling includes words that are racially sensitive generally or to the particular individual against whom the name is directed. 

Now that those definitions have been clarified, lets turn to the topic of free speech.  It is on my mind today because of ABC’s cancellation of the show Roseanne for the star’s personal tweet which the network called  “abhorrent” but which social media labeled “racist.”  The tweets addressed both Valerie Jarrett (Obama’s aide) and Chelsea Clinton. While it is not clear what is being called racist, I am assuming that it is her statement that Jarett is like “the muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby.”  Ugly, yes.  I personally don’t see this as a racist statement, though I guess that some will find the word “ape” in any sentence associated with a black person to be racist.   (Of course, the Apes in planet of the apes were pretty intelligent, one might recall).  Perhaps it is instead the reference to the Muslim brotherhood since Jarett was born in Iran?  Roseanne almost immediately apologized for making a “bad joke about her politics and her looks….my joke was in bad taste.”  Yes, it was. 

But was it really any more abhorrent than Jimmy Kimmel making fun of Melania Trump’s accent – not as a private individual but on his ABC television show?  Wasn’t that not only a “joke” about Melania but also a derogatory statement about all immigrants?  Kimmel also later apologized for his “bad joke.” 

So, we have two “jokes” attacking individuals associated with a political perspective contrary to that of the person making the joke.  One puts her joke on Twitter, then almost immediately apologizes.  The other broadcasts his joke from his TV show and then doubles down on it before ultimately apologizing.  One “joke” was clearly directed at (the parentage) of just one individual.  The other was arguably directed at an entire group of people. Both individuals have shows on ABC and the Melania joke was broadcast on that ABC show.  One gets fired, the other doesn’t.

There are some differences between the two “jokes”, but they are similar enough that one would think that ABC’s treatment of them would also be similar.  Yet, Roseanne’s show is cancelled, Kimmel’s is not.  In cancelling Roseanne, ABC stated that Roseanne’s Twitter statement was “inconsistent with our values.” I am at a loss to understand why Kimmel’s on air jokes about Melania are not also inconsistent with the network’s values along with his and many other ABC personnel statements that make personal attacks about those associated with Trump (I am not referring to attacks on the substance of policies, etc, but rather to personal attacks on appearance, etc., or simply unfounded name calling). Perhaps I just don’t understand ABC’s definition for its “values.”

So, this leads me to more general comments on the idea of free speech. 

First, yes, there is a right to free speech, but that does not mean that it is always right to exercise it.  Common decency should cause one to restrain oneself from uttering every single speech that might be allowable under the Constitution.  There is no need to make fun of how someone looks or talks, and it is simply polite not to do so.  There is no need to make fun of everyone one disagrees with, no need to hold up the severed head of the president, even jokingly.  There is no need to use the right of free speech to attack everyone and everything that one disagrees with.  It would be far better to instead use speech to open a dialogue with those with differing views.

Secondly, the right of free speech does not just pertain to accepted or popular speech.  It does not pertain just to politically correct speech.  Many today seem to think it is perfectly OK to shout down or otherwise censor speech with which they do not agree.  Yet it is that free market place of ideas and opposing views, freely spoken and discussed, which are the mark of a truly free society.

So, back to ABC.  It seems that they have chosen to punish someone who speaks from a point of view with which they do not agree, yet if not reward, at least not punish someone whose political positions reflect their own.  If these are the values that ABC lauds as its justification for the cancellation of Roseanne, then they are, in the opinion of this author, worthless and false morals that do not reflect the ideals of this country but which instead support the denial of free speech that moves us ever further from our freedom.

Thoughts on the Memo

The summary memo, written by Rep. Nunes regarding abuses at the DOJ and FBI was declassified and released yesterday.  Quite frankly, I was not shocked or even surprised by its contents since I have (sadly) come to accept that many establishment leaders lie, mislead, and care little for our laws or Constitution. What was, however, interesting to observe and reflect upon was the many reactions to the memo, both before and after its release.

It is important to remember as we reflect upon the memo and the reactions to it that when the FBI initially reviewed the memo it stated that there were no inaccuracies in the memo.

That review and statement by the FBI would seem to negate many of the Democrat assertions that the memo is full of lies.  Of course, as Alan Dershowitz has stated, we will never know for sure unless and until we actually see the underlying documents – the affidavits that led to the FISA warrents.  As Prof. Dershowitz has stated, this requires further investigation.

There was a time when I would have relied upon the media to conduct much of that investigation.  I grew up reading the reports of Woodward and Bernstein and the Watergate investigations.  That was a time when the press sought to uncover and bring information to light and to the people, and when they did it as a part of their duty to duty to inform the people rather than to further a particular political agenda.  Thus, their complicity in cover-ups and hiding or ignoring information is hard for me to accept.  Yet, their agenda is the Russia investigation as it can be used to damage Trump and so this memo and the civil liberties violations as well as any questions it may raise about the basis for some of Mr. Mueller’s evidence that it reveals is not of importance to them, especially when those violations were perpetrated by individuals aligned with the Democrat party.

But, let’s back up and consider the Democrat (and media) hysteria prior to the memo’s release.  To hear them, one would think that the world would come to an end if the people were to see this memo.  They told us it was full of lies (remember, the FBI itself stated no inaccuracies);  they said that it was an attack on not only the entire FBI, but the entire intelligence community (yet, as I read it, the memo singles out a few select individuals who did not live up to the high quality behavior that generally exists in the FBI and the rest of the intelligence community); the Democrats asserted that if the memo was released the people would not understand it (just another example of their disdain and disrespect for the people of this country). 

Note to Democrats:  the world did not end yesterday when the memo was released.  The people of the country are perfectly capable of reading it for what it is:  a statement of evidence that supports a finding of grievous violations by specific individuals within the FBI.  This is something that the people of this country have a right to know about.    And, we should all be asking if this is the extend of such violations or if they are or were more pervasive.

This memo is not about the Mueller investigation.  To the Republicans and Trump supporters who think it demands that investigation end, the memo does not do that (although, in my opinion, the investigation should end for many other reasons, but that is a subject for another post).  And the Democrats who think this is some sort of devious attempt to get rid of Mueller are wrong (perhaps they are the ones who are too stupid to read or understand the memo!)

The memo simply summarizes certain facts garnered by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence through their ongoing investigation into the DOJ and FBI and their use of FISA surveillance during the 2016 presidential campaign and election.  Again, we must remember that upon reading the memo prior to its release the FBI stated there were no inaccuracies. 

The memo is not an attack on the FBI, but simply reveals the corrupt actions of a few in power there:  corrupt actions that should be brought to light for the sake of the many good and dedicated people and public servants at the FBI.  I cannot fathom why this information should not be released to the people of this country.  We the people can read it for what it is and come to our own conclusions.  And, if we read the memo with an unbiased mind and with no political agenda we can see exactly what it says and what it does not say.

The memo tells us that there is evidence that supports conclusions that specific high-level individuals within our FBI and Justice systems lied to and withheld relevant information from the FISA Court in order to obtain warrants for surveillance of American citizens.  It tells us that unverified and unreliable partisan political documents formed the basis for warrant requests and the partisan basis was withheld from the Court.  The Deputy Director of FBI testified to the Committee that no surveillance warrant would have been sought without the unverified information that was nonetheless used to obtain the warrants.  The memo tells us that there were at least four opportunities for the FBI/DOJ to provide accurate information to the Court, yet that information was omitted.  The memo also tells us that certain high-level individuals with clear anti-Trump biases orchestrated leaks to the media intended to be harmful to Trump and/or helpful to the Democrat candidate.

This is serious stuff.   FISA warrants to surveil American citizens are requested and issued in secrecy and so we the people must depend upon those who request the warrants to act with the highest standards.  Those warrants cannot be used for political or personal purposes.  A wrongfully obtained warrant is a violation of the civil liberties that we in this country hold so dear.  We the people have a right to know when those high standards have not been met and we must hold accountable those who use their positions of power to violate someone’s civil liberties and to use a legitimate Court process to further personal and political agendas.

The FBI did not want the memo released; they and the Democrats asked that all names be omitted.  James Comey, one of those high officials mentioned in the memo, following the release of the memo tweeted, “That’s it?  Dishonest and misleading memo wrecked the House intel committee, destroyed trust with Intelligence Community, damaged relationship with FISA court and inexcusably exposed classified investigation of an American citizen.  For what?  DOJ & FBI must keep doing their jobs.”

Yes Mr. Comey, that is it, and it is disgraceful that you and your cronies with your lies and omissions and partisanship damaged the relationship of your agency with the FISA court and improperly obtained a warrant to spy upon an American citizen.  Yes, the DOJ and FBI must keep doing their jobs, something that you were not doing when you took it upon yourself to mislead a court because you felt your political agenda surpassed your duty to the American people.  And, as the FBI itself stated, the memo contained no inaccuracies, therefore contrary to your assertion, it is not dishonest, and it is inconceivable how it might have “wrecked” the committee.  What it did do is wreck the secret power structure (of which you seem to have been a part) that decided that its wishes were more important than the law.

Mr. Comey’s response reflects that of the Democrats.  Apparently, he and they believe that it is perfectly OK to use partisan campaign material to obtain surveillance warrants and that it is perfectly OK to lie to a Court as long as it fits your personal political agenda.  This is a big deal, even though the memo itself may not be.  This is about the abuse of power.   This is about a select few acting behind the cover of the very legitimate FISA courts to subvert the laws of this country and the will of the people for their own political gain.  This is about a select group deciding that the ends – their ends – justify the means, even if those means defy our laws and our Constitution and our civil liberties and our freedoms.

The memo is perhaps not the big deal it was and continues to be hyped.  But what it reveals is a very big deal.  It is something that a free and unbiased press would be investigating and reporting because this is something that the people not only have a right to know but about which they must be informed so that they can demand and protect the rights and freedoms that stand at the core of our democracy:  that this is a government of, for, and by the people and not one controlled in secret by a select few.