The Inconvenient Truth Regarding Climate Change Hysteria

Today young people are “on strike” to prevent climate change.   Good for them for caring about their future and the future of the planet.  But, let me make a few observations and suggestions.

First, let’s not call it a protest against climate change.  Climate change is inevitable.  While we as humans do have some effect on it, the world’s climate has changed before humans ever existed and will continue to do so after we are long gone.

Second, what exactly are the protesters striking?  These school students are “walking out of class” in protest.   Not much of a sacrifice when most of the schools are giving them the day off in order to do so.  Sounds like a great way to get out of school for a day without any negative consequences.  How about if they protested after school when it might actually interfere with something and they could show us that they themselves made a sacrifice of some sort to protest because that issue is so important to them? 

This is not a strike; it is a school sanctioned event.  Yet rather than send students out into the streets with placards of soundbites, teachers would do better to educate their students about the complex facts, issues, and science that underlie the questions and concerns about our climate and its inevitable change. 

Subjects of discussion could include what we can do to modify negative effects we may be having on the climate, ways to educate both our and other countries about what effects their people and their way of life are having on the environment, and, perhaps most importantly, how can we be flexible and adapt to changing climates while maintaining certain aspects of life that have become in effect essential in the twenty-first century.

Of course, this takes serious study, thought, and open-minded discussion.   It demands movement beyond the politicization of the issue.   Let’s take for example renewable energy.  Solar panels sound terrific – free energy from the sun, no carbon footprint.  But wait.  The same folks who are advocating for solar power are often also advocating for animal rights and protections of endangered species.  Solar collector fields disorient migrating birds and, in many cases, essentially fry the birds until they fall dead from the sky.  Wind turbines also disrupt migratory patterns. 

Quick solutions may sound great, until one considers the ramifications and intertwining aspects of life on this complex planet. There are many things to consider, each on their own and then in combination with one another.  Is one willing to accept the possible extinction of one or another bird species in order to have solar power?  If not, then one must be willing to take the time to discover ways to avoid the problem of frying those birds.  In the meantime, one must consider what other forms of energy one is willing to accept.  That means considering all energy sources and weighing one against the other, including non-renewable and nuclear power as well as renewables.

Solar energy cannot effectively be stored, yet energy is needed in this day and age when the sun is not shining.  Are you willing to wait until morning to have your emergency heart surgery because the solar powered hospital is not allowed to use generators that do not run on renewable sources?  Similarly, when non-renewables are banned, one must consider the effect that will have on the world economy and on the many individuals whose living depends on that industry in one form or another.  The problems of climate change are far more complex that simply banning plastic straws.

The quick solution sound bites allow the politicians to virtue signal that they care about the planet more than their opponents do.   But do they really?    They give the protesters something to put on their cardboard signs and to yell in the streets.  But beyond those sound bite assertions, how much do the protesters really understand about climate change and how much do they really care?

NBC has a web page that allows one to make “climate confessions” about what they are doing or not doing to save the environment and the planet.LINK (I would, as an aside, note that that the whole issue of climate change is often conflated with pollution and environmental problems, all of which are actually separate though related issues.)   I prepared six thoughtful responses to each of NBC’s six “confession” categories (Plastic, Meat, Energy, Transportation, Paper, Food Waste;).  When I went to input these responses, I learned that one is limited to 130 characters including spaces.  So much for my responses.  Obviously, NBC doesn’t really want a thoughtful dialog about environmental issues but rather is looking for sound bites and a way to make people feel guilty for the simple and inevitable fact of climate change.

“Confessions” under plastic have many people expressing their guilt about the use of plastic straws and plastic bags.  Banning these will not save the environment.  I’ve been using cloth bags for 40 years  - so what?  Plastic is not going away any time soon in any really significant way.  It’s just a great political talking point that keeps us from addressing real problems.

The request for confessions is nothing more than a way to create an undeserved guilt that can be used to impose a variety of demands and requirements on people.  The page has people seeking absolution for things like sneaking a piece of chicken into their otherwise vegan diet or reading a paper book rather than using their Kindle (never mind that using the e-book would require energy; of course there is a separate category where they can confess their energy sins).  Let’s face it, we are not going back to a horse and buggy and not everyone can ride a bike, yet here are people confessing their necessary commute to work.

The comments also include the virtue signalers, those who post comments to let us know that they are superior to the guilty ones.  They do not use plastic straws, or do not eat meat, or use cloth not paper napkins, and use public transportation.  Yet, I wonder how many of these, along with those who invented and encourage such confessions like many of the climate protest activists and doomsayers, are fliting around the globe in their high energy, high carbon footprint jets, drinking coffee using Keurig cups, eating meals that rather than using locally sourced food use energy to fly or truck in exotic and out of season fruits, vegetables, etc.  We all live our lives, none are perfect, and we all affect the environment in our own ways. 

The mere existence of the human race affects the environment and the climate, and we cannot fully eliminate our contribution to climate change without first eliminating the human race.  And even then, climate change itself would still occur.

The virtue signalers, the ones who want to control your lives, have latched onto climate change as another way to gain power and take control.  They will tell you what to eat, they will tell you what energy use is good or bad and condemn you if you do not comply, they will make you responsible for the climate and its change.  And in so doing they will make you a bad person, a person who needs them to run your life for you. 

The real inconvenient truth of climate change is that the subject is far more complex than the media and sound-bite mentality and the Left would make it.  It is indeed something to be concerned about, but instead of hysterically suggesting that the world will end unless we all go back to living live cavemen, we would do better to learn about the climate change phenomenon, its history as well as scientifically valid predictions of its future.  We would do better to understand the many and intertwining ramifications of various human and non-human activities and how these play into the ever-changing climate.  We would then do better to understand what we can and cannot live with and without,  understand in what ways the climate is likely to change, and then determine what alterations in our lives may be necessary under that scenario – things like how to adjust to differing crop growth patterns or alterations in some habitats, etc. 

Hysteria is the tool of politicians; it is useful to them in their quest for power.  It does not solve problems.  But, if you are lost in your hysteria rather than educating yourself about a problem, then you are more likely to turn your power to solve that problem over to politicians who only seek power over you, and who use climate hysteria as one of many ways to seize it.

“There are no problems—only opportunities to be creative.” (Dorye Roettger).  Rather than wring our hands that the world is ending and it is all our fault, we would do better to seize the opportunity to find creative solutions to the inevitable changes in our lives that the phenomenon of climate change will create.  The need to look deeply and objectively at the problem, without politicizing it, and to then work creatively within the reality of its existence, will do far more than hysteria to create a better future for our children and our world.

Anger and Hate are NOT the Voice of America

The Democrats are consumed by anger and hate.  Anger seems to be all they know; hate is all they can do. 

This became fully apparent following the 2016 election when they did not get the prize to which they thought they were entitled, but their hatred was there before.  Hillary was not the first to disparage those who she and other Democrats felt were somehow beneath them. Beyond her basket of deplorables we can remember Obama and his supporters dismissing middle American values as if they were something left over from the dark ages.

But, once Donald Trump was elected President, the Democrats’ anger and hatred have become overwhelming.  The Democrats are unable to understand even the possibility that the people could elect someone other than them when they are so confident that they are smarter and better than the rest of us and therefore should be given power over us.  So, since that is an impossibility, since the end result – their lack of power – is in their minds clearly incorrect, then they will use any means to correct that end while at the same time feeding their insatiable anger.

So, we had (still have) Russia-gate, proven to be a witch hunt; we have had (still have) attempts to find one or another scandal, still unsuccessful; we continually have name calling (racist, white supremacist, Nazi, etc.) without evidence of the epithet; we have daily spin on everything the President does to make it seem somehow negative or, if impossible to create a negative spin then credit is given to any and everyone other than the President. 

The anger and hatred are not directed exclusively at the President.  Any and all of his supporters are fair game.  Not just those who work within his administration, but the common person on the street who seems to be a supporter of the President or his policies is a possible target for the Democrats’ hate.  Those who are still brave enough to exercise their free speech rights and do such things as wear a MAGA hat do so with the knowledge that they may be the target of both verbal and physical abuse.  This, of course, is a certain way to chill if not completely silence such speech which the Democrats do not want to hear.  (The fact that this so clearly reveals their lack of respect for the founding principles of this country along with our Constitution is a topic for another post).

The anger and hatred consume the Democrats in Congress as they demand hearing after hearing on lost causes in their attempt to remove the President from office.  It consumes all the 2020 Democrat candidates as the focus of debates and stump speeches is to verbally condemn Trump – that is, Trump the man, because it is hard to condemn his policies which are all benefiting this country and its citizens.  But it is, indeed, the man that they hate because, though not one of them, he was able to fairly and honestly beat them in an election that they still believe they were entitled to win.

The press, of course, is a part of this parade of hate.  Indeed, the Democrat politicians, not to mention their supporters, often seem to be nothing more than the lap dogs of the press.  Thus, when the NYT prints a bogus story intended to dredge up again the bogus allegations against Justice Kavanaugh, even without a thought the Democrats jump and begin a new campaign of hate against the Justice.  (And, this is no less horrific than the first campaign which was intended to ruin a man’s life along with that of his family simply because he was not one of them.  For detailed thoughts on this disgusting attack on the man and our country’s values the first time, see my earlier posts from September and October 2018, most of which address aspects of the Kavanaugh hearings. Here are a few links: LINK 1, LINK2, LINK3, LINK4,  LINK5, LINK6, LINK7, LINK8,  LINK9,  LINK10.)

This is all terribly pathetic, and one wants to dismiss this behavior as simply that of spoiled children who did not get their way, for that is all that it really is.  But one cannot do that, because in this instance the children throwing the temper fit have enough power in their hands that they can truly use that fit to destroy our country and our way of life.

That destruction has already begun.  As noted above, the strength of our First Amendment rights is being diminished.  People are berated into keeping silent if they do not spout the words and beliefs that the Democrats demand.  The Second Amendment is not even acknowledged as a right when Democrats believe they can simply create an absolute ban on all arms.  Our whole electoral process is not respected by the Democrats when every time they do not win they believe they can simply attack the result along with the winner in any and every way possible hoping to get somehow the result that they want.

When the strategy is silence the opposition, take away their rights, remove those with whom you disagree by political force rather than political process, ignore facts that are inconvenient or restructure them to support your narrative and your claim to power, then we are moving away from our Democratic Republic and toward some sort of Totalitarian system in which the people have little say in their own lives.

It is sad that the spoiled Democrats are willing to give up what makes this country great in return for holding and expanding their own power.  It is sad that the Democrats believe that they have a right to do this, based on their seeming belief that they are somehow superior to the rest of us.  The Democrats did not get the prize they wanted in 2016, but their behavior since then is proof positive that they do not deserve it.

While the Democrats seem to have chosen to be fully consumed by their anger and hate, we as a country do not need to let it consume us as well.  We do not need to accept their ugly allegations about the President, his policies, his supporters; instead we can understand that these are nothing more than their temper weapons designed to gratify their anger and give them the power they crave. 

The elected Democrats are not doing the peoples work but their own work – the sole goal being to eliminate all opposition to their power.  The media is their partner in this means justify the ends campaign.  We do not have to join in.  Their rhetoric may be persuasive, but that does not make it right or true.  We can believe it and go like sheep to the slaughter of all that our country stands for, or we can refuse to be a part.  We can continue to stand for the principles of this country that are not those of anger and hate but of fairness and justice and rule of law, of freedom and liberty, and of a voice for all the people.

Indoctrination (and the survival of a society)

The word indoctrination has a negative connotation, and while that connotation is often appropriate to the use of the word, it is not always so. 

We tend to see indoctrination as akin to brainwashing, and sometimes it is, but actually, the word indoctrinate simply means to teach. (It comes from the Latin root docere, to teach, which provides the “doc” in the word.  This root is shared by words such as docent, doctrine, and document).

Indoctrinate means to teach someone a set of basic fundamentals, ideas, or attitudes.  The teaching usually occurs via some sort of persistent and repetitive teaching.  While it can include doing so with a partisan view that does not allow for questioning of those basics, one can also indoctrinate without a demand for unquestioning acceptance and with an encouragement of critical thinking about them. 

In essence, when your elementary school teacher made you learn your multiplication tables by repeating them over and over, and telling you there was but one answer to 2 x 2 or 2 x 6, she was indoctrinating you with the basic fundamentals of multiplication.  These basic fundamentals are essential to a deeper understanding of and a progression in math.

I would argue that every parent by necessity indoctrinates their children with certain necessities of that family’s way of life.  Certain basic hygiene, eating, safety, and other behaviors are instilled in children from the time of their birth. Children learn that certain behaviors are expected of them in the home and later as they venture out of the home.  Some are necessary for survival; others to be a functioning part of the family unit.  If certain rules of interaction within the family were not shared (indoctrinated) via the parent-child relationship, then the family would likely be less peaceful and lose some of its stability and cohesion. 

I would argue that the same is true within societal groups and communities.  Without a certain amount of shared ideas and attitudes, a stable group will become unstable and eventually lose that which has tied the members of the group together.  The indoctrination of these basic ideas and attitudes are implicit in parent-child relationships but are more overt within larger groups.

Humans are social animals and are shaped not only by their parents but also by a larger cultural context of the society in which they live.  It is certain shared basic concepts, instilled within the children of a particular society at an early age, that allows the society to hold together and effectively work as a unit for the good of its people.

Different societies have always held different doctrines, fundamentals, and traditions.  It is these things which both set them apart from other societies and hold them together as one.  In the first century BCE, the Roman poet and philosopher Titus Lucretius Carus is alleged to have said “what is food to one, to others is bitter poison.” 

Those doctrines, fundamentals, basics of any society must be conveyed to new generations in order for the society to work.  We often think of this as some sort of necessary “socialization,” a word that generally has a better connotation than indoctrination.  Yet, the repeated teaching and practice of a society’s fundamentals is, indeed, indoctrination.  Regardless of label, the point is, that to maintain social order within any given society there must be some teaching and instilling of the basic doctrines of that society.

These basics are often conveyed via such things as:  shared holidays and manner of celebrating them; shared foods; shared folk songs, traditions, dances; shared games; etc.  Some are more substantive:  shared knowledge of the society’s history; shared basic values of how one will treat other citizens of the society and how the society will be governed.  The key is that the teaching of the basics of things such as these, the indoctrination of them into the society’s children, are necessary to make the group within that society feel that they share a history and a future with their group and hence will unite, working together to maintain and improve that society.

Elementary schools in this country used to teach American folk songs and folk stories from our history.  Children grew up knowing and having these stories and rhythms in common.   For many these national fundamentals were accompanied by fundamentals of their own smaller groups – a region of the country, their cultural heritage, their individual family practices.  While some of the traditions of smaller, included groups might vary, all Americans also had certain American traditions and values in common. 

Because we used to truly be a melting pot, we celebrated holidays in common, though with ethnic variations based on our ancestry.  We had civics classes that taught us about our form of government.  We learned American history, our accomplishments and our failures.   

This was all a form of indoctrination, but, because it was also accompanied by instruction that America protects diverse viewpoints and the ability to speak them, we were not being brainwashed that there was only one acceptable view.  Instead, just as the math teacher who teaches the multiplication tables as facts also teaches that these can be used in creative and diverse ways, children used to learn certain foundations and history of our country while also being taught that these foundations allowed them to have their own views and use their mind and their creativity to better themselves and the country which they share with those both like and different from them.

We no longer have that in America.  America has always been a multicultural society, but it is no longer a melting pot.   That is, immigrants have always come to America with their cultural heritage, but upon arriving have also desired and been able to assimilate into American culture while still maintaining that heritage.  Americans, in addition to other fundamentals of American culture, were indoctrinated with the fundamental concept of respecting others with differing viewpoints and different heritages than one’s own. 

In entering the American melting pot, all joined in those basic fundamentals that are shared by all Americans and which make up the fundamentals of American society;  by so doing, America while rich and diverse culturally, has maintained its identity as one united country.

But, now, no one is taught (yes, indoctrinated) in those basic fundamentals.  In today’s multicultural America, the cultures no longer mix; they have little other than their basic humanity to share and hold them together as one society.  Those American fundamentals that children used to learn in school are no longer taught for fear of offending someone or some ethnic or cultural group, or simply because one group objects to celebrations that do not belong to their own group.   There is no willingness to assimilate. There is no tolerance for diversity within a greater and cohesive whole.

We no longer have a melting pot that unites us all; instead we have a completely unmixed salad where each culture or identity group maintains its own complete and unique identity within the land of America but without any joining together in the fundamentals that have always made America a unique and united society.

It is easier to hate a country that you have never learned to love.  Note, I am talking about the country itself and not whichever politician or political party happens to be in power at any given moment.  Throughout their history, Americans have always exercised their First Amendment rights to protest various activities and policies of those in power.  But, the difference today is that along with such protests there seems, on the part of many, to be a genuine hate against the country itself.

Without basic fundamental commonalities, a society loses its cohesiveness.  It falls apart into separate societies; those societies can sometimes live peacefully side by side but can also just as easily slip into warring factions. 

America has been and will always be multiracial and multicultural.  The question is, are we willing to include some teaching – some indoctrination - of all our citizens in basic fundamentals that will hold us together as one, or are we going to allow every different group to maintain its own and separate fundamental doctrines while objecting to those of others so that we lose our cohesiveness as one nation and instead devolve into separate and  competing tribes?

We must not be afraid to indoctrinate our children with those American fundamentals that allow them to hold a pride and an identity in America as their country.   Those fundamentals may evolve, even change as they have done over our history, but they are necessary to creating the melting pot, the glue that holds us together as one people.  Indoctrination is not always a bad word and it is a necessary piece of any successful nation.

On Education – Attitudes and Effects

This week, if not before, children are returning to school, so it seems an appropriate time to talk about education.  Not just superficially or about such things as curriculum, testing, etc., but about the role and the effect that education has on society and its success or failure in that regard.  This, I suggest, all begins with the attitude that we display towards education, for that attitude has an effect on the respect and value that we accord to education.

Coincidentally, while we were celebrating Labor Day on Sept. 2 this year, all the children all across Russia were returning to school on what is there called “The Day of Knowledge.”  The children all show up in what we once would have referred to as their “Sunday best.”  Elementary children are wearing “party dresses” and little suits.  The girls have their hair in pigtails or similar, tied with ribbons and decorated with flowers.  And every child has a bouquet of flowers for the teacher

 

After the opening ceremonies the children sit at their desks, focused on the teacher and ready to learn.

 День знаний [Day of Knowledge], Russia

Now, I don’t want to get into a discussion of what these children might or might not be learning at their Russian schools.  What I do want to suggest is that this making the first day of school a national event and a celebration reflects a respect, appreciation, and a valuing of education. 

Is this all superficial?  Yes, perhaps, but superficialities often reflect what is also below the surface.  

In his column on parenting today, John Rosemond states that “the most important thing parents should teach [during children’s preschool years] is proper manners" which he notes are “the sorts of fundamental courtesies that form the backbone of civilized social behavior.” (CITE)

Why is this important?  Because if our children don’t understand how to respect their teachers and their fellow students, if they don’t know how to listen without interrupting, if they don’t value the fact that their teacher and their school experience is providing them with valuable lessons in both academics and life, then they are not going to learn.

Here is a picture of American students arriving for the first day of school in Minneapolis last year (photo credit: Elisabeth Flores – Minneapolis Star Tribune).   It is typical of first days of school across America.  These students also look eager, but one wonders how actually prepared they are to learn.  Greeted by the superintendent, beyond that indication that this is a very special and exciting day, a day that begins an exciting journey of learning, what other signals do these children get that learning is important and worthy of respect?

Rosemond, in his column, also notes that since the 1960s, parenting has become all about having a good relationship with one’s children.  That is, in essence, parents and parent figures want to be the kid’s friend.  Rosemond notes that “as a result, parental leadership…has gone by the wayside.”  I would add that respect, too, has gone.  Children come to school with no sense of respecting authority figures, of taking and carrying out reasonable orders from those figures, even if they are not something that the child wants to do or finds entertaining or fun. 

How does that happen?  After all, don’t we repeatedly tell children “school is important”?  Perhaps.  But it is much more likely that children see how important it really is based upon our actions.  And many of those actions are reflected in the superficial as well as in the more general approach that we may have to the structures of society.

Because many parents are more concerned with being their child’s friend and in agreeing with the child that he or she is never wrong,  they do not support their children’s teachers but instead will argue whenever the teacher tells the student he or she is wrong or demands work which the child is not inclined to do.  Moreover, some parents have a way of demonstrating that school is something that gets in the way of their lives; their trip to the beach or to Disney Land may be more important so that they pull their children from school for the vacation.  Such action must certainly signal that school is not really that important.

Dress is indeed superficial, but it is also a statement.  When teachers show up dressed in T-shirts or similar ultra-casual dress, it does not reflect a respect for learning.  Perhaps they feel that allows them to "relate" with their students, but a truly good teacher will teach the students and be respected by them whether or not he or she “relates” or is their good friend.  And, while I don’t expect students to come to school in their “Sunday best” I do think that they can dress in a professionally casual way that reflects some respect for school and learning, a way that reflects that they recognize school and the learning therein as something special.

When I was in (public school) ninth grade my Latin teacher repeatedly reminded us that we, as human beings, had a “thirst for knowledge” that was unquenchable. .  It is that thirst for knowledge in and of itself that gives us a true joy in learning.  I believe that to be true, but I also believe that young students must be shown that thirst and encouraged to experience it and its resultant joy in pure learning; as students grow that thirst must not be extinguished or replaced with some sort of quest for prestige or power or financial gain.

While those goals can also be a part of someone’s life, if the quest for knowledge is extinguished, one will lose the joy of learning simply for the sake of learning.  And, if that interest in simply learning is extinguished, then how will students ever be able to openly, objectively, and fully listen to not only their teachers but their peers.  And if we cannot listen to one another then how can we ever solve the many problems that every society, culture, and generation faces.

The simple passion for learning used to be found by many in the liberal arts.  Reading, discussing, and simply enjoying ideas for their own sake.  But, now, political correctness has told us that many of the reading material that used to be among the foundations of a liberal education are no longer appropriate for one reason or another.   And, rather than ideas being exciting in and of themselves, many students are led one way or another to see education as simply some pathway to some sort of material gain. 

We tell students they should go to college, not because they can enter an academy of learning that will satisfy that thirst for knowledge for its own sake, but because it will get them a job.  A job with which they will be able to purchase a vast array of material goods.  And so, “The liberal arts university is becoming the corporate university, its center of gravity shifting to technical fields where scholarly expertise can be parlayed into lucrative business opportunities.”( William Deresiewicz CITE )

Education is a crucial part of our lives.  It teaches us about our society, its history and its rules and how we are expected to behave within it.  It teaches us about the arts, their history and how we can create our own art.   It teaches us to understand ourselves and others, especially those who are not like us.   It teaches us about the many STEM subjects with which we can create new innovations and it teaches us philosophy and critical thinking so that we can evaluate those innovations and their potential effects upon us and our society and the world.  It teaches us to write so that we can effectively communicate our thoughts and, most importantly, it teaches us to think.  Simply to think, deeply and creatively, and with joy.

Education and educators should never forget this.  But, for students to accept this teaching, they must come to that education with an open mind and with respect for learning and for knowledge itself.  And if those around them do not care, show little respect for education, then why would we expect the children to sense that education is something to be respected or to value?

I watch school districts throw money at their schools because “the children are not learning or not succeeding.”  But money will not change a basic attitude, the attitude of respect for and valuing of education, that is a key ingredient necessary for schools to successfully perform their necessary functions.  Attitude begins at home and with the little things that we do that demonstrate how we feel about education and schools and teachers and learning itself.  Perhaps we could begin by simply celebrating knowledge.

Don’t Fall for It, Part 3

“Russian Collusion” didn’t work.  “He’s a Racist” isn’t working.  So, now the media, spokes-machine for the anti-Trumpers and the Left, is pushing a “coming recession” as a way to keep President Trump from being re-elected.  Don’t fall for it.

The Democrats and their handmaiden the mainstream media love to float theories about President Trump and his administration that have no, or at best very weak, factual support.  They repeat their subversive allegations and accusations over and over, both directly (“Trump is a racist”) and more subtly in a way that presents as a fact that supports their message something that has not yet been proven  (for example, “Trump’s racist statement”  when there is no evidence other than the media’s biased interpretation that the statement being referred to is indeed racist).  The Left seems to subscribe to the theory that if you repeat something enough times, then the people will believe that it is true.

This repetition of an unproven and often false narrative is a key tool of propaganda as well as useful in brainwashing.  The media selectively presents facts in a way that make them sound as if they are proof of the narrative they are promoting.  They love to characterize opinion as fact and then use that “fact” to condemn the President. 

This is really not that different from what conspiracy theorists do.  “A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable.”  One seeking a conspiracy, or simply a narrative that condemns the President, will re-interpret objective evidence in a way that omits any fact or rational interpretation that counters the proposed narrative.  When there is no actual evidence to support the conspiracy or the narrative, what does exist will be re-interpreted as evidence of the truth of the narrative so that the conspiracy or the narrative “becomes a matter of faith rather than proof.”

And isn’t that just what we see happening among the Democrats and the media.  They have a narrative that the President is some sort of Russian agent, a racist, etc. and they will continue to ignore actual facts and instead continue to repeat their narrative.   They don't give up their belief in Russian collusion despite a thorough investigation to the contrary.  It has become a matter of faith rather than fact.

Similarly, the Left continues to put forth the now clearly debunked narrative that after Charlottesville the President said the Nazis were good people even though the actual tape of his statement shows that while he did indicate that there were good people on both sides who were there simply to protest about the Robert E. Lee statue, he then continued with the following words that persist in being completely omitted from the Left’s narrative:  “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”

But more insidious even than such outright omissions that fully change the reality of a situation is the Left’s use of basic persuasive and propaganda techniques to subtly present as true fact something for which there is no evidence or no proof.  How many times do we hear a statement about Trump begin “Trump’s racist words…” or “Trump’s offensive statement…” or “Trump’s disruptive act…”, etc.  The speaker is stating as facts that words or statements or actions are as negatively labeled.  Yet, that is nothing more than the speaker’s opinion, it is not a proven fact. 

Likewise, we hear over and over that the President’s purpose in enforcing immigration laws and putting an end to illegal immigration is one of promoting white supremacy.  There is no actual proof of that; it is simply the assumption of those whose hateful narrative about the President includes labeling him as a white supremacist. Yet, if the negative labels are repeated often enough it is likely that they become accepted as the fact that is necessary to prove the speaker’s narrative.

Now, I do not know if there will be some sort of economic collapse if the President is re-elected.  Actually, I believe it is much more likely that our booming economy will go bust if a Democrat becomes president.  But, that is my opinion, just as the Left’s new economic anti-Trump rhetoric is nothing more than their latest theory – their new narrative in their war on Trump. 

Like other conspiracy theorists, the Left’s narrative is more a matter of faith than of proof.  You do not have to join their cult.  Demand proof.  Listen carefully to their words.  Ask questions.  Find the full story – the full, complete, and actual narrative, not the fictional presentation of those who have their own agenda.  Do not simply fall for what they tell you, no matter how many times they repeat it.

Culture, Mental Health, and Guns

The Democrats focus solely on gun control, perhaps because it is easier for them to mess with our Constitution than to grapple with the mental health and cultural issues that underlie most mass shootings.

The Dayton shooter (a Leftist and Elizabeth Warren supporter by the way) had problems since middle school.  His classmates say they knew and even said he would shoot someone someday.  The manifesto of the El Paso shooter, while perhaps in part couched in the language of a white supremacist, reeks of hopelessness and despair from a young man who feels that he is ignored and forgotten and has no future.

These shootings were less political acts than they are screams of hopelessness and despair from young men who mentally could not cope in a culture that overwhelmed them while ignoring their mental issues.   Lost young men who turned to the internet and a violent culture for solace and for guidance on what to do – how to act out their hurt and despair.  By the time they got their guns they were well into some sort of downward spiral of depression and hate.  Feeling alone and unloved, they lashed out.

Let us ask not only how could we have prevented them from obtaining a gun at that point, but more importantly, what could we as a society have done to prevent them from getting to that point? 

Barbara Bush once said, “You must read to your children and you must hug your children and you must love your children. Your success as a family, our success as a society, depends not on what happens in the white house, but on what happens inside your house.” 

No, I am not blaming parents for mass shootings conducted by their children.  But this quote does suggest that we, our societal family, need to look at what sort of a culture we are creating for our children.  Are we teaching them how to cope with the heartaches and disappointments of life?  Are we showing them non-violent methods of addressing conflict?  Are we loving them and teaching them how to love and respect others as well as themselves?  Are we treating them fairly?  Are we paying attention and when someone needs professional help are we reaching out to find that help?  Or, are we simply willing to stand by and ignore cultural problems and related mental health issues until they erupt in an individual’s heinous act of violence, and then satisfy ourselves by blaming the white house and the weapon?

Clearly, with the 2020 election on the horizon and the ever-present hatred of Donald Trump, the Democrats are happy to make the Dayton and El Paso shootings nothing more than a political battle sword in their never ceasing war on the President.  This is not helpful. 

Yes, we have guns in America.  We also have the second amendment.  And, we have a variety of gun control regulations (including those put in place by President Trump).  But these things have been present in our society long before Trump took office.  And we have had mass shootings throughout our history. 

We can argue about what types of guns can and should be restricted and what individuals should not be allowed a gun, but we need to go well beyond that.  As the President said in his speech yesterday, we need to look at culture and at mental health.  We need to address the underlying causes.

Teenagers and young adults (and others) have long struggled with angst and despair as they grow up and begin to face the world and its many realities, some pleasant, some not.  Children act out when they are hurt or confused or troubled or simply not getting what they want.  We used to teach children as they grew that such behavior of acting out, especially when it hurt anyone else (or themselves) was not acceptable.  We taught them other ways to cope.

Yet our culture today seems to fail to provide coping skills other than destructive acting out.  Are our growing teens learning how to cope with life’s disappointments  and their own sadness and depressions without hurting others?  Have we taught them how to deal with a situation in which they do not get what they want, how to respond constructively rather than destructively?  Do we show them examples of people treating other people with respect, or do the movies, music, and other entertainment teach them disrespect and violence?  Do we find a way to give our children hope rather than hopelessness, a strength rather than an emptiness in their soul?

We cannot change a culture overnight.  But we can begin to examine ours and ask the hard questions of what we are doing, what are we teaching our children, and what does that mean for our society.  We need to do this, to ask these hard questions.  And we need to do it with an open mind, with a non-political mind, a mind that truly seeks to make any necessary corrections in the path of our society.  But, as long as the Democrats want to make this a political weapon, that is not likely to occur. 

So, we will argue about gun laws.  We will hear the Democrats blame Trump for all the evils of the country and the world, call him racist, and continue their one-sided hatred and vitriolic language against him, his supporters, the office of president, and ultimately the country.

Meanwhile, we, as families and neighbors and citizens, can ignore the political firestorm and ask ourselves how our culture is contributing to underlying causes of violence and we can demand that our elected officials, our media, our entertainment industry, and ourselves go beyond the means and address those underlying causes. 

If Democrats' Response is One of Hatred, then What?

After the President called for a sensible, multi-phased, and bipartisan attack against the violence and hatred in America, what was the Democrats’ response?  To unleash more partisan and vitriolic hatred against the President, his supporters, and his suggestions. 

Sen. Corey Booker:  “Such a bulls—t soup of ineffective words.”  Rep. Tim Ryan:  “Fck me.”  Responding to his call to stop the glorification of violence and including as one of his points to look at mental illness, Sen. Elizabeth Warren responded, “White supremacy is not a mental illness. We need to call it what it is: Domestic terrorism. And we need to call out Donald Trump for amplifying these deadly ideologies.”  [We should note here that Trump condemned racism and white supremacy along with hatred.]  Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, the Democratic chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said, ““President Trump’s words today are meaningless.  We know his vile and racist words have incited violence and attacks on Americans.”  Presidential candidate Julian Castro accused the president of serving as a “national spokesperson” for white nationalism. 

Trump commented on the media’s responsibilities; the response of filmmaker Ava DuVernay was, “Nah. News coverage has got to start calling you what you are. A traitor. A liar. A racist. A coward. A fool.”  The Washington Post found criticism in counting of words: “The president used 105 words of his speech to call out the Internet and social media. He spent 80 words condemning racism and hatred.  He also used only 53 words to address access to guns, compared to 62 words on mental illness and evil.” 

The above are just a few of the comments that have occurred in the 3 or so hours following the President’s address this morning.  More will surely come.  And, they do not include the post address commentary by the media and pundits, most of whom decided that the President was lying when he denounced racism and white supremacy, reverting back to their narrative that he is a racist and he is personally responsible for the two tragedies in Dayton and El Paso.  Others focused on the one mistake in an otherwise fine speech – a one time use of Toledo, a different city in Ohio, when it seems that the reference should have been to Dayton.  Note, there has been no similar ridicule for candidate Biden referring to Houston and Michigan where it seems he meant El Paso and Ohio.

These reactions are in complete contrast to the virtue signaling of the Democrats.  They present themselves as warriors against a hate-filled society that is the sole creation of the President.  Yet, since the day that Donald Trump became president, we have heard a constant barrage of hate-filled words directed at him and his supporters.  We have seen Democrats encourage and some act out violence against the President, his supporters, and essentially anyone who does not stand fully with the Democrats.  Even before 2016 it was the Democrats who were using identity politics to foment hatred among the people of our country.

The Democrats have one solution to gun violence – more gun regulation.   While that was one of the points included in Trump’s plan [and, one must note here that Trump’s administration has done more than others to tighten gun laws as well as ban bump stocks], Trump astutely noted that "Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun."  This statement (which underscores the reasons for the other points in the President’s plan of attack), seems to be especially offensive to the Democrats.  Sen. Amy Klobuchar said it was Mr. Trump’s attempt “to avoid truth.”

Apparently, for the Democrats it is easier to banish the means rather than to actually address the problem of causation.  Those that do consider causation at all are content to conclude that Trump is the sole cause; they seem to have forgotten the mass shootings and violence that occurred pre-2016, not to mention the hatred and gun violence that occurs daily all across America.   

The Democrats love to virtue signal that it is not them but the hated conservatives who foment hatred in this country. But the Democrats and their supporters call for hatred and violence daily.  They turn everything into a political weapon against Donald Trump.  The President is correct that beyond gun ownership there is a cultural problem, a social media/internet problem, a mental health problem, and a lack of unity or ability to address issues in a bi-partisan way for the good of the country. 

The Democrats do not want to work together to try to solve underlying social problems that lead to tragic violence such as we saw this past weekend.  They would rather use the violence to condemn a president they do not like; it simply becomes another weapon in their arsenal in their war to remove him from office. 

The President’s address this morning raised some valid points, issues and questions that deserve serious thought and consideration.  He is right that the country needs to come together and work bi-partisanly to address the hatred and violence.  But, when the reaction of the Democrats is to immediately begin spewing more hatred, then one wonders why even bother?