War, What is it good for?

 In the 1970 song “War”, the answer to the above question is “absolutely nothing” but in the real world, in the political world, sadly it too often serves the needs of the powerful who have only their own interests in mind. 

I am tired of watching the people of Ukraine suffer as they serve as the proxy victims in our proxy war against Russia.  I realize that they do not think of themselves that way, but my reading of this war and the complicated history leading to it directs me to that conclusion. 

President Putin of Russia fired the first shot, but before that shot was fired many besides Putin marched in the parade toward war.  Few took the time to understand the Russian mindset and the complicated history between Russia and Ukraine, or to acknowledge the West’s aggressive enticement of Ukraine to become a fully Western State.  There were few if any real attempts to negotiate a settlement of sorts that would have prevented war, gained a stronger democracy for Ukraine, and appeased Russia’s fears of the West.

A brief and highly abridged history

As part of the Pontic Steppe in Eastern Europe, the area now known as Ukraine has been an important and sought after part of that geographical area since prehistoric times.  Many Russians see Kyiv (Rus) as the birthplace of Russia.  Ukraine has come under the rule of several rulers and other countries. During the 1600s, in order to escape Polish-Lithuanian rule, Ukraine sought protection from Russia which led to its rule by Tsarist Russia.  In the late 1700s, the far west of Ukraine fell under Austrian control while the rest became part of Russia.

At the time of the Russian revolution, Ukraine tried to break free of Russia.  In 1919 several armies fought one another in Ukraine - Kyiv changed hands 6 times.  In 1921, Ukraine was incorporated into Soviet Russia.  During WWII, much of Ukraine supported and fought with the Nazis whom Ukrainians saw as liberators from Russia.  Russians were united against the Nazis and their supporters, and the Ukrainian Nazi support continues to be a sore spot with Russians to this day.

After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine became an independent state.  In 2004 the “Orange Revolution” revealed a Ukraine clearly divided between those Ukrainians, many of whom are ethnic Russians, who wanted to maintain strong ties with Russia, and those who were more interested in creating ties with the West and its organizations such as NATO.

Russia, for its part, includes both those who would like to see Soviet Russia restored including full incorporation of Ukraine into Russia as well as those who back an independent and westernized Ukraine.  Russia, however, generally silences opposition to its official pro-war stance.

War moves from likelihood to certainty

It would be naïve to think that both Russia and the West were not both doing all that they could to influence Ukraine and its people to become their allies.  The steppe upon which Ukraine sits is politically and strategically important.   Not only is the land incredibly fertile, it provides a buffer zone between Russia and the West/NATO countries.  The eastern portion of Ukraine is militarily significant in its location as a possible staging area for attacks on Russia.

The Russian Federation annexed Crimea in 2014 and has fought with Ukraine over other eastern portions of Ukraine since then.  In 2016 Ukraine joined an agreement with the European Union that allowed trade and visa-free travel between Ukraine and the EU.  In 2019 Ukraine amended its Constitution to put it on a stated path towards membership in the EU and NATO.  The original plan was to formally apply for EU membership in 2024, but that was moved forward, and the application was made in early February 2022.

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin began more assertively voicing his opposition to Ukraine joining NATO, in part because of the military threat to Russia of NATO having the ability to place missiles or other military equipment at the border with Russia.   Here one must remember that NATO was established to counter the threat posed by the then Soviet Union and its mission continues to be to secure its member countries against Russia.   Since the fall of Soviet Russia NATO has aggressively sought to expand its membership.  Whether this is a threat to Russia in reality or not is less important than the fact that Russia sees this as a threat.

Throughout 2021 Russia moved its troops to the Ukrainian border, obviously building towards a potential invasion.  During that time the United States, while condemning the buildup, took no real action against it.  President Biden threatened sanctions etc., but it was always too little too late and in the opinion of many only presented a face of weakness to Russia that encouraged Putin to be more aggressive. 

To others, many of the statements made by President Biden seemed to be goading President Putin into taking military action.  Why he might do that is open to speculation, but a war would distract from the rising inflation and other problems he was and is facing in this country, it would create someone (Russia/Putin) to blame for continuing economic problems,  it might make Biden some sort of hero (he did keep putting forth the idea that this was going to be his Cuban Missile Crisis so perhaps he thought it would gain him a Kennedy-like respect), and then there is the fact that since he was a Senator, Biden has made no secret of the fact that he hates Putin.

Shortly after Ukraine made its application to NATO, and after Biden effectively gave Putin no possible way to withdraw without losing face, on Feb. 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine.

Whose war is it?

The United States and other Western and NATO countries proclaimed their support for Ukraine.  Ukraine asked for money – we sent it.  Ukraine asked for military equipment – we sent it.  Finding the precise figure of aid, both military and humanitarian, to Ukraine is difficult, but it is somewhere around $50 billion in 2022 in direct aid and over $100 billion if one counts indirect aid.  The majority of that is for defense, and the funding does not show any sign of ceasing.  We are sending our store of weapons  - tanks, missiles, guns, and other military equipment - and that too shows no sign of ceasing, even though we are so depleted that this country is in a position where it does not have the ability to defend itself. 

Ukrainian President Zelensky has done a marvelous job of building strength and unity amongst his people.  He also does a wonderful job of begging the West and U.S.  for money to support them.  Many people of that country are firm in their belief that with the U.S. behind them and supplying them, that they can defeat Russia without making any concessions whatsoever.  Indeed, many believe that they can even see Crimea returned. 

With this confidence inspired by the U.S. and other backers, they are not interested in negotiating an end to the fighting.  This Ukrainian digging in and belief in total victory might be far less strong if not for US and other Western support.  So, are the Ukrainians fighting their war, or are we, the West, fighting that war?  And if it is we who are fighting it then why is it Ukrainian and not our blood that is being spilled?

Why isn’t the thought of peace even on the table?

If we really cared about the Ukrainian people as we say we do, then why aren’t we seeking peaceful solutions to end this; solutions that indeed might result in some territory loss but that would end the loss of life?

Yet instead we escalate.  In 2022 President Biden told us that sending tanks to Ukraine would result in World War 3.  In January of 2023 he announced he would send tanks to Ukraine.  We are going to train the Ukrainians on how to use the tanks, bringing them to the U.S. for that training.  When one of those tanks kills a Russian is that an aggression by Ukraine or by the United States?  And Putin has threatened use of nuclear weapons if the United States or NATO countries are the ones actually fighting this war.

If this does become World War 3, then we are going to have a hard time since our weapons stockpiles will be empty and parts to rebuild often come from China who will likely be aligned with Russia and not inclined to assist us.  Does our President even consider let alone understand such things? Does he understand that it is young Ukrainians dying for his cause?  Does he care?

Where are the diplomats, the peacemakers who will use reason and negotiation rather than human life to solve their differences?  Let America lead on that front instead of as warmongers.

We are using the Ukrainians.  Perhaps they are using us as well.  But when their usefulness is over, will we care at all what happens to them?  I doubt it.  Because this is not really a war about freedom or democracy.  It is a war about a few men wanting to puff up and show off their power.

I close with a few lines from Edwin Starr’s 1970 song “War” written by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong:

War, I despise

'Cause it means destruction of innocent lives

 

Life is much too short and precious

To spend fighting wars each day

War can't give life

It can only take it away, oh

 

Peace, love and understanding, tell me

Is there no place for them today?

They say we must fight to keep our freedom

But Lord knows there's got to be a better way, oh

 

War, huh (God y'all)

What is it good for? You tell me (nothing)

Say it, say it, say it, say it

 

War (good God), huh (now, huh)

What is it good for?

Stand up and shout it (nothing)

Successful Government Does Not Tolerate Stubbornness

 The party that gets things done….is turning out not to be today’s Republicans.  At least not those elected to the House of Representatives.

They have had since mid-November when all election results were in to decide how they would move forward with their small House majority come January 1.  The people elected them to DO things.  Amend and pass legislation that would curb Biden’s unlimited and destructive spending, deal with the illegal immigrant crisis and the crisis at our borders, stand up for the American values of the people who elected them.  Others hoped also that they would objectively and fairly investigate some things that need investigating – not for political gain or retribution, but because Americans need those activities that are contrary to the interests of America and its people to be dealt with. 

The Republicans could have started working on these tasks on day one.  But instead, what did they do?  They created a veritable circus over their inability to elect a House Speaker.

Contrast this with typical behavior of the Democrat party.  While I adamantly disagree with and oppose many of the positions and policies of the progressive Left, I have to admit that not only do they have a clear agenda, they also effectively implement it.  They work like a well-oiled machine that understands that they agree on an end goal and that they will work in unison toward that goal even when one at times has to agree to something to which they may personally be opposed.   They are willing to make personal concessions, overlook personal preferences, to achieve the greater goal of implementing their agenda – the agenda that Democrat voters put them in place to effectuate.

Not so the Republicans.  With no viable alternative to Kevin McCarthy as candidate for Speaker, a small handful of Republicans who have personal gripes against McCarthy decided to hold hostage the Speakership, making it impossible for McCarthy to be elected while presenting no candidate who could garner more than a score or so of votes. 

In the first vote, a variety of other Republicans siphoned 19 votes off of the other Republican votes for McCarthy.   In the second round of voting Rep. Gaetz nominated Jim Jordon while Jordon re-nominated McCarthy.  In that round Jordan received all of the 19 Republican non-McCarthy votes.  In round 3, Jordan’s vote count increased to 20.

218 votes are required to elect a Speaker.  There are 222 Republicans in the House and 212 Democrats.  All 212 Democrats have voted for their candidate for Speaker,  Rep. Jeffries.  At one point during today’s voting it was reported that some of the Republicans who opposed McCarthy stated they would rather have Democrat Jeffries than McCarthy as Speaker notwithstanding that Jeffries would likely further a Democrat rather than Republican agenda.

After 3 votes the House adjourned.  Voting will continue until a Speaker is elected and until such time no work can go forward – no committees, no bills brought to the floor, no other votes.  None of the business that we the people elected our representatives to conduct.

Yes, a Speaker is important.  He or she leads the House, determines what bills will come to the floor for vote, oversees House procedures and rules, etc.  And there will obviously be a different focus depending on whether the Speaker is a Republican or Democrat.  But this display by the Republicans is ridiculous.

The handful who seem to have a personal dislike for McCarthy had plenty of time to develop support for an alternate candidate.  But all they did during that time was to badmouth McCarthy and assert he should not be Speaker.  They may have gotten their anger off their chest and they may have thought they were acting bold by being so negatively assertive, but what they did was not constructive and has resulted in a debacle that not only reflects poorly on the entire Republican party but also means that the bold agenda and action that the Republican party promised the voters will be stalled and delayed. 

I believe that the people of this country want their elected representatives to work for them; I know that is what I want.  I don’t know if McCarthy is or is not the best candidate for Speaker (and actually I quite like Jim Jordan) but I do know that McCarthy is the only Republican candidate that currently has any possibility to be elected.  And we need a Speaker before the House can do anything.

Working for the people means that sometimes you have to compromise.  One has to wonder if these folks who will not vote for the one currently viable Republican Speaker are going to stall every piece of legislation put forward if there is one word or phrase they do not like.  One wonders if they are going to essentially sink their own party’s agenda simply to prove some selfish point or believe that never ever giving an inch is really a constructive way to conduct the people’s business.  (Republicans could learn something here from the Democrats.)  One has to pick one’s battles; fighting everyone just to prove you are a fighter does not impress me and I doubt that it impresses most Americans.

Perhaps the adjournment today was a good thing.  Perhaps a good night’s sleep will cause this handful of selfish rebels to realize that they are doing nothing but hurting those who elected them and believed in them.  Tomorrow is another day and we can always hope.

TWO STORIES

 I was probably around 11 years old the first time I went to a birthday party where I received a prize without winning any of the games.  This was a new experience for someone in the late 1950s/early 1960s.  It was the first time everyone got a prize whether they did anything or not.  On the way home with my mother I tried to explain that the prize I had received was not because I had won, but just something for taking part in the game.  She didn’t understand. I remember my overwhelming emotion was one of shame for getting something for nothing.

Recently I heard a successful minority artist being interviewed on the radio.  The interviewer kept stressing the fact that he had worked several jobs during his time at college in order to pay his tuition.  My thinking was “so what – a lot of people I know as well as my own self did the same, some were minorities, some were not.  All were both thankful for and proud of their work and what it had allowed them to accomplish.”   But the interviewer, and to some extent the artist himself, seemed to stress the victim factor of having to work to attend college.  This was such a contrast to the view that such work to improve oneself and/or achieve a goal is something to be proud of.  It does not make someone a victim, but rather a success.

What do these two stories have in common and what do they tell us about society both in years past and today?

To what is one entitled?

Both stories consider a relationship between some personal effort and a reward.  The first story reflects a principle that one does not get something for nothing – one must “win” it by their own hard work.

The second story reflects the idea that if you have to work for something then you are experiencing some sort of victimhood/disentitlement and that the focus of your eventual success should be on the victim experience rather than the personal initiative that led to your success or even the ultimate success itself.

If we consider that these two core principles reflect a more general societal view far beyond the specifics of each story, then one has to wonder: 1) how has such a core value changed so greatly in little over 50 years; and (2) is the change a good one?

A change in message

It was in the 1960s that our society began to seriously question competition, especially for children.  We began to be concerned that hurt feelings of losing were unhealthy and must be eliminated.  Hence the emergence of the “participation trophy” for everyone.

The hidden message of such “trophies” is that really all one has to do is show up.  No effort required beyond mere presence.  A second message is that one has a right to always feel good – no hurt feelings due to losing a competition or otherwise.

The “entitlement” to always feeling good broadened beyond childhood games.  Parents hesitated to say “no” to children for fear of hurt feelings.  Grade inflation was in part motivated by a similar goal.  “Safe spaces” began to appear on college campuses and in the workplace as the children who learned that they had a right to demand happiness grew up and became adults.

This change in attitude continued to explode.  Not only were you entitled to never have a hurt feeling – everyone was entitled to have it all.  Personal choices that may have led to a negative personal consequence became no longer relevant as well as personal characteristics and talents that make each of us the individual we are.  Scientific advances helped in this regard, doing such things as outfitting physically limited bodies with artificial replacements.  Yes, people began to believe that they can and that they are entitled to any and everything they want, including the current idea that they can change their sex at will and that men can be pregnant and give birth to a child.  Questioning any personal desire or gratification is met with an accusation of insensitivity if not bigotry.

Is the new message a good one?

A message of entitlement growing out of a desire to protect from pain at first may sound harmless or perhaps even laudable, but once one reflects on it one can see the broad and changeful effect that it can have. 

It creates a major change in societal values.  Where personal responsibility and pride in one’s work were once lauded, now the responsibility falls upon society as a whole to create a happy environment for all.  (We will save for another time how and who defines “happiness” for all the people.)  A recent television ad advertising a free housing program announced that people should have time to play and do what they want rather than have to work hard to pay for housing; the visuals showed happy individuals riding bikes, playing in parks, etc.

For many today, the concept of “equity” for all as opposed to “equality of opportunity” has become paramount.  If one will have the same result regardless of how much or little effort one puts in, the work ethic becomes meaningless and with it pride in one’s work becomes an archaic concept.

A path to Socialism

With the loss of those concepts a path is cleared toward socialism.  This country has been testing that path for some time, and now it seems that a good half of the country would choose Socialism over Capitalism.

Both systems can be enticing, and neither is perfect.  I will be the first to admit that in America today it is much harder to achieve one’s dreams simply through one’s own hard work and that the promise of utopia that Socialism presents (though ultimately never delivers) sounds lovely.  But at the same time I believe that to give up that individual fulfillment that comes from the sometimes difficult burdens of personal responsibility and hard work would be a hugely wrong step for our society. 

If you only had fun, do you really win?

It is only through the struggles that one faces when allowed to experience hardships and sadness that one can feel the true joys of success.  And it is often those hard times that provide one with the motivation to strive to become truly the best they can be and not just one of the many swimming in the mediocre sea of equity. 

Nowadays of course, everyone expects to get the prize/trophy/reward whether they worked for it or not.  If not provided, they become victims with a claim for an even bigger and better prize.  I think our society was in a better place in the first story - when one felt a bit ashamed of getting something for nothing.

 

The Power of WHY

 We all know that Biden repeatedly tells the country that we must vote Democratic as he repeatedly vilifies all Republicans.  Down the ballot most Democrats do the same.

But it is not only Democrats who demand unwavering and indeed unthinking party loyalty.  In my state the voters can vote to retain or not retain state judges who are already sitting on the bench.  The state judges are identified by party affiliation.   The Republican party recently posted an ad telling voters to vote no on every single judge who is up for retention simply because they are Democrats. 

It is not just political parties that demand unthinking decision making.  My state’s major newspaper apparently based its endorsements on the answer to one question – whether the candidate agreed with Trump that the 2020 election was stolen.  A clear No got you the endorsement but a Yes or even an answer that tried to explain the complexities of that question meant you would not be endorsed.  The paper itself noted that despite the Republican governor candidate coming out on top on nearly all the issues, he would not have received the endorsement had he not answered a clear No to that one question, while it failed to endorse a Republican candidate for House because that candidate failed to give an unexplained yes or no  (that was the only negative noted in the paper’s discussion of that candidate and her opponent who answered no and whom they endorsed).   

These demands that one decide a vote simply on one question or merely a party label are wrong on so many levels.  Let me suggest three.

First, candidates are individuals.  Voters need to look at each candidate as a full person, not as simply a cardboard cutout representing one label or one yes or no answer.  For example, in the judicial retention elections in my state voters have access to in-depth studies done by our Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission.  These include surveys of litigants, attorneys, and others appearing in that judge’s courtroom as well as surveys of the judge’s staff, and the Commission’s evaluation of each judge.  That is a starting point for voters to understand whether or not they believe a particular judge should be retained.  There are judges belonging to both parties that deserve to be retained, and some of each party that do not.  The total picture of each individual judge includes far more than just their party affiliation.

Second: it’s identity politics.  Using a party label to paint a broad and unvarying picture of everyone belonging to that party is simply the game of identity politics, something that we know the Democrats are very good at.  It is the Democrats who paint all opponents as “deplorables” or “terrorists” or “destroyers of democracy.”  The Democrats have given us excellent examples of how to pit one identity group against another as they do such things as paint all whites as racist or all Christians as intolerant or all Trump supporters as violent.

When the Republicans paint all Democrats as bad judges or when the newspaper paints all people with one answer to a question as not endorsable, they too are playing the identity politics game which is simply taking one characteristic of an individual’s many facets and painting all who have that characteristic with the same broad brush.

Group-think or don’t think.  The third and most troubling aspect of these party or single-question-based directives is that they are essentially orders to the voting public not to think.  Because if one thinks, they will go beyond the narrowness that creates cardboard cutouts rather than individuals:  they will think for themselves.

The danger of labeling based on one characteristic or identity factor out of the many that we all carry goes far beyond voting.  It destroys us by dehumanizing each and every one of us.

Humanity requires thinking and debate

Interestingly, in the SCOTUS arguments about affirmative action earlier this week, the justices sincerely grappled with the need for a diverse classroom environment while prohibiting race-based (essentially group identity based) decision making.

Diverse environments are essential to open all our eyes as we learn about, debate, and understand the diverse views of our pluralist democracy.  Labeling any one view as definitive of all who may hold that view is disingenuous and destructive of every positive aspect of pluralism. 

Questioning and debating is essential to human growth, but that debate needs to be based upon reality, not cardboard cutouts based on identity factors.  The debate needs to be individualized if the debaters are to learn and grow.  But the necessary partner with debate is the ability to think as an individual about other individuals.  Demanding thought and action based on group identity defeats the entire purpose.

Yeshiva schools understand how important true debate (debate and questioning in order to grow and learn) is to education.  In such schools the students, along with their rabbis, question the Torah, debating, often quite passionately, about its meaning and its application to their lives.  They are taught not to accept, but to question.  And with questioning comes not only thinking, but an evolution in one’s thinking as they grow deeper and deeper understanding of that which they are studying.

WHY – An act of love

The idea of questioning, even questioning God Himself, goes back to the story of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis.  We are told that Eve’s mission is to be a helper against Adam.  The rabbinic commentators on this passage explain that this “teaches us a model of friendly antagonism, one in which, in order to support you, I challenge you.” (Prof. Elie Wiesel, quoted in Witness by Ariel Burger).  Such challenging refines the thinking of those involved, allowing them to refine and develop their ideas about the subject being debated. 

Learning about the beliefs of others allows one to challenge one’s own deeply held beliefs, something which is vitally important for one to grow in both spirit and intellect.  Disagreement and debate for the sake of learning, understanding, and growing and not simply to defeat or silence the other’s view is an act of love – for oneself and for the other.  It allows us to see one another for the complex individuals we each are.

Excluding debate, even when done with the misguided motive of protecting delicate feelings, is not an act of kindness but rather an act that serves to stifle individuality.  Demanding that someone vote or base any other activity solely on a group identity classification stifles the individual capacity to think.

Not only in voting, but in the world at large, we need to see people for the complex individuals that they are.  We need to question our candidates and the information that we have about them, not simply base an important decision on one alleged identity characteristic that may or may not be true for that individual candidate, whether based on party affiliation or single question answer. 

If we open our hearts and our minds to question and debate we can reach deeper levels of understanding about ourselves, those we interact with and society at large.  But those questions must not be in the nature of HOW CAN YOU disagree with me/say that? 

Rather, we must learn to ask WHY?  In the context of elections:  WHY are you a member of that party?  WHY do you support that?  In the broader context:  WHY do you say/believe that – help me to understand WHY you hold that view.

That simple word WHY used with curiosity and openness rather than with a closed-minded intent to shut unfamiliar or opposing views down, can go far.  Not only will it likely do more to elect the best candidates, it will also do much to heal our world.

Education requires a questioning interaction – with oneself and with others

 It is easy to give up on America these days.  In considering what we need to move forward I always seem to return to education and the fact that our current education systems do not teach the basic thinking skills that allow individuals to make informed decisions about the direction they would like their country to take.  Indeed, today our education system seems to be more aligned with the narrowness of propaganda than with the open-mindedness that true education requires.

Recently I heard someone on the radio arguing that college is a waste of money because you can learn as much by simply looking up the subjects you would study on Google and reading the information there.

Certainly, one can read up on a subject and in so doing gain information about that subject – that is, learn something about the subject.  But that is not all that education entails and it is not all that occurs in a healthy college environment.  Learning in the sense of acquiring information is but one part of education.  Education also includes reflection both on oneself and on the information being learned, it requires an open mind in coming to information and in listening to views of others about that information.   Most importantly, it requires constant questioning – of the information being presented, of the presenter, and of oneself

Simply acquiring knowledge is not true learning.  Learning and true education have at their core the question “why?”  The student must be taught to ask that question repeatedly, to move step by step into a deeper understanding of the subject being studied and of the understanding of others about that subject. 

In a true educational setting students will be pushed to use “why?” to push themselves to levels of understanding and achievement of which they did not even know they were capable.  They will be asked to address topics with open and curious minds, not minds that are preset or predisposed to merely accept views of others as their own without question. 

Reading or otherwise acquiring information in and of itself does not require thinking and is more likely to simply result in acceptance of the ideas of others.  In contrast, a true teacher will ask a student to question what is read, perhaps to hear other views of the readings presented during a class discussion with other students.  Reading alone does not require the students to articulate their own views about what was read or push the students to stretch their mind to the deeper thinking that discussion with others often does.  Rather, it allows the students to remain in their own world without examining and questioning the values and assumptions of that world.

Those who try to avoid questioning or who try to block the questioning and its resulting mental growth in others are actually quite insecure.  They need a certain and unchanging world in which everyone agrees with their assumptions and beliefs.  (I suspect such is the case of the radio voice I heard – afraid that college might force questioning of his own firmly established views.)

Such people exist on both sides of the political aisle and are always dangerous.  They are the false prophets, the purveyors of propaganda.  They are in many ways the evil opposite of true educators. 

These false prophets tell people what they want to hear; they feed existing fears and provide false solutions.  They demand their students accept what they are told without question, presenting their own view on topics as the one and only acceptable viewpoint.  Their “teaching” provides comfort; it is easy to accept in its certainty. 

True education is anything but comfortable.  It demands that students embrace the discovery and investigation of new ideas, even when that information is painful.  Its lessons can be disturbing as the students explore the depths and uncertainties of their own minds and their world.  It demands that students read beyond superficialities and plunge to depths of understanding that in the end allow a deeper sense of a common humanity that joins us all.

Reading, acquiring information, is only a beginning.  Questioning that reading and being questioned about one’s own ideas about the reading force one to learn and understand rather than simply acquire information.  And interaction with others and their thoughts and understandings about the same information pushes one even further to understand and articulate their own understanding and knowledge about the topic.  Ultimately, this interaction of ideas and ultimately of humanity itself is what a true education will entail.

With that education comes a confidence in who one truly is and about the world in which we all live.  That confidence overcomes the fear of real learning that the propogandists purvey and the cowards accept.

Today in America we have a lot of cowards.  On both sides.  They have dug into their positions and both sides can make arguments supportive of their views.  But what they cannot do is listen to, let alone understand the views of others.  (I note here that understanding does not necessarily require acceptance or a change in one’s own position, but it does result in tolerance.) Too many are afraid to question their own beliefs and who they are and where they are really going – they are imprisoned by their own fears and insecurity, afraid to evolve, denying the humanity that is common to us all. 

True education requires that one not fear human interaction, even with uncomfortable ideas of others.  True education is far more than merely acquiring information.  In true education the student takes the acquired information and is both externally pushed and internally motivated to transform that information into a deeper knowledge of the world, humanity, and one’s place in it; the true student, like all of humanity, is ever evolving and that evolution is reflected in the student’s interactions in the world and with others.

Yet, today, we have teachers who do not educate.  They do not teach their students to think critically – to ask “why?”.  Teachers should delight when a student questions, even and especially when a student questions their own teacher.  But too many of today’s “educators” simply provide information that reflects their own world view and expect students to accept and adopt what they are told without question.  Students are too often punished rather than praised for questioning what they are told.  Too many “educators” are teaching students to become receivers of propaganda, primed to accept the words of false prophets.

The discord and dystopia that we see around us is not going to go away unless and until we once again become real students of our world and our humanity, until we encourage, indeed demand, that education be led by questioning, not simply acquiring.  We must think, ask “why?”, interact with open minds until once again we are able to know ourselves and see our true and common humanity.  This we must teach our children, and this we must model for them as adults.

 

The Truth

 President Biden clearly preached (or ranted) as a socialist in his Sept. 1 speech.  

Some may have seen some other resemblances as well.

Would you rather that you own the government or that the government own you?  That difference between American democracy and authoritarian/socialist forms of government was pointed out by someone who lived in the USSR and now lives in America.

While it may be a simplistic sounding distinction, it actually captures the essence of our American government as it has existed and the America that is being created by the Left and which was in large part captured in Biden’s dystopian prime time political rant on September first.

In our form of democracy, which to be clear is not a pure majority mob rule but rather a people’s representative democracy, we acknowledge that the people own certain freedoms and rights, including the freedom to believe as they wish and to speak those beliefs out loud.  Our democracy also requires that we each have a tolerance for the beliefs of others.  We keep order via the rule of law which is intended to be applied equally to all.  We the people choose our government by voting for candidates of our choice whom we believe will best represent us and our will.  While political parties have differing focuses, policies, and goals, each party has its right to put forward what it believes is best for America.  We do not condemn those who hold different beliefs or who support political opponents.

In authoritarian governments little if any of the above is true.  The government will tell you what to think and what to believe as well as for whom you can vote.  It will prohibit the expression of alternate views.  It will silence those who disagree with those in power.  Any rule of law is not a system that is applied equally to all but rather becomes a way for those in power to retain their power by keeping opponents in check.  Core rights do not belong to the people; rather, all rights belong to the government to dole or not dole out as it chooses, not equally but to, or not to, those whom it chooses.

American democracy does not have the certainty of socialism and it is not easy.  There are no guarantees:  each individual is free to make his or her own decisions and must live with the consequences of those decisions.  Those decisions result not in equity (in everyone having and being the same), but in the ability for each to rise to his or her greatest potential or to ignore that potential as they choose.  Each will have equal rights and opportunities, but how each uses those, along with the individual results, will differ and may or may not seem fair. 

In contrast, when the government owns you there is a certainty that exists which cannot exist when you are free to make both large and small choices about your own life.  If the government makes all your decisions for you then you simply have to live with the life laid out for you and be the person that the government, not you, design.  In the early stages of socialism that life seems easier and not all that bad.  Everyone will have the same thing – equity. 

In the abstract, socialism seems nicer – until it isn’t.  Until one realizes that it does not take into account basic human nature, that it suppresses individuality, that it creates an elite power class that feeds off the suffering of the people. “Equity” is not defined and people forget that it could mean they everyone has nothing equally.   But we are not there yet, though, as last night’s speech unintendedly demonstrated, we are well on our way.

Which brings me to Biden’s frightening show last night.

A Speech of Lies

While allegedly defending democracy, Biden revealed his authoritarian and socialist desires.  Basically, his message was that those who do not agree with his political views – mainly Trump Republicans but others as well – are a danger to our democracy.  Quite the opposite is true.  It is only in authoritarian governments where there is only one political view and those with differing views are considered dangerous.  Biden would silence about half of the country for not agreeing with him.  It would seem that he, and not those in disagreement, are the threat.

But wait, there is more.  Let’s talk about Biden and his Party.  They used the media in conjunction with the FBI to kill the Hunter Biden story prior to the 2020 election as well as delaying investigation into Hunter’s criminal acts and their ties to then candidate Biden.  They used the media to silence opposing voices on not only political issues, but health and Covid truths as well.  They used the DOJ and FBI to attack opponent Trump, President Trump, and possible future opponent Trump and his supporters.  This includes the Russia hoax, the biased Jan. 6 committee, and now of course the Mar-a-Lago raid. 

Biden and his Party are determined to silence Trump just as assuredly as Stalin sent his opponents to the Gulag.   They are not concerned with their acts or their plans or their policies, but only in retaining their power and removing anyone or any voice that might stand in their way.  They refuse to enforce valid laws against people who violently assert Left approved views (such as those that appeared at homes of Supreme Court Justices in attempts to intimidate them or BLM continuing summer riots) but place terrorist labels on parents who speak out at school board open meetings or those who advocate to end or limit abortion and killing of the unborn simply for convenience.  And there is the general silencing of language and views that are not popular.

Biden, “the uniter” apparently thinks uniting is accomplished by silencing all who disagree.  That is not democracy.  That is authoritarianism. 

I note that today Biden has backtracked somewhat on his claims that all Trump supporters are a danger – apparently his attempt to destroy his feared political opponent by name-calling his opponent’s supporters didn’t poll well.  He has not however retracted his belief that those who stand up for American democracy are semi-fascists at best.  Just another lie based on seeing in others what is true within himself.

Socialism’s Lies

Biden, like any socialism advocate, lies.  (He actually has a history of lying, going back to plagiarism during law school and his many lies about himself and his accomplishments during his many campaigns for Senate and the White House.)  His lies now tell us that what we see is the opposite of what is:  while he and his party work to dismantle our democracy and our freedoms, he tells us that it is the Republicans who are the threat.  While he fails to enforce the law equally and uses it to attack and silence his political opponents, he tells us that is what his opponent Trump does.  He ignores his many disasters (Afghanistan and other international messes; our economy and inflation; the recession which he claims doesn’t exits; science and covid; education; the border crisis; etc.) or blames them on others, especially Trump and Trump supporters.  He names a bill that economists overwhelmingly tell us will make inflation worse “The Inflation Reduction Act.”

Socialists must lie because socialism is a lie.  The lies of socialism are all around us if we look.  We already see that things are not equal.  While the workers are asked to sacrifice, the power elite and their chosen reap benefits.  Laws are not applied equally.  And eventually the mediocre life that the socialists sign on to will become far less than mediocre as money and resources to provide the promised life dry up.  Picture bread lines (actually we have already seen a preview of such shortages in our grocery stores, baby formula, manufacturing and building parts).  For a realistic view of where socialism leads, think not only of Soviet Russia, but of Venezuela today: “Venezuela is in the midst of an unprecedented social and humanitarian collapse” which includes “food insecurity, the second largest migration crisis in the world, and regional instability.” (United States Institute of Peace, Feb. 2022)

George Orwell, who understood socialism well, gave us an example of Bidenesque lies and government in his books Animal Farm and 1984.  Saul Alinsky gave us the rules for radicals intent on creating a socialist state and the author Tom Collins has given us a take on these.  Biden and the Left are doing a pretty good job.  It is they who are the threat to our democracy.  

Biden’s speech on Sept. 1 was dystopian, divisive, and dangerous.  Biden’s lies about others are the truth about himself, his party and their dreams.  And unless and until Americans realize that they are being lied to by those in power and brainwashed by the complicit media, we need to understand and accept that we will lose our freedoms, that the government will own us, and we will give up any democratic ideals we may have had.  

Welcome to Authoritarian Socialism

 They tried to make a Constitutional crisis out of the fake Russian collusion story that they themselves made up.  They continue to distort and carefully select facts in an attempt to turn the January 6^th demonstration in which some entered beyond open spaces in the Capital into a Constitutional crisis.  They claim that governors who assert their rights to protect their people from unprecedented & overwhelming illegal migration across our borders are creating a Constitutional crisis.  Indeed, they claim that if Donald Trump were to run again for President (something that they see as a real threat to their power) it would be a Constitutional crisis.

Yet they are the ones creating the real Constitutional crisis.

“They” are the Left, the power-hungry Democrats, the Biden Administration.  It is they who have forgotten that their elected power is not unlimited and that it ultimately belongs to the people, not them.  And the more they get away with, the more boldly authoritarian they become.

Today the Left, the Biden Administration’s DOJ, did something unprecedented in our democracy’s politics and in the law in general.  They, without announcement or reasonable cause, entered and searched the home of a former president.  But this is not the first time the DOJ has used its power to threaten and terrorize political opponents of the Left without taking similar, indeed without taking any, action against verified wrongdoing of their supporters.

These are the actions of an authoritarian regime.

As premier Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz stated, the acts of the Democrats are “very scary. They’re very frightening to any civil libertarian. Whether you’re a Democrat or Republican; whether you come from New York or the middle of the country, you should be frightened by efforts to try to create crimes out of nothing.” (See his comments on the Trump raid HERE) 

But it’s not just the weaponization of the DOJ and other law enforcement by Biden and the Left that creates a Constitutional crisis.  It is also this Administration and the Left’s power grab as they build government ever bigger while making the general populace not only ever poorer but also more dependent on that government and hence upon the continuing power of the Left.  They are becoming an authoritarian regime as they work to destroy our democracy and build a socialist country that, in line with socialism historically, ultimately creates not hope but despair for its people (except of course the power elite).

We can all see it happening in front of us with our own eyes.  Too many of us choose not to look.  The rest of us see what is happening and seem helpless to stop it.  So, welcome to our new America – built back better as an authoritarian socialist state in which the people have no voice, no freedom, and no resources other than what the government chooses to allow them.