The News Is What's Newsworthy

 

 Once again I was made aware of a current event and dove into a provided article in order to learn the facts about it. I’m not sure what the source was, I think it was something like The Daily Beast or Buzz Feed or the Cranky Turtle, or something like that. I miss the days when news agencies didn’t try to have hipster sounding names and stuck to names like The Post, The Tribune, or The Reporter. At least then you knew they were owned by establishment types, whereas now you’re led to believe they are led by hip young counter-culture types.

 The news of the day was that Disney fired Gina Carano for making controversial remarks on social media. I clicked on the link to read the actual article to find out what she said. I don’t think people are actually expected to do this, I think they are supposed to take their cues from headlines and have their opinions provided to them rather than making up their own minds. Nevertheless, the purveyors of news feel like they have to give the appearance of actual reporting by including an article to go along with the headline. It’s a time-waster for suckers like me who hope to find actual substance in it.

 It turns out that the headline these days is the frosting on a sponge cake. Made from an actual sponge. There is not actual “there” there, anymore, not in mainstream media. My experience with corporate journalism articles since Trump became president has been this: Enticing headline which makes me want to know more, followed by paragraphs that reassert the headline without giving actual evidence for the assertion, peppered with links that don’t provide the actual evidence I’m looking for, often ending in an admission that the actual assertions might not be true. Look at any Russiagate article you’ve shared with others with a critical eye and you’ll understand what I’m talking about.

 Before going any further, I would like to point out that I am not and have never been a Republican or a conservative. I have always considered myself to be firmly on the left, which is why I’ve always been sensitive regarding the idea that people’s livelihoods can be ruined because of the way they exercise their freedom of speech. I always thought this was a liberal idea. After all, Joe McCarthy was a Republican who smeared and ruined the lives of many a leftist. But it is also worth noting that it was during a Democratic administration that the silencing of Paul Robeson took place. It was under a Democratic administration that Eartha Kitt’s career was derailed after she spoke out against the Vietnam War in front of Ladybird Johnston.

 Here is one article on the firing of Gina Carano that serves as a template for what is wrong with journalism in general. Please keep in mind the title says Here’s Why Gina Carano Was Fired From ‘The Mandalorian’, the key word being “Why”.

 According to the article, “she reshared a post that seemed to suggest having a differing political view in 2021 was similar to being Jewish during the Holocaust”. A statement from Lucasfilm states “Her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable.”

 That’s a big stretch there. Taken on faith that Carano’s intent was to suggest having a differing political view was similar to being Jewish during the Holocaust, it does not equate to “denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities” In fact, it implies that Carano is identifying with the Jews, not denigrating them. Nor is the post intended to equate Republicans with Jews so much as it is to equate the current political climate with something capable of becoming comparable to Nazi Germany. Her crime is one of hyperbole and a demonstration of Godwin’s Law, but I do not see it as a denigration of people based on their cultural and religious identities.

 The comparison of one’s political opponents to Nazis is overused, but there is some value to it. You don’t want to wait until eugenics is in full swing to start comparing people to Nazis. It’s the kind of thing you want to nip in the bud, so in my opinion, it is safer to compare bad behavior to Nazism than it is to worry about hurting people’s sensibilities.

 Besides, it’s not like Democrats have not been engaging in the exact same behavior for four years. Type in an image search for “Trumpler” and see what you come up with (Let me know how many pages of images you find).

 So is that the trespass she is accused of? Comparing the current political climate to Nazi Germany? I guess the way to prove her wrong would be to incite a mob on social media to demand she be fired from her job, right?

 There’s more, though, than just that one tweet, I get it. There was a string of unpopular things she shared on social media, this was merely the final straw. Apparently, she shared memes that “made fun of the mask mandate in California, compared former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial to Groundhog Day, and claimed Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself.”

 In terms of spreading the belief that Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself, few people believe the official story. I know exactly one person who implied he did. Virtually everybody knows there’s more to the story than we are being told, and many just shorthand the assertion that the media is lying by saying “Epstein didn’t kill himself.” Do I personally think he did? How would I know, the cameras that were supposed to be watching him didn’t work. But everybody knows that it’s fishy as hell. Even the media people whose job it is to silence discussion on Jeffrey Epstein know it, even if they can’t say it.

 As for her comparing Trump’s second impeachment to Groundhog Day, is this seriously a reason for getting someone fired? Seriously?

 Lastly is the issue of her making fun of California’s mask mandate. On this issue I personally disagree with her. At least I think I do, I’m not personally familiar with California’s mask mandate. And I’m not sure what exactly she said, though I suspect it would be nothing I would try to get someone fired for. Let us delve further into the article and get to the specifics.

 Except there are no further tweets or other social media shares to be found in the article. Let me correct myself, there are no further tweets found in the article by Gina Carana. Instead the article shares angry tweets by anonymous tweeters calling for Carana to be fired. Within one is the assertion that she has expressed transphobic sentiments. But the article does not go on to share any evidence to back up the claim of an anonymous person on Twitter. Let me be clear: this article includes the assertion of an anonymous person on Twitter, and then does absolutely nothing to say if that assertion is true or false.

 And this passes for journalism. Maybe it’s just me, but if I were paid to report on the reason why someone in the public eye lost her job for voicing her political opinions, I would do the work and provide the actual social media posts she made, rather than the angry tweets of anonymous people.

 I was introduced to this story by someone sharing another article. It was an article that told me how I should perceive the situation without providing me with the evidence I needed to make up my own mind. I responded to the social media post by saying I could not find the actual statements she made or shared. Someone else commented that I should follow the links in the article. That person had assumed that actual paid journalists would provide such information. But I had long ago discovered differently. There were links, yes, but nothing to anything that provided any evidence. Not unlike the Russiagate article I linked to above, which had no links even insinuating ANYTHING about any Russians. The article in question was shared with me by an intelligent person hoping to persuade me that Russian collusion was fact. An article that mentions Russia nowhere but in the headline.

 Journalism in our era is not there to provide you with information, it is there to provide you with opinion. But if you take exception to anything provided by establishment media, you are accused of not accepting the facts or reality. And arguing your case will never amount to anything.

 They’ve got this down to a science. They have propaganda and manipulation of the masses down to a science. In the nearly one hundred years since the nephew of Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays, began using psychological principles for marketing and propaganda purposes, think tanks and government entities have learned a lot. You have to be aware of how this stuff works if you don’t want to fall prey to it. Read everything critically, with the knowledge that there is always someone trying to manipulate your feelings and how you view reality.

 Again, I am not and have never been a member of the Republican Party. I am not writing what I am writing to defend them or Gina Carano or any particular position. I am writing this in the attempt to hold Democrats and the (alleged) left media to a standard that rises above FOX News or Alex Jones. Right now, I often wonder if they’re even capable of rising to the same sad standard.

If you liked what I write enough to support me, you can buy me a coffee. If you liked it but don't have a credit card handy, please share. Also, follow me on Twitter or Facebook, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.

In Defense Of Slavery

(I have taken many of the arguments I am currently hearing and imagining them being employed by someone a couple of hundred years ago)

I’m sick of people saying slavery as a way of organizing an economy is bad. Have there been abuses? Sure. Is the system perfect? No. But we must remember that the United States of America was built on slavery. Our very culture of freedom and opportunity would not today exist if it were not for an economy based in slavery. No, it is not perfect. And yes, there are ways it can be improved. Nevertheless, slavery is the greatest economic system that has ever existed.

 Before you consider throwing out the economic foundation that our country was founded on in favor of some foreign system, take a long hard look at what the alternatives are. Take a look at the Native American tribes in the west who do not have an agrarian economy based on ownership of other people. Everywhere their tribes are failing, their way of life disintegrating. Instead of intelligent employment of slaves to produce what they need, they rely on buffalo for food, clothing and housing. And what is the result? A rapidly shrinking supply of buffalo. When will they admit their system does not work?

 Regard, also, our neighbors to the south. Why, it has been scarce two score years since Mexico has done away with slavery, and in that short amount of time, their ability to govern their own affairs has been so lacking that the United States was forced to take control of the territories of California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and Texas, clear proof that an economy based on slavery is superior to the alternative. In Central and in South America, too, once-thriving industries have suffered as the result of a transition to a non-slave economy. Their mining of precious minerals has plummeted, their rubber plantations a mere shadow of what they once were.

 What many regard as cruelty and injustice in a slave-holding economy is actually part of a self-regulating system. For example, many people are disinclined through experience with other forms of economies to climb underground to dig for emeralds. These individuals, lacking in personal ambition, must be induced to be productive members of a society. Likewise, there are many who are unwilling to do the work of picking cotton, ironing people’s linens, and slopping out the barn. It is the unfortunate burden of those better capable of understanding how the world operates to ensure others do their part.

 Of course, the tools employed to ensure compliance in a system based on slavery can seem harsh to those unfamiliar with the system. But it has been demonstrated time and again that the whipping and enslavement of workers has dramatically decreased the need for prisons. In many cases, sparing the rod is not ultimately the most compassionate treatment.

 And while the slave seems at first glimpse to be a tool and not a treasured member of society, nothing could be further from the truth. The slave is the most highly valued resource of the slave owner. The owner of a plantation is quite aware, believe you me, that all the wealth he has acquired could not be achieved without the labor of his slaves. That is why he will do everything possible to be certain his slaves are kept at peak operating efficiency.

 For example, slave owners have an economic stake in keeping their slaves well-fed. It hardly requires explaining that the better nourished a slave is, the more productive he will be and the richer his owner will be in return. Moreover, a sick slave is an unproductive slave, which is why a smart slave owner will make sure the slave who is sick, or injured due to corrective whipping, will receive adequate health care. Why, one could hardly imagine a worker taking as much interest in his own health as the man who owns him.

 Now, I won’t pretend that there aren’t flaws and imperfections in the slavery system. But most of these flaws result not from the practice of slavery but due to government interference in a pure slavery system. Well-meaning but ignorant do-gooders are always trying to improve upon the slavery economy, but in the end they only do more harm than good. The system works best when it is allowed to work as it was intended. Outside interference will only make things worse.

 Lastly, there is the racial component to slavery. On this subject, I must wholeheartedly agree with the critics of slavery. For too long, the racial identity of slave owners has been overwhelmingly white while slaves have been disproportionately persons of color. This needs to change, and we must do whatever it takes to make sure people of color have access to the ownership of slaves of whatever color, gender, or orientation. But it would be a foolish mistake if we were to, in the process of integrating the ownership of slaves, harm the very institution that has allowed so many slaveholders and slaves alike to experience a wealth other nations (the Cree Nation, the Navajos, and the Cherokee, just to name a few) can only dream of. 

We do not need to abolish the slave economy, we just need to ensure that it is allowed to work as it was intended and without bias as regards to race, gender, or sexual bias.

If you liked what I write enough to support me, you can buy me a coffee. If you liked it but don't have a credit card handy, please share. Also, follow me on Twitter or Facebook, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.

Who Gave Corporations Control?

 Why should we recognize the rights of corporations? From whence comes their authority? Who bequeathed them their rights? The U.S. Constitution? There is no mention of corporations in that document.

Why should corporations own houses that go empty while people sleep under bridges? Why do they have access to our politicians when the pleas of their constituents fall on deaf ears? Why do we permit them to write our laws? Why do we fight their wars?

And who was it that decided corporations should be in charge of our water? I thought it would be obvious once they decided the best means of delivering water would be through single use plastic containers trucked in from hundreds of miles away that people would realize how stupid and evil this was, but we all just went along with it. Who told us that was a good idea?

I suppose it was the media, almost all of which is owned by corporations, 90% of which is owned by just 6 gigantic corporations. But who allowed that to happen?

It was our crooked politicians, all of whom rely on corporate funding to win elections. Democrats and Republicans alike are working for the same corporate interests. Where is the politician who will take the side of people over corporations? The system the corporations fund will never permit them to be elected.

Who gave corporations the power to control not only our means of production but our environment, our media, and our government? We the people didn’t give it to them. They never asked permission. They just took it.

But who’s allowing them continued ownership of nature, government, the machinery of production, and the influencing of our minds?

Who gave them our forests and gave them tax breaks on the purchase of chainsaws?

Who gave them our rivers and lakes to use as receptacles for their poisonous waste?

Who gave them our oceans to exploit and abuse every creature that lives within them?

Who gave them our genes to play with and the genes of our plants to patent?

You did.

You did, every time you willingly bought what they were selling you.

You did, when you voted for THEIR candidates.

You did, every time you turned on THEIR media and allowed them to dump THEIR lies into YOUR mind.

You did, every time you said “It’s just more convenient.”

You did, every time you refused to speak up or fight back.

You did, every time you bought your Made In China flag to show your Made In Madison Ave. patriotism.

And who is EVER going to make this right?

You will.

Not the politicians who owe their positions to corporate backing.

Not benevolent CEO’s or visionary billionaires.

Bill Gates won’t do it. He’ll just spray the sky to darken the sun.

Elon Musk won’t do it. He’ll just blast a car into outer space.

Technology won’t make this right.

Incremental progress won’t get us there.

The invisible hand of the market won’t be our savior.

No.

Who then will make things right?

You will.

You can.

You must.

We will.

We must.

We shall.

P.S. F*ck Jeff Bezos.

If you liked what I write enough to support me, you can buy me a coffee. If you liked it but don't have a credit card handy, please share. Also, follow me on Twitter or Facebook, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.

It's Not Defending Donald Trump To Point Out Certain Flaws In The Democratic Party

 

A lot of Democrats wonder why I seem to defend Republicans all the time. I don’t, I just call out the flaws of the Democrats. Democrats, like Republicans, have been conditioned to think that attacking one party means defending the other. It doesn’t.

 Let me give you an example: if I were to say dog sh*t smells bad, I am not saying cat sh*t smells good. An attack on dog sh*t is not an implicit endorsement of cat sh*t. And it’s really weird for me to see anyone defending either.

 It’s just that both parties have become so bad that the only way they can justify anyone voting for them is by pointing out the ways in which the other side is worse. Politics has become a completely negative endeavor, because there is no positive to point to. Let me be clear: demanding something be good is not supporting something bad.

 There are critiques of the Democrats that need to be made. First, because they are valid. Second, because it shows everyone involved that I am willing to step outside the whole “my side rules your side drools” mentality. Communication should be maintained so that understanding and consensus might be achieved. Third, because honest criticism can lead to improvement. Fourth, trying to defend cat sh*t is just going to make me feel and look ridiculous.

 One thing especially about the Democrats has me worried: their blind trust in authority and official narrative. Their desire to obey authority is different from that of the Republicans, who prefer a strongman to admire, a uniform to salute, a boot to lick. The authority to which Democrats bow is what Erich Fromm would refer to as “anonymous authority”. Anonymous authority is not anything one can point to but a sense that public opinion, science, and our systems are working as they were designed and providing us with the “right” answers. One need only recline into the existing environment and all will be well.

 Ask any Democrat how they arrived at their opinion on a certain subject and they will tell you that they read or watch reliable media and come to their own opinion on the matter. But the very unanimity of not only their thoughts but their arguments indicates an alarming homogeneity of opinion. It’s like they open their mouths and CNN comes out. There is certainly a danger involved in Republican’s over-willingness to accept conspiracy theories, but the Democrat’s overwhelming acceptance of official narrative is even more frightening. Especially, especially, when it comes to narratives that justify U.S. military engagement.

I suppose it springs from the fact that many more Democrats go through what they believe is an education but would be more accurately described as an indoctrination. In college, they are fed a smattering of culture which provides them a far broader view of the world than they had previously imagined. This a good thing in and of itself, but for far too many they feel they have been given all the education they will ever need outside of work. They are left with a vague notion that the university has done its job by downloading its program into them and they are now free to go about their lives. The anonymous authority of higher learning, they feel, has done its job. They will henceforth be guided by all the wisdom of the ages.

 They are then unleashed into the world and feel they have a deeper understanding of what is happening because they consume a better cut of media than the rest. The problem is, most are just taking notes from the media like they did with their teacher in college so that they can repeat what they have been told. So long as they are able to repeat in their own words what they heard the teacher/Washington Post say, they are demonstrating their intelligence. Too often, though, it is merely a repetition of what they have been given from their source. Most of them were taught that the ultimate goal was a good grade, not learning how to formulate their own opinions. 

 Democrats nowadays have an almost unimaginable faith in the system, the complete opposite of Democrats in the 60’s and 70’s. They trust the establishment media and dismiss anything that does not jibe with it as conspiracy theory. Wacky, crazy, conspiracy theory. Indeed, a lot of it is, but it should not be so immediately dismissed because the media calls it that. A media that is not questioned will soon abuse the trust given it. But it’s easier for Democrats to trust the media and let them tell them what to think. They are, after all, the authority, and Democrats have been trained to seek the approval of authority. But because the media is a less tangible and less obviously monolithic authority than, say, Fox News, they don’t see it as such.

 Another authority in which the Democrats have placed their complete and utter trust is the intelligence agencies. Again, something completely opposite of what Democrats did a half-century ago. There is literally no news article which had the line “According to unnamed intelligence sources” which Democrats did not fully believe since Donald Trump has come to power.

 The last authority democrats look to is establishment politicians and parties. Not only do they uncritically accept any establishment Democrat, they treat any Republican willing to defend the status quo in the face of Trump as the biblical father did his prodigal son. George W. Bush, John McCain, Rick Snyder, John Kasich, etc. Anyone belonging to establishment politics speaking against Trump is given status as an authority and defender of the realm. It is not the individuals themselves whom Democrats admire, because individually they would be and have been despised by Democrats. No, it is the anonymous authority they represent.

 Something happened to Democrats when Donald Trump arrived on the scene. Or, more accurately, Donald Trump revealed something in them that was already there: their unacknowledged dependence on authority. It is not always easy to spot someone who is dependent on anonymous authority, but it became impossible to deny as Democrats sought to find something they could throw in Trump’s path to impede his march to power. Their obedience to unnamed power was transferred onto more readily identifiable institutions. As establishment Republicans fled the Trump movement, they were embraced into the Democratic mainstream. With them came an admiration for concrete structures of authority. Military authority, once suspect in the eyes of the Democrats, became unquestionable. If generals say we should not withdraw from Afghanistan, then Trump is treasonous to suggest we remove troops. The CIA and FBI have long been known by the Left to engage in all kinds of undemocratic behavior, but all that seems to be forgotten. The authority of intelligence agencies was all the proof required for Democrats to believe that Russia was starting a war against the United States and that we must respond as strongly as possible. Corporate media, which most Democrats used to know was biased in favor of corporations, became the vestal virgins keeping alive the sacred flame of truth.

 Even the Democrats’ embrace of and trust in their politicians has never been so complete as it is now. While once they may have voted for the lesser of two evils, never until now were they willing to accept Joe Biden as a candidate. Their enthrallment to anonymous authority is evidenced by their unquestioning support of anyone stamped “Democrat” by unknown arbiters within the party.

 The world can be changed by a relatively small group of individuals capable of thinking for themselves. The world will not be changed by a large group of people willing to be guided by authority, be it a demagogue or the more abstract kind. In a way, the acceptance of authority by Democrats can be more insidious, because it is less recognizable. An acceptance of anonymous authority can be far more enduring than the support of any one man, because an individual will eventually be held accountable for his failures. Not so the power that hides behind the media and the government. I am not talking about some nefarious shadow group but of a power relationship between those who are willing to abuse power and those who allow themselves to be abused. This happens. It is an undeniable but often denied aspect of human nature. Those who are in abusive relationships, be it with a lover or a cult, are reluctant to admit it and are quick to explain it away. But it happens.

Democrats are now in such a relationship. They won't admit it, of course, precisely because they are in deep in such a relationship. There's nothing you nor I nor anyone can tell them until they come to realize it for themselves. All we can really do is be there for them and continue to point out what a healthy relationship is supposed to look like. As hard as it may be, that's all a good friend can do.

 If you liked what I write enough to support me, you can buy me a coffee. If you liked it but don't have a credit card handy, please share. Also, follow me on Twitter or Facebook, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.

Trump Is The Picture That Reveals America's Soul

 

(The Picture Of Dorian Gray is the story of a man who has his portrait drawn and makes a wish that the picture and not he would age. The wish is granted, and Dorian Gray lives for many years appearing as if he has neither aged nor been changed by his sinfulness. When at last the picture is shown to others, it reveals all the sin and corruption he has indulged in.)

 I won’t go as far as to say the U.S.A was ever the shining city on the hill some imagine it was, but we did good enough P.R. that many people believed it was. So much so that the illusion existed overseas as well, even in countries we invaded. A lot of my social media fam will say the U.S. has an evil history, but that’s true of most if not all countries.

 Regardless of how you personally view the U.S., the Stars and Stripes were an image that symbolized freedom to many in other countries. If you don’t believe me, try to send your memory back to when the 9/11 attacks happened. Just as most Americans felt as though they were New Yorkers on that day, a lot people around the world saw themselves as Americans, felt like the world had been attacked. The genuine outpouring of sympathy and support internationally was undeniable. Whatever the United States was going to do in response, the rest of the world seemed poised to support us.

 Of course, most of the goodwill we had garnered on that day has been squandered by an arrogance and aggressive militarism we had never so overtly shown before. Yet somehow there was still a bit of a luster to the Stars and Stripes. Perhaps the illusion that we were caring and just had fallen away, but the world still viewed us as at least powerful and competent.

 But then came Trump. He revealed a truth to the rest of the world that none of our other actions ever could. Mai Lai could be rationalized as the actions of a few bad soldiers. Hiroshima could be blamed on the decisions of a few people in government. The American people themselves could still feign innocence or at least ignorance or powerlessness. The violent and greedy actions taken by the United States could be viewed by the charitable or gullible as mistakes that America was willing to fix. They could even be viewed as sins for which we would yet atone.

 But Trump…Trump is something people in other nations can’t explain away. When they saw a nation that embraced Donald Trump, they were not witnessing an action done by a few. They were not seeing bad behavior from an otherwise benevolent country. They were not seeing a mistake, or misstep. No, when we elected Donald Trump to be our political—and in many respects, our moral—leader, there was no denying what lay in our collective soul.

 It's as if The United States was Dorian Gray, and the world had finally seen the portrait we had kept hidden for so many years. It’s like for years we’ve been exporting sausages to the world and they finally got to see how the sausage was being made. You don’t unsee that.

 The world now knows that this is our true face, even though there are so many of us who are screaming “This is not who we are!” Sure, you did not vote for the oozing pustule that is our president. But for how many decades did you notice the blemish grow and do nothing about it? You should have known it was just a matter of time before it popped. You should have applied some antiseptic to the area the moment it became noticeable. But you permitted it to fester.

 Meanwhile, many Americans perceive Donald Trump as our path back towards greatness. He is the one who will give Old Glory a spit shine so that it will be as bright as new (though oddly enough, they seemed to have replace the flag I knew and loved with a faded or completely black and white one). But you can’t be great when everyone who stares upon you recoils in horror. And there is little reason for anyone outside our borders to look at us in any other way.

 There is nothing for the world to see in our president that would prompt any admiration or fondness. They see a man who has killed another country’s general while he was arriving under the white flag of parley. An assassination of a leader revered by a nation we are not even at war with. Nobody does that, not even on Game Of Thrones. It is a signal to the world that we are a nation of complete lawlessness, not greatness.

 When the world looks at our country, they see a leader who says openly that we have the right to occupy, for as long as we desire, portions of Syria and take their oil to help pay for our occupation. Again, this is in a nation that has not attacked us. You may appreciate Trump because he states honestly what others obfuscate about, but this proves my point. People can fail to clearly see Dorian Gray’s crimes because he appears pleasant and innocent. But when others finally see him for who he is, they are appalled. Trump has let the world see who we are.

 Francois Duc De La Rochefoucauld said “Hypocrisy is a tribute that vice pays to virtue.” That means even sinners are capable of realizing that it is in their own best interests to at least pretend that what they are doing has some virtue to it. It means that even the evil find it practical to praise goodness. This idea has eluded Donald Trump. I’m afraid it eludes us as Americans, as well. We are no longer capable of thinking at this level, and this is a pretty basic level. I would guess that most grade schoolers have the potential to grasp this concept. But they have to be taught, and our number one teacher is the media. A media that is funded by consumer advertising has little interest in making people grasp simple concepts.

 Trump supporters will defend the president’s behavior by saying (and if I am wrong on this, I expect my MAGA friends to set me straight) that the United States does not have to be appreciated, admired, or respected by other nations but only feared. Our greatness, they will say, relies on our strength, not in our ability to win friends.

 This is a mistake that even Adolph Hitler would not have made. Even he made pretext and justifications when he did something evil. Even he tried to hide many of his more horrible crimes. Brutal oppression may work for a time, but it is not a long-term strategy. If your only justification for dominance is brute force, the world will be covertly working to trip you at an opportune moment, and nobody will try to stop the fall. No, if you're going to go full-blown evil, deception's a necessary tool.

 Soon, Democrats will regain the presidency and attempt to stretch the threadbare blanket that is Joe Biden over the painting in hopes that the world will forget about it. Not long after that, they will slap a picture of a woman of color on top of it as if there was nothing to see behind the curtain. But what the world has seen, it cannot forget. As in Oscar Wilde’s novel, there will be no cosmetic answer to the problem we face, but perhaps we might, seeing at last what we’ve become, repent and save our soul.

 If you liked what I write enough to support me, you can buy me a coffee. If you liked it but don't have a credit card handy, please share. Also, follow me on Twitter or Facebook, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.

Was The Election Rigged Or Do Trump Supporters Just Not Want To Lose?

 

I’ve heard a lot of my Republican friends say they’ll never believe Joe Biden got 81 million votes. I have to admit, it’s hard to imagine 81 million people voted for a demented plagiarist who wants to cut social security.

 But by the same token, I find it inconceivable that 74 voted for Donald Trump. And I don’t mean million. Oh, I know you voted for him because he said things that no one else would, that he called out establishment politicians in a way establishment media never would. And I know elections have devolved into voting against the worst candidate rather than choosing a candidate the whole country can tolerate.

 But it’s time for Trump supporters to contemplate the fact that their candidate WAS the worst candidate, at least in the eyes of the electorate. I mean, you already see some of his negatives, right? I’ve often heard it when you are talking amongst yourselves and I’ve heard it when you defend him by saying things like: “I wish he wouldn’t say some of the crazy things he does, but…”

 Well a lot of people see the crazy things he tweets and don’t see the “but…” They stopped listening after the crazy and didn’t hang around for the alleged good stuff he said.

 But I understand your concern over election integrity and absolutely support the push for free, fair, and open elections. And I’m sure you have been pushing for it for decades too, right? I mean, you’ve been opposing voter purges of people whose names are similar to convicted felons, right? And you’ve been fighting against gerrymandering, right? And you’ve been calling out proprietary software that leaves open the possibility of vote-switching ever since it was introduced during the Bush Administration, right? I mean I can't believe your concern for voting integrity is nothing more than a desire to have your preferred candidate serve a second term. Right?

 So let’s work on this together and get to the bottom of any election rigging that might have occurred, so that the rightful candidate becomes President of the United States of America.

 Just know that once we dig down to the truth, that candidate will be Bernie Sanders. Yeah, you say the Democratic Party stole the election from Donald Trump? That may be true, but they didn’t have the power to rig it against Trump the way they did with Bernie Sanders. The entire establishment of the Democratic Party was out to get Bernie Sanders and they were in complete control of the primaries. The Democrats didn’t have nearly the opportunity to cheat against Trump as they did against Bernie Sanders. They don't control the Supreme court and they don't control any state government in the same way they controlled the primary. They were able to completely do Bernie in and they did him hard. If it were not for the fact that they pulled out all stops against him, he would have become the Democratic Party’s nominee. So if you’re truly concerned about election rigging, let’s re-run the election, only this time with Trump versus Sanders.

 And Bernie Sanders will win, you know. Whatever your political leanings may be, you have to admit everything Bernie stood for is precisely what Americans are clamoring for at the moment. We are, after all, in the midst of a pandemic and an impending depression. When last we had a similar situation, the United States unprecedentedly elected a Democratic Socialist for President for four terms. And Donald Trump is an even more unlikeable version of Herbert Hoover. Even if you think he walks on water, Trump would not beat Sanders. It’s just not his moment.

 So if you want to overturn the election, I’d be willing to have a fair do over. But if you’re not willing to admit Bernie Sanders was at least as cheated as Donald Trump and should have a shot at the presidency, I’m going to dismiss all your bellyaching as nothing more than sour grapes.

Your thoughts are appreciated.

If you liked what I wrote enough to support me, you can buy me a coffee. If you liked it but don't have a credit card handy, please share. Also, follow me on Twitter or Facebook, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.

If Our Country Was On Fire, Who Would Put It Out?

 

It’s like the apartment building I live in is on fire. So I call the fire department as I stand outside watching everything I own burn to the ground. Everybody’s standing, waiting. Finally, a firetruck arrives with a great sound of sirens and everyone is elated because they know something’s going to happen. The truck parks and the firefighters get off and start waving at the people standing in the street. And the people cheer at them because they are their heroes. It’s almost like a parade, where the firefighters strut their stuff to applause and whistles from those who line the street.

 Then one of the firefighters grabs a megaphone and calls out to the crowd: WE’RE HERE TO DO AWAY WITH ARSONISTS!” And the people go wild. And then the firefighter with the megaphone continues to talk about how bad arson is and how bad the people who engage in such tactics are. Like the rest of the crowd, I am initially excited. But after 10 minutes of this I start to wonder if they’re ever going to fight the fire. But very few people around me feel the same way. I see a kid booing them, but he’s flicking matches and I wonder if he’s one of the arsonists and that’s the only reason he doesn’t like them.

I’m as patient as I can possibly be, but eventually I wait for the guy with the megaphone to lower it for a second and I yell out: “What about the fire?”

 The firefighters either don’t hear me or choose to ignore me. So I repeat myself, again and again, until it turns into a chant. I notice others have joined me. The kid with the matches is chanting too, but I don’t stop him. He may have been the one who started the fire, but that’s not my primary concern at the moment. I want to save what I can of my possessions in my apartment. More than that, I’m worried about my neighbors. I see some out on the street who seem to be looking for loved ones. Others aren't dressed properly for the weather. We can deal with Match Kid later. Right now, the immediate problem as I see it is to fight the fire.

 So I continue to lead the chant. “What about the fire? What about the fire?” Because at this point I’m starting to get angry. The whole scene seems absurd. And people might very well be dying inside the burning building. I’m encouraged by those who are chanting along with me, and look over at my fellow apartment dwellers in anticipation of a shared solidarity and frustration.

 I’m shocked to see many of them staring angrily at me, so I ask them why. “Can’t you see they’re here to help us?” says a woman, in her face a look of disgust she genuinely wants to drill into me. “They’re the good guys. You need to give them your loyalty. Or, are you an ARSONIST?” And in her gaze I can see that she truly views me as being every bit as guilty as the person who started the fire.

 “I just want the fire out!” I say, in shocked response. “That’s totally the opposite of what an arsonist would want. I wish the fire had never been started. I am completely and utterly anti-arson. But the question of who started the fire is a stupid one to argue about when our apartment building is on fire. We have to do something.” 

“We’ll why don’t you ask the arsonists to do something about it since you’re being so critical of the firefighters? Don’t you see they are doing all they can? They came with their firetruck and their ladders and their axes.”

 “I want to support the firefighters. But the fact is, they’re not fighting fires. So long as they are not fighting a fire, they are not really firefighters, are they? I mean, they’re not substantially better than an arsonist at this point, because the arsonist is sitting watching the result of his work while the firefighters are simply strutting around saying they are not the problem.”

 “So what do you want?” says another of my neighbors. “Do you expect them to just rush into the fire and get themselves killed?”

 “Well, no. I expect that they are well-trained in fighting fires. I expect them to take all the precautions that their training has instilled in them. But ultimately there are risks inherent in the job they chose as their profession. I mean, there’s more to being a firefighter than not being an arsonist.”

 “So you just want them to commit suicide in order to prove themselves worthy of you?”

 “Of course not. But I do expect them to do their job! I didn’t ask them to become firefighters. They signed on to do it. If that’s what they said they were going to do, if that’s what they said they are determined to do, then they should do it. Otherwise they’re just taking the place of someone else who would actually do what they said they would.”

 Evidently the conversation has garnered enough attention that one of the firefighters feels he needs to respond: “This is not the time to fight the fire,” he says. “First we have to have everyone in position.”

 “Okay," I say. "You’re the firefighter. You’ve been trained for this. You know what you’re doing. Get everyone in position and put the fire out.”

 “You don’t understand,” says a person who introduces herself as a spokesperson for the firefighter’s union. “We have to have the complete support of everyone here. If enough of you speak loudly enough in favor of the firefighters and against the arsonists, we can begin to gain key positions from which we can advance a strategy to defeat the arsonists—”

 “For fuck’s sake, just fight the fire! That’s what we pay you for! That’s your job!”

 “We want to fight the fire. But the arsonists—”

 I hear a woman crying that her child is in the burning building, but nobody else seems to notice. Or care. An elderly man leans heavily on his walker, the cold evening wind sending shivers through him. All around me is misery, and I have no desire to engage in incessant banter while action is needed. I contemplate what I might do for the elderly man, wonder if I’d stand a chance of rushing into the burning building in order to search for those whose lives are in danger. But my thoughts are cut short as a voice comes through the megaphone.

 “Hang tight, everybody,” comes the message. “We are doing everything we can. Don’t listen to those who are trying to cause panic.”

 The man with the walker seems barely able to stand. Next to him a young couple try to keep their children warm.

 The megaphone crackles to life once again. “In the meantime, we have brought marshmallows and sticks for you.”

 An astonishingly large amount of the crowd becomes excited by this announcement. With that, the firefighters begin to dole out supplies for s’mores. One firefighter hands graham crackers to the kid who’s been flicking matches. As she does so, I can’t help think she gives him a knowing wink.

If you liked what I write enough to support me, you can buy me a coffee. If you liked it but don't have a credit card handy, please share. Also, follow me on Twitter or Facebook, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.