Politifact, Trump, Animal

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/apr/08/tweets/tweet-leaves-out-context-donald-trumps-animals-rem/

My hat is off to Politifact, the normally quite left wing biased "fact checker" that decided to come clean on this one.

Democrats suddenly started throwing out the claim that "Trump called immigrants animals" and it spread like wildfire in social and other media.

The real story. In a meeting in May of 2018, Trump said the members of the gang MSi13 gang, whose motto is "Rape, Control, Kill" are animals.

I grew up in the age of evolution, and AFAIK, that is still the standard educational system doctrine. Bottom line, human beings are a form of animal, the universe and everything in it is a completely random meaningless happening, and "morals" are purely a matter of "might is right".

At the moment I happen to be reading "Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals" which clearly says right in the title that humans = animal. As a Christian, I certainly find that dangerous and insulting (why not eat humans?), however for those on the left, I have not seen any problem with evolution, the academy and vast swaths of the left themselves treating themselves and others as beasts.

So it is OK to call conservatives and Christians anything from racist, fascist, Nazi, homophobic, xenophobes, deplorables, misogynists, islamophobes, white supremacists, sexists, nationalists, etc and on and on, however calling gang members in one of the nastiest gangs around "animals" is completely beyond the pale?

If one looks at the MOA man who threw a random 5 year old boy off a balcony, one might say that the left has created a species far worse than any "animal"!

Social Norms, Virtue, Enforcement

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/david-brooks-gay-marriage-changing-norms/

In the middle of a column about how norms change, David Brooks remarks, “There used to be a social penalty for supporting gay marriage. Now there’s a social penalty for not supporting it.” I am not at all sure that there was a significant social penalty, in almost any stratum of our society, for supporting same-sex marriage.

Indeed.

In the past, HAVING OPINIONS rarely involved sanction. The leading exception in relatively recent memory being the dreaded HUAC (House Un American Activities Committee) focused on comunists in the country potentially spying for the Soviets. "Are you now, or have you evern been a communist or communist sympathiser".

Today, "Do you now, or have you ever been a supporter or voter for Donald Trump" seems FAR more "reasonable" to the left. Along with support gay "marriage", or lose your job, position, etc. The list keeps lengthening -- transgender, privilege, cultural appropriation, etc.

American "Morality" once was the agreed to Judaeo-Christian, 10 Commandments, New Testament, God, Country, Mom, Hard Work, Salute the Flag, Apple Pie ...

Today, "morality" is the observance of the will of THE PARTY (D) ... Salute the Deep / Administrative State, gays, trans, Muslims, destruction of the Consituition, etc. If / when you fail to 100% comply, you are very likely to be sanctioned. "Virtue" today is compliance with THE PARTY.

That is the water in which we now swim.

It seems to me that there is an asymmetry between how social pressure worked back when same-sex marriage was a minority position and how it works now that it is a majority position. That asymmetry tends to reinforce some of Brooks’s larger points about how norms change. The traditionalist view was widely but, it turned out, often lightly held, and barely conscious of itself as a view. Marriage as the union of a man and a woman was just “the water in which we swam,” as Brooks describes the general functioning of norms. The progressive view is by contrast extremely conscious of its status as a view that can and should be socially enforced.

"Love Your Enemies", Aurthur Brooks

https://www.amazon.com/love-your-enemies-brooks/s?k=love+your+enemies+brooks

A worthy read for our times by an ex-professional orchestra french horn player, a current staunch Catholic intellectual, and outgoing president of AEI,

Aurthur's thesis is that our problem is "contempt", and that in sort of a self help way by looking at how contempt damages us personally, breaks our relationships and is toxic to our country, no rational person would continue to want to wallow in it.

He is right of course, however, even though he brings in the work of Jonathan Haidt (the innate moral virtues) in chapter 4, I question if he really has internalized (or maybe doesn't agree with) Haidt's thesis that we are not in fact "rational", but rather "rationalizing".

He says a few times a version of "Unless we hope to become a one-party state...we" 1) need to honor different viewpoints 2) can't afford contempt 3). require a healthy opposition ... etc.

My take on late 20 teen America is that half the country thought we WERE a defacto "one party state" as of 2008, with the Deep / Administrative State being totally locked, academia, the bulk of the media and media happily on board, topped off with  a demographic juggernaut of thoroughly indoctrinated left leaning youth and safety net addicted immigrants (legal and illegal)  insuring that the single-party lock was only going to get more solid.

Their response to Trump seems to be: 1). Impeach him 2). get rid of Electoral College / Senate power 3). Stack the SCOTUS  4). Collect all the guns in case the "deplorables" take offence to any of this. If they do accomplish those goals, we will have a one-party state, and I'm not so certain that a whole bunch of folks on the left don't find that to be a very good idea.

If not, then the advice in this book on learning to listen, the advantages of understanding "them", and "better disagreement" is excellent.

While there no doubt some right-wing extremists that unfriend, shun, etc, I've never met any. (just like the folks at CBS in NY in 1980 were shocked because they didn't know a single Reagan voter maybe). My sense is that Christians like Brooks and myself really just don't "get" how truly inhuman "Love Your Enemies" is -- we know it is hard, however we accept on faith that it is possible. My sense is that for many non-Christianw, this admonishment is akin to "Be a married bachelor" or "be a living dead person".

An oxymoron ... like "military intelligence'.

When one sees something as irrational to the point of being ridiculous, it seems unlikely they will seek to undertake the difficult task of embarking on the attempt.

Again, I hope I am wrong!

The Paternalistic World View and 401Ks

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/18174385/retirement-savings-401-k

A VOX article that lets us look iniside the mind of the left as to their understanding of the "common man", and what ought be done relative to "average people". They believe that humans CAN'T learn to save for the future, so the important job falls on business and the government -- "the elite",

There’s a reason, it turns out, why employers didn’t hand retirement planning off to workers: 401(k)s are terrible at ensuring that those who need to save for retirement do. Indeed, over the same period in which 401(k)s expanded, the share of working-age households at risk of being financially unprepared at age 65 jumped from 31 percent (in 1983) to more than 53 percent (in 2010). Indeed, the terribleness of 401(k)s helped spark a new field of behavioral economics, which showed that voluntary plans in which people manage their own investments defy everything we know about how the brain works.

Reading the short book "The Millionaire Next Door" explains that most of the wealthy in America are people that follow a simple rule ... spend less than you make, put the savings in something that goes up in value. Naturally, there are LOTS of forces trying to tell you that is "foolishness". "What will a million dollars be worth in 50 years anyway?" Is one of the things I've heard ... the answer ; "A million dollars more than zero". As a corollary, MUCH more than a million dollars MINUS a bunch of debt and interest paid out of your pocket!

There are a whole host of reasons that people are more unprepared for retirement today than in '83 ... massive regulation, the economy being basically stagnant for a decade from '08-'16, crushing taxes including ever more crushing FICA tax (in 1975 it was 5.85 on the first 14k, today it is 6.2 on the first 127K! $819 vs $7,874), lots of inflation (much of it undeclared once the government got into the "inflation adjusted" business), no interest on savings, crushing medical costs made 3-5x MORE crushing on those who DID save by BOcare ... the list is just endless and much of the "help" keeping people down is courtesy of the the elite through the Davos crowd, government, and Deep / Administrative State.

However, the BIG reason remains that FICA gives people a very false sense of "security". If it had been created as what it actually is -- "old age POVERTY welfare" (and a giant new federal tax), which would only go to people without savings, assets, pensions and other income streams, then a much higher percentage of people would save more. It **IS** welfare for elderly, and increasingly if you are not impoverished in old age your small benefit is taxed away from you anyway.

In other words, like typical government, those that pay the most get the least -- or nothing.

**IF** the government actually wanted to "help the irresponsible common man", they would do what W proposed ... put something like the FICA percentage in private non-profit fiduciary managed fund of broad indices of stocks, bonds, property, commodities, metals, etc. NOTHING is "certain", and CERTAINLY NOT THE GOVERNMENT! (see numerous failed governments over history ... Venezuela currently, 100's of them around the globe over the past century or so, with runaway inflation in Germany in the early 1920's being a well known case with an "advanced" nation.

Of course, telling the truth would have never given the giant boost to government spending that FICA did. It was set up so that everyone could imagine getting it, but the original dates you could get it insured that very few would actually collect, and most of those would not collect for long. It was a HUGE "win win" for the government ASSUMING "an ever growing employed population, an ever expanding economy, and not very many people reaching retirement age" -- all assumptions that have proven spectacularly wrong like most "government projections".

It really was successful for what it was supposed to be -- a massive vote buying Democrat party operation.

The reality of it all is that "there is no free lunch" ... the vast majority of people (and businesses) MUST spend less than earned and put the remainder in something that goes up in value. When they don't, the person, business or country will go bankrupt and have NOTHING!

"Liberalism" may look and sound "paternalistic", but no good father would really follow policies that are guaranteed to lead to bankruptcy! The idea that the population is less responsible than the government is obvious idiocy in even a democratic republic! Who votes in the supposed "wise men" that are going to care for us all? The same idiots that can't spend less than they make and put the difference in something that rises in value!

Those elected "wise men" have run up over $200 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities ON TOP of the over $20 TRILLION in US debt. On top of that, state and local debt exceeds $3 TRILLION!

Remember, the people running that up are the "elite"  VOX assures you ought to have MORE power because they are "smart and responsible" and you can count on them taking "good care of you"!

Naturally, those folks will tell you that anyone that advises "God, Guns and Gold" is a COMPLETE idiot ... you would not want to be called names by the elite would you?

How Republicans Became Red

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-republicans-were-blue-and-democrats-were-red-104176297/

Good little bit of recent history. How did color of socialism, rebellion, anger, blood and Satan become the designated color for Republicans in the US?

The Smithsonian assures us it was a complete ACCIDENT!

Early in the article they state the obvious ...

“For years, both parties would do red and blue maps, but they always made the other guys red,” said Chuck Todd, political director and chief White House correspondent for NBC News. “During the Cold War, who wanted to be red?”
Indeed, prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union little more than two decades ago, “red was a term of derision,” noted Mitchell Stephens, a New York University professor of journalism and author of A History of News.

Yes, and blue is the color of water, cool, calm, the Union Army, the sky, etc.-- and it is the most popular color, with 40% of men prefering it and 30% of women -- oh, and only about 10% of each prefer red. I'm CERTAIN that the choice of red for Republicans was PURELY because their name starts with an "R" -- I mean if that was the reason why would you not make the Democrats "Dirt Brown"? 

BTW, if you go look at the color selections, blue and GREEN would be the obvious choices!

Why the Smithsonian -- the museum of the Deep / Administrative State even finds us an EXPERT to verify that it really makes no difference! 

Sara Quinn, a visual journalist now at the Poynter Institute in Florida, said she sees no particular advantage to either color.
“Red is usually very warm and it comes forward to the eye. Blue tends to be a recessive color, but a calming color,” she said.

You know, such things have a tendency to raise a red flag for me!