A Generational Rx

This GrayShift was published at Smerconish.com. I can't post it here, but I can link to it here.    Go HERE.

I Never Understood Propaganda, Until Now

This GrayShift was published at Smerconish.com. I can't post it here, but I can link to it here.    Go HERE.

The Myth of the Left Wing Press

This GrayShift was published at Smerconish.com. I can't post it here, but I can link to it here.

Go HERE.

What If Trump...?

Let’s pretend that in the next few weeks, Trump does something completely unethical, immoral, and illegal. Let’s say he gives Russia some classified military information in exchange for Putin helping him build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

First of all, can we all agree that that is wrong on just about every level? If you don’t agree with that, then go read something else, because you’re not going to like this. (And also, don’t call yourself a patriot.)

My question is: If he does this, how will he be held accountable? Here are the normal possibilities.

1) The Department of Justice investigates him. Doubtful. The DOJ is supposed to be independent of the president, and as far as I know, always has been. But that is not the case here. Attorney General William Barr has gone on the record over and over defending the president, as if the president is his client. Barr is also implicated in the Ukraine situation. I think we can be pretty sure that Barr would let it go.

2) Local Judicial Districts, such as SDNY, or the FBI, could investigate. Nope, Barr just issued an order, that from now until the election, nobody can initiate an investigation of any political candidate without his approval. That’s not normal.

(Besides, the DOJ ruling is that a sitting president cannot be indicted, or even investigated, for crimes.)

3) The Senate could investigate. Well, that’s not going to happen. They’ve made it clear they will not cross Trump, no matter what. That’s a given.

4) Maybe the House. And they might. But no Trump supporter is going to believe them, because they would yell things like “All you do is investigate, just because you hate Trump.”

5) That leaves the press/news media. And that could happen. But Trump has that covered as well. Most Trump supporters believe that anyone except Fox is fake news. So no matter how much evidence is uncovered on Trump, Fox will not cover it. So his supporters will not believe it, if they even know about it. They will portray it as “enough already” and even independents might say “let’s move on.”

So if Trump does something horrible? As far as I can see, there is no possible vehicle to make Trump supporters believe it. The Justice Department, Congress, or the media either won’t cover it, or won’t be believed by them.

So the best that could happen is that the non-Trump supporters will go all in. Nobody else will. But since Republicans control most of the power structure, he won’t be prosecuted. He won’t be impeached. There will be no real consequences.

Realistically, Trump can do whatever he wants. Without any real worries. Sadly, this isn’t just a hypothetical. Something like this could happen.

And probably will.

Here, right matters. Truth matters.

I’m retired, at least in the winter. So I have time. And I’ve been watching the Senate impeachment trial, off and on. I admit that I have followed the Ukraine story more closely than most, so not much has surprised me.

I was surprised, however, at how much detail the House managers used to make their case, and how complete and ironclad their argument seems to be.

To me, it’s very clear that what President Trump did was wrong. I’m not really sure at this point how anyone can argue otherwise, and I don't think the President's lawyers really will. Whether you think what he has done rises to impeachment level is, of course, a judgement call.

But, I just heard Adam Schiff give final remarks for Thursday’s session. While the last 10 minutes was spell-binding, at least to me, this part here was just so powerful. (The link is here.)

Here's what Mr. Schiff said:

Colonel Vindman said "Here right matters. Here right matters." Well let me tell you something. If right doesn't matter, if right doesn't matter, it doesn't matter how good the constitution is, it doesn't matter how brilliant the framers were, it doesn't matter how good or bad our advocacy in this trial is.  It doesn't matter how well written the oath of impartiality is. If right doesn't matter, we're lost. If the truth doesn't matter, we're lost...It's what's made us the greatest nation on earth. No constitution can protect us, if right doesn't matter anymore. And you know you can't trust this president to do what's right for this country; you can trust he will do what's right for Donald Trump. He'll do it now, he's done it before, he'll do it for the next several months, he'll do it in the election if he's allowed to. This is why, if you find him guilty, you must find that he should be removed. Because right matters. Because right matters. And the truth matters. Otherwise we are lost.

Damn!

I stayed in my lane. I shouldn't have.

I was a teacher for 35 years. And I think I was pretty good. At least I did my best.

One of the things I really tried to get across to my students was to think critically and independently. To not just accept what is easiest, or what is popular. Of course, I didn’t tell them I was doing it; I tried to be somewhat subtle about it. I taught many “life lessons” that were not necessarily related to science. Again, I didn’t call them “life lessons” but that’s what they were.

As a chemistry and physics teacher, I stuck to those subjects. Sure, my life lessons got off the subject quite a bit (which my students loved--anything was better to many of them than science!) But I was careful, always careful, to never show MY own opinions. And stay away from real controversial subjects.  I didn’t want to unfairly influence them in things where I really had no right.

And while that seemed right, looking back I'm just not sure.

I have a lot of former students who are Facebook friends now. And I sometimes don't understand what I see. It’s not that they have different opinions from me, which I have no problem with. Instead, it’s that some don’t use any critical thinking skills. They seem to accept whatever story fits what they already think. Even when I jump into a thread and give facts, data, graphs, quotes, etc., most of them just pretend I never said it and keep on commenting as they were before. Even when I’ve proved that what they’re saying is non-factual, or incorrect.

I'm not sure I should have stayed out of controversial subjects when I was teaching. But I “stayed in my lane” and didn’t venture there. And I'm not sure I was right.

Because while I tried to teach my students critical thinking, it was difficult when just dealing with scientific topics. If I had tackled things like climate change and other "political" topics more directly, I think I would have been more effective. And I'm sure I could have done it without “preaching” or standing for any “side,” other than the side of truth.

For many, if something reinforces their own assumptions, they believe it. If it doesn’t, they don’t. That bothers me. They are lacking critical thinking skills, unable to differentiate truth from fiction, fact from propaganda, good from bad. And yes, I tried to teach them this from a science perspective--if an experiment doesn’t come out as you expect it to, that doesn’t mean the experiment is wrong, but maybe you're expectations were. It means you repeat it, many times if necessary, until you KNOW what is right.

But I think I would have been more effective teaching critical thinking if I had applied it to things that really mattered in their lives, rather than just science. But for the most part, I didn’t.

And I think I should have.

Don't Get Fooled Again

I remember in 2003. It was after 9/11, and we had already invaded Afghanistan. Even for those of us who don’t like war, we could understand that. Afghanistan had been home to Al Qaeda, who was responsible for the attacks.

But then Bush wanted to attack Iraq. We all knew they had nothing to do with the attacks. But our president told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. As good, patriotic Americans, most of us believed him. I know I did. And although I didn’t like war, I was all for this one. I remember thinking "The Iraqis better be scared. The USA is coming after them."

Also about that time, there were lots of protests against this upcoming possible war. I remember watching a march by a bunch of uber-liberal idiotic actors, who told us that if we got into an Iraq war, it would be a mistake, and we would be in there for a long time. And there were other protests by other idiots--hippies and libtards and pacifists and people like that.

The people I trusted told me they were all wrong. This would be a quick war; of course it would be. We had the military might of the entire USA armed forces. We’d be in and out. Quick, easy. We KNEW that.

Now, with over a half-million deaths later, we’re still there. The smart people I trusted were wrong. I was wrong. Our president had either lied, or made very grave errors, depending on who you believe.

The liberal actors and all the other libtards--they were right.

Now, 17 years later, the same “smart people” are telling us that our attacks on Iran make a lot of sense. And if Iran responds, we should bomb the crap out of them. They say “Don’t mess with the US” and “Iran should be very scared” and cool testosterone shit like that.

Nope, not this time. We have no reason to go to war. We've done too much already, let's not do more. There is such a thing as diplomacy.

I won't support a war this time. I won’t get fooled again.

If Egypt Had Our Immigration Policies in 0 AD.

Is This What We Want?

The story is here.  (In a nutshell, a 23 YO DACA recipient was sent to jail. No criminal record.)

I'd ask "Is this what we want?" But I know the answer. Most people will say "Of course not." But all my Trump friends, even the Christians (especially the Christians) will say "Hey, what part of illegal don't you understand?" Or "Obama did worse." Or hopefully they at least say "I don't like this, but I really like Trump's policies." Or something. Some may think, but won't say "She's a foreigner, we don't need her." Or "I'll bet Spanish is her first language." Or "She's brown, she doesn't belong here."

She was brought here when she was 10. (So of course it's her fault?) But she's here, high school diploma, working jobs, no criminal record. She pays taxes. But she didn't renew her DACA because she was scared that would draw attention to herself (can you blame her?)

(Not that it matters, but I would love for someone to just once ask Trump what DACA stands for. Guessing he doesn't know.)

You can think what you want, but this kind of crap makes me sick. I never thought Americans were like this. We're the "melting pot." We take your "tired, your pour, your huddled masses, yearning to be free." But not any more. And it turns out, it's not just Trump, it's many of my friends too.

I'm sure you all realize, though, that if Egypt had immigration policies like we do, Herod would have killed Jesus before he was 2. (And yes, I know that God would have protected him. But apparently He doesn't protect this woman.) Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but it's true.

And of course, this is just one of hundreds. It's not isolated. This is what we get from having Stephen Miller, a white supremacist, telling Trump what to do. Honestly, on his own, I don't think Trump would do this. But he's really too wishy-washy to come up with his own policies. So he does whatever is cruelest I guess. Honestly, I'm not sure what his standards are. I know empathy and common sense don't make the cut.

Yeah, but I'm just a libtard snowflake. What do I know?

The War on Christmas!!??

Really, I thought we were past that. But no, recently I’ve seen a number of people on social media protesting how they can now say “Merry Christmas” and all the lefties say “Happy Holidays.”

Really? Really? Do they honestly believe that?

Obama had Christmas Trees every year, and he called them that. There has never been any federal law about saying “Merry Christmas.” Every single Christian (and many non-Christians) I know, R or D, have said “Merry Christmas” forever.

Yet some people are convinced that there’s a “War on Christmas.” I’m sorry to say this, but if you believe that, you’re very misguided.

Every year about this time, people on the right trot this out. Because they know that all the people on social media will complain about it, and get them mad at “the Godless Left” all over again. That’s all this is about. It’s about division and hatred. Yet those who believe in this “War” are often the first to complain about how we’re so divided.

You know who does say “Happy Holidays?” Mostly, it’s businesses. (You know, those far-left CEO’s !!!) And they say it because they are trying to include as many people as possible. They want to welcome Christians, but also Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, etc. Because they want to make as much money as possible.

But actually the real problem is that conservatives have a completely erroneous vision of what progressives are. They honestly believe that liberals are God-hating, baby-killing, freedom-hating, tax-loving, police-hating, socialists. Well, that's not us. But that’s a discussion for another day.

So go ahead and say “Merry Christmas.” Or “Happy Holidays.” Or whatever you want. And don’t get so offended when someone says something different.

I Will Not Shut Up

"We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."

I think of this quote quite a bit. It’s by Elie Wiesel, a Romanian born holocaust survivor.

I think he’s right. When we see injustice, oppression, evil, or authoritarianism, it is important to take sides. And to act, I believe. As he implies, even if you are on the side of right, if you’re silent, you’re encouraging the tormentor.

Having said that, I know many people take that road. And that’s OK I guess. You have to do what is best for you. However, you have to realize that it is a measure of your privilege that you can ignore injustice and still be fine. Because you’re not the one being oppressed. At least, not yet.

But I won’t do that. Whether you agree or not, I see a lot of terrifying things taking place in our government right now. Of course it’s not Hitler or the holocaust. On the other hand, Hitler wasn’t like that in 1933 either. He became what he was, because good people allowed it to happen.

As an ordinary citizen, my options are limited. I can vote, which I do. I can protest, although most protests are miles away. I can donate to causes I believe in, which I also do.

But also what I can do is speak out. Or more specifically, write. If I wrote for a national news outlet, I’d have an audience, and maybe I could make a difference. But I don’t. If I could write like John Pavlovitz that would help too. He is so good, he has gained a national audience just from his writing.

But I’m not well known, and I’m not that good of a writer. So my outlet is mostly social media. If you’ve followed me, you’ll see that I don’t normally rant, scream, call people names, or try to shame them. At least I try not to--I don’t always succeed.

But I do my best. I support what I think America needs. And I protest that which I think is harmful. If you disagree, that’s fine. Engage me if you want. I may not respond, but if I do, I’ll do my best to keep it civil.

And if you don’t want to see me “rant” on social media, then I strongly urge you to unfriend me or block me right now. I honestly won’t be upset, even if you’re a real-life friend of mine. I completely understand. Not everyone needs more drama in their lives.

But I won't remain silent. Probably nothing I say will change any minds or make any difference. But I have to try. I want to be able to say that when I saw wrong, I wasn’t silent. That I tried to make a difference. Feel free to roll your eyes, tell me to get a life, think of me as a crazy old man, deluded, self-important, melodramatic, whatever. That’s fine. Maybe you're right. But I have to do what I can.

So really, unfriend, unfollow, or block me right now. And if you don’t, don’t complain about what I’m saying.

Five Best Sentences

I’ve seen the accompanying meme quite a bit recently. Those posting it mean well, but it is full of inaccuracies and misleading sentiments. So while I know they didn't ask for responses, I just couldn’t let them go. My thoughts for each of them, in order...

1) Nobody is talking about legislating anyone out of prosperity. Even Warren's wealth tax, probably the most progressive out there, doesn't kick in until someone has over 50 million dollars. And it is only 2%. For the billionaire, it goes up to 6%. But the first 50 million isn’t touched. That won't be "legislating the wealthy out of prosperity."

2) This point makes the assumption that we're going to take money from people who work hard and give it to lazy people who don't want to work. But most people who are in poverty are already working. But even a full time job can't support a family of four anymore. The implication is that rich people are rich because they work hard, and poor people are poor because they're lazy. But you can bust your ass working full time at many jobs and still be in poverty.

3) Do you really think that rich people haven't "taken from somebody else?" The Walmart family are all billionaires, yet many Walmart employees, even full time ones, live in poverty. Seems to me that those rich people are getting rich off the backs of the workers.

4) Actually, you can. When a poor person gets more money, he spends it on material things because he has no choice. More people spending money means more consumption, more consumption means more jobs, more jobs means more income. And yes, more income means more wealth.

5) Very few people just don't work because they don't want to. Yes, there are some of course. But there are also a lot of very rich people who don't work either. Most of the people who could really benefit by higher taxes on the wealthy are already working. Most of them work very hard, yet they can't make ends meet, let alone get ahead. Think of the store clerk, the waitress, the social worker, the EMT, the laborer, the maid, the stock boy, the home healthcare worker, the busboy, or the teacher's aid. ALL of them work very hard, yet none of them are even close to wealthy.

6) I'm going to add one more. Although it's a common conservative talking point, almost nobody is suggesting socialism. (No, not even Bernie Sanders.) What people are asking for is a more equitable system mostly by higher taxes on those who can afford it. Even then, the tax rates suggested are lower than during the Eisenhower administration, when the top marginal rate was over 90%. America was just fine then. We still had rich people. But even the normal laborer could support a family of four on one income. Is that really such a racial idea?

7) What the heck, still one more. As long as the rich people have low or moderate income people preaching their message, nothing will change. I can guarantee that many people who echo the sentiments in the accompanying  post are decent people who struggle to make ends meet. Yet they trumpet this stuff, and the rich people laugh all the way to the bank. And the hard workers stay poor.

Treat the Janitor the Same as the CEO.

I’ve seen that sentiment quite often, mostly on social media. It’s put out by people who claim that the janitor, or any other hourly employee performing a seemingly menial task, should be treated by the general public the same as a CEO, or presumably any other rich guy. It’s meant to show equality. Or something.

Those saying it are showing how “fair” they are. But I don’t buy it. Because honestly, almost nobody really does it.

How about the people who have lately been posting things about Colin Kaepernick serving burgers at McDonald’s. Or something similar. Forgetting what you think about Keapernick, the obvious take is that working at McDonald’s is somehow not important, or not respectable. Yet I know some of these same people have also posted about the CEO/janitor idea.

Or how about the people complaining about a $15/hour minimum wage? The usual take is (again, McDonald’s) something like: Flipping burgers should give you $15/hour?

Or the people who make fun of Walmart employees, saying they can be replaced by an automated checkout.

Ask yourself this: If you meet a CEO, or a member of congress, or a high ranking official of any type, how do you address him or her? Sir? Ma’am? Or something similar? Probably.

Now ask yourself this: If you engage with a stock boy at Walmart, or a sales associate at Home Depot, or maybe a bartender, or a server, or a checkout person, or a receptionist: do you call them sir? Ma’am? Any label of importance? Probably not.

But  you should. Not everyone can be a CEO. Not everyone can be rich. For some of us, a custodian at Walmart is the best we can do. And we shouldn’t be ashamed of it. Any job, performed with dignity, effort, and dedication, deserves our respect. And you shouldn’t ridicule it.

Next time you ask for help at Lowe’s, be aware of how you address that person. Do you use a term of respect, such as “sir?” If not, then honestly, just admit you don’t think they’re important.

No matter what you post on Facebook.

Socks

Yesterday was Thanksgiving. I thought about what I was grateful for. And of course, I have it pretty good. I am grateful for a lot of things.

But one thing I've been thinking about lately: socks. Yes really. Each year around this time, Jeanne buys me a dozen new socks. This year it was a “14 for the price of 12!” package, so I got extra. She buys them when mowing season is about over, and I try to make them last until the same time next year. I was trying to make it to Christmas, but I was down to 3 pairs that didn’t have holes, so she decided I couldn’t wait.

You know, socks are no big deal. I think the package cost about $12 or so, not sure. I can buy new socks any time I want. I don’t HAVE to wait a whole year, but I do.

But they are “no big deal” because I have it well. There are many people in the world who would be pretty pleased to get a few pairs of new socks, because that’s something they don’t have enough of.

And you know, it doesn’t have to be this way. We have enough wealth in this world that everyone should be able to have socks. Really. Even if they’re from another country. Or if they’re a different color. Or they’re a refugee. Or an immigrant. Or an asylum seeker. Or from a poor country. Or from a totalitarian country. Or from the wrong side of town. Or if they are children with really worthless parents. Or if they’re drug addicts. Or if they’re mentally handicapped. Or...everything.

Or to put it a different way--if Jeff Bezos, one single person, gave up just 25% of his wealth, we could buy 4 pairs of socks for every single human on the planet. Yes, I understand the logistics involved, but you get the idea. And by the way, he’d still have about $80 Billion left. Yeah.

I don’t know the solution, but I know what we’re doing now is wrong. And we don't seem to care enough to fix it--yet.

Why Have Intelligence If We Don't Use It?

A few days ago, the "Worldwide Threat Assessment" was released by American intelligence agencies. Along with that, the chiefs of these agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA, and others) testified before the Senate. Among other things, they said :

1) ISIS is not defeated, and is still a threat.

2) North Korea is still a threat, and is NOT giving up its nuclear weapons.

3) There is NO security crisis at the southern border.

4) Iran is NOT attempting to build a nuclear weapon.

5) Russia is still attempting "information warfare" mostly through social media, to influence our elections.

6) Climate change IS causing possible security challenges.

ALL of these positions are in direct contrast to what the President believes.

President Trump's response (on Twitter, of course) was to openly mock his own chiefs, all of whom were appointed by him. He says basically that they're wrong, and he's right. (bottom tweet is first)

Which brings to mind one important question: where does he get his information?

He likes to say he just has a "gut feeling" about these things. I'm sorry, but "gut" is not data. Unless you're psychic, you can't just "know" things. So where DOES he get his information?

I don't know, but the problem is, nobody else knows either. Of course, the conspiracy theorists among us would say that his "gut" feelings are actually those represented by some other countries: Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others. Or maybe he gets his intelligence briefings from "Fox and Friends" which unfortunately, is very likely. Or maybe he just makes shit up. That's likely, as well. Or it could be that he's just not very bright, and can't understand this stuff.

But no matter what, can't we all agree that a president who completely ignores his spy agencies is a danger? Can't we all acknowledge that? 

Sadly, the answer is "no." The rabid Trump supporters will not acknowledge this. Many of them just assume the President is always right, no matter what. Probably most aren't even aware of his disconnect with his intelligence agencies, because I doubt if Fox News dwells on it.

I've been told that the only reason some of us are against Trump is because Hillary lost, Trump won, and we should just get over it. You couldn't be further from the truth. Things like this are why I'm against Trump, and why I think he's a danger to our country.

And I'm pretty sure most of the agency chiefs at the hearing yesterday would agree with me.

You Can’t Vote “Yes.”

I watched, or listened to, most of the hearings today. Of course, those of you who know me, know I lean progressive. So I was biased against Kavanaugh from the start.  I’ll admit that. And while I could give you a million reasons why I thought he was disgusting, I won’t. Because I have to admit, my take on him is biased. And some of you would disagree, of course.

The republicans kept blasting the democrats for playing politics. Maybe Feinstein sat on the letter. While she explained it, just for the sake of argument, let’s say they were completely partisan and biased. Even if they were, that’s not the point. Vote them out, or schedule hearings to expose their crookedness. But the hearing today is not about them, it's about the Supreme Court.

And the real point is simple: Will Brett Kavanaugh be a fair and unbiased judge on the Supreme Court? There are three reasons why, if I were a senator, I could not vote “yes.” And I believe these are factual, not my impressions.

1) In his opening remarks, and throughout the hearing, he continually blasted “the left.” Over and over. If he really feels that way, how unbiased will he be the next time a case comes before him where a progressive idea is challenging a conservative one? And if you’re a republican reading this, imagine how you would feel if a SC justice continually blasted “the right.” You would say it’s unfair, and it would be. And so is this.

2) He may or may not have committed the sexual assault. I believe he did, but of course I can’t prove it. But he clearly lied. Many times. Maybe you don't care if we was a cad in high school. But then he should at least admit to that. Just for fun, google “Devils’ Triangle” or “boof.” They don’t mean what he said they mean. His explanation of the FFFFFFFourth of July was simply not believable. And the Renate Alumnius? Do you believe his explanation? I don’t.

3) But it doesn’t matter what I believe. If there WERE an FBI investigation, it wouldn’t have to come down to a “he said/she said.” They could ask his classmates what those terms meant. They could find out what was the significance of the July 1 meeting about “skis.” They could grill Mark Judge to see what he knew. Yet 9 times he refused to encourage the FBI to investigate. If they did, I wonder what they would find. Now, it may be that the FBI would turn up nothing, and he was completely truthful. If that were the case, the vote would be completely different. But until that investigation takes place, and until we find out if he is lying, my vote would have to be “no.”

Because maybe you don’t care about what he did in high school. But if he’s lying, he’s lying NOW. And the Supreme Court is no place for a proven liar.