Saturday Mind Dump

Since I haven’t written anything in a while and literally no one has asked me to, I figured why not do a quick hit mind dump of sorts? Facebook seems to be the best place to do a dump like this but with the diversity of issues and my relative lack of interest in posting my own political shares (Outside of this where I can work through some issues and topics in an academic setting), why not try this?

So, on to some quick hits on current events and general thoughts.

Terms we need to retire

Some phrases, topics, or words are things that we use so much as to render their meanings void. I’ve covered this before but it seems like we’ll need to add a few new words to the “strike” list. I propose the following list of words be struck with the reasons to follow the terms:

Bigot – It used to mean someone who is intolerant to other opinions. Today it means anyone who doesn’t agree with you. It’s ironic that bigot has come full circle to now be the (definitional) bigot calling everyone else a bigot, but that’s where we’re at. Politicians and morons alike lob it like beads at Mardi Gras.

Racist – A racist used to be someone intolerant to other races based on nothing more than mere prejudice. Today’s racist, however, is any white. Specifically, any white male heterosexual. Vitriolic attitudes towards white people predicated on their race? Apparently that’s fine. Let’s be honest, if racist is going to be used to denigrate people without reservation, we’re letting actual racists of the hook because you can’t tolerate a perceived slight.

Sexist – A sexist used to be someone who believed a gender was inferior to another gender. Now sexist has become a replacement for the word male. In light of the trans movement, sexist is getting even more nebulous since the movement interchanges sex and gender depending on how the argument is going. Sexist is lobbed at anyone who disputes the pay gap (chronically debunked), who points out that more women receive degrees than men, or that women don’t have to register for the draft (And, as a result, have no barrier to receive FAFSA funding for college and the like). Maybe, if we’re honest, sexism is discrimination based on sex, not perceived victim complexes.

Cuck – The alt-right has clung to this phrase borrowed from cuckoldry. The term as it stands now is someone going against their own interest in order to be subservient to leftist views often at their own expense. The term is overused and the left was never really bothered by it. It’s more an internal policing and trolling term on the right. Those who use it seriously should be immediately discarded. Outside of general trolling, it’s a term that deserves to die.

Fake news – Fake news is a modern creation of the left to delegitimize the fifth estate from any credibility. Ironically, it’s only a term because the fourth estate lost its credibility when it opted to shill via op-eds and partial provision of facts and it’s trying to smear other outlets to retain its own credibility. Brotip: When you have to rip everyone around you down to build yourself up, you’re probably terrible.

More on Fake news later.

Anything – gate – We get it, you’re unoriginal. Every scandal is something-gate. Watergate was a hotel and had an actual purpose. Tom Brady’s deflated footballs, Mike Flynn’s connections with Turkey, the left’s impotent howling around Russia, all of this aren’t gates. They’re scandals. I long for the day we return to originality and start acting like we’re creative. Then again, in a day and age of memes repurposed along the same cut and paste lines, I’m asking for the moon.

Fake news isn’t a new phenomenon, you just never cared before

I see so much stuff on fake news and pretending to divine its origins. The odd part for me, however, is that it never actually touches on the culpability of the left. It’s always the right that generated it, the right that can’t divine between false and true, and apparently the ignorant right that simply shares it without a thought.

That’s not really the case, though. Fake news, as I’ve covered before, started when everyone began letting journalists off the hook for indiscretions. In a 24 hour news cycle where Tweets and DMs are considered scoops and tips, you’re going to get a lot of bad information out there quickly. If it is ideologically agreeable to the audience consuming it, even better!

Now, all of these articles stating they have the foundation to fake news never touch on one fundamental fact; the trend towards fake news began when reporters were able to get away with parroting back speculation and rumor as news. Journalism and reporting carries an obligation to fact check and source site. This makes the process of news a bit slower but it makes the veracity immeasurably greater.

We’re at an impasse now where the case sounds good for the left to fire at will. This generally leads to a debunked story and lost credibility. That then leads to a win for the right, a mistrust of the left and the media, and strengthening of any claims made by the right. Rather than complaining that bad ideas gain traction in this process, how about we change the process to prevent this whole chain reaction from setting off? I know that’s asking too much, most people would rather be agreed with or told their thoughts are right, facts be damned.

This newfound belief in small government and transparency is amazing

The left’s newfound belief in small government and transparency fascinates me. Now that Donald Trump is the President the threat of executive orders, overreach, the use of executive agencies to harass people, and the need for transparent legislation is paramount.

Where was this before?

It’s not that transparent and smaller government isn’t a good idea, I’d be lying if I disagreed with the concept. It’s that these principles weren’t on the mind of the left for eight years as the foundation was established. It was simply fearmongering when the right pushed back on the notion years ago. Now, apparently, it’s a big deal. It seems that Republicans should have been listened to when they protested the growth of big government.

Well, unfortunately, this is the bed you made, so we’ll have to lay in it. The thing about principle is that you don’t get to change it when it becomes convenient. You either abide by it or you concede it enough to let it die. As you watch it die, through your equivocation, your words are nothing more than a whine.

Which leads me to…

Republicans are botching and consequently redeeming themselves on Obamacare

Trumpcare, Ryancare, whatever you want to call it is struggling. News outlets seem to believe this is proof of Republican dysfunction. It’s proof of two things. These two things won’t get play in the media because it doesn’t dump on the right as hard most echo chambers will want to. Those two things?

One, the right’s battle with populism is shifting the party left. This means plenty of Republicans have thought it better to compromise on their values. This is spineless and when it comes to fruition in a grown government, they’ll have to atone for that. With any luck, that means a lost Congressional seat. Republicans constantly asked for more seats in the legislature and the White House so they could repeal and replace Obamacare. When you get 100% of what you asked for, you deliver 100% of what you promised. These Republicans are tinkering at the edges and producing a bill that is significantly worse than what Paul Ryan proposed in 2010. You deserve to lose.

Second, and the tougher one for people to understand; the dissent we see here is representative of intellectual diversity in the right. What this means is that principle survives in the right enough to trump political expediency. This is a good thing. Principle is lacking in general and is often the only safeguard we have from populism. Populism itself is terrifying because tyranny of the majority isn’t something to cheerlead, the majority isn’t always on your side.

This reminds me…

The left looks like lunatics because they can’t just state the truth

Look, President Trump says a lot of things that are easy to debunk. Why, then, does the left think it’s some kind of mystery as to why he gains credibility with it? Cognitive dissonance. That’s why.

It’s not a question of the right consuming Trump’s words without skepticism. It’s a function of how the left can’t simply say “No, that is not the case. Here is what happened.” Instead, the left’s response is to deny that there is no kernel of truth in anything Trump says and that the truth is the complete opposite.

Let’s look at the Sweden debacle. As a case study it’s how you really understand how far off the deep end the media/left has gone.

In a speech given in February of 2017, Trump stated an event happened the night before in Sweden involving Muslim immigrants to the country. Factually, one didn’t. Rather than state that this wasn’t the case, the Scandinavian utopia of many leftists had to be defended as perfectly fine. There wasn’t possibly a problem in Sweden relating to immigration…

Only Sweden is the rape capital of the west (Ironically, deflected by the left stating it’s just because they’re super accurate in their reporting?) and Swedish lawmakers have regularly discussed measures to prohibit the public from protecting themselves from attacks. Even more troubling is that Sweden stopped tracking information on perpetrators of rape for fear of looking racist (With all the talk of conservative “dog whistle” comments I didn’t see the same accusation of dog whistle leftism here).

The fact is, the media and the left’s insistence that there was nothing wrong with Sweden was 100% false. They would have been 100% correct to say “no incident happened the night before in Sweden.” This is how you take a factually false statement and now make it more likely to be believed. The media/left undercut its credibility here which gives people more faith in Trump’s words.

In case you’re wondering, things like this are why Trump polls 45% favorable while the media (37%) and the Democratic party (36%) lag behind him (Suffolk, 1,000 voters polled, admittedly a small sample size).

Stop protesting and fighting reflexively, you’re just whining

If you fight everything then your fight means nothing. Sorry, it’s true.

Not everything Trump or the left does is evil. Rarely is there a meta level master plan. Often, it’s just the result of stupid people doing stupid things because that’s what humans do. Rather than presume that because you dislike someone everything they do is an evil master plan, take some time to peel back the onion. I know ready-made opinions from presumed intelligentsia makes you feel more sanctimonious in your mind but it makes you insufferable.

Protest is another word that should be retired. The average activist today thinks protesting is as simple as pissing and moaning that you don’t like an idea or a general set of ideas. That’s not useful. A protest with no point, no purpose, and no endgame is called a tantrum. Children engage in tantrums. Stop being children.

Protesting today is simply an exercise in virtue signaling. It’s pathetic, really. People used to have dogs turned on them and be beaten within an inch of their life for simple rights such as access to education and the right to vote. Calling mass assembly against “fascism” (That isn’t even happening) to yell, break stuff, and shut people down because you don’t like their ideas a protest is an insult to the blood and suffering of people who demonstrated for a purpose. No, you’re having a fit, you’re not protesting.

Democrats need to put up or shut up on Russia

Democrats have maintained that the Russians interfered in the elections. They’ve gained support from a few Republican legislators. Unfortunately, what’s yet to materialize, is a substantive claim that Russia influenced the election. It’s constantly a discussion of “they had intel and it went public.” Well, so what? Leaks happen all the time. I don’t see much condemnation from the left with intel leaks against Trump, so why is the concern only material when it’s damaging to the left?

If we’re being consistent, the accusation is that Democrats lost an election they thought was a sure bet. Analysis of Clinton’s shows an overtly negative message and, interestingly, when you swap the genders of candidates during debates, an overwhelmingly negative and spiteful presence on the debate stage. What we’re left to sort through and analyze, then, is whether the Clinton campaign was so surefire that Russian interference torpedoed that campaign.

To be clear, there is no allegation of election result tampering, no hacking of voting machines, and no allegation of material alteration.

At the end of the day, are we sure we’re simply not litigating denial rather than fact finding?

And now, the final point…

The intel war between US Intelligence and Wikileaks should be alarming

Wikileaks versus the US Intelligence community seems to be a spat back and forth. Trump was the fulcrum for the dispute. Certain reports allege Obama entrenched a “dark state” in the intelligence community that’s leaking information regarding Trump and undermining the presidency. Almost in response, it seems, that Wikileaks is providing damaging and damning information regarding the US Intelligence community. The net result of this is the airing of a lot of dirty laundry, damage to US intelligence, and the compromise of national security information.

Is government transparency a good thing? Yes. Americans probably shouldn’t be vulnerable to monitoring through their televisions or other devices. Should national security be vulnerable because of what appears to be the world’s worst lovers’ quarrel? Absolutely not. This compromises spies, compromises methods, and now puts up safeguards against US intelligence gathering.

It’s unnerving, then, that there isn’t some effort to stop the back and forth. If, as the left alleges, Wikileaks is acting as a Russian intelligence mouthpiece, something needs to be done. Similarly, regardless of political affiliation, US Intelligence needs to stop the leaks against Trump. Wikileaks is far from a neutral arbiter but their penchant for dumping damning documents with clandestine intent or purposes is well established.

At the end of the day, this dispute doesn’t resolve cleanly and the motivations of all parties requires speculation. What doesn’t require speculation, however, is acknowledging the fact that this sieve of information and leaks is doing far more harm than good for anyone.

On Virtue Signaling, Riots, and Pearl Clutching

In the wake of the announcement of President-Elect Donald Trump, Americans have shown that they truly are the shining city on a hill. There is no other explanation for the amount of virtue that Americans have signaled to their fellow citizens and, indeed, the rest of the world. People have proudly proclaimed that they are loving, kind, accepting, tolerant, and above all, better than those that disagree with them. This need to self-promote virtue is directly related to their need to tell everyone their lives are over, thus, completing a power play over others.

Throughout Donald Trump’s campaign his slogan – “Make America Great Again” – was met with “America is already great!” Somehow, however, after his victory, many would have others believe that America is a totalitarian dictatorship where rights are at the whim of the President. The only solution to this dystopian nightmare? Clearly, to protest, riot, call anyone who disagreed with you some pernicious and divisive moniker, and let other people know you care. What that care leads to, though, is anyone’s guess as the help for refugees, women, minorities, and those of other sexual persuasions rarely manifests beyond “I support you” and a Facebook overlay.

This outpouring of virtue has a real motive. Essentially, by telling individuals that their lives and rights are forfeit fear and uncertainty breed reliance on those signaling their virtue. Consider it the soft Western version of what Hamas did. Instead of providing schools, hospitals, and political enfranchisement, though, liberals are providing feels.

Reports of racist and sexist incidents have spiked since Trump’s election. However, as is the case in sensitive times, the media is looking to report on incidents, individuals are looking for incidents, and they’re going to find incidents. The real problem with that, however, is many of these incidents don’t include racism or sexism, people are just seeing evil where before it was just written off. The people committing many of these acts are awful, some might even be emboldened by the electoral results, but they’re not endorsed and they’re anomalies. That perspective, however, is lost.

While the impending Trump presidency has some on edge, it does no one any good to warn anyone that their futures are over. Objective inputs show that Trump has been a liberal democrat far longer than he’s been a conservative. Further objective inputs emphasize that unilateral exercise of power is frowned upon by those who appreciate the rule of law. Liberals rightfully should be afraid of executive orders – after all, they failed to call for Obama to reign in his rule by fiat policies – but that’s more a bed of their own making. Once you cede power to the government it isn’t just handed back. Overall, however, liberals are protesting because they fear power, not that they fear Trump.

You see, while some claim that riots and protests are emblematic of Trump’s America they miss one crucial component to making that claim valid; Donald Trump isn’t the president yet. No, this entitled behavior resulting in property damage isn’t protesting a policy, an action, and barely even a person. It’s protesting an idea that they’ve constructed that life will be like.

That’s what’s at the heart of these issues. It’s one thing to take umbrage with an actual policy, and actual person, or an actual act. It’s another to be so terrified of losing control that protests erupt. These protesters have no grounds to protest other than they lost the election. There are no discriminatory policies, no repeal of fundamental rights, and no curtailment of their liberties. There is only a tantrum.

In the end, that’s the greatest problem with the whole mess. People are panicked over what might be. Now, some panic can be justified. For the overwhelming majority of people, however, it cannot.

This cannot be stated plainly enough. People are terrified that their “progress” will be lost because they lost. Their progress is a stagnant economy, low value mandated insurance, a racially divided country, and an Islamic terroristic threat that they won’t fight. If that is progress worth rioting over then that constituency needs to have a good, long, and honest look at why their compatriots wanted nothing to do with their candidates.

As a final point, I’ll emphasize that last word. Candidates. It wasn’t that Democrats just lost the presidency (Despite winning the popular vote by .5%, hardly a mandate to overturn the election) they lost their House bids and their Senate bids. In the midterm elections they’ll be defending 25 Senate seats. Democrats have hemorrhaged their electoral gains since 2010 when they controlled both the House and the Senate. Democrats would be wise not to fixate on the presidential election in believing they were screwed. Democrats should instead look at their policies and their actions and understand why Republicans have made gains by leaps and bounds.

Oregon Wildlife Refuge Occupied: A Summary

The occupation of a federal wildlife building in Oregon by members of an armed militia known as the Oath Keepers has sparked a great deal of debate about labels and coverage. The media continues to refer to the organization as a militia and progressives continue to whinge and whine that white men aren’t being called terrorists. Mixed among the complaints are arguments of racism, Islamophobia, and various other ists and isms because reasons.

In a previous write up I spoke about the value of words and how arbitrary redefinition actually just cheapens everything. Not to be deterred, identity politics is charging ahead in 2016 in, what many should hope, are its death throes. Sadly, the biggest casualty in all of these complaints and this trumped up ire are facts.

Facts are those pesky things that form objective grounds upon which one can argue, formulate a reasoned opinion upon, and ultimately feel confident in. They are the forgotten son in an age of narratives, feelings driven rhetoric, “educate yourself,” and “listen and believe.”

The facts*, as they are, are that Ammon Bundy is part of a group protesting the arrest of a pair of Oregon farmers convicted of arson. The arson was connected to covering up poaching activity. The poaching activity was linked to an expansion of wildlife refuge lands after the Bureau of Land Management – an organization intimately familiar with the Bundy family – abutted Hammond ranch. Bundy put out a call for members of a militia, The Oath Keepers, to come help occupy the federal building at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters. When interviewed, Bundy said the militia is willing to use force if they are fired upon – emphasis added for those who choose to share Gawker’s misleading headline.

How is this not terrorism? Simple. Terrorism usually requires an armed organization carrying out attacks on a civilian population to incite fear, terror, panic, and effect political and social change. The Oath Keepers are (1) armed and (2) organized but they are not carrying out attacks on a civilian population, inciting fear, terror, or panic. The political and social change part we can leave out of the equation lest you’d want to invite Black Lives Matter, the Million Student March, or any other advocacy group seeking legal change into the conversation about terrorists. Quite simply, the militia involved in this situation has not done the lion’s share of what happens to become terrorism.

Second, why is the National Guard not here? That’s a stickier question. History would say that the federal government learned from the standoff at Waco – when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the Branch Davidians wound up in a firefight that saw 76 die – and is working on negotiating a cessation to the militia’s actions. After all, those inside the building did vow to return fire if fired upon. Begging for a terrorism classification and the national guard seems like begging for a death toll. The National Guard’s presence in Baltimore and Ferguson during the rioting was, in large part, due to looting, destruction of property, and yes, the presence of para military organizations capable of escalating the violence even higher. None of those conditions are met here.

Lastly, the actual issue at hand here is actually one worth getting to know. The Bureau of Land Management had requested for the Hammonds to sell their land to grow the refuge. The Hammonds refused. The protest that lead to the occupation of the Malheur headquarters was actually in response to government interaction during land seizure. Eminent domain has been a sensitive topic in the United States since the Kelo v City of New London case – in which the Supreme Court ruled that private interests can be serviced via eminent domain if economic development beneficial to the city is likely. The expansion of the refuge through the Bureau of Land Management and subsequent infringement upon private property rights is a legitimate issue for public debate.

So there you have the facts of the situation, demystifying some of the narrative around it, and an actual synopsis of what’s going on. Generally, the media loves sensationalism and fueling the identity politics fire. Right now, the media is actually reporting factually; that departure is a fantastic divorce from the last year. While the fifth estate cries foul the fourth is actually doing its job. While the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters is not an act of terror it could be construed as an act of treason. These men are not spared negative press because they’re white; they’re being covered factually by their actions and intentions. The less outrage culture gets to pervert that the better we are.

*This link is to provide historical background.