Category: policy

Experts should be on tap not on top!

The new refrain of the liberal academic is “ Trust the expert because they are smarter than you”.

The new refrain of the liberal academic is “ Trust the expert because they are smarter than you”. While an expert is more read and practiced in their area of work, it does not generalize to all life. It may not even signify expertise in their general area of study. They may even be incorrect in their interpretation of the data as well as their conclusions. They maybe correct in their interpretation, but their data maybe inaccurately collected, not representative or what is referred to as outlier data. Science is a search to understand the natural processes of the universe. It is ever seeking answers. Well publicized and commonly accepted natural laws are subject to refinement or correction. There is a level above process, that science can’t explain, values.

Democrats new mantra directs you to follow the lead of the experts. Suppose, you have different values than the expert. Are you wrong to hold different values. Perhaps some will believe you are, (see )When You can’t decide, if you believe in free speech!some won’t! The beauty of our system of governance is that it recognizes, even tolerates differences! Government force is employ only to protect, not in place of a persuasive argument. This doesn’t mean you can’t espouse your point of view or attempt to persuade. It doesn’t mean you celebrate the opposing point of view. You may even believe what is advocated is abhorrent. It does mean you can’t interfere with an individual’s natural right to believe it. If you don’t agree, advance your position, persuade, don’t seek to compel!

Science explains process in the natural world. It doesn’t tell you what you should hold valuable or how to live your life. Simply because you agree with a study, doesn’t make it valid! It certainly shouldn’t be a justification to use mob rule to order the lives of others based upon your beliefs in an expert or study. Experts are a resource to be employed, like a tool, not a ruler to Decide your lifestyle!

If you stand against” categorization by government of mis or disinformation like this post and continue to speak your mind! Free speech demands protection especially that speech you disagree with. There is little need to protect the popular view! Experts are useful, just not as rulers!

If you are immune to the importance of feelings, then you must be a Republican Campaign Consultant.

Republican consultants should emphasize this Democratic inconsistency and promote charity and volunteerism as a viable compromise!

Lately, I have found myself wondering why Republican campaign consultants simply recite tired rhetoric and fail to address the questions raised and the feelings behind them. The consultants work for the candidates, who pay them, yet they seem unable or unwilling to address questions raised or answer in other than boilerplate and cliche.

One persistent question is about discontinuing social security. No one advocates simply discontinuing social security for those already on the plan, yet every deceptive Democratic operative will begin with; Republicans want to take you or your parent’s Social Security and medicare.  Most savvy voters realize this would never come to fruition, yet they credit Democrats as fighters for Social Security. Republican consultants, who claim to understand family connections never adequately address this charge. Perhaps it is because there is no perfect answer. This is not an excuse! Even lifelong defenders of the current system, don’t see social security as “ the perfect solution “. If, however their only answer is to require reappropriation or review of the program, then they fail because this language promotes fear among those, who are past working age and use  the program as all or a significant part of their golden year’s earnings.

Leadership requires these consultants to realize that fear motivates an electorate. Statements( even lies ) work because repetition of anything frequently enough especially from news sources without answer will result in a portion of the population believing even a groundless statement. Donald Trump was successful with his rhetoric because he spoke in generalizations and exuded confidence in his statements. It is also the reason, he was labeled a liar by the academic elites. Confident expressions omit the fringe, the non normal set of outcomes. Why? Seeking to cover all alternatives compels one to speak as Obama did in a word salad.

Word salad is speech, which invokes a seemingly endless chain of possibilities and attempts to address each possible outcome. The result; the reader becomes “issue exhausted” and tunes the speaker out. It is in part why it is easier to campaign than to rule. Legislation is laden with if this, then that statements. Legislation seeks a certain outcome and attempts to exhaust all contingencies in search of that outcome. Still, people are limited by their experiences and place in space. They are not perfect.  The result is; there are always unintended consequences of any legislation. Most these unintended consequences work contrary to  the desired outcome.
O
Republican consultants must promote opportunity and information, not programming and regulation. Pursuasion is more powerful than forced compliance. While it is said a law without enforcement is just good advice. Republicans consultants should be champions of information and recommendation and persuasion, not regulation and legislation with forced compliance.

Ronald Reagan was right! There is a place in society for charity. Note, most religions emphasize charity. Why? Charity allows the altruistic, a method to assist others, while not imposing their will on the unwilling. It fills a perceived hole in capitalism. It permits a portion of economic product to be allocated based upon the individual’s need to accomplish an end or simply a feeling not hard economic data.

Charity is in this regard a real compromise between pure individualism and collectivism. It allows a person to act in their perception of “ the public good “, but only to the extent that other individuals are willing to voluntarily donate their earned resources. It is truly a compromise. Government is the imposition of will over other, whether it is the ill of the one or the many.  With charity the collective outcome is accomplished by the willing without the negative, the exercise of the collective will on the unwilling.

Many would assert that Republican consultants should emphasize this as the option as opposed to legislation and regulation. It is the conservative yang, to “the government solves all”, ying!  It is the answer to 20th century expansive government.  A pity Democrats aren’t willing to trust their constituents to implement their “common good government solutions” without the force that is legislation! Democrats, however speak of the patriotism of tax payment, yet never propose voluntary tax giving to their favorite government program as a potential solution.  No legislation is required. Donation legislation is in place.  Republican consultants should emphasize this Democratic inconsistency and promote charity and volunteerism as a viable compromise!

Who, What, When and Where are surpassed in Journalism by the feelings behind Why!

Think critically. Insist news is only who, what, where and when.

When I  was an undergrad ( as my daughter says back in ancient times ) I took an entry level journalism class and wrote previously for a high school newspaper. The class and newspaper faculty advisor, drilled into my head, always put in news pieces only who, what, when and where. Why is for your audience. Facts are who did what. Where and when did they do it.

There is a problem in journalism, when why is interjected. Why someone acts maybe undiscoverable. Think about that. What sources really know why? If the actions of many are questioned, (ie stock movement) I contend it is impossible to ascertain. You may identify contributing factors. you may interview some buyers and sellers and cite the most oft listed reason as the reason why for the stock movement.

What you have listed as the reason is still subjective. If you accept that a thorough job was done of interviewing most of the sellers and buyers of a stock, you are still left with a question. Can the interviewees be believed? Some interviewed may not have given the sale or purchase much thought. Some maybe swayed by how the interviewer asked the question. Some may just not tell the interviewer the truth for any of an unknown number of reasons. Who did it. What  was done. Where it happened and when is much less subjective and more verifiable. Sure, a seasoned reporter may have to sift through accounts to determine, who actually witnessed an event. After sifting, some will think they saw something they did not really see. However multiple witnesses where available or dissection of individual accounts can frequently sort the wheat from the chaff. This is why in Court cross examination is so important. Reading requires one to critically think.
Today we are given conclusions, why. In some instances one can glean the who, what, where and when from a thorough reading or listening to a journalistic piece, but not always. This is because the proper pleasing narrative is more important than the actual facts.

What does this mean? Eyes reading an article or clicks in the digital realm are more important than facts.

Hasn’t it always been so? Yes, but what is different? I postulate and this is my why ;that the reading public believes journalists only report facts, so they squelch their natural urges to question, to think critically.

what should a reader take from this article? Don’t depend on headlines, read any article critically. Ask who, what, where and when? Is it in the article? How many sources were consulted or witnesses interviewed? Are the conclusions supported at all? Is there more than one explanation? If you just assess the who, what where and when, is there even a need for the why?  Can the why be supported? If yes, do you understand the subjective nature of why is separate from news.

Today, the why is a reason to call out any disagreeable conclusion as misinformation. Is it? Can people with a different perspective, see the why differently?  Is the author intellectually honest? Are sources cited? If sources uncited, how many sources or witnesses are there?  Read critically! If there are too many unanswered questions, why do You believe it? AmI biased or not open to new facts or other views

Do self examination. Think critically. Insist news is only, who, what, where and when. Why is subjective.  Don’t just know have evidence. Knowing without facts is faith. Some values are only supported by faith, but understand that!

“There ought to be a Law”. Think before you suggest.

The Constitution is a living document, which must be interpreted in accordance with the times to remain relevant. This is the continual drone of Washington’s political elite. This phrase is championed by Democratic Party nominated activist judges as well as those activist judges are nominated by RHINOS.  Lest anyone doubt, the constitution has a method for updating its language, built in.  It is the amendment process. It is difficult to accomplish since it requires super majorities. This was done precisely so that the latest fad can’t change the balance of power  and remove natural right.

It is a shame the judiciary has been permitted to distort the federal system.  Stare Decisis has been used to make permanent this judicial activism.  Courts bypass the enumerated powers limitation by citing the public welfare clause or misusing the interstate commerce clause sometimes for a good cause., but bad law even when well intended leads to future unintended consequences.  One need only read some of the cases applying the Civil Rights Act to private clubs to see the intellectual jujitsus employed by the Court  to reach a desired result. Ketchup moving through interstate commerce as a basis for utilizing the Interstate Commerce Clause, Really?  What’s next penumbra’s of amendments? Oh, that’s been done too. See Roe vs Wade.

The next time you hear “there ought to be a law, you should ask; is the proposed law a legitimate exercise of the power of the federal government or of any government?

Does any proposed law, fall under an enumerated federal power?  Does it violate any guaranteed personal freedoms. If it is a safety or educational issue, is it better addressed by a government closer to the people?

Yes, government is a use of force and as such must be used sparingly. If you use it continually, then you risk mob rule or tyranny of the majority. Tyranny isn’t limited to single dictators!

States joined together to form our union.  Our Founders believed the states that formed the federal government were closer to the people and should wield governmental authority unless it is given to the national government by a listed power.

Federal power is limited. Witness the 10th amendment. If federal power is interpreted too broadly, the tenth amendment is meaningless and the Constitutional intent is defeated.  If you want a more powerful federal government, secure enough support to amend the document.  It has been done.

So the moral of the story is; think before you say, “ there ought to be a law”.

If you are a liberal, a conservative; how will you feel, when your adversary controls government and wields that same power in a manner you believe damages you or limits your individual freedoms? Before you bellow “ there ought to be a law “, ask critical questions.

If you feel there is no power enumerated for your law and is there enough consensus, then do the right thing, amend the constitution?  If there is not enough popular clamor to amend, enjoy your God given, natural rights or use your liberty to be the change in your area, you want. Persuasion and private action may better serve your cause rather than the use of government force.

Tolerance versus Celebration

Freedom of speech is not free in our society or any other society. Writing words, which are not in line with the latest public opinion is not done without risk. What about the first amendment guarantees, you ask? These are assurances that government won’t stop you from speaking. An individual who dares to write words, which are contrary to the popular public narrative, risks ridicule and sometimes worse, depending on whose ox is gored.

I promise this will be a shorter post than usual. What prompts my rant? TV viewing and friendship.

I happened to remark that lately I cannot turn on a popular network TV show without being assaulted by overt public displays of affection by fictional LGBTQ characters. I did not request this content, nor do I hear an outcry for it, yet it is now not only overt but ubiquitous. When I ask my liberal friend, if that person noticed, I was shown a sign, which stated I support love or something similar.

Let me end this quickly. I don’t care, who you love.  The LGBTQ population appears on the fringe of any population demographic data set. It is estimated that the entire grouping is 4.5% of the population. So why are LGBTQ sexual subplots ubiquitous in network programming?

First understand it is part of the LGBTQ groups’  attempt to mainstream their behavior. Many especially the bi coastal liberal elites and their allies in the Democratic Party, have decided tolerance (allowing the behavior to exist without societal sanction) is insufficient. You must join their crusade,accept and celebrate (proclaim as normal and push for societal acceptance) As such the allies have set out to characterize the fight of this group as a civil rights cause.

This crusade is different from the civil rights fights of yesteryear. This fight is about conduct which occurs behind closed doors and is well outside the societal norm. African Americans, Asians and other groups were discriminated against not because of their publicly displayed conduct, but based upon their ethnicity. An African American or Asian frequently could not disguise and should not have been asked or required to hide their ethnic features. Judgments about  individuals in these group were formed without any knowledge of their character and were solely based upon the observed physical, ethnic characteristics.

Do you inquire of  anyone before you hire: with whom are you having  sex? If you are selling them a product with few exceptions, do you even care? The answer in most instances is you don’t care and would never know.

What is being done here is social manipulation/engineering. Our society is being manipulated. What conduct is next to be assimilated? Multiple partner marirage or sex with children? How about sex with pets?  Sex within family?Can there no longer be any societal norms? Must every pronouncement of sexual expression now be accepted because it is about who you love?

The union between a man and woman is special because in many instances it leads to progeny, which regardless of the ravings of the Malthusians remains valuable to society. Both Europe and the US would be wise to take notice of the value of maintaining their populations.

While I am confident this post will be misrepresented as bigoted Homophobic, Xenophobic and small minded, I stand behind my premise  I will not discriminate against any individual, but don’t telI me I must accept any individual or group’s conduct that I find morally repugnant. I can have friends and business associates,, who practice conduct I don’t agree with, just don’t ask me to accept and promote their behavioral choices and don’t bombard me day after day with overt public story lines simulating their practices in public program content or I will discontinue consuming the offending content and I will encourage others to do the same!I will not accept that which I find to be morally objectionable.

So in closing allow me to say I do not fear the label of Bigot, Homophobe or whatever other degrading label the left may seek to place upon me,  I harbor no ill will toward anyone, but I will not accept, promote or watch conduct I find unnatural and morally repugnant.