On the American Left, there are calls for Democratic Socialism. On the American Right, there are calls for less regulation and reduced taxation. However, there is a common thread which seems to be lost on most of us, as we engage in this debate: there is a massive flaw, which runs through each of these forms of government, and, it is such a fatal flaw, that it should disabuse us all of the notion that any existing ideological framework is able to satisfactorily address societal ills. In Communism, (which is, after all, the endgame of Socialism), everyone must contribute, and, will receive an equal measure, from the government, which owns everything. Everyone is worth only what they can contribute. The disabled don’t fit into that rubric. While we can say how “things would be different,” if communism was put in place in some country wherein it has not previously been employed, the track record is not good for the Communists, on this point, and, it is nearly identical for the Socialists. The reality has always been a life of poverty, hunger, and, institutionalization, at best. At worst, they were just “eliminated,” as was the case in Nazi Germany, which was a Nationalist-Socialist government. But, what about in Capitalism? It is true that American Capitalism does not summarily execute, or institutionalize the mentally, or physically, handicapped. However, they are often left in the societal dust, at best. In those areas that our nation has gotten better at providing care and services to these people, it has only been with the very misguided criticism that these are “socialist” policies. Too often, however, American Capitalism has been content to allow anyone who couldn’t keep up to rot in the gutter, so long as the gutter is at least one town over, otherwise, expect to have whatever shelter you’ve created razed, in an effort to convey just how unwelcome the sight of your suffering is, among those who could keep up.
The reality is that, none of these three forms of government, makes any room for someone who can’t produce goods or services valued by the market. Value is construed only as a financial benefit rendered, or the quantity of goods produced. It is only when we step outside of the ideological framework of capitalism, that we have the freedom to provide services and care for the marginalized. Now, since I dismiss Socialism and Communism as failed ideas, based more on utopian wishful thinking than grounded in reality (and I support this dismissal with the fact that even nations who have maintained Communist governments on the whole, have abandoned Communist economic policies – see China; Vietnam), I will focus on how this manifests itself in Capitalism.
Before I go any further, I want to be clear that I value the people who fall into any category. I believe all lives have significant value and worth. When I recently read an article which quoted Warren Buffet as pointing out that, it isn’t that evaluating the worth of corporations is the most meaningful skill in life, it just happens to be one which results in the accumulation of great wealth, I was moved to tears. Not because the idea of great wealth gets me all choked up, but, because of what Buffet was trying to convey: there are far more important societal contributions than wealth generation; they just happen not to be as highlighted in the media because they are much more difficult to quantify, and, also the part where they don’t generate money. Human beings have an intrinsic worth, regardless of their intellect, trade, or their physical or mental acuity. It is for these reasons, that I write.
So, the defenders of American Capitalism – usually Republicans, sing the praises of a system in which a man can rise above his beginnings, to the heights of success, using only his work ethic, and ingenuity. Herein lies the problem: We don’t all start from the same starting point, and, with the same tools. The Capitalist Dream ignores a universal reality: we aren’t equally smart; some of us are very gifted at things that are financially worthless; some of us are wholly incapable of caring for ourselves, let alone contributing to society, in an economic manner. While that is stating the obvious, it means that there is an inherently unfair, unlevel, playing field, even in the absence of things such as our “starting wealth,” and, “family pedigree.” Without making an affirmative decision to step outside of Capitalism, these people are left in the gutter. Now, while we have created systems to try to provide for these marginalized groups, they, essentially, are still consigned to poverty because we have prioritized wealth accumulation over the ability of the marginalized to live a life with dignity; not in excess, but, with basic needs having been met.
The problems that our society faces are not problems that can be solved by adjusting our form of government. They are problems that can only be solved by deciding what kind of public policies we want to have; what we want to prioritize. We would do well to remember that, most of us will find ourselves in need of a social safety net at some point. We would also do well to remember that anyone who doesn’t ever find themselves in such a position is what we would typically call, “very lucky,” and omit those privileged few from the discussion as to whether there is a need for a more robust social safety net.
Among the overhauls that our society requires, is the manner in which bad corporate behavior is punished. Presently, it goes like this: Corporation finds out that it can use cheaper rubber to make their tires, saving the corporation $10M, BUT, the rubber will cause the tires to explode more often, causing approximately 100 additional deaths this year. Furthermore, it will result in 1000 more life altering injuries. So, what does the company do? Do they say, “I’m not going to do something that will cost people their lives!” No… they engage in a cost-benefit analysis. They estimate the cost of the lawsuits that result from the accidents, as well as the legal fees. If that cost is less than $10M, they make the switch. The executives at the top have the greatest incentives to make the switch, bc, they can save the company $10M, and then leave before the deaths and lawsuits start, taking a few million dollars in bonuses on their way out the door, ultimately harming the company, bc, the bonuses weren’t factored in to that cost-benefit analysis that was performed. They will then go to another company and try to do the same thing, leaving chaos and devastation in their wake.
Look at the Purdue Pharma executives, the Sackler Family, and the manner in which they pushed opioids they knew where addictive, lethal, and, unnecessary. Now they’ve settled majors lawsuits against their company and their family. Are they penniless, at a minimum? Bc, if they aren’t, then our laws are not tough enough to address corporate abuses. When 21 years of your company’s executives pushing drugs KNOWING that they were harmful and deadly, results in over 700,000 US Deaths, penniless is the BARE MINIMUM of how you should end up – if not in prison for life, which is what I would advocate. How did the Sackler family fare? After all the lawsuits were settled, they have $10.3 BILLION DOLLARS, mostly gained from the sale of those opioids.
Clearly, we need to make some changes. At the same time, we can’t stifle growth and innovation, which come with inherent risk. So, what is the basic first step of changes to be made? First, we need to change our laws, and, likely amend our Constitution. The SCOTUS has determined that corporations are legally people, which is part of the problem. However, we can’t place the blame entirely on SCOTUS. Amending laws and the Constitution is the burden of Congress, at the direction of the electorate; interpreting them is SCOTUS’ burden. We must end the legal fiction of giving corporations personhood. Whether legal fictions should exist at all, is its own book, let alone, blog post. However, for our purposes here, we will limit ourselves to saying that, based on the Opioid Crisis alone, we can see that this legal fiction has serious deficiencies. So, let us call our first basic step the “Sackler Rule.” Let us further say that the Sackler Rule is that criminal liability attaches when corporate executives knowingly mislead anyone with respect to the known risks associated with their products, or which are by-products of their products. Let us further admit that there is a degree of ambiguity in what constitutes “misleading,” and, owing to the desire for more information than less, let us say that we are willing to risk that an executive might accidentally run afoul of this law, because, the logical consequence is that (rightfully) nervous executives would be overly forthcoming, on threat of imprisonment, making for a safer, more well informed, citizenry.
There is no way for America to persist for very much longer if the Electoral College remains unchanged. This is, perhaps, the most pressing issue facing our Nation. The left wants to eliminate it, the right wants to leave it untouched, and, both sides would destroy the country if they get their way. The problem of the Electoral College has been discussed and debated, in earnest, since Bush v. Gore. In America’s 232 years, the Nation has now seen 59 Presidential Elections. Of those, only five resulted in a President winning the election without winning the popular vote. In 1824 we see the first occurrence, and then again in 1876 and 1888. These first three instances come from an America quite different from the one in which we presently reside. We then managed to make it 112 years without issue. We have now had two out of the last five elections wherein the “winner,” lost the popular vote. The most recent incident was by a margin of nearly 3 MILLION votes. A margin of less than 200,000 votes cast for Biden in the states of PA, GA, NM, and, AZ, was all that separated America from a sixth occurrence. Subtract those votes and Donald Trump would have won a second term, this time losing the popular vote by over 4,500,000 votes. The 1876 election nearly threw the nation back into a civil war that it had only crawled out of twelve years earlier. Coincidentally, 77% of Americans currently believe the Nation is on the verge of civil war, again.
The obvious problem is that two approaches – the two most spoken about, would both ultimately lead to a civil war. The first is to leave things alone. Stick with the devil you know. However, when millions of Americans feel that their voice isn’t being heard, because of the outsized voice of the less populous states, they won’t be silent forever. Meanwhile, if the Electoral College is abolished, all of those states in the middle of the Country are going to grab their guns and Bibles, and, it’s not going to be pretty. Not only are the optics of each bad, but, each side would have the right to be mad, if the other side prevailed. Maintaining the Electoral College unfairly ignores the majority. Abolish it and the middle of the country would be utterly ignored in national elections. Who is going to waste their time traversing the wide open spaces of fly over country, when they need only to win the votes of the coastal states? Answer: no one. That’s the problem.
Still, there is another group that also has a right to be mad, for as long as the status quo is maintained. Certain states all but guarantee that nearly half of their citizens’ voices will never be heard, and, it’s not even on purpose. A NJ Republican has about as much chance of having their voice heard in a Presidential Election as the North Dakota Democrat (yes, I meant to say “the,” and not “a.” ND only has one Democrat in the entire state. jkjk… there are 2.45 Democrats in ND).
So, what’s the solution? It’s pretty straightforward, really. Apportion the electoral votes of each state with the popular vote of that state. For example, if 40% of NJ voted for the Republican, then 40% of NJ’s Electoral College votes would go to the Republican Candidate. This would eliminate the fear that the right has about having their voices drown out by the liberal coastal states, and, ensure the equal treatment of each voice which the left seeks. It also has the propensity to create a more engaged electorate, as both the NJ Republicans and the ND Democrats will have the chance to be heard (after all, 2.45 people is roughly 6% of the total population of ND). As Americans, we need to start looking for ways to come together, because, if we continue down the path of treating the ideas of others as if they are enemy propaganda, we will be the Americans that stood idly by and apathetically watched the death of The Great American Experiment.
An old friend wrote me a private message on Facebook to ask me what my thoughts were on Biden-Harris. The message came only a few hours ago, just before the election was called for Biden. I am sharing my responses with anyone who is interested in reading them, and, who is feeling anxious. For background purposes, I voted for the GOP, downline, since I turned 18 in 2000, then again in 2004, 2008, and, 2012. I also voted GOP in every midterm election. In 2016, I voted Libertarian. In 2020, I voted for Joe Biden. I am an attorney, who, during my law school career, took time out of my insanely busy schedule to be a McCain Poll watcher in Philadelphia. Admittedly, the Trump Presidency has turned me into an independent, who no longer accepts the position of any party, unless I have examined the issue, thoroughly, and personally concluded that the position has substantial merit. It is my opinion that the parties stand only for the perpetuation of their own existence. These are my friend’s questions, and, my (sometimes ranging) answers. I hope that it offers you a modicum of comfort, if you are concerned.
Best,
Jeff
1) your thoughts on Kamala Harris’ far left voting … she’s the reason I didn’t vote for Joe. I don’t trust her.
So, I hear this one a lot from my conservative friends. To me, it is a reflection of how insular most of our society’s social circles have become. I can tell you that the only thing that my liberal friends were more unhappy about than Joe Biden, was the fact that his VP pick was Kamala Harris. She’s a former prosecutor, with a track record of having been pro-cop. The Supreme Court leans hard to the right now, but, with respect to abortion, even if the Supreme Court of The United States of America banned it, the states would still be able to make the call. Also, this is a particularly divisive issue, which both sides will use to fuel the quests to regain, or maintain, power. At the end of the day, I am of the opinion that we need to prevent women from feeling the need to have an abortion. Lost in the abortion argument is the emotional damage that the mother and father of that child experience. We have too many ways to avoid the need for unwanted pregnancies to be fixated on abortions. The solution is to reduce the number of desired abortions to as close to zero, as possible. Outlawing them won’t lead to fewer abortions. It will just lead to unregulated, illegal abortions. Those most likely to pay the price for that are teenage girls, who, like teenage boys, lack the capacity to understand the full scope and potential consequences of such a decision. The end result is more likely to be adult parents losing their teenage daughters to unsafe abortions, as opposed to fewer abortions being performed. Of course, that is just speculation. Anyone who tells you that they know for sure what will happen is either a liar, or, a fool who lacks the capacity to see the many, many, potential outcomes of any action (or inaction). We are all doing little more than offering our guesses; some people just put a lot more thought and research into their guesses.
With respect to Socialism, there are really very few Democrats that want Socialism. The Socialism thing is literally a fear mongering tactic of the right. Each side has their fear mongering tactics. This just happens to be the right’s favorite. It is not supported by any facts. It is why AOC is an extremist even within her own party.
2) your thoughts on term limits for senate and house … I’m
On the fence about this idea, because, some of these new politicians, like AOC, are a little cray cray, but, you have these lifetime politicians causing nothing but decisiveness and sitting in a seat.
I don’t oppose term limits, but, I certainly don’t commit too much of my time to thinking about them, and, for two reasons: First, passing them would require those who are elected to act against their own interests. These people have literally sacrificed in every other area of life, whenever they saw an opportunity to gain a little more power, because, that is their highest priority. No one gets to that point without great effort and sacrifice, coupled with an over-inflated sense of self. They are completely convinced that the nation needs them; that no one else can do the job better. I can barely imagine someone drafting the legislation, let alone foreseeing a majority of those very same people voting to limit the duration of their own power trip. The only exception would be if some wild grassroots effort was made to vote out the majority of congress, and, the newly elected folks all having the integrity to see why they were voted in, and to act on behalf of the people… but, I think you see how far fetched that sounds, as a U.S. President currently threatens to upend hundreds of years of peaceful transfers of power.
The second reason that I don’t put too much thought into that is because it’s already in our hands. There are a few reasons that they don’t get ever seem to get voted out. First, is that they actually are good at their jobs, sometimes. This is reflected by the fact that most people want term limits and think that Congress is doing a terrible job, but, at the same time, say that their Congress person is doing a great job. What that means is that either their Congressperson is a good con-man… I mean, politician, or, that the system is actually working the way that it should work in The House Of Representatives, as the Congressperson is not tasked with merely acting in the interest of the Nation, they are literally tasked with acting in the interests of their own little slice of the country – their district, and it’s constituents. This may sound selfish, but, the reality is, we have very different needs in different parts of the country, and, those of us who have beach front property in California don’t know or care much about the price of a bushel of soy beans, just like the farmer whose crop of soy beans is set to be harvested doesn’t know or care much about beach erosion in California. Each of those two voters has legitimate concerns that only someone from their region is likely to be familiar with. At the end of the day, though, if we buy into the party BS, from either party, our elected officials will stay exactly the same, until such time as they step out of line with the party bosses, and, then the party will tell us how dangerous the Congressperson suddenly has become, and, will primary them, and, undermine them in every way that they can. It isn’t the political party which is to blame, though. The party is an entity; almost an organism. Like every organism, it will fight for its own survival, above nearly everything else. So, who is to blame? We the people. How so? It is the act of collectively buying into the fear-mongering of the parties that keeps us in line. There are some differences between the parties, but, not enough to justify our dedication to a party, particularly in light of the many checks and balances built into our system. Major change requires either bi-partisanship, or else possessing a super majority in the Senate, a majority in the House, and the White House, and, even then, you might need SCOTUS to be on your side, and, even with all of that, the possibility exists that you are ultimately still facing a state’s rights issue to be decided by the individual states. So, voting out someone who you dislike isn’t going to be the end of the struggle, yet we still treat it as the “end-all-be-all,” in an almost primal way that belies our natural tribalism. As the old Arabic saying goes: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The parties so badly want us to perceive the other party as the enemy, but, they happily conspire to eliminate any possibility of a third party becoming a viable threat to the two party system.
A slight rabbit trail: Ultimately, the two party system is a lot like the civil unrest that our country has seen. Think about when you saw police shooting rubber bullets and pepper balls at crowds, and, using their night sticks. How often do you ever remember seeing the police do this during rioting or looting? Almost never. They use those tactics on PEACEFUL protestors who are protesting in an area that law enforcement doesn’t want them to be, for one reason or another (some legitimate, some very illegitimate). Once the rioting starts, the police drop back behind shields… no more clubs with which to beat people. Why? Because, the reality is, the people outnumber the police. The entire system is setup to create the illusion of stability and government control. If you refuse to pay your mortgage, the bank forecloses, and crushes you. If everyone refuses to pay their mortgage the banks get crushed and the entire system collapses. This is not a desired result; it is just reality. That’s why you don’t see any law enforcement rushing in to stop looters. There are simply too many looters for law enforcement to handle, in the heat of the moment.* However, while we don’t want the financial system to collapse, the end of the two party system would be a positive thing, in my opinion.
*This is not to say they won’t use video evidence and track people down later, once order is restored.
3) Nancy Pelosi, I feel, has been the most divisive person ever, and, she really showed that clearly when she tore the state of the union. She needs to not be speaker of the house — just my opinion. what do you think?
I think that she was petulant in tearing up the state of the union address. With that said, I think that Donald Trump was the most divisive President since maybe Andrew Jackson… and, possibly more divisive than Jackson. He purposefully provoked his opponents. I mean, if provocation was a pro-sport, Donald J. Trump would have been inducted into the hall of fame in his rookie year. He poked, prodded, pressed, and needled, until people on the other side exploded. It doesn’t excuse her behavior, but, it does explain it, a little bit. In terms of whether she should be Speaker, that is ultimately a political question. On one hand, I think she should, because she has shown the ability to marshal her members, who have a range from blue-Republicans to communists. That is a tough task and must be done if anything is ever going to get accomplished. On the other hand, I think she should have gotten the stimulus for America that she could get, because, if her party won big in the elections, they could finish the bill properly, after the election. If they lost, there wasn’t likely to be any meaningful stimulus; just an all business handout by the Republicans. Her failure to see that, to me, is a reflection of pure, and poorly thought through, partisanship. I don’t know whether I agree with much of what Pelosi agrees with, because I don’t know where she stands on a range of issues, but, the worst part about Pelosi is that she says and does things that make her the perfect boogeyman for the right. Outside of that, she’s just one of 438 Representatives. Every Representative has 1/438th of the voice of the House, the same as every Senator has 1/100th of the voice of the Senate. None of them should be fully credited, for better or worse, with what happens when they are there, because, none of them really have that much singular importance or power.
4) what are your thoughts on those saying Democrats are using Joe as puppet to advance the left’s progressive ideas… ie: 25th amendment to move Joe out and put Kamala in… who couldn’t even reach her party when she ran for president but now is a viable choice.
So, I’ve heard a lot about this one, too. The fact is, with respect to advancing the left’s agenda, there is little that the President can do, outside of signing into law, or vetoing, something that Congress passed. Presidents can issue executive orders, as long as the order lacks the need for funding, except in certain emergency situations. The biggest functions of the President are to execute and enforce the laws passed by Congress, to act as the commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, and, in a diplomatic capacity on the world stage. However, it is worth noting that everyone is always trying to use whomever they can in DC to advance their own interests. Nothing that I saw in the debates suggests that Biden is the senile old man that I thought he was, prior to the debates, although, he is still clearly a VERY old man, lol. As I said above, Kamala isn’t actually a liberal/progressive, in my opinion. She is center left, with a strong emphasis on the “center” part. Of course, you will never hear that from the likes of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Ben Shapiro, or, anyone else who trades on convincing conservatives that the sky is falling and if you don’t tune in daily, you won’t know when the Socialism is coming. All of the talking heads are just shills for someone, providing out of context statements, and half-baked ideas that look good on the surface. This is a left and right problem, but, I didn’t list any of the big ones on the left, because, I honestly don’t know who they are, and, I’ve never listened to them. I know they exist, though, because uniformity of thought doesn’t happen by itself, and the left is no less uniform in their tribalistic groups than the GOP.
5) I’ve taken the stance of watching how this all pans out. If anything this election taught us it’s deeply flawed BUT the sad thing is that the politicians are using minorities as their narrative to get their way.
So, again, I think that it has been emphasized even more during this election than in the past, because, Trump is sort of like a caricature of an actual human being, more so than an actual human being. I think that is partially by design, and, that he isn’t exactly who he tries to appear to be; as if some part of this is just sheer character acting. However, with that being said, since the late 1960’s there has always been a play for minority groups, as if they were some monolithic voting bloc. They are not. However, leaders among certain minority groups still try to force that monolithic reality on the group. Though not an ethnic minority, the evangelical church pushed Trump like pharmaceuticals pushed opioids. Of course, Biden had his “you ain’t Black,” moment. You expect politicians to pander to groups, but, I find the push from within the groups to be more disturbing, personally. It is a reflection of a doubling down on tribalism. We need to be focusing on ideas, as individuals, not as micro-tribes, because, when we act as a micro-tribe, we have surrendered our individual brains to the tribe, and, that is not a good idea. That is how individual voters become “useful idiots,” who do the bidding of the parties.
Free trade. It is a brilliant thing, conceptually. However, to look at it conceptually is to miss real world implications. Trade, like life, doesn’t happen within the happy confines of a vacuum. It takes place in the real world. There are not only rational actors, but, also irrational. Trade, in the real world, implicates more than just two corporations doing business. It moves the bottom line of each nation’s assets – from one unto another. If all nations were governed by peace loving doves, this would not pose a problem. Unfortunately, there are not many lovers’ of peace to be found leading nation states. For instance, China openly seeks world supremacy. Meanwhile, the largest importer of Chinese goods is the U.S. In fact, the U.S. accounts for over 18% of Chinese exports. They make our iPhones, our clothing, our trinkets, and, our useless junk. But, they also make our PPE, provide the ingredients for producing our antibiotics, and countless other items critical to our nation’s health. What’s more, the Chinese Government is keenly aware of this fact, and, have threatened to cut off our access to such supplies, if we don’t do as they bid us to do.
It may well be the case that unfettered free trade benefits a business within a nation, but, it does not extend, from that, that the nation wherein the benefitting business is a citizen, has also benefitted. Furthermore, that the consumer can purchase goods of equal quality at a lesser cost is not necessarily even a benefit for that consumer. Consider the situation in which The United States currently finds Itself. For decades, The U.S. has been the most reliable pillar in the Chinese Economy. Our large businesses have benefitted from cheap labor, and, have leveraged it to provide untold numbers of products for less money than they could ever be produced for, domestically. The consumer cheered, and, voraciously consumed. Everyone was happy, except for the Communist Chinese Government. Oh, don’t get me wrong – they were happy to take our money. However, their stated goal is to topple the U.S. as a world superpower. Indeed, the goal of China is to become THE superpower. When your number one trading partner seeks global supremacy, and, where achieving such can only come at your expense, then, no matter the current benefit, derived in the form of cheap consumer goods, your nation is not benefitting.
So, what’s a nation to do? Well, for starters, fully abandon the notion that unfettered free trade is a de facto benefit for both nations. Cheaper goods cannot offset the cost of filling your adversary’s coffers. If the aims of the exporting nation are to create a world in which the importing nation is less prominently featured, then, it doesn’t matter how cheap the goods are, the importer is losing more than they are gaining. This is especially true when the exporter is China, as they have the population to militarily, and economically, advance their agenda. The Trump administration has sought to “level the playing field,” and, has used tariffs to try to bring China to the negotiating table, but, this is sticking a ban-aid on a gunshot wound to the jugular. Even the aims of this effort are amiss. This shouldn’t be a conversation about currency valuations, or, stolen IP. This ought to be a conversation about those with whom we choose to do business.
We must evaluate our aims, as a nation, when settling on a particular policy. If we believe that Democracy is to be supported, and, embraced, then, why are we chiefly doing business with Communist Autocrats? Surely, the sum of our parts cannot be that we will trade all principles and values for cheap stuff? Our trading partners must be limited to the nations with whom we have a shared interest, and, must include a subsidy to domestic manufacturers, when the product in question is critical to the health and security of our nation. Anything less represents a deliberate acquiescence to a known existential threat. It is suicide – or else, it is the murder of our collective progeny. China has made it clear that it seeks to supplant the U.S., and, it can only be concluded that, with every trade, the importer of Chinese goods, as well as the complicit Administration that permits it to occur, respectively, engage in nothing less than base treason.
To the critic who complains that finding new trading partners will be expensive, and, economically disruptive, my response is nothing short of Aristotelean: when will you ever take your medicine? When will you ever do the hard thing, which, in one’s own interest, must be done? Will you ever stop supporting those who tell you what you want to hear, over the clearly superior wisdom which comes at a cost? We experience an ever more painful cycle of boom and bust, delaying the day of reckoning, in so many areas of our economy. However, free trade with China is the one day of reckoning which, having been indefinitely delayed, until such time as no more delays were permissible, will have become insurmountable. Financial struggles can be overcome; an enemy that utterly controls, and cuts off, the supply chain, cannot.
The Washington Redskins are no more. The name, that is. The team still exists, but, the name of the team is being retired; the product of a long waged culture war, or, of societal maturation, or something… I’m not really sure to be honest. Of course, certainty is the fool’s stock in trade, and, there is plenty of it circulating. I’d bet dollars to donuts that the conservatives, for the most part, are offended by people who were offended, never realizing the implicit irony therein. They are likely certain that this is just another casualty of the PC wars, which they so deeply loathe, still desiring to protect their supposed God given right to do whatever it is that they claim they are not allowed to do anymore, just because it hurt someone’s feelings. The liberals, for their part, are celebrating the end of another evil word, and, are doubtless encouraged by the change, to continue their eternal march to rid the world of anything that someone, somewhere, doesn’t like. Perhaps you can tell that I prefer taking concepts on one at a time, as opposed to examining them under an ideologically tinted microscope, but, I digress. In this case, we are arguing over a very incorrect thing.
We’ve come a long way, societally speaking. Here we stand, bickering over offensive names, when there existed a time wherein people flocked, by the thousands, to go see men battle to the death, in the Roman Coliseum. Well, I suppose, not to the death, generally. Despite that ever trustworthy vanguard of truth, that is popular opinion, most gladiatorial battles were not to fought to the death. After all, gladiators were slaves – well trained slaves, but, slaves, nevertheless. Owners don’t like their expensive possessions permanently destroyed, so, battles to the death make bad business. Although, there is evidence that, sometimes, a fight to the death would be promoted to hype up an event, and, the owner of the deceased gladiator would be compensated for the loss of his property. Mostly, they just fought until there was a decisive winner. We wouldn’t support such barbarism today, though. Today, we argue about names.
While protests over police brutality and racism continue to divide our nation, we will once again, start talking about the propriety of a name. But, really, is there systemic injustice in this country? Did you know that 68.7% of NFL players are Black, and, 47.1% of Division I football players are Black, even though only 13.2% of the U.S. population is Black. So, if our sports heroes, in particular, the sports heroes in our nation’s most popular sport, are Black, how could we be possessed of a national bias against Black Americans? There is evidence to support the fact that these Black athletes, both college football, and in the NFL, come from economically disadvantaged communities. So, not only are our football heroes disproportionately Black, they are also disproportionately from poor communities, so, they are getting the chance to rocket to wealth and a higher socioeconomic status. All good things, right? Clearly, we’ve progressed beyond, the troglodytes who filled the Coliseum! Although, it is worth noting that those slaves that we call gladiators could achieve fame, within Roman society, due to their roles in the arena.
Did you know that 94% of Athletes tested in a 2018 study of former college football players had CTE, a condition that results from repeated concussions and brain injuries? These are athletes who, as my friend, and legal scholar, Marc Edleman, has consistently pointed out, are unfairly denied compensation, while their schools reap windfall profits off of them. There were 73,712 gladiators NCAA college football players during the 2018-2019 season, according to the NCAA. That’s 69,289 young people whose brains have likely been turned into a ticking time bomb of CTE symptoms, given our 94% positive rate from the 2018 study. CTE isn’t some phantom condition that one has, like some asymptomatic COVID-19 carrier. It results in something worse than dementia, at far younger ages than dementia, and, often results in suicides. It would stand to reason that the number of NFL players would be even higher. Good thing we’re changing the names of football teams, though.
Editorial note: If you are going to start reading this, please be sure to finish reading it. Don’t hit the eject button, just because you think you know where I’m going and you don’t like it.
Over the past few weeks, we have all watched, in horror, as our nation spirals out of control. With the opiate of entertainment and distraction rendered out of reach thanks to the global pandemic, there has been nothing onto which we could avert our eyes; no way to ignore certain scenes that most of us would prefer to leave unwatched. The consequent events have been something so complex that libraries of books will one day be written about them. For our purposes, I want to take just one slice of the pie: whether systemic injustice exists.
Most people seem to answer this question very easily. It’s either a simple, “yes,” or, an obvious, “no.” Unfortunately, that’s because that’s how we were taught to view the world – in our schools, in our churches, even in our media. Every question on a test has a right or wrong answer, and, every assigned essay seems to be a persuasive one. Every church will tell you what the Bible says – and, why everyone who interprets it differently is wrong, unequivocally. Likewise, every science teacher is quite sure that the current understanding of things about which we are, “certain,” is, certainly correct. Unfortunately, none of this is true, and, we can’t start answering any meaningful questions, without understanding this basic, fundamental, reality: everything in our universe, from atoms to galaxies, and everything in between, is complex. Most wars don’t have a “good guy,” and a “bad guy;” they have a complex series of events, which result in the governments of multiple nations convincing the youth of those nations to take up arms against one another. People, the world over, are very similar, for the most part. They want to be able to provide for, and protect, their families. Governments, as our Founding Fathers would have told you, are a necessary evil. Science, as it is taught to the non-scientist, is sure of itself, until it realizes that it was wrong, and, then, it is sure of its new conclusion. Amongst actual scientists, there is rarely certainty, for they know that certainty is a luxury to which we are not privy. If you want certainty, stick to basic math. So, our starting point must be very heavy on humility – understanding the limits of our own knowledge and understanding. It also has to be full of that hubris which says that we have the capacity to make things better (not perfect – but, better), if we do the hard work of untangling reality, to the best of our abilities. So, in that spirit, let’s dive into systemic injustice.
The majority of the world was aghast at the video of George Floyd, pleading, to deaf ears, until he died. Not surprisingly, it sparked an outcry across the nation. Coming on the heels of Ahmaud Aubrey’s murder, and multiple other high profile killings of unarmed Black People, the nation, it seemed, finally, had enough. Now, in the Social Media spin zone, this has, unsurprisingly, become a political football. I recently watched a video of two Black conservatives, who point out the numerous examples of White People being wrongfully killed by police. They argue that the “Black lives matter,” movement is just propaganda, and, they point to the lack of media attention to the wrongful killings of White People, in support of this assertion. I can’t say that it didn’t remind me of thoughts that I had while watching news crews of all ethnicities being deliberately targeted by law enforcement while clearly doing their jobs. However, my next thought was, “well, this is all anecdotal evidence. What does the data say?” The U.S. Census indicated that the racial demographics of the U.S. are 76.5% White, and, 13.4% Black. In other words, White Americans outnumber Black Americans, more than 5 to 1. Police shot slightly more than twice as many White People to death, as they did Black People – meaning far more Black Americans, by percentage of the population, are shot to death by police. Why is this the case?
Is it related to poverty?
Statistics also show that 20 million White Americans (8.1%) are living in poverty. Meanwhile, 9.1 million Black Americans (20.8%) are living in poverty. So, while a far higher percentage of all Black Americans live in poverty, there are still more than twice as many White Americans living in poverty as there are Black Americans. So, poverty alone doesn’t get the job done. Although, it does suggest that there may be a very strong correlation to poverty and police shooting deaths, since these absolute numbers match up well with the 2 to 1 margin in the above section on police shootings resulting in death. However, other evidence suggests that this is not simply a poverty issue. The recent report on Air Force Service Member discipline revealed an extreme disparity in punishments between White and Black Service Members, which could not be explained in any other way, save for to admit that there was systemic racial bias. This doesn’t directly relate to police brutality, however, it does suggest that systemic problems exist in certain areas of our society.
Is it a cultural problem?
There are clearly cultural problems when human life isn’t valued. We see that reflected in the astronomically high incidence of Black on Black crime. However, the culture of impoverished Appalachia can hardly be considered superior. Those trapped in poverty will turn to drugs, lose sight of the value of life, and, find a scapegoat to blame for their troubles. This is true regardless of race. We need to fix cultural problems, but, this starts with action, not words. This starts with entering those communities, risking one’s self, and trying to be an agent of positive change. Otherwise, I think we had best move on from the topic of culture, as we are pointing out a problem which we are unwilling to assist in repairing. It is little more than a foil.
Green Acres Is The Place For Me!
I remember that line from the theme song of the terrible 70’s TV series, Green Acres, because it was woven into my childhood fever dreams. Get the flu, go lay on the couch, turn on nick at night, fall asleep to the weirdness of TV generations gone by. But, I think that part of our answer, here, is in Green Acres… or, at least in rural living. Police in rural areas, where one is most likely to find poor White People, are underfunded, understaffed, and, living in a different world than police in major cities. They are also much more likely to be from the community that they are policing, and, to know someone connected to people with whom they may be interacting. Compare this with a city cop in [pick a city]. That cop is one of a large force. They probably don’t know the person that they are interacting with, either. For the rural LEO’s, there is a community connection, which is often missing in the cities, as well as a man-power induced inability to simply arrest someone on the majority of the calls to which they respond. The city cop, on the other hand, by virtue of population density alone, likely responds to many more violent calls. While the city cop likely interacts with a very small percentage of the population, their interactions are more likely to leave the officer jaded, and, looking at the entire community as though they all represent that small fraction of the community causing problems. The transverse perspective is also affecting the peaceful community, as they view police through a very suspicious, and, fearful lens. Just like the cop doesn’t know who needs help, and, who will try to kill him, the citizen doesn’t know which cop is there to help, and, which one will sit on their neck until they die.
Over the coarse of the past few months, it has become very clear that there are rampant problems in our law enforcement community. Black People, White People, and all other shades of People have been wrongly targeted by law enforcement, before our very eyes. This is not only dangerous for our citizens, it is potentially lethal FOR OUR GOOD COPS. It is wildly unfair to paint everyone with the same brush, even if that is what we have all been taught to do. Some communities may have a police force, the vast majority of which consists of very good police officers. It is also clear that some police departments should probably start with a clean slate – like Louisville, Kentucky. Perfect answers don’t exist, but, we must face these complex problems with well thought out solutions, or else, the results will be unbalanced, and, will result in more chaos, followed by a reversal of course which will make the current situation seem enviable.
I personally believe the evidence for systemic injustice is clear. However, one would be hard pressed to suggest that we don’t need to reform our approach to policing, either way. The bigger problem, as I see it, is that we’ll never be able to solve even the most basic of problems, until we start learning to see the complexities of our world; not as an excuse for any specific conduct, but, so that we have the best shot at understanding and addressing the problems we face.
Look, I know that you hate whatever it is that schools are making your kids do – “school via Zoom.” I don’t blame you. I’d hate it, too. I bet your kids hate it, as well. After all, the only fun part of school, that pretty much anyone can think of, is socializing – and that sentiment is limited to the kids that don’t get bullied constantly. That’s one of the many reasons why my wife and I decided to homeschool our kids. But, we don’t do whatever you guys are doing – that’s not homeschooling. “Real” homeschooling takes many forms, but, almost never what you guys are all being forced to do. Also, don’t believe any of that rubbish about how your kids are going to fall behind – it is statistically proven that nearly everything taught in school is forgotten shortly after the course ends. That’s why public schools spend 5+ years in English classes teaching the same monotonous rules, even though the students have been tested on them over, and over. Not to mention the fact that textbooks are notoriously terrible, and often inaccurate. So, in many cases, it’s a good thing that your kids will forget what they were taught. People involved in the education complex need to believe that kids will fall behind because of all of this – it validates them. To accept what is plainly true, and, scientifically proven, of our educational system would be devastating to anyone who has made that their life’s work.
I do have some credibility here. I was a kid who hated school, received mediocre grades (at best), and, was generally headed nowhere. That was me until the end of 8th grade, that is. In the late spring of my eighth grade year, I discovered homeschooling, and, promptly harassed my parents until they agreed to homeschool me – a great sacrifice to both of them. I had what you’d call a bit of a turn-around, and went on to graduate from a state university, and, eventually, from a well respected law school. My kids have been homeschooled from jump street. They are all ice hockey players, who, outside of hockey, have wildly diverse interests – fossil hunting occupies the majority of my twin sons’ attention these days, that is, when they don’t have hockey sticks in their hands. My daughter is the avid reader, lover of all things science, and, of all things art. My wife does the majority of the teaching. I jump in on a few subjects because, well, I love the subject matter. My wife and I each focus on the subjects that we enjoy teaching. I have no fear of them not getting into college, because, colleges LOVE homeschoolers, because, homeschoolers think outside the box (having been raised outside of it), and, are generally extremely well educated.
Now that you know what my credentials are, allow me to say this: homeschooling doesn’t have to include endless hours of work. Our normal “school day,” is your normal half-day, and, our approach is based on good science – yes, there is science on how to educate. On top of this, learning, for us, never really stops. Think about your favorite hobbies. What formal classes did you take to gain your (most likely, dense) knowledge of the subject? In all likelihood, none. Furthermore, when you see an article about some cool weather event, or, some recent discovery, why do you bother to read it? Because learning is interesting, and exciting, and, what we are naturally drawn to doing! It takes real effort to do what we, as a society, have done to learning – to make it a thing not to be desired. This doesn’t mean that it’s all puppy dogs and rainbows – although, there really are a lot of puppy dogs and rainbows. There are still classes that I hate, that my wife hates, and that our kids hate, and, that we collectively suffer through. Math (which is left to my wife – I don’t want to take any credit for that sort of suffering), for example, is not anyone’s passion, in my house. Still, math makes up 30 minutes of our day, and, then it’s over.
As for the dinosaurs? I couldn’t tell you anything about dinosaurs, except for what I’ve learned from my kids. That’s their passion, and, they are very well versed in the subject – an impressive feat for two kids who just turned 13, and whose only motivating force is their own interest. How do we attempt to motivate them in any given subject? Usually by looking for the lighter fluid of intrigue – that thing that makes a thirsty mind need to know more. Fossils came from a road trip, where we literally got to see dinosaur tracks embedded into the earth. That was it for that one… they were off to the races! Our home butterfly growing kit was all it took to get my 10 year old daughter asking if we could look up resources to learn more about the metamorphosis process. All we did was order some caterpillars online. We didn’t force anything. We guide, we try to be the intellectual match, and provide the lighter fluid, but, that’s all that we need to do. We got into the universe, and solar systems after we made a road trip from NJ out to Kentucky to see the 2017 solar eclipse. Get the picture? We are not rich – money is almost always tight. Lawyers from my generation – especially as a first generation college student, have large amounts of student loan debt. However, for our family, it is hard to call any of it a sacrifice. A sacrifice would be sending them to public school. That would be hard on all of us. We enjoy our time together – and, we are keenly aware that it is limited. In the immortal words of Darius Rucker – “it won’t be like this for long.”
I’m telling you all of this because, I can’t imagine how horrible it must be to try to do public schooling from home – for student or parent. I want you to know that there is a different way, that doesn’t involve misery, and, where you get to actually enjoy your time with your kids, instead of fighting with them over whether they have done their hours of busy work. I also don’t want you to call what the public school system is having your kids do “homeschooling.” It’s not homeschooling.
In the heat of a crisis, battle, or passionate argument, we tend to lose our objectivity. Who cares what the other side thinks, right? Well, I think you are half-way to the truth, there. Indeed, who cares what the other side thinks?! Their thoughts are motivated by an implicit bias, in other words: a bias, of which they may not even be aware, is influencing their interpretation of the information at hand. The other half-way that we need to get, which is much tougher, is: who cares what your side thinks, either? Every side of the political spectrum has an implicit bias which they bring to political issues, and, this pandemic, sadly, has become an American political football – complete with every side trying to score points. If you read my last article, then you know that I encourage you to be the judge in the metaphorical courtroom; struggling desperately to spot your own biases, and to discard them, in the quest to become an independent fact finder. So, if we all have an implicit bias, how do we see past any given writer’s biases, as well as our own? One great approach is to look to the (slightly less) recent past.
Anything that you can find, written between now and dating back to March 2020, is tainted. It is stained with the partisan rancor that most closely competes with “being sprayed in the face by a skunk,” in the category of “foulest stenches.”
In WWII, Winston Churchill had a best friend who also happened to be one of the most brilliant people in all of the U.K. The trouble is, that friend was loyal to Churchill above all else. If Churchill wanted a conclusion reached, his friend would reach it – supported by some great sounding evidence, and, utterly ignoring any countervailing evidence. The left does this – and, so does the right. So, what are we to do? One simple solution is to look back and see what people were saying about these very same topics just a few years ago – when there was no passion in the argument. If you take the passion out of the argument, you are left with an intelligent discussion of the ideas; the merits of the argument. Does this mean that you will find consensus? No, you almost certainly will not. However, you will find a more balanced approach; one which doesn’t involve anyone contemplating the idea that hundreds of thousands of lives hang in the balance. Such thoughts cloud our judgments. So to, do fear, and restlessness. Remember the lead up to the Bush Administration’s decision to bomb Afghanistan, after 9/11? In the intervening weeks, there was a growing sense of rage – SOMEONE needed to pay. Pick a God Damn target and start exacting revenge! Nearly all of us felt it, even if only on a subconscious, primal, level. Remember “shock and awe?” I’m practically a G.W.B. groupie. However, the national sense of excitement at showing *them* what we could do to anyone who dared defy us, (which was also palpable), embarrasses me to reflect upon. But after all, we were defending America from the savages who would threaten us, and, our way of life… at least, that’s how it felt in the fog of 9/11. Years later, we absolve ourselves of our own enthusiasm, while pointing fingers at political “others,” upon which to apportion blame. We foolishly expect our Presidents to be perfect – or else, we forgive them for a multitude of sins, by explaining that, “nobody’s perfect,” generally failing to see the flaw inherent in each argument. Our leaders are not perfect; it is not wrong to love them, despite their flaws; it is wrong to pretend that their flaws don’t exist, or, that our collective lack of perfection means that we should give them a free pass on their bad behavior. But, I digress. This is about objectivity, and finding cool heads, in the midst of the pandemic (because, you can’t spell PANdemIC, without the panic!).
One of the solutions is to look a few years back, when ***fact checking every claim***, which I am sure you were already doing. As an aside, you might have noticed that I always say, “one of the solutions” or, “one of the answers,” instead of “the solution,” or “the answer?” This is because there are many legitimate answers and solutions – not just one. Just as there are no perfect answers… only incomplete answers and solutions; each one with its own problem or flaw. In light of that fact, and, as always, let us remember the brilliant words of Benjamin Franklin, at the close of the Constitutional Convention, when he encouraged the room full of distinguished members to each “doubt a little of his own infallibility,” as we hurry to conclusions about the new “truth” which we are racing to embrace.
We’ve all played the role of the chump at one point or another, falling victim to a dubious claim, or fake quote. I personally love the one from President Lincoln, admonishing people that they can’t trust everything they read on the internet. Sadly, not all fake news is quite so obvious. So, how do you sort it all out, and, why should you trust me? You sort it out by examining the credibility of the evidence, and, you should trust me because I’m an attorney. Stop laughing. I’m serious! Allow me to explain. I’m not your attorney, and, I’m not opposing counsel. I’m speaking to you from the position of a neutral – like a judge. Lawyers are professional researchers, advisors, and debaters, among whatever other things you may want to call us. We exist because, despite what you may wish to think, the world is full of ambiguity, uncertainty, and different ways to look at the same information. This reality allows us to look at the facts, and, find the positions which support our client’s case. However, our arguments are not the end of the matter. They are, in fact, the middle of the matter. The end of the matter, is when the arguments are brought before the judge. The judge weighs the credibility of the evidence and arguments presented, and decides what he believes to be the more compelling side (there are more precise ways of explaining this, but, for our purposes, this will suffice). Which means that we need to do a good job at the beginning, when we are researching. Imagine missing something big, and, not finding out until you’re in front of the judge, with your client standing next to you. Not an experience that you want to have. It is with that in mind, that I ask you to trust me, and, allow me to help you figure out how to sort through the mess of information for yourself.
The first problem that we have, collectively, is that we are all playing the role of “lawyer,” these days, instead of being the judge. What I mean by that, is that we are so busy arguing for “our side,” that we have abandoned the role of truth seeker, entirely. You can think of it like this. The information with which we are presented is like a witness, giving testimony on the stand. If you’re a Republican, and the witness is Fox News, you are likely giving a vigorous defense of the witness, yelling out objections when your Democrat-friend is cross examining the witness, and, lobbing softball questions, and defenses. If the witness is CNN, then, the tables are turned. Can you see the problem with this? The lawyers are not fact finders – that’s the role of the judge (or the jury… but, let’s pretend we are only dealing with judges, for the sake of the analogy). Lawyers are the story tellers – we create the narrative, we spin the facts in the way that advances our side. It’s not that we lie – we literally are not allowed to do that. We just present the facts in the light that best suits our side’s position. That’s not a great way to exist outside the courtroom. In fact, it’s destroying us. We must learn to play the role of the judge, or, our Republic will fail; the Great American Experiment, will be over.
So, how do we play the role of the judge? Well, that’s going to be a struggle, because, it involves skills that you were probably never taught. For instance, we have a school system that has terrible text books – and always has, and teaches that the often incorrect (and even more often, over-simplified) information within those books is true. We are taught not to question, or challenge, but, to accept what we are told as true. Unfortunately, such a system designs suckers. To be the judge, you have to retrain yourself not to accept anything, without supporting evidence. You have to learn how to weigh the evidence. You have to accept that you might not like the truth; to choose an ugly truth over an uninformed falsehood. Finally, you have to accept that you will never have complete evidence. The judge wasn’t there when the events transpired, which brought the litigants into the courtroom. There may have even been better information available, which the lawyers missed. The judge has to work with the information at hand, to be able to draw the best conclusions possible, being open to the fact that s/he may be wrong, in the conclusion that is reached – that’s why we have appeals. Changing one’s position because new information has come to light is not called “flip-flopping,” it’s called being rational.
So, how do we weight evidence? Well, for starters, we fact check EVERYTHING. I fact check myself – CONSTANTLY. I start to say something to my kids that I learned in school, and, then, I stop, and say, “you know what, let’s look that up.” Why? Because human memory is faulty, and, because, when I grew up, scientists thought there were only nine planets in the UNIVERSE. Our knowledge was, and is, so vastly incomplete, that, remaining open to the possibility that we are wrong is critical. But, when we talk about “fact-checking,” what do we mean? Whose facts? Well, we want first hand evidence, whenever possible. If the witness says, “I never wear red ties,” and we have video of him wearing a red tie, that’s pretty solid evidence – although still not conclusive, thanks to technology, so, we need to seek the totality of the evidence. If we are talking about a scientific study, then, we need to know what kind of study it was. Does it follow the “rule of large numbers?” That rule is one that applies in any study – and, at the roulette wheel. Just because the ball landed on red ten out of the last eleven spins, does not mean that it lands on red for ten out of EVERY eleven spins. To find out how often it lands on red, we need to spin the wheel at least 100 times, and, 1000 would be better, and 10,000 would be better still. Why? For the same reason that you can flip a quarter and get heads three times in a row, even though there is only a 50/50 chance that it would land on heads, and, that, on average, it would land on heads one out every two flips. Small sample sizes give untrustworthy results. Then, we need to ask whether it was a double blind, controlled, randomized, study. That kind of study removes the ability of the researcher to accidentally, or purposefully manipulate the data. It’s not that you should throw out every other study, but, you certainly shouldn’t trust them very much. You should eye them with skepticism, and seek confirmatory or disconfirmatory evidence – and, seeking such evidence only for the sake of getting closer to the truth, not to support your preconceived notions.
After you have done all of this, you should evaluate for risks – judges, since we are using the analogy, do this when setting bail. In the world of finance, there is a different way of framing risk. It is the consideration of the existence of what is called, “fat tail risk;” a low probability event which, if it occurred would have massive ramifications. In other words, the risk of rare events with big consequences; the Chernobyl events, if you will. If the risk is small, but, the consequences large, you might reconsider taking the risk, in making your decision.
If you put all of this together, you’ll be pretty solid at spotting hoaxes, and identifying valid claims. You still might come to a different conclusion from someone else, who is applying the same approach, but, that’s ok. This approach means that you’ll be able to understand one another’s perspectives. It also means that you’ll both be approaching the information from a well reasoned position, and be more open to reconsidering your conclusions, based on new information. It becomes a collaborative process, instead of a competitive one, where you seek to defeat one another’s arguments. It removes the us vs. them tribalism that has ravaged through our society more savagely than the Pandemic. Truth isn’t about choosing sides, and, no side has a lock on the truth – that’s just the claim that the lawyers make.
thereluctantcommentator 