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.
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.
Politico has an article out (link at the bottom) about Republican reaction to the active duty service member (with a Purple Heart pinned to his chest, no less), who raised the alarm on what he perceived to be the impropriety of President Trump’s conduct on the now infamous Ukraine call – if I have to catch you up to speed on the much debated nature of that call, just put your head back down on the desk and go back to sleep… there’s just no time. Anyway, something brilliant just happened: Elected Republican’s, excepting the President, of course, have said that they won’t attack this man’s character. They may take issue with his interpretation of the facts, they said, however, his patriotism was not to be questioned.
Is it sad that this is remarkable? Of course it is. However, it isn’t often that we see Elected Washington D.C. Politicians, of any political variety (those being Democrats and Republicans – all others being as mythical as the Crumpel-Horned Snorkack), accidentally trip over a line that ought not to be crossed and, after brushing the metaphorical sand off their $1000 suits (because when it’s a $1000 suit, you brush off even the very most metaphorical grains of sand), ponder aloud that, “that’s the line that we shouldn’t cross!”
Forgetting that it is the 10,000th line that they shouldn’t have crossed, let us take a moment to discuss what we should already know, but don’t… or else do know, but generally refuse to put into practice: what the Elected Republicans, excepting the President, of course, have suggested is that they will not engage in what are called “ad hominem attacks,” at least, not on this occasion. An ad hominem attack is one that responds to an idea, opinion, or claim, that one finds disagreeable by ignoring said idea, opinion, or claim, and simply attacking the person presenting the idea, opinion or claim, instead. If we are being honest – and we generally should be, ad hominem attacks may be maliciously fun may seem like a reasonable approach, but they are bad for the business of good ideas – and definitely the wrong approach to figuring out who is right.
However, exactly why it is wrong to engage in an ad hominem attack might be confusing, if you are considering the question from the cynical perspective of politics. After all, as any hyper-partisan can tell you, a Democrat surely can’t be trusted to be honest if there is a chance to harm a Republican, and vice-versa. However, let us be less cynical for a second (although, feel free to remain skeptical). Are we to be more concerned with the identity of a speaker, or the substance of what they have to say? Shouldn’t we judge the latter, irrespective of the former? If a member of [insert the identity of a group that you find particularly irksome] has something to say, do you, dear reader, have the capacity to hear the substance of their words, or, will you simply write them off because of the group with whom they identify? Hell, let’s even be a little cynical – I once heard Justice Antonin Scalia repeat the adage that, “even a stopped clock is right twice a day.” By Scalia’s account (you can pretend it was his real life BFF, R.B.G. who said it, if you’d like), those with whom we utterly disagree are still going to be right twice a day, so, we ought to listen to the substance of their words and ignore the fact that we think the teller of the time quite resembles a very ugly clock, with which we’d never adorn our walls.
p.s. – If Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia found a way to be real life besties, I think we can all work on looking to the substance of the message and not so much the tribe to whom the messenger belongs.
p.p.s. – I left the “Justice” part off of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and opted for R.B.G. because I think “RBG” sounds like a bad-ass gangster’s name, and I believe Justice Ginsburg to be an absolute bad-ass. I did not do this because I was trying to show greater respect to a male than a female. I find both Justices to be, or have been, brilliant legal minds with whom I have very strongly agreed and very strongly disagreed – both substantively, and (in the case of Scalia) stylistically. Not that I need to explain myself, but, I just wanted you to know.
Too many of us have believed a big, fat, lie, and it must be corrected – or else our children, if not we ourselves, will live to see the death of the great American Experiment. This is the lie: The people that disagree with “us” are dangerous. They are idiots, and, they are the enemy of our Nation. Allow me to explain both the lie, and the truth.
There are brilliant people on both sides of the aisle. Intelligent minds can disagree. So, how did we come to believe the lie, who sold it to us, and how do we change it?
So, how did we come to believe the lie?
Believing the lie is relatively easy to explain. After all, people love a good game of “us vs. them.” From your favorite sports rivalry (Yankees vs. The Sox), to gender wars (anything you can do, I can do better!), to racism (see: “hands up, don’t shoot!” See also: “Jim Crowe,” “Japanese Internment camps,” and “Irish slaves.” For an international flair, see: [pick the name of any nation ever] war atrocities… starting to get the picture?) and the compulsive need to identify eye shapes, or, the way a particular ethinicity smells (when they are wet, or don’t wear deodorant, or because they eat an abundance of a particular spice). Our natural instinct is to pick teams and then find a million reasons to die for ours (literally – like in a war, or metaphorically – like being a Philadelphia Flyers fan; a perennial death to self), and at least as many reasons to justify the assassination of the the “them” (literally – drone attacks, or metaphorically – as in, who ever met a Boston sports fan that they didn’t want to run over with their metaphorical SUV?) In ‘Murica, we alternate between the metaphorical, jocular, political-attacks during the best of times, and literal assassinations in the worst of times. We have allowed those who are greedy for power to manipulate us, from time to time, and drag us into the gutter of the more literal divisions, and the more literal assassinations. Make no mistake about it, if the “swamp” is in Washington, D.C., its origins are, nevertheless, in the human mind – and the latter is the one in the most dire need of draining. We are once again at a crossroads in the U.S., and in all of Western Civilization.
Who sold it to us?
This goes back to at least the presidency of Bill Clinton, although, perhaps back to Ronald Reagan’s. The efforts of Congress, during both presidencies, to achieve their political goals through attacks on the character of their opponents, as opposed to the ideas of their opponents, massively contributed to the beginning of the sociopolitical avalanche. Universities accelerated it (See: “The Coddling Of The American Mind,” by Haidt and Lukinanoff). Donald Trump represents a reinforcement of the cultural battle lines and the backlash to the P.C. movement that was grown in the Universities and fostered by the coastal elites. The clash of social revolutionaries, and populist sentiments, have been co-opted by some of the worst examples of humanity – those who feel a compulsion to seek power over their fellow citizens. Few who desire power are worthy of, or fit to possess, the positions they seek. Unfortunately, too many who desire power are capable of figuring out how to obtain it: division through fear. You will find this behind nearly every war that has ever been waged – the use of fear to gain power and manipulate the masses. The political left and right have spent the past 20+ years trying to convince us that the other side is the enemy. Thanks to the advent of social media, we can now find a meme supporting any baseless pre-existing idea that we have. We were sold these ideas by people seeking television and radio ratings, and people seeking political power… and a few that were well intentioned, but, we all know what road our “good intentions” pave – and we were, collectively, all too willing to buy.
How do we change it?
If we don’t change the tone, end the demonizing and dehumanizing of those with whom we disagree, and genuinely wake up, we are destined to join the dust bin of history’s once powerful nations, whose collapse necessitated the re-creation of classroom maps and globes. There are no simple answers to the problems with which humanity is confronted – and there never have been. While I have enough hubris to think I can contribute some solutions, I’m humble enough to admit that my ideas do not represent the only answers. Nevertheless, if we aren’t searching for solutions, what’s the point? In light of this thought, I offer the following…
The first step to getting out of this epic mess in which we find ourselves is accepting the complexities of the mess, itself. There are a lot of people offering simple solutions to complex problems. We like simple solutions because they usually give us an excuse to actively avoid thinking, and give us someone to blame. Unfortunately, they’re typically about as useful as used chewing gum, and are almost always inadequate.
Next, figure out who has been labeled “Them” – that’s who is to blame for our problems! Everything would be amazing without THEM.Except that it wouldn’t be. “They” aren’t the problem. The collective “we” are the problem. If that thought makes you feel slightly indignant, then take a chill pill, and check yourself before you wreck yourself. A world which includes “me” can’t ever be perfect, or free from error or flaw. If you can’t relate with the preceding sentence, then, I think you need something stronger than a chill pill. With that in mind, it might be easier to imagine that some ideas that you think are brilliant are actually bound to be terrible. We need each other. We need a dose of humility. We need to remember that disagreeing doesn’t need to make us enemies. Have a conversation with someone that you disagree with – and not so that you can convince them to believe what you believe, so that they can stop being wrong. Instead, try to understand where they are coming from and who they are. The shouting voices that have been the source of all of your information on “who these other people are,” lack something in the way of objectivity, and something more, in the way of credibility, when they speak about the motivations and beliefs of the “they.” The enemy of our democracy – the greatest danger to our Republic, is mutual, unchecked, self-assuredness.
This is not to say that all ideas are equal. This is not an argument in favor of relativism. We can objectively assess arguments, but, unless that assessment starts in a place of intellectual humility, we will continue to only seek ideas that support our already self-assured, pre-existing beliefs, while savagely dissecting any contradictory information with a degree of thoroughness never experienced by those pieces that fit our worldview.
One last thought: I said that the lie was, “the people on the other side are … idiots.” On the whole, this is true, at least, in part because blanket statements are myopic and stupid; they represent some of the worst in us. Of course, some of the people on the other side are idiots – some of the people on whichever side we stand are idiots. We, too, are individually, sometimes the idiot. So, accept the fact that, sometimes, you are the idiot and sometimes I am the idiot – it is a role that we all take turns playing. Then, make the decision not to paint an entire group with such broad brush strokes. Work hard to figure out when you’re the idiot, so that you can be less of an idiot, and try to have a little bit of grace on the other idiots. This whole “humaning” thing is not easy and we are all fumbling along.
Ahhhhh… Election Day! A day that means so very much (more) to me (than it used to). (It used to be) A day when the nation went out to cast a(n at least somewhat) well informed vote (which has been reduced to a day of mixed emotions – sorrow over the decay of our democracy, co-mingled with absolute glee, over the fact that we won’t continue to receive dozens of political robots-calls every hour)! Robocalls aside, elections are important. In fact, they are critically important. If you think they don’t matter, imagine a world where a weak leader beats Abraham Lincoln; a world without a Winston Churchill* – in other words, a world where Neville Chamberlin makes a peace treaty with Adolph Hitler, and then eventually gives him the key to London, too. Given this significance, it is reasonable that passions would run high. Here is where we come to the point, though. Too many of us have believed a big, fat, friggin, lie, and it must be corrected – or else our children, if not we ourselves, will live to see the death of the great American experiment. This is the lie: “The people on the other side are dangerous idiots.” Allow me to explain both the lie, and the truth.
There are brilliant people on both sides of the aisle. Intelligent minds can disagree. So, how did we come to believe the lie, who sold it to us, and how do we change it?
So, how did we come to believe the lie?
Believing the lie is relatively easy to explain. After all, people love a good game of “us vs. them.” From your favorite sports rivalry (Yankees vs. The Sox), to gender wars (anything you can do, I can do better!), to racism (see: “hands up, don’t shoot!” See also: “Jim Crowe,” “Japanese Internment camps,” and “Irish slaves.” For an international flair, see: [pick the name of any nation ever] war atrocities… starting to get the picture?) and the compulsive need to identify eye shapes, or, the way a particular ethinicity smells (when they are wet, or don’t wear deodorant, or because they eat an abundance of a particular spice). Our natural instinct is to pick teams and then find a million reasons to die for ours (literally – like in a war, or metaphorically – like being a Philadelphia Flyers fan; a perennial death to self), and at least as many reasons to justify the assassination of the the “them” (literally – drone attacks, or metaphorically – as in, who ever met a Boston sports fan that they didn’t want to run over with their metaphorical SUV?) In ‘Murica, we alternate between the metaphorical, jocular, political-attacks during the best of times, and literal assassinations in the worst of times. We have allowed those who are greedy for power to manipulate us, from time to time, and drag us into the gutter of the more literal divisions, and the more literal assassinations. Make no mistake about it, if the “swamp” is in Washington, D.C., its origins are, nevertheless, in the human mind – and the latter is the one in the most dire need of draining. We are once again at a crossroads in the U.S., and in all of Western Civilization.
Who sold it to us?
This goes back to at least the presidency of Bill Clinton, although, perhaps back to Ronald Reagan’s. The efforts of Congress, during both presidencies, to achieve their political goals through attacks on the character of their opponents, as opposed to the ideas of their opponents, massively contributed to the beginning of the sociopolitical avalanche. Universities accelerated it (The Coddling Of The American Mind, by Haidt and Lukinanoff). Donald Trump represents a reinforcement of the cultural battle lines and the backlash to the P.C. movement that was grown in the Universities and fostered by the coastal elites. The clash of social revolutionaries, and populist sentiments, have been co-opted by some of the worst examples of humanity – those who feel a compulsion to seek power over their fellow citizens. Few who desire power are worthy of, or fit to possess, the positions they seek. Unfortunately, too many who desire power are capable of figuring out how to obtain it: division through fear. You will find this behind nearly every war that has ever been waged – the use of fear to gain power and manipulate the masses. The political left and right have spent the past 20+ years trying to convince us that the other side is the enemy. Thanks to the advent of social media, we can now find a meme supporting any baseless pre-existing ideas that we have. We were sold these ideas by people seeking television and radio ratings, and people seeking political power… and a few that were well intentioned, but, we all know what road our “good intentions” are used to pave – and we were, collectively, all too willing to buy.
How do we change it?
If we don’t change the tone, end the demonizing and dehumanizing of those with whom we disagree, and genuinely wake up, we are destined to join the dust bin of history’s once powerful nations, whose collapse necessitated the re-creation of classroom maps and globes. There are no simple answers to the problems with which humanity is confronted – and there never have been. While I have enough hubris to think I can contribute some solutions, I’m humble enough to admit that my ideas do not represent the only answers. Nevertheless, if we aren’t searching for solutions, what’s the point? In light of this thought, I offer the following: the first step to getting out of this epic mess in which we find ourselves is accepting the complexities of the mess, itself. There are a lot of people offering simple solutions to complex problems. We like simple solutions because they usually give us an excuse to actively avoid thinking, and give us someone to blame. Unfortunately, they’re typically about as useful as used chewing gum, and are almost always inadequate. Next, figure out who has been labeled “Them” – that’s who is to blame for our problems! Everything would be amazing without THEM.Except that it wouldn’t be. “They” aren’t the problem. The collective “we” are the problem. If that thought makes you feel slightly indignant, then take a chill pill, and check yourself before you wreck yourself. A world which includes “me” can’t ever be perfect, or free from error or flaw. If you can’t relate with the preceding sentence, then, I think you need something stronger than a chill pill. With that in mind, it might be easier to imagine that some ideas that you think are brilliant are actually bound to be terrible. We need each other. We need a dose of humility. We need to remember that disagreeing doesn’t need to make us enemies. Have a conversation with someone that you disagree with – and not so that you can convince them to believe what you believe, so that they can stop being wrong. Instead, try to understand where they are coming from and who they are. The shouting voices that have been the source of all of your information on “who these other people are,” lack something in the way of objectivity, and something more, in the way of credibility, when they speak about the motivations and beliefs of the “they.”
One last thought: I said that the lie was, “the people on the other side are … idiots.” This is true because blanket statements are myopic and stupid. They represent some of the worst in us. Of course, some of the people on the other side are idiots – some of the people on whichever side we stand are idiots. We, too, are individually, sometimes the idiot. So, accept the fact that, sometimes, you are the idiot and sometimes I am the idiot. Then, make the decision to not paint an entire group with such broad brush strokes. Work hard to figure out when you’re the idiot, so that you can be less of an idiot, and try to have a little bit of grace on the other idiots. This whole “humaning” thing is not easy and we are all fumbling along.
*ed. note: Churchill was not elected – he was appointed. Nevertheless, the analogy stands, as an effective contrast between the weak leader and the strong leader.
At a Social Distortion concert, the famous punk-rockabilly-band’s lead singer told the raucous crowd what he thought about America, and the current President. His right to free speech protects those thoughts – whatever they may be. A fan of the band responded by flipping off the lead singer for the remaining songs. In the words of another famous band: “THAT’S. WHEN. THINGS. GOT. OUT. OF. CON-TROL!” **shout out to Sublime** At this point, one person (lead singer, Mike Ness), has expressed negative feelings about the President, and another (the idiot fan), has decided that his free speech protest – which is clearly going to make a meaningful, positive, and lasting, change in the world, is to flip off the band for the remainder of their set – three songs.
So, at this point, Mike Ness does the only thing he can do. He ignores the (allegedly) silent, middle finger salute, like a grown up … calls out the fan for being an idiot, and uses the opportunity to explain how free speech workscalls the fan forward and spits in his face. I mean, in all fairness, what else could he have done? **This is a rhetorical question, and for the purposes of making it seem credible, I’m going to really need you to ignore, entirely, the options which are “struck out,” above.** Surprisingly, the fan gets super pissed that the lead singer of the band that he came to see just spat on him,* and his silent protest very briefly escalates, such that the (slightly wet) fan is now screaming angrily at the singer – screaming which was undoubtedly inaudible, in the din of the music; this being a live concert, and all. Again, what was Mike Ness to do?! Only one choice, really – shrug it off and say, I probably shouldn’t have spat on that dude … take advantage of the fact that you know the crowd and security will try to restrain the fan, in the event of an altercation, and beat the hell out of the (probably former) fan (by this point).
All of this is the sort of escalation of political tensions that I have been writing about for a while now. It is the kind of thing that leads to an ever escalating “tit-for-tat,” until someone (or more likely, lots of someones) dies. It is all actually devastatingly predictable. However, what happens next, takes the cake, and is a symptom of how bad the cultural-cancer has become.
As the fan was being escorted out, and the lead singer had jumped back on stage to finish their last song or two – because, of course that’s what should reasonably happen, the lead singer calls the fan out: “stick around, I’m going to f*** you in the ass tonight.” He manages to repeat the line again, while forcing a few more f-bombs in there, and then finishes the song. If you are a conservative (in particular, a conservative evangelical), that has defended the president’s statement that you “just need to grab em’ by the p*ssy,” as locker room talk, you have no moral high ground here (sorry – the truth stings, sometimes). You have no right to be outraged at the idea that someone would threaten, joke about, or contemplate egregious acts of sexual assault on another person. You gave up that moral high ground. The statements of both the President AND Mike Ness, are locker room talk – the thing is, they are the words said in locker rooms by the intolerable pieces of trash that the rest of the guys in the room loathe. The guys that start fights, ruin good times, and get kicked off the team by the other guys in the locker room, the very first chance that they can. However, as a guy that has played a lot of sports, and spent a lot of time in locker-rooms before and after ice hockey games (a group of people that love salty language, if ever there was one), and neither I, nor any of my friends, have ever joked, or casually spoken, about assaulting attractive women. Similarly, I’ve personally screamed a litany of words at an opponent in the heat of the moment – but, I’ve never threatened to sodomize someone – nor has anyone on my side or against, ever threatened me, or any of my teammates in that way. It is not normal behavior. Meanwhile, if you are a liberal that defends Mike Ness’ response, then you, like Mike, and too many others on both sides of the aisle, have also lost the right to criticize the President and those that see the world in the same way that he does (a group to which I do not belong, for the record).
As far as I’m concerned, therein lies the saddest reality, yet: both the left and the right have lost the moral high ground – at least those with the soap boxes and bully pulpits. Presently speaking, there are only a handful of people fighting for that moral high ground, and they are getting enough traction to fills auditoriums and other venues, nationwide. Their high ground is not born out of an ideological agreement. Instead, it is the product of civility, and respect, despite disagreement. However, that movement continues to be drowned out by the din of the “Donald Trumps” and the “Mike Nesses” of the world. Make no mistake, if you’re not condemning their actions,++ and their conduct, then you are condoning it; you are complicit in the self-destruction of America.
*Which is interesting, in itself, considering that there are certain genres of music, including 1970’s gutter punk, when being spit on by the lead singer was considered as cool as getting an autograph. [shrugs]
++ For anyone thick enough, or partisan enough, to attempt to misconstrue my words here as meaning that if you support any of the President’s policies, you are complicit in the destruction of America, allow me to clear the matter up for you: left or right – we can disagree on policy. However, there is no need, or benefit, in calling someone a dog, or a loser, or in telling them that you are “going to f*ck [them] in the ass tonight.” It doesn’t help your argument, it doesn’t make you look cool, and it doesn’t advance your cause – a cause that might actually be worth advancing. Instead, it shows the people that aren’t overgrown school-yard bullies that you are a petulant, immature, blow-hard. More importantly, it encourages anyone that looks up to you, to think, “this is ok; this is acceptable.” The trouble is, it’s not.
At a Social Distortion concert, the famous punk-rockabilly-band’s lead singer told the raucous crowd what he thought about America, and the current President. His right to free speech protects those thoughts – whatever they may be. A fan of the band responded by flipping off the lead singer for the remaining songs. In the words of another famous band: “THAT’S. WHEN. THINGS. GOT. OUT. OF. CON-TROL!” **shout out to Sublime** At this point, one person (lead singer, Mike Ness), has expressed negative feelings about the President, and another (the idiot fan), has decided that his free speech protest – which is clearly going to make a meaningful, positive, and lasting, change in the world, is to flip off the band for the remainder of their set – three songs.
So, at this point, Mike Ness does the only thing he can do. He ignores the (allegedly) silent, middle finger salute, like a grown up … calls out the fan for being an idiot, and uses the opportunity to explain how free speech workscalls the fan forward and spits in his face. I mean, in all fairness, what else could he have done? **This is a rhetorical question, and for the purposes of making it seem credible, I’m going to really need you to ignore, entirely, the options which are “struck out,” above.** Surprisingly, the fan gets super pissed that the lead singer of the band that he came to see just spat on him,* and his silent protest very briefly escalates, such that the (slightly wet) fan is now screaming angrily at the singer – screaming which was undoubtedly inaudible, in the din of the music; this being a live concert, and all. Again, what was Mike Ness to do?! Only one choice, really – shrug it off and say, I probably shouldn’t have spat on that dude … take advantage of the fact that you know the crowd and security will try to restrain the fan, in the event of an altercation, and beat the hell out of the (probably former) fan (by this point).
All of this is the sort of escalation of political tensions that I have been writing about for a while now. It is the kind of thing that leads to an ever escalating “tit-for-tat,” until someone (or more likely, lots of someones) dies. It is all actually devastatingly predictable. However, what happens next, takes the cake, and is a symptom of how bad the cultural-cancer has become.
As the fan was being escorted out, and the lead singer had jumped back on stage to finish their last song or two – because, of course that’s what should reasonably happen, the lead singer calls the fan out: “stick around, I’m going to f*** you in the ass tonight.” He manages to repeat the line again, while forcing a few more f-bombs in there, and then finishes the song. If you are a conservative (in particular, a conservative evangelical), that has defended the president’s statement that you “just need to grab em’ by the p*ssy,” as locker room talk, you have no moral high ground here (sorry – the truth stings, sometimes). You have no right to be outraged at the idea that someone would threaten, joke about, or contemplate egregious acts of sexual assault on another person. You gave up that moral high ground. The statements of both the President AND Mike Ness, are locker room talk – the thing is, they are the words said in locker rooms by the intolerable pieces of trash that the rest of the guys in the room loathe. The guys that start fights, ruin good times, and get kicked off the team by the other guys in the locker room, the very first chance that they can. However, as a guy that has played a lot of sports, and spent a lot of time in locker-rooms before and after ice hockey games (a group of people that love salty language, if ever there was one), and neither I, nor any of my friends, have ever joked, or casually spoken, about assaulting attractive women. Similarly, I’ve personally screamed a litany of words at an opponent in the heat of the moment – but, I’ve never threatened to sodomize someone – nor has anyone on my side or against, ever threatened me, or any of my teammates in that way. It is not normal behavior. Meanwhile, if you are a liberal that defends Mike Ness’ response, then you, like Mike, and too many others on both sides of the aisle, have also lost the right to criticize the President and those that see the world in the same way that he does (a group to which I do not belong, for the record).
As far as I’m concerned, therein lies the saddest reality, yet: both the left and the right have lost the moral high ground – at least those with the soap boxes and bully pulpits. Presently speaking, there are only a handful of people fighting for that moral high ground, and they are getting enough traction to fills auditoriums and other venues, nationwide. Their high ground is not born out of an ideological agreement. Instead, it is the product of civility, and respect, despite disagreement. However, that movement continues to be drowned out by the din of the “Donald Trumps” and the “Mike Nesses” of the world. Make no mistake, if you’re not condemning their actions,++ and their conduct, then you are condoning it; you are complicit in the self-destruction of America.
*Which is interesting, in itself, considering that there are certain genres of music, including 1970’s gutter punk, when being spit on by the lead singer was considered as cool as getting an autograph. [shrugs]
++ For anyone thick enough, or partisan enough, to attempt to misconstrue my words here as meaning that if you support any of the President’s policies, you are complicit in the destruction of America, allow me to clear the matter up for you: left or right – we can disagree on policy. However, there is no need, or benefit, in calling someone a dog, or a loser, or in telling them that you are “going to f*ck [them] in the ass tonight.” It doesn’t help your argument, it doesn’t make you look cool, and it doesn’t advance your cause – a cause that might actually be worth advancing. Instead, it shows the people that aren’t overgrown school-yard bullies that you are a petulant, immature, blow-hard. More importantly, it encourages anyone that looks up to you, to think, “this is ok; this is acceptable.” The trouble is, it’s not.
[Cracks knuckles] … Let’s do this … I’m beyond done. Have any of you chuckleheads, on either side of “half-baked political debate land,” who have been screaming about gun violence on the left, or immigration on the right, (you know who you are – you have oversimplified memes all day long) bothered to take note of a single tragedy that didn’t fit the political narrative that you let someone else tell you that you believed that you’ve carefully cultivated? I’m guessing not, since, I haven’t seen much in my news feed about the a particularly horrible story that would be all over the place, if the facts were just altered a little bit… you know, The 15-year-old boy – the aspiring NYPD officer, who was even brave enough to wear the jacket of the NYPD explorer program in public, who was murdered with machetes by a bunch of gang members, who are U.S. Citizens, even though their U.S. born street gang has a Spanish name (imagine the disappointment, when the alt-right realizes that they are actually U.S. Citizens… a tragedy gone to waste, they’ll say). This poor kid won’t fit any of the narratives that the right loves – that sense of, “well, he did it to himself,” is unmistakably absent. It was a case of mistaken identity. But, if only we had stricter gun laws… he’d STILL BE DEAD. Which is why it wasn’t shared with the same fervor of Parkland school shooting. It also happens to be the same reason that energy is only worth expounding when trying to point out when illegal were involved in a crime that was committed: you care more about your cause than you do about objective truth or actual solutions. You certainly don’t care enough to actually put any serious thought into societal problems… how can so many of us be so damned content to simply parrot the words of a political party. Hours of debate are engaged in between people who haven’t put in 15 minutes of objective research, collectively – you just know what your side told you, and like an absolute clown, you believed it to be true without so much as a god damned fact check. Of course, you fact check the “other side” all. day. long.
I’m sorry, but, real solutions are complicated and imperfect. They involve ideas from both sides, and a willingness to work together to make a positive change. You have to actually care more about understanding the situation than you care about winning the debate. Until we reject the notion of demonizing, and ridiculing those that have a different opinion, we will continue our descent into the abyss; all the while, with the completely unearned arrogance of a people who lack the capacity to be incorrect.
[Ed. note: if my use of the terms “right” or “left” happen to offend you, because you feel that I am unfairly generalizing when it comes to “your group,” then, good, I’m glad that I offended you. Maybe it will make you ask yourself what you’re really interested in: defending your political team, or identifying objective truth. The two no longer seem to go hand-in-hand. At least for the time being, you need to choose… do you choose an ideological label, or do you choose to seek objective truth? If you chose the former, I’m probably going to continue to offend you. If you chose the latter, then you are committing to the idea that you don’t have a label, or a political banner, behind which you line up.]
thereluctantcommentator 