The whole country is in an uproar about whether or not professional athletes should be forced to stand at attention when the national anthem is played before their games. Certain players and teams are refusing to do so as a protest again what they see as racism in the police force and other institutions in the country.
I think the whole thing is a manufactured issue, that the media created, to successfully get more attention to the things they are showing. Starting with Colin Kaepernick last year, the issue has simmered until last week when it exploded across the world, with Trump denouncing it, players in England taking part, entire teams not attending the anthem, and it spreading to other sports.
Mostly this has occurred as players taking a knee during the anthem, or remaining seated when the rest of the team stands. Other players have remained standing but raised a fist instead of placing their hand over their heart. The Steelers took it a step farther by not showing up on the field for the anthem. It will be interesting to see what happens next, as people try to top that move in their quest for attention. It is an increasing level of disrespect for the flag, and country depending on how you look at it. Part of the spread seems to be fueled by rebellion against the idea that certain people have been expressing: "that the players shouldn't be allowed to protest." Just because someone can do something doesn't necessarily mean that they should.
From a first amendment perspective, there is nothing that the government can or should do about it. So in that way, Trump is totally out of line, and the last person that should try to influence the situation. The NFL or individual team owners have the right, but not the obligation, to put a stop to it. The owners of certain teams like the Cowboy's have prohibited their players from taking part, while others like the Patriots have supported the protest. The Jaguars owner took part in the protest himself, while the Steelers coach (unsuccessfully) tried to pressure his entire team into taking part.
The unexpected result of this was that it gave one Steelers player the opportunity to make a protest of his own. Standing outside the locker rom at the edge of the field, the former Army Ranger stood at attention during the anthem, in a move that implicitly protested the ongoing disrespect of the flag and country. Now the one standing apart and getting attention is the one doing the normal thing, which becomes counterproductive for those trying to point attention where they want it, so that might be the key to ending the issue. It is not a protest that is sustainable or scalable. Once entire teams are doing it, it becomes the new normal, and no one is getting special attention, and people stop talking about it.
I think the entire issue is a good highlight to the general public of what the first amendment does and doesn't apply to. People care far more about sports than I think they should, but if that interest motivates them to examine this legal issue closer than they otherwise would, so be it. It should help them understand that the first amendment only protects them from the government punishing them in disapproval of their free expressions. Other people are free to express counter opinions in response, or even to terminate their relationships or employment with them (Within certain parameters). This is similar to the dancers who didn't want to perform at Trumps inauguration, they have a right not to, but at the expense of their jobs. It will be interesting to see if this grows into a conflict between people who do have authority to change things (the league and owners) and the players. Because up until now, nothing of any consequence has actually taken place as a result of the entire thing. And I am not sure how much of anything positive really could, given the broad nature of what they are protesting.
Monday, September 25, 2017
Wednesday, September 6, 2017
Confederate Monuments and Other Historical Memorials
The debate about Confederate monuments has expanded since my last post, and now has begun to include anyone who owned slaves, or is perceived to have held racists views. Since pretty much everyone prior to the twentieth century held racist views, (Same as they believed smoking was good for you, and all sorts of other things) that pretty much provides a wild card to justify attacking any part of America's history or heritage. Even Abraham Lincoln, famous for fighting to end slavery, still expressed extremely racist views by our modern standard. Instead of that fact providing people with a little more perspective on the realities of the past, it led someone to deface (literally) a statue of Lincoln in Chicago. There are people calling for changes to Mt. Rushmore, because it honors people who were "racist" (all of them) and slave owners (Washington and Jefferson). ESPN even removed a sports commentator to avoid offending people who might be bothered that his (Asian) name is Robert Lee. Seems kind of racist to me to remove someone from their position due to their last name.
Anyhow, I had already written up both sides of the debate about Confederate statues, because I wasn't sure exactly where I stood on the issue, and figured that it would need to be a case by case thing. But in light of these new over reaching demands, I am opposed to removing any historical monument (or doing much of anything else in life) purely to avoid offending someone. But let's examine both sides of the original issue:
There are a number of different reasons given by supporters of removal, including that Confederates were traitors that shouldn't be honored, that they were racists who oppressed blacks in the south, and that the statues were erected decades later by white supremacists. Those opposed to removing them point out that they are works of art, those honored were Americans, and part of the South's heritage. They also point out that past leaders, and pretty much everyone else, held views that are considered racist today. So if that disqualifies historical figures from being honored, there would be none left. And even if those honored did hold offensive views, deliberately erasing them from the public consciousness does nothing to change the past, and only makes it harder for society to recognize and learn from its past mistakes. If we agree to start removing historical monuments, how do we determine which ones should be removed? Confederate leaders is a tangible line, but if the issue is really racism, then where does it end? As part of the reunification after the Civil War ended, Confederate soldiers were forgiven, and given status as US veterans. Who are we to "unforgive" them now? Compare the results we experienced to Iraq, where the ideological conflict between Sunnis and Shiites or other factions goes on for generations. While we have our polarizing differences of opinion and vision for the country, we are far more united than we could be, due in part to the reconciliation process after the Civil War. The reconstruction process was far from perfect, but it wisely made an effort to avoid demonizing the opposing side who had lost. But we are beginning to do that now, and seeing the resulting conflict.
The one change that I have heard proposed, that at least loosely makes sense, is that the committee that manages the Jefferson Memorial is looking at adding more placards that examine the Virginian's views on racism and slavery. While he did own slaves, he argued against the morality for slavery from an academic and moral perspective. And to further complicate the issue, it is alleged that he had "relationships" with some of his slaves, which opens up a whole different set of race issues, but it was wisely determined that those more controversial questions were better left to be addressed by exhibits at Monticello, the museum of his home. I am always in favor of exposing the truth ("better than living a lie") but I am a bit concerned the people will use these types of things to further discredit the founding fathers and their values in other areas: for example, limited government, and individual freedoms.
The fact that this all became a huge issue within the last month is pretty much comedy. Why now and not five or ten years ago? The overly offended crowd hasn't even succeeded in getting the Redskins to change their name, and now they want to take on everyone in history? The world is not a perfect place, and pretending otherwise is never going to help anyone.
Anyhow, I had already written up both sides of the debate about Confederate statues, because I wasn't sure exactly where I stood on the issue, and figured that it would need to be a case by case thing. But in light of these new over reaching demands, I am opposed to removing any historical monument (or doing much of anything else in life) purely to avoid offending someone. But let's examine both sides of the original issue:
There are a number of different reasons given by supporters of removal, including that Confederates were traitors that shouldn't be honored, that they were racists who oppressed blacks in the south, and that the statues were erected decades later by white supremacists. Those opposed to removing them point out that they are works of art, those honored were Americans, and part of the South's heritage. They also point out that past leaders, and pretty much everyone else, held views that are considered racist today. So if that disqualifies historical figures from being honored, there would be none left. And even if those honored did hold offensive views, deliberately erasing them from the public consciousness does nothing to change the past, and only makes it harder for society to recognize and learn from its past mistakes. If we agree to start removing historical monuments, how do we determine which ones should be removed? Confederate leaders is a tangible line, but if the issue is really racism, then where does it end? As part of the reunification after the Civil War ended, Confederate soldiers were forgiven, and given status as US veterans. Who are we to "unforgive" them now? Compare the results we experienced to Iraq, where the ideological conflict between Sunnis and Shiites or other factions goes on for generations. While we have our polarizing differences of opinion and vision for the country, we are far more united than we could be, due in part to the reconciliation process after the Civil War. The reconstruction process was far from perfect, but it wisely made an effort to avoid demonizing the opposing side who had lost. But we are beginning to do that now, and seeing the resulting conflict.
The one change that I have heard proposed, that at least loosely makes sense, is that the committee that manages the Jefferson Memorial is looking at adding more placards that examine the Virginian's views on racism and slavery. While he did own slaves, he argued against the morality for slavery from an academic and moral perspective. And to further complicate the issue, it is alleged that he had "relationships" with some of his slaves, which opens up a whole different set of race issues, but it was wisely determined that those more controversial questions were better left to be addressed by exhibits at Monticello, the museum of his home. I am always in favor of exposing the truth ("better than living a lie") but I am a bit concerned the people will use these types of things to further discredit the founding fathers and their values in other areas: for example, limited government, and individual freedoms.
The fact that this all became a huge issue within the last month is pretty much comedy. Why now and not five or ten years ago? The overly offended crowd hasn't even succeeded in getting the Redskins to change their name, and now they want to take on everyone in history? The world is not a perfect place, and pretending otherwise is never going to help anyone.
Sunday, August 20, 2017
Charlottesville Conflict
Last weekend's events in Charlottesville Virgnia have led to all sorts of commentary and discussion online. This is in part because the events in question (and the context surrounding them) reveal larger differences in values between different segments of our polarized culture. The actions and responses raise all sorts of important questions in a number of areas that are worth addressing.
First off we have the original issue of whether we should be removing monuments to our country's history and past leaders. And if so, who should determine which ones, based on what criteria? And how should those doing it without legal authority be treated? Then there is the issue of how should we as Christians respond to the fact that their are people openly supporting Nazi ideas marching in the streets? And how should we feel about the secretive "Antifa" that violently confronts those seen as Nazis? Should people be allowed to be armed when attending these kinds of demonstrations? What about the person running down pedestrians with a car, and killing one of them? And then there is the issue of how the president and the rest of the government should be expected to react to the events that are taking place. And should they be held in any way responsible for the fact that these events are taking place during their administration? So there are a lot of separate issues at influencing the situation, and therefore people's views on what should happen, and why.
The source issue that led to the event in the first place is the larger movement to remove Confederate statues across the country. This is a vast topic, that I will dedicate a full post to soon. For now we can just say that if the conclusion is that we shouldn't remove them, the results are simple. If we agree that some should be removed, this leads to the complex questions of which ones, and what should the process be for determining that, which I will examine more in that next post. What we have right now, are groups of people taking it upon themselves to remove or destroy statues, and should we turn a blind eye to those acts of vandalism? The only reasonable thing to do is prosecute people doing it illegally, otherwise there would be no logical arguement against burning down abortion clinics, or any other institution that some party finds offensive. This should be obvious, but there are some trying to defend these people and their vandalism.
The fact that there are modern people with a favorable view of the Nazi Party and their ideas does boggle the mind. But they do exist, and they are publicly exercising their right to free speech by expressing their misguided views. So would should the reaction to that be? First off, the government should not do anything beyond keep an eye on them as long they don't go beyond saying things, even if what they are saying is hateful and offensive. Individuals and private companies should be free to avoid associating with or serving or employing them. But as Christians we shouldn't hate them, C.S.Lewis addresses the proper Christian response in Mere Christianity (Bk3-Ch7 Forgiveness). We should always hope for their change of heart or redemption, even if we have to use lethal force to protect others from them. So hating Nazis just makes you more like one of them. This should be obvious, but there are some trying to make Nazis the exception to all civilized rules.
Once someone moves beyond hateful words, to hateful or violent actions, we are in a different situation, and I have no hesitation for the use of force in response. But that escalation from expressing ideas to implementing them forcefully is a significant one. Most of the violence last weekend appears to be conducted between people looking for a conflict, on both sides. The Nazis weren't the only party looking for a fight. Members of Antifa openly advocate violence as a justified response to Nazis, and anyone else they don't approve of. In my opinion Antifa seems more violent than the current generation of Nazis, and I see them as a more realistic threat to our culture, because there is no overwhelming majority actively opposing them. And Antifa operates in anonymity, like the old KKK, while the Nazis are out in the open, allowing them to be identified. Those supporting the Nazi's antagonists might want to consider that 4 years of conflict with Nazis resulted in 40 years of conflict with Communists. This should be obvious, but there are some trying to defend the violent aggression of Antifa's members.
Allegedly someone deliberately ran into a group of pedestrians, killing one and injuring many others. If that is true, it is murder, and I am all for their punishment. but unlike the similar ISIS attacks in Europe, this seems like an impulsive act of malice, not an example of Nazi tactics that we should be concerned about. Due to Virginia being an open carry state, there were also many protesters on both sides of the issue who came armed with guns, presumably for self defense. In my opinion, this is exactly why the 2nd amendment exists, and a success story for the value of having armed citizens. Hundreds of people were involved in a violent conflict, and not a shot was fired, because most of the violence was between the unarmed members. Guns raise the stakes to point where violent conflict is no longer worth the risks. (Similar to nukes in international relations) It is hard to prove that the presence of guns reduced the amount of potential violence, but since not a shot was fired, it would be hard to argue that it increased it any at all. Taking a way guns wouldn't have prevented the one death that did occur, and might have led to more, similar to Europe's current problem with alternatives to guns being used in violent attacks. (Knives, acid, vehicles, etc.) It should be obvious that guns aren't the source of the violence problem, but there are some trying to outlaw their presence, or even existence.
Some how a violent riot in Virginia is being blamed on the President. While a leader is technically in charge, he doesn't control everything that happens within his domain of influence, especially with our limited form of government. But there are some participants who were quoting various things he had said, so he has had some influence on the people involved. He didn't come off very strongly against those involved, especially in his first response, but I can't fault him for blaming both sides. There are many who were offended that he criticized both sides, based on their opinion that the ideas of Antifa aren't as bad as the ideas expressed by the Nazis. But even if that was true, two wrongs don't make a right, and being "better than Nazis" does not make something "good." I find it interesting that this is the issue that appears to be "sticking," more than the weekly issues of the past few months that the media has highlighted in their ongoing effort to discredit the current administration. I wouldn't be surprised if we see more events like this in the near future, as those who are trying to generate narratives like this one appear to have found a successful approach.
First off we have the original issue of whether we should be removing monuments to our country's history and past leaders. And if so, who should determine which ones, based on what criteria? And how should those doing it without legal authority be treated? Then there is the issue of how should we as Christians respond to the fact that their are people openly supporting Nazi ideas marching in the streets? And how should we feel about the secretive "Antifa" that violently confronts those seen as Nazis? Should people be allowed to be armed when attending these kinds of demonstrations? What about the person running down pedestrians with a car, and killing one of them? And then there is the issue of how the president and the rest of the government should be expected to react to the events that are taking place. And should they be held in any way responsible for the fact that these events are taking place during their administration? So there are a lot of separate issues at influencing the situation, and therefore people's views on what should happen, and why.
The source issue that led to the event in the first place is the larger movement to remove Confederate statues across the country. This is a vast topic, that I will dedicate a full post to soon. For now we can just say that if the conclusion is that we shouldn't remove them, the results are simple. If we agree that some should be removed, this leads to the complex questions of which ones, and what should the process be for determining that, which I will examine more in that next post. What we have right now, are groups of people taking it upon themselves to remove or destroy statues, and should we turn a blind eye to those acts of vandalism? The only reasonable thing to do is prosecute people doing it illegally, otherwise there would be no logical arguement against burning down abortion clinics, or any other institution that some party finds offensive. This should be obvious, but there are some trying to defend these people and their vandalism.
The fact that there are modern people with a favorable view of the Nazi Party and their ideas does boggle the mind. But they do exist, and they are publicly exercising their right to free speech by expressing their misguided views. So would should the reaction to that be? First off, the government should not do anything beyond keep an eye on them as long they don't go beyond saying things, even if what they are saying is hateful and offensive. Individuals and private companies should be free to avoid associating with or serving or employing them. But as Christians we shouldn't hate them, C.S.Lewis addresses the proper Christian response in Mere Christianity (Bk3-Ch7 Forgiveness). We should always hope for their change of heart or redemption, even if we have to use lethal force to protect others from them. So hating Nazis just makes you more like one of them. This should be obvious, but there are some trying to make Nazis the exception to all civilized rules.
Once someone moves beyond hateful words, to hateful or violent actions, we are in a different situation, and I have no hesitation for the use of force in response. But that escalation from expressing ideas to implementing them forcefully is a significant one. Most of the violence last weekend appears to be conducted between people looking for a conflict, on both sides. The Nazis weren't the only party looking for a fight. Members of Antifa openly advocate violence as a justified response to Nazis, and anyone else they don't approve of. In my opinion Antifa seems more violent than the current generation of Nazis, and I see them as a more realistic threat to our culture, because there is no overwhelming majority actively opposing them. And Antifa operates in anonymity, like the old KKK, while the Nazis are out in the open, allowing them to be identified. Those supporting the Nazi's antagonists might want to consider that 4 years of conflict with Nazis resulted in 40 years of conflict with Communists. This should be obvious, but there are some trying to defend the violent aggression of Antifa's members.
Allegedly someone deliberately ran into a group of pedestrians, killing one and injuring many others. If that is true, it is murder, and I am all for their punishment. but unlike the similar ISIS attacks in Europe, this seems like an impulsive act of malice, not an example of Nazi tactics that we should be concerned about. Due to Virginia being an open carry state, there were also many protesters on both sides of the issue who came armed with guns, presumably for self defense. In my opinion, this is exactly why the 2nd amendment exists, and a success story for the value of having armed citizens. Hundreds of people were involved in a violent conflict, and not a shot was fired, because most of the violence was between the unarmed members. Guns raise the stakes to point where violent conflict is no longer worth the risks. (Similar to nukes in international relations) It is hard to prove that the presence of guns reduced the amount of potential violence, but since not a shot was fired, it would be hard to argue that it increased it any at all. Taking a way guns wouldn't have prevented the one death that did occur, and might have led to more, similar to Europe's current problem with alternatives to guns being used in violent attacks. (Knives, acid, vehicles, etc.) It should be obvious that guns aren't the source of the violence problem, but there are some trying to outlaw their presence, or even existence.
Some how a violent riot in Virginia is being blamed on the President. While a leader is technically in charge, he doesn't control everything that happens within his domain of influence, especially with our limited form of government. But there are some participants who were quoting various things he had said, so he has had some influence on the people involved. He didn't come off very strongly against those involved, especially in his first response, but I can't fault him for blaming both sides. There are many who were offended that he criticized both sides, based on their opinion that the ideas of Antifa aren't as bad as the ideas expressed by the Nazis. But even if that was true, two wrongs don't make a right, and being "better than Nazis" does not make something "good." I find it interesting that this is the issue that appears to be "sticking," more than the weekly issues of the past few months that the media has highlighted in their ongoing effort to discredit the current administration. I wouldn't be surprised if we see more events like this in the near future, as those who are trying to generate narratives like this one appear to have found a successful approach.
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
Repealing Obamacare
The House passed a repeal and replacement to Obamacare last week. The first obvious question is why does it need to be replaced? The government of a free country should not be involved in providing healthcare to its citizens, but it is not realistic to move directly from where we are now, to an ideal free system. It is hard to know where to look for facts about what was actually in the bill that was passed, and there is a ton of clearly false or misleading information out there. The only source I have seen that makes any sense is this article from NPR, who I think most would agree does not have a conservative slant:
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/04/526887531/
I agree with most everything in here, and it seems very wise. The only role the government should play in health insurance, is setting some basic framework standards, and enforcing contracts to settle disputes. Under Obamacare, heath insurance was usually treated like term life insurance, with the terms reset every year. This caused people with ongoing medical issues to be have their policies canceled when they "ended," which led to this whole issue of pre-existing conditions." Ideally, health insurance should work similar to whole life insurance, in that as long as you pay your premiums, the insurance company shouldn't be able to cancel or abridge your plan. The primary difference is that while life insurance is insulated from inflation (it effects premiums and payouts equally) health insurance is not, so it is reasonable for premiums to increase over time. According to NPR, this new bill prohibits companies from canceling insurance policies or increasing premiums for customers with higher medical costs, as long as their premiums don't lapse. This is how it should work.
It also gets rid of the tax penalties for not having health insurance, which were ridiculous. Those without health insurance should be risking high medical costs, not guaranteed high tax penalties. Foregoing health insurance wouldn't be hurting anyone else if we weren't guaranteeing treatment to everyone, which is the main problem. People aren't responsible for their own care, so Democrats had to come of with some way to force them to play along and pay into the system that was forced upon them. This is the antithesis of freedom.
Income based tax credits are replaced with age based tax credits. This would be advantageous to people like me who can't accurately predict their annual income, if I was taking those credits. But I refuse them on moral grounds, that other taxpayers shouldn't be paying for my healthcare, or any other private costs for that matter.
Cutting all of the Obamacare taxes is a good step. They are only restoring things to 2010 levels, and this whole issue just exposes one more lie in the Obamacare process. If restoring pre-Obamacare tax levels cuts $1Trillion in federal revenue, then Obamacare was a $1Trillion tax, which is one of many reasons people were opposed to it. (And because they didn't want to keep their doctor, right?)
Cutting Medicaid increases is fine, since it shouldn't exist in the first place. If we start of with the assumption that political freedom is a good thing at a moral level, we can easily conclude that government provided healthcare is a moral evil. Who ever pays for something controls it, and if someone controls your healthcare, they pretty much control your life, hence ending freedom. The only form of government healthcare I could see being justified in the US would be universal care for children up to 18, since they aren't free citizens anyway. But the problem with that is it would be establishing a habit and pattern of government entitlement from an early age, and cause more issues in society than it solves.
They also gave states the ability to apply for waivers to Obamacare's regulations, effectively returning power to the states for their own healthcare. This is an eloquent solution to a complex problem of existing entitlements. It means that Congress won't be responsible for ending benefits in states that take them up on the offer for a waiver, but that the opportunity if there to maintain the new status quo for states that want it. It allows the issue to be settled at a more local level, where individual citizens and groups have more of a voice in the process. I am much less opposed to state funded healthcare, because people are free to choose what state to live in. I choose to live in CA regardless of its unconstitutional gun laws and other ridiculous liberal policies, but if they bothered me enough, I am free to move to Wyoming if I choose. I am not free to move out of the US on a whim, unless I find somewhere that agrees to take me. (It is not a right) So state run healthcare is still a bad idea, but a much smaller bad idea than federal run healthcare. Of course the same is true for state run education, etc.
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/04/526887531/
I agree with most everything in here, and it seems very wise. The only role the government should play in health insurance, is setting some basic framework standards, and enforcing contracts to settle disputes. Under Obamacare, heath insurance was usually treated like term life insurance, with the terms reset every year. This caused people with ongoing medical issues to be have their policies canceled when they "ended," which led to this whole issue of pre-existing conditions." Ideally, health insurance should work similar to whole life insurance, in that as long as you pay your premiums, the insurance company shouldn't be able to cancel or abridge your plan. The primary difference is that while life insurance is insulated from inflation (it effects premiums and payouts equally) health insurance is not, so it is reasonable for premiums to increase over time. According to NPR, this new bill prohibits companies from canceling insurance policies or increasing premiums for customers with higher medical costs, as long as their premiums don't lapse. This is how it should work.
It also gets rid of the tax penalties for not having health insurance, which were ridiculous. Those without health insurance should be risking high medical costs, not guaranteed high tax penalties. Foregoing health insurance wouldn't be hurting anyone else if we weren't guaranteeing treatment to everyone, which is the main problem. People aren't responsible for their own care, so Democrats had to come of with some way to force them to play along and pay into the system that was forced upon them. This is the antithesis of freedom.
Income based tax credits are replaced with age based tax credits. This would be advantageous to people like me who can't accurately predict their annual income, if I was taking those credits. But I refuse them on moral grounds, that other taxpayers shouldn't be paying for my healthcare, or any other private costs for that matter.
Cutting all of the Obamacare taxes is a good step. They are only restoring things to 2010 levels, and this whole issue just exposes one more lie in the Obamacare process. If restoring pre-Obamacare tax levels cuts $1Trillion in federal revenue, then Obamacare was a $1Trillion tax, which is one of many reasons people were opposed to it. (And because they didn't want to keep their doctor, right?)
Cutting Medicaid increases is fine, since it shouldn't exist in the first place. If we start of with the assumption that political freedom is a good thing at a moral level, we can easily conclude that government provided healthcare is a moral evil. Who ever pays for something controls it, and if someone controls your healthcare, they pretty much control your life, hence ending freedom. The only form of government healthcare I could see being justified in the US would be universal care for children up to 18, since they aren't free citizens anyway. But the problem with that is it would be establishing a habit and pattern of government entitlement from an early age, and cause more issues in society than it solves.
They also gave states the ability to apply for waivers to Obamacare's regulations, effectively returning power to the states for their own healthcare. This is an eloquent solution to a complex problem of existing entitlements. It means that Congress won't be responsible for ending benefits in states that take them up on the offer for a waiver, but that the opportunity if there to maintain the new status quo for states that want it. It allows the issue to be settled at a more local level, where individual citizens and groups have more of a voice in the process. I am much less opposed to state funded healthcare, because people are free to choose what state to live in. I choose to live in CA regardless of its unconstitutional gun laws and other ridiculous liberal policies, but if they bothered me enough, I am free to move to Wyoming if I choose. I am not free to move out of the US on a whim, unless I find somewhere that agrees to take me. (It is not a right) So state run healthcare is still a bad idea, but a much smaller bad idea than federal run healthcare. Of course the same is true for state run education, etc.
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
Observations on Obama and Trumps Reactions to Terrorism
I found this to be a very interesting article, in that the content addresses the types of changes we may see in our government, and the writing reveals just how much liberals don't understand about the alternative point of view. Here are my thoughts on the author's perspective, point by point.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/12/ankara-berlin-trump-obama/511202/
Titled: What Their Reactions to Monday's Attacks Reveal About Trump and Obama
Monday’s horrors—the attack on a Christmas market in Berlin and the assassination of a Russian diplomat in Ankara—offer a natural experiment. Since they occurred during the brief window every four or eight years in which America has both a president and a president-elect, they provoked two sets of statements, one from the outgoing administration and another from its soon-to-be successor. The differences are revealing. So far I agree, it is an interesting opportunity for comparison.
The first difference, unsurprisingly, is that the Obama administration exercised caution. It said the Berlin atrocity “appears to have been a terrorist attack.” Team Trump, by contrast, simply called it a “horrifying terror attack.” The White House avoided speculation about the Turkish assassin’s motive. Team Trump, by contrast, called him a “radical Islamic terrorist.” Caution is a good thing, compared to impulsiveness, but it is not in itself a virtue. Being overly cautious when a strong response is called for is a mistake. If avoiding speculation is a virtue, we should keep that in mind later. There is no speculation here about the Turkish assassin being a radical Islamic terrorist, he was shouting Allah Akbar and talking about jihad as the attack took place.
More significantly, the two administrations used the attacks to tell radically different stories about who was being attacked, and why. The Obama administration identified the victims as members of a nation. Its five-sentence statement about the Berlin attack used the words “Germany” or “German” four times. And the White House linked the United States and Germany strategically, declaring that, “Germany is one of our closest partners and strongest allies.” It is not confirmed that all the victims were German, although I see that as a reasonable speculation.
Team Obama’s response to the Ankara assassination was also state-centric. It offered its “condolences to the Russian people and Government” and declared, “we stand united with Russia and Turkey in our determination to confront terrorism in all of its forms." Russia and Turkey are not “partners” and “allies” of the United States in the way Germany is. Still, the Obama administration implied a world in which even nations with sharply different interests cooperate against their common foe: “terrorism in all its forms.” Taken together, the Berlin and Ankara statements gesture toward a liberal internationalist order of the kind the United States helped build after World War II: an inner circle of cooperation linking the United States and its closest NATO allies surrounded by a broader circle represented by universal bodies like the UN, in which countries band together across ideological and geopolitical lines to battle the transnational scourges that threaten them all.
We are not "united with Russia and Turkey in our determination to confront terrorism in all of its forms." That statement is a direct lie. Turkey is supporting ISIS in its fight again their long time enemy the Kurds, and Russia is shooting down civilian airliners in Ukraine, and supporting Syria's slaughter of civilians in Aleppo. Even though it sounds nice and cooperative to those who wish for a "liberal internationalist order," there is no truth in that statement.
Team Trump’s statement was utterly different. It described the victims as members not of a nation but of a religion. Its statement about the Berlin attack didn’t refer to the victims as Germans. (It didn’t mention the words “German” or “Germany” once.) Instead, it defined them as people killed “as they prepared to celebrate the Christmas holiday.” The Obama team’s statement made no assumptions about the victims’ faith: It simply noted that the attack had occurred at “a Christmas Market.” The Trump statement, by contrast, implied that the victims all celebrated Christmas. And it linked those killed in Berlin to other “Christians” who “ISIS and other Islamist terrorists continually slaughter … in their communities and places of worship as part of their global jihad.”
Since the attack took place at a location described even by liberal news agencies as a "Christmas market" it is reasonable to deduct that the victims present celebrate Christmas, and mindless speculation to assume otherwise. The location is also significant because it leads to the reasonable deduction that it was deliberately targeted as a symbol of Christians, with victims who are more likely to be Christians, but Trump did not even speculate they were targeted because they were Christians.
The contrast grows even sharper when you add in Team Trump’s response to the Ankara attacks. Unlike Obama’s statement, which said nothing about the assassin’s faith, Trump’s called him “a radical Islamic terrorist.” The Trump statement also said nothing about working with either Russia or Turkey, let alone working with them against “terrorism in all its forms,” which implies that terrorism has forms other those rooted in Islam. The facts are that the shooter was shouting "Allah Akbar" during the attack, making him an Islamic terrorist. So Obama let out a key detail that Trump included. Most conservatives would read this line as a criticism of Obama if they didn't know the source. Trump is not the president, and even if he was, he is not obligated to work with Russia and Turkey to respond to an incident that in no way involves the US. While it is possible that terrorism can have forms other than those rooted in Islam, the terrorist attacks they are responding to are rooted in Islam, so ignoring that is implying a lie.
What do these statements tell us? That Team Obama defines the struggle against terrorism as a conflict pitting countries of all religious and ideological types against a common stateless foe, while Team Trump defines it as a conflict between Christendom and Islam. (That’s how ISIS defines it too. The Islamic State also views the world in terms of religious civilizations rather than nations). The natural implication of Obama’s worldview is that preventing terrorism requires cooperation between very different nations. The natural implication of Trump’s is that preventing terrorism requires keeping Muslims out. Neither of Trump’s statements acknowledges the possibility that Christians might perpetrate terrorism or Muslims might be victims of it. (Indeed, on the very same day as the attacks in Ankara and Berlin, a gunman opened fire at a mosque in Zurich, Switzerland, injuring three.) The message to Muslims in Germany and the United States is the same one Trump has peddled for more than a year now: You are the enemy within. Since we are in a battle against ISIS, we had better begin to understand and acknowledge how they see the world, and learn to view things the same way if we are going to overcome them. They target Christians because they are Christians, which is the central fact about this religiously motivated conflict. We aren't fighting ISIS because they are Muslims, we are fighting them because they are terrorists. We are at peace with other Muslim countries, they are not at peace with other non-Muslim countries.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/12/ankara-berlin-trump-obama/511202/
Titled: What Their Reactions to Monday's Attacks Reveal About Trump and Obama
Monday’s horrors—the attack on a Christmas market in Berlin and the assassination of a Russian diplomat in Ankara—offer a natural experiment. Since they occurred during the brief window every four or eight years in which America has both a president and a president-elect, they provoked two sets of statements, one from the outgoing administration and another from its soon-to-be successor. The differences are revealing. So far I agree, it is an interesting opportunity for comparison.
The first difference, unsurprisingly, is that the Obama administration exercised caution. It said the Berlin atrocity “appears to have been a terrorist attack.” Team Trump, by contrast, simply called it a “horrifying terror attack.” The White House avoided speculation about the Turkish assassin’s motive. Team Trump, by contrast, called him a “radical Islamic terrorist.” Caution is a good thing, compared to impulsiveness, but it is not in itself a virtue. Being overly cautious when a strong response is called for is a mistake. If avoiding speculation is a virtue, we should keep that in mind later. There is no speculation here about the Turkish assassin being a radical Islamic terrorist, he was shouting Allah Akbar and talking about jihad as the attack took place.
More significantly, the two administrations used the attacks to tell radically different stories about who was being attacked, and why. The Obama administration identified the victims as members of a nation. Its five-sentence statement about the Berlin attack used the words “Germany” or “German” four times. And the White House linked the United States and Germany strategically, declaring that, “Germany is one of our closest partners and strongest allies.” It is not confirmed that all the victims were German, although I see that as a reasonable speculation.
Team Obama’s response to the Ankara assassination was also state-centric. It offered its “condolences to the Russian people and Government” and declared, “we stand united with Russia and Turkey in our determination to confront terrorism in all of its forms." Russia and Turkey are not “partners” and “allies” of the United States in the way Germany is. Still, the Obama administration implied a world in which even nations with sharply different interests cooperate against their common foe: “terrorism in all its forms.” Taken together, the Berlin and Ankara statements gesture toward a liberal internationalist order of the kind the United States helped build after World War II: an inner circle of cooperation linking the United States and its closest NATO allies surrounded by a broader circle represented by universal bodies like the UN, in which countries band together across ideological and geopolitical lines to battle the transnational scourges that threaten them all.
We are not "united with Russia and Turkey in our determination to confront terrorism in all of its forms." That statement is a direct lie. Turkey is supporting ISIS in its fight again their long time enemy the Kurds, and Russia is shooting down civilian airliners in Ukraine, and supporting Syria's slaughter of civilians in Aleppo. Even though it sounds nice and cooperative to those who wish for a "liberal internationalist order," there is no truth in that statement.
Team Trump’s statement was utterly different. It described the victims as members not of a nation but of a religion. Its statement about the Berlin attack didn’t refer to the victims as Germans. (It didn’t mention the words “German” or “Germany” once.) Instead, it defined them as people killed “as they prepared to celebrate the Christmas holiday.” The Obama team’s statement made no assumptions about the victims’ faith: It simply noted that the attack had occurred at “a Christmas Market.” The Trump statement, by contrast, implied that the victims all celebrated Christmas. And it linked those killed in Berlin to other “Christians” who “ISIS and other Islamist terrorists continually slaughter … in their communities and places of worship as part of their global jihad.”
Since the attack took place at a location described even by liberal news agencies as a "Christmas market" it is reasonable to deduct that the victims present celebrate Christmas, and mindless speculation to assume otherwise. The location is also significant because it leads to the reasonable deduction that it was deliberately targeted as a symbol of Christians, with victims who are more likely to be Christians, but Trump did not even speculate they were targeted because they were Christians.
The contrast grows even sharper when you add in Team Trump’s response to the Ankara attacks. Unlike Obama’s statement, which said nothing about the assassin’s faith, Trump’s called him “a radical Islamic terrorist.” The Trump statement also said nothing about working with either Russia or Turkey, let alone working with them against “terrorism in all its forms,” which implies that terrorism has forms other those rooted in Islam. The facts are that the shooter was shouting "Allah Akbar" during the attack, making him an Islamic terrorist. So Obama let out a key detail that Trump included. Most conservatives would read this line as a criticism of Obama if they didn't know the source. Trump is not the president, and even if he was, he is not obligated to work with Russia and Turkey to respond to an incident that in no way involves the US. While it is possible that terrorism can have forms other than those rooted in Islam, the terrorist attacks they are responding to are rooted in Islam, so ignoring that is implying a lie.
What do these statements tell us? That Team Obama defines the struggle against terrorism as a conflict pitting countries of all religious and ideological types against a common stateless foe, while Team Trump defines it as a conflict between Christendom and Islam. (That’s how ISIS defines it too. The Islamic State also views the world in terms of religious civilizations rather than nations). The natural implication of Obama’s worldview is that preventing terrorism requires cooperation between very different nations. The natural implication of Trump’s is that preventing terrorism requires keeping Muslims out. Neither of Trump’s statements acknowledges the possibility that Christians might perpetrate terrorism or Muslims might be victims of it. (Indeed, on the very same day as the attacks in Ankara and Berlin, a gunman opened fire at a mosque in Zurich, Switzerland, injuring three.) The message to Muslims in Germany and the United States is the same one Trump has peddled for more than a year now: You are the enemy within. Since we are in a battle against ISIS, we had better begin to understand and acknowledge how they see the world, and learn to view things the same way if we are going to overcome them. They target Christians because they are Christians, which is the central fact about this religiously motivated conflict. We aren't fighting ISIS because they are Muslims, we are fighting them because they are terrorists. We are at peace with other Muslim countries, they are not at peace with other non-Muslim countries.
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Thoughts on the 2016 Presidential Options
I can agree that Trump has all sorts of faults, what I can't agree with is that Hillary is a better choice. She has publicly committed a long list of felonies, removing classified information from a secure environment, destruction of evidence, gross negligence, obstruction of justice, etc. There are lots of records of her lying about things, even Democrats appear to know that she can't be trust. I don't know if Trump can be trusted, but I KNOW that Hillary can not be.
Conservatives have not been focusing their attacks on Hillary supporters, only Hillary herself. Liberals have been attacking Trump supporters throughout the campaign. By labeling anyone who supports Trump as a racist bigot, liberals have dismissed any of the other legitimate issues that those people are concerned about.
Trump may hold some racist views, but I don't care too much about that, and apparently MOST other people don't either. He probably represents views prevalent among those his age, and while people may disagree with those views, that obviously doesn't disqualify him from being president. Racism is not an important issue to Trump's supporters. It is to Democrats, but they make the incorrect jump to conclude that anyone who doesn't think that racism is an important enough issue to disqualify Trump must be a racist. I make a similar claim about Hillary being a criminal. If anyone doesn't think it matters that Hillary has openly violated laws, we can see that they don't think that criminal behavior is an important disqualifying issue. But it would be incorrect to conclude that all Hillary supporters must be criminals themselves.
Besides the issues with Hillary personally, which I see as potentially canceling out the issues with Trump personally, let's look at their claimed visions for America. Hillary wants the US government to try to take control of everything from your paycheck to your healthcare to your guns to the global climate. Trump wants to bring jobs back to the US, he wants to stop illegal immigration, and scale back government regulation. Whether he will be able to accomplish much of that is subject to debate, but at least he claims to be trying to move in that direction.
Conservatives have not been focusing their attacks on Hillary supporters, only Hillary herself. Liberals have been attacking Trump supporters throughout the campaign. By labeling anyone who supports Trump as a racist bigot, liberals have dismissed any of the other legitimate issues that those people are concerned about.
Trump may hold some racist views, but I don't care too much about that, and apparently MOST other people don't either. He probably represents views prevalent among those his age, and while people may disagree with those views, that obviously doesn't disqualify him from being president. Racism is not an important issue to Trump's supporters. It is to Democrats, but they make the incorrect jump to conclude that anyone who doesn't think that racism is an important enough issue to disqualify Trump must be a racist. I make a similar claim about Hillary being a criminal. If anyone doesn't think it matters that Hillary has openly violated laws, we can see that they don't think that criminal behavior is an important disqualifying issue. But it would be incorrect to conclude that all Hillary supporters must be criminals themselves.
Besides the issues with Hillary personally, which I see as potentially canceling out the issues with Trump personally, let's look at their claimed visions for America. Hillary wants the US government to try to take control of everything from your paycheck to your healthcare to your guns to the global climate. Trump wants to bring jobs back to the US, he wants to stop illegal immigration, and scale back government regulation. Whether he will be able to accomplish much of that is subject to debate, but at least he claims to be trying to move in that direction.
Ironically, as a resident of California, my vote doesn't count anyway, as Democrats will win this state by a 2:1 margin until something even more dramatic happens. I voted Libertarian, primarily to protest the two party system, not because I think Gary Johnson would be much better of a President. I would have voted Republican to show support for their more conservative platform if there had been a shred of evidence that it could possibly make a difference.
Sunday, August 14, 2016
The Lesser of Two Evils
I don't know too many people who are excited about their options for the upcoming presidential election. Back in 2008, I used to joke that if Hillary had a chance to run against Bush, we would have had 100% voter turnout, half to vote against Clinton, and the other half to vote against Bush. The point was that no one would be voting "for" anyone, only against a much hated opponent. Ironically that theoretical conundrum is nothing close to the current reality we face. Both main party candidates are viewed unfavorably by a majority of the American public, far more so than the Bush presidency ever was. This has led to a major debate about the issues involved with third party candidates, and a number of interesting ideas have been put forward.
Some people are convinced that voting for the lesser of two evils is immoral, and that they will vote for a third party candidate, or no one at all. Others claim that voting for a third party candidate is similar to not voting anyway. Based on the structure of our elections, that may be technically true, if it is also true that third party candidates have no practical chance of winning. This can't be proven, but we can look to the historical example of Ross Perot to examine the chances of that happening, and the possible effects. It seems pretty clear from looking at the numbers that Perot's campaign cost Bush Sr that election, but another 10% of the vote and he could have actually won. So it is possible, but that was from a mature political campaign that had time to build up, not a last minute shotgun attempt.
So if we assume that third party candidates don't have a realistic chance of actually winning, at least in this election, let's look at the mathematical effects of a third party vote. Let's say we dislike Clinton more than Trump, but we want to vote libertarian to "make a statement." Based on the way the election is structured, this actually helps Clinton, the candidate we like the least. Not voting also helps Clinton in the same way. Candidates are not trying to get a set 50% of the vote, they just have to get more than any other candidate in that state. (They do need 50% of the electoral college votes from the states, but that is a different issue, to be examined later) So a vote for one candidate is also a vote against all of the other candidates. If we vote for Trump, that is one less vote he needs to beat everyone, and one more vote everyone else needs to get to top him. Essentially in this case your vote counts for two. If there are 10 voters, and Trump is down by 4 votes, he only needs to get two voters to switch sides from Clinton. (A 4 point deficit of 3-7 becomes 5-5 if two people switch)
But if we add in third party options, this where people seem to be confused about the results. Lets examine the same ten voters, and say there are 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans, 3 independents, and one hard core Green member who never considers anything else. Usually candidates need to get 5 of the remaining 9 to win, which is 2 of the 3 independents. But if two voters who usually vote Republican jump on the #NeverTrump bandwagon, and vote Libertarian, it very much helps Clinton. Now she doesn't need 5 votes to win, she only needs 4 total. Even if Trump got 2 of the 3 independent voters, Clinton still wins, and with fewer total votes than she would otherwise need. If 50% of the votes was required to win, voting third party would hurt Trump, but not help Clinton reach 50%. But 50% is not required, so a third party vote actually helps Clinton win. This assumes the third party voter dislikes both main candidates, but prefers Trump over Clinton. The reverse would be true for most Bernie supporters. Unless the third party candidate actually wins, a vote for them actually helps the candidate you like the least, compared to if you had limited your options to the main two parties.
On the other hand, if you have absolutely no preference between the two main candidates, then go ahead and vote third party, but I guarantee you won't like the result. And I'd say if you have zero preference between the options, you haven't done your research, as there are many differences. Some people compare it to the choice between death by gunshot or drowning, but if that is an accurate analogy, shouldn't you still have a preference in that case? If I was certain to die either way, I'd take the gunshot, if there was some chance I might make it, I'd take the water. My preference would depend on the specifics of the situation, but I would definitely have a preference. Research the specifics of the situation, and figure out what you prefer. Even if your preference is different than mine, I can respect that more than just throwing up your hands and ignoring the situation.
Now I am not as opposed to third party candidates as this makes me sound, I am just laying out the hard math of the situation. A few months ago, I was actually hoping that Bernie would make a separate run. Not because I wanted him to win, and not because I wanted the left vote split to ensure Trump wins. I wanted him to run because that would have created an opening for a conservative third (or fourth in this case) party candidate who might actually have a chance of winning due to that situation. It would have removed the "only way to defeat Clinton is to support Trump" argument that is actually true, based on the math above. If both sides had split, there would be a reasonably even, four way race, with real options available, which is a novel concept for Americans. But that didn't happen, and this is the situation we are faced with. Morally, I'd say we are responsible for the outcome of our actions, not just our intentions. If a bunch of third party votes, (or no votes) lead to a statistical change in the outcome, those voters are as responsible for the outcome of the election as those who voted for the candidate who won. (Or technically half as responsible, but still very much responsible)
But what if the winner would have won regardless of their vote? Doesn't that make it more complicated? They didn't know that would happen when they voted, so I'd say they would still be responsible. But what if they did know that? I live in CA, and democrats usually win by a huge margin. That is more complicated, and that is the decision I am looking at. At this point, my vote will depend on the polls, with the intent to oppose Clinton. If a third party is close to being a realistic contender, I may vote for them. If not, is Trump winning the state a reasonable possibility? If so, I will vote for him in a bid to oppose Clinton. If there is no way Clinton is going to lose the state, then I can vote for whoever I want, but only because my vote doesn't really count, at least in regards to having an effect on the outcome. But in that case I would vote third party to make a statement, and possibly help get them over thresholds that will help increase options in future elections. But for people who live in states where their vote has an actual effect on the outcome of the election, look closely at the situation and the numbers before you make your decision.
Some people are convinced that voting for the lesser of two evils is immoral, and that they will vote for a third party candidate, or no one at all. Others claim that voting for a third party candidate is similar to not voting anyway. Based on the structure of our elections, that may be technically true, if it is also true that third party candidates have no practical chance of winning. This can't be proven, but we can look to the historical example of Ross Perot to examine the chances of that happening, and the possible effects. It seems pretty clear from looking at the numbers that Perot's campaign cost Bush Sr that election, but another 10% of the vote and he could have actually won. So it is possible, but that was from a mature political campaign that had time to build up, not a last minute shotgun attempt.
So if we assume that third party candidates don't have a realistic chance of actually winning, at least in this election, let's look at the mathematical effects of a third party vote. Let's say we dislike Clinton more than Trump, but we want to vote libertarian to "make a statement." Based on the way the election is structured, this actually helps Clinton, the candidate we like the least. Not voting also helps Clinton in the same way. Candidates are not trying to get a set 50% of the vote, they just have to get more than any other candidate in that state. (They do need 50% of the electoral college votes from the states, but that is a different issue, to be examined later) So a vote for one candidate is also a vote against all of the other candidates. If we vote for Trump, that is one less vote he needs to beat everyone, and one more vote everyone else needs to get to top him. Essentially in this case your vote counts for two. If there are 10 voters, and Trump is down by 4 votes, he only needs to get two voters to switch sides from Clinton. (A 4 point deficit of 3-7 becomes 5-5 if two people switch)
But if we add in third party options, this where people seem to be confused about the results. Lets examine the same ten voters, and say there are 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans, 3 independents, and one hard core Green member who never considers anything else. Usually candidates need to get 5 of the remaining 9 to win, which is 2 of the 3 independents. But if two voters who usually vote Republican jump on the #NeverTrump bandwagon, and vote Libertarian, it very much helps Clinton. Now she doesn't need 5 votes to win, she only needs 4 total. Even if Trump got 2 of the 3 independent voters, Clinton still wins, and with fewer total votes than she would otherwise need. If 50% of the votes was required to win, voting third party would hurt Trump, but not help Clinton reach 50%. But 50% is not required, so a third party vote actually helps Clinton win. This assumes the third party voter dislikes both main candidates, but prefers Trump over Clinton. The reverse would be true for most Bernie supporters. Unless the third party candidate actually wins, a vote for them actually helps the candidate you like the least, compared to if you had limited your options to the main two parties.
On the other hand, if you have absolutely no preference between the two main candidates, then go ahead and vote third party, but I guarantee you won't like the result. And I'd say if you have zero preference between the options, you haven't done your research, as there are many differences. Some people compare it to the choice between death by gunshot or drowning, but if that is an accurate analogy, shouldn't you still have a preference in that case? If I was certain to die either way, I'd take the gunshot, if there was some chance I might make it, I'd take the water. My preference would depend on the specifics of the situation, but I would definitely have a preference. Research the specifics of the situation, and figure out what you prefer. Even if your preference is different than mine, I can respect that more than just throwing up your hands and ignoring the situation.
Now I am not as opposed to third party candidates as this makes me sound, I am just laying out the hard math of the situation. A few months ago, I was actually hoping that Bernie would make a separate run. Not because I wanted him to win, and not because I wanted the left vote split to ensure Trump wins. I wanted him to run because that would have created an opening for a conservative third (or fourth in this case) party candidate who might actually have a chance of winning due to that situation. It would have removed the "only way to defeat Clinton is to support Trump" argument that is actually true, based on the math above. If both sides had split, there would be a reasonably even, four way race, with real options available, which is a novel concept for Americans. But that didn't happen, and this is the situation we are faced with. Morally, I'd say we are responsible for the outcome of our actions, not just our intentions. If a bunch of third party votes, (or no votes) lead to a statistical change in the outcome, those voters are as responsible for the outcome of the election as those who voted for the candidate who won. (Or technically half as responsible, but still very much responsible)
But what if the winner would have won regardless of their vote? Doesn't that make it more complicated? They didn't know that would happen when they voted, so I'd say they would still be responsible. But what if they did know that? I live in CA, and democrats usually win by a huge margin. That is more complicated, and that is the decision I am looking at. At this point, my vote will depend on the polls, with the intent to oppose Clinton. If a third party is close to being a realistic contender, I may vote for them. If not, is Trump winning the state a reasonable possibility? If so, I will vote for him in a bid to oppose Clinton. If there is no way Clinton is going to lose the state, then I can vote for whoever I want, but only because my vote doesn't really count, at least in regards to having an effect on the outcome. But in that case I would vote third party to make a statement, and possibly help get them over thresholds that will help increase options in future elections. But for people who live in states where their vote has an actual effect on the outcome of the election, look closely at the situation and the numbers before you make your decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)