There’s a Difference Between Being Righteous and Being Right

Posted: November 18, 2024 | Author: | Filed under: Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

This is going to be a long post, and I’m sure it will lose me some friends. I’m okay with that.

Let me establish two things up front: I voted for Kamala Harris, and no, it wasn’t a “protest vote”. I sincerely wanted her to win, because I believe that she was the better candidate and that her vision for America was and is a good one. That being said, I voted AGAINST every Republican candidate on the ticket as a protest vote, because anyone who would willingly associate with Donald Trump will never get my vote. We clear? Good.

Why did I feel the need to establish that? Because I’m going to say some things that I think need to be said, and I don’t want anyone accusing me of being an apologist for Donald Trump. He’s slime. I don’t know why anyone would vote for him. But over 50% of the country DID vote for him, and that’s something we need to recon with. I see a lot of people saying the same kinds of “not helpful” things that have been said for at least eight years that are not going to change things for the better. Here’s the perspective of a “reformed” libertarian that will hopefully give you a little perspective.

See, the big mistake I saw so often and for so long among libertarians that finally drove me away was confusing “righteous” for “right”.

THERE’S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING RIGHTEOUS AND BEING RIGHT

A lot of what I’ve been seeing is people posting about how Trump voters are racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic (and I’m sure I’m missing several others) bigots. I haven’t seen anyone posting about how they voted against their own interests, but I’m sure those will be coming along shortly, since that usually comes as sure as night follows day. Now, I’m sure that feels good, but where do you get that from? I know, I know, they voted in the Republicans, whose platform is basically “human rights are for heterosexual cisgender white men, or as we prefer to say, people.” But that assumes a rational voter. Find me two of those to rub together and I’ll buy you an ice cream cone.

As soon as you start assuming you know why  people voted the way they did, and particularly when you assume they voted based on what you want, you’re already off-track far more often than not. I talked with a lot of people to understand why they didn’t accept the “obviously superior” libertarian way of thinking, I finally came to a realization. They understood it. They just didn’t value it.

See, that’s the thing that seems to go right past a lot of people. Folks will yell past each other on the same issue, because they will try to defend (or attack) the thing they are discussing based on what they value. Then when the other person doesn’t agree with them or worse attacks their position, they assume it’s because they disagree based on that same value system. Now, sometimes that’s true, but often it’s not, and the other person has a completely different value system. In my case, I had to accept that most people just don’t value personal freedom as much as I do. On the other hand, they do value community more than I do. And that’s okay! Those are different value sets, and once I got that, I understood why pure libertarianism will never work. But that doesn’t mean we can’t find common ground and shared goals, once I understood how to approach them.

A non-political example would be pet ownership. Owning a dog entails a lot of things, including walking them, cleaning up after them, feeding them, etc. Some people will say this isn’t a lot of work. Other people might even say this is fun. Some people think it’s a lot of work. Then there’s the expenses such as food, medical bills, toys, adorable outfits for TikTik videos, and so on. Again, some people think it’s worth it, some don’t. But you’re all working within the same value system. As soon as someone says they don’t like dogs, people view them as evil. (They might just happen to prefer cats.) And of course, we don’t negotiate with terrorists. You see where I’m going here?

SHOW YOUR WORK

The next big issue is that people have a tendency to assume WAY too much. A big example that came up recently for me was school vouchers. Now, I was a big proponent of school vouchers for a long time. The only argument I ever heard against it (or several variations on the theme) was basically “they take money out of the public schools and put them in the private schools!”

You don’t say.

This, children, is what we in the industry call “a feature, not a bug.” People who support school vouchers generally want to take money out of the public school system. They believe that the public school system is inefficient and bloated, whether or not this is accurate. When you keep harping on the same point, especially one that your opponent actively desires, you’re not going to change minds.

Then one day, I heard a report on NPR (that liberal bastion) that actually resonated with me. Now, if any of these points seem blazingly obvious to you, I want you to kick yourself in the ass, because this is exactly what I’m trying to make a point out about. This report pointed out how school vouchers pull money out of schools in areas with many lower-income families. They divert that money to private schools in wealthier districts. This process forces poorer families into an impossible choice. They must send their kids to even more deprived schools or find a way to get their kids to a school halfway across the city without school buses. Public transportation? Yeah, that’s safe. Uber? Did I mention poverty. Speaking of which, private schools mean private school costs like books, uniforms, food, and all the other things vouchers don’t cover, like the other half of the tuition.

Again, if this all seems obvious to you, give yourself a big kick in the ass. For years, I never heard any of these arguments being brought up. All I heard was “it’s a big giveaway to the rich!” Which, yeah, once you SHOW YOUR WORK, it really looks like way. But until you do, it just sounds like the standard liberal hobby horse: eat the rich. On this and so many issues, if you actually show the work, explain where you’re coming from instead of assuming it’s obvious, sometimes people come around. What’s the worst thing that happens, they still disagree with you?

IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU

Look, I get it. For a lot of people, the Republicans being in power is, literally, an existential threat. I’m sure at this point some folks are tempted to say “what would you know about it, Bob? Must be easy to sit there in your straight, white, middle-class maleness and say it. You don’t have to live it.” Yeah, try adding disabled pagan to that and think again. I lived several months in Indiana. Every time I heard “Didn’t see you in church Sunday” with that look, I got real uncomfortable. I changed the subject real quick. So yeah, I have it easier than a lot of folks, but not so easy as you think.

But I truly believe there’s a whole lot of folks who aren’t out there trying to roll back the clock to the days when “colored folk knew their place, dammit!” Rather, I think a lot of folks are trying to roll back the calendar to when they could go to the grocery store without having to take out another mortgage. Is that the fault of the Democrats? Maybe not. But the perception is that Joe Biden was in charge of the country when the economy went to shit. Inflation went through the roof. People couldn’t afford to live their lives. Meanwhile, they look back and when they think of Covid (if they think of it at all), a lot of them think that it can’t happen again. Or if it does they think that Trump got the vaccine out quick (again, perception versus reality).

EXCEPT IT KINDA IS

Speaking of perception versus reality, there’s a perception, fair or not, that Democrats care about the flavor of the month “special interest group” rather than America as a whole. This comes from a lot of little things that get turned into big things, but also the fact that Democrats really focus hard on the things that matter to them and damn the consequences. That passion can be great. It can also lose the middle. Let’s face i, if “turning out the base” was a winning strategy, it would have succeeded here. Instead, Trump GAINED over his last performance. And it’s not groundless, as so many people like to claim. Here’s one of my favorite examples: Remember the #MeToo movement? How it was all about women being sexually harassed in the workplace, and how it was about bringing attention to women being sexually assaulted? Yeah, about that. Terry Crews was one of the first celebrities to come out about his sexual assault. Brendan Fraser spoke out about his assault, and it was waved away as “just a joke.” Soon enough all male stories were swept away as the movement became one of female empowerment. We hear stories about how few women are in the C-suite. This is true. But how often do we hear about the gender imbalance in “lesser” professions? They’re called garbage men for a reason after all. The gender breakdown for the psychology profession according to the American Psychological Association is 69/31… in favor of women. I could go on, but I don’t want to be accused of cherry picking. The point I’m trying to make here is that there seems to be a strong focus on social justice in many cases. In contrast, the lived experience of over half the country is different. Those who have the power and the money are white men. Yet, not all white men have money and power. It’s like how a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn’t a square. The same can be said for groups like Asians and Jews. These groups often face persecution. However, they don’t receive social justice support. (One of my exes referred to Jews like herself as “Schrodinger’s White People: we’re only white when it counts against us.”) I don’t want to try to speak for groups I’m not a part of, but I have heard plenty of complaints from people in those groups, and there are some legitimate issues that need to be addressed.

I’M NOT ALLOWED TO NOT CARE

At what point did silence become violence? No, seriously, because I got an English degree, and last I checked, words mean things. This isn’t a problem just for the Left. The Right is equally bad at not letting me have an opinion on their pet issues. But I gotta tell ya, the Left is way more aggressive about it on a lot more issues. The whole “you’re with me or you’re against me” thing? Read that sentence carefully and think about the potential ramifications. Now try this one on for size: “If you’re not with me, please stay out of my way.”  Do you see a potential difference? This again circles back around to the whole “righteousness” thing. If you’re so determined to force people to choose a side, you damn well better make sure they’re going to choose your side. Because all it takes is… well, 51% of people deciding not to. On the other hand, if you just ease up a little on the throttle and let people say, “I may not agree with you, but I sure as shit don’t agree with THEM,” you might find 49% of people agree with you… but only 48% of people agree with them. It’s a small difference but it can be enough.

IS THE PRICE OF POWER YOUR SOUL?

I get it, I do. It seemed like Progressivism was having a Moment. Pushing hard for what you believe in, especially when it seems like you can finally overcome the inertia of millennia is a huge high, and like my Dad always said, “when you’re top dog, you gotta hump for all you’re worth.” The problem is the harder you push, the harder you get pushed back. It doesn’t help when you demand tolerance and respect and all you offer in return is intolerance and disrespect for anyone who deviates from your vision of the world as it should be, not the world as it is. And yet… I circle back around to the fact that I am not unsympathetic to the fact that the current Republican platform is literally an existential threat  to a not-insignificant number of people. How do you thread that needle? How do you stand tall against the monsters without alienating people who just have different but still acceptable values? Where even is that line?

SO WHAT’S YOUR SOLUTION, SMART ASS?

First, let me congratulate anyone who even made it this far. Even if you’re just taking notes to put me on blast, I know a lot of what I wrote here wasn’t easy to get through (and not just because of me being barely literate.) Second, I’m going to admit up front I don’t have the answers. No, not any of them. What, did you think I was some sort of political guru? People, I write fart jokes on the internet for an audience of three people, two of whom are related to me. If I had the answers I would be selling them, not giving them away for free.

If you’re expecting some pithy bit of wisdom like “get woke, go broke,” I’m going to have to disappoint you. Like I said before, I voted for Kamala Harris not just because she wasn’t Donald Trump, but because I thought she had the superior vision for the country. But here’s the thing: I didn’t get there overnight. It took YEARS to get me there. And it wasn’t because a lot of angry people yelled at me and told me the world was a shit show because of me, and that I had to be ready to move over and let someone else have power. It was because friends, family, and respectful colleagues took the time to respectfully  listen to me, hear what my concerns were, address my pain points, sharing their stories without casting blame, and avoiding judgement by association. That’s not to say we didn’t have disagreements, sometimes deep ones, but we at least tried to work them out, and sometimes agreed to disagree. And yeah, there were times when I slipped backwards, usually because someone in the media targeted an identity group I am a part of and blamed all the worlds ills on it. Big hint time: if I wanted to associate with a bunch of assholes who think tolerance is only associating with people who already look like you, think like you, and act like you, I would be a Republican.

Is that going to be enough? Obviously not. But it would be a start.

The Odd Man IN

Posted: September 23, 2024 | Author: | Filed under: Humor, Politics, Satire, society | Tags: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

My fellow Americans,

The time has come, once again, for me to announce my candidacy for Presidency of the United States of America. Now I can hear you asking, “Why you? Why now? Why won’t you go away?” These are all fine questions mom, and I’ll answer them one at a time.

First, I believe that the country needs a strong, suitable leader, but in the absence of one, I’m offering myself as an alternative. Let’s face it, when you’re shopping at the dollar store, you don’t get name brand goods. And we’re hurting for a good choice these days. Lacking one, why not settle? Face it America, you’re not getting any younger. Your age is showing, and folks have started to swipe left a lot more.

Speaking of the left, Democrats, we need to talk. You guys may think you love Kamala Harris now, but you play musical candidates so often you got a DJ for the roll call at your convention. “Quick, everybody grab a seat in the administration before the music stops!” She only has two things going for her: you don’t know anything about her, and you do know she isn’t Donald Trump. Well, I’d like to point out that you don’t know anything about me, either, and I also am not Donald Trump. So when you finally decide you’re bored with the flavor of the month, I’m right here.

As for the Republicans… oh, boy. Listen, I’m a little worried that Donald Trump is paranoid what with the people trying to kill him, so I’m going to right this next part in super-secret code so he can’t read it: Andpagray isyay uckingfay utsnay. Face it, he picked a vice-president who’s claim to fame is a politically charged book about a place he might have visited but he certainly didn’t grow up there. You wouldn’t nominate L. Frank Baum as Vice-President for writing The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, would you? Speaking of claims to fame, Donald Trump doesn’t, speak about his claim to fame that is. Oh, that’s right, you guys don’t believe in the coronavirus, which is why he doesn’t talk about the fact the vaccine was developed during his administration, which is about the only thing he didn’t manage to get in the way of despite his best efforts.

Now that this is no longer the sequel to Grumpy Old Men that nobody wanted or asked for, what you guys clearly want and need is someone who can do nothing while not getting shot at. I have decades of experience with that, and to sweeten the pot, I’m not under investigation by the Department of Justice for any crimes I may or may not have committed.

Look America, you’re hard up for good choices these days, and you obviously need me more than I need you. I may be coming on a little strong here, but we’ve been doing this dance for a long, LONG time now, and I’m tired of playing around. You’ve had your flirtations with the other guys, and you see what it got you. Come home to poppa.

Who Matters?

Posted: May 11, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Culture, Musings, Politics, society, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

(Disclaimer: The following post has spoilers for the first season of The Peripheral on Amazon Prime. If you haven’t seen it yet, I highly recommend it. You have been warned.)

I recently binge-watched the entirety of the first (and so far only) season of The Peripheral on Amazon Prime (note to Amazon: get on that next season, ya’ll have a bad habit of dragging your feet). I have a complicated relationship with cyberpunk in general and William Gibson in particular. When cyberpunk is done well, I love it, and when it is done less than I despise it. The same can be said for Gibson’s work. His better novels I am a rabid fan of (and that isn’t limited to his cyberpunk work; Pattern Recognition remains one of my favorite novels), but his lesser works leave me completely cold. In both cases I think it is a matter of knowing what heights they are capable of makes me demand nothing less. Fortunately, in this case they delivered, and truth be told The Peripheral goes beyond cyberpunk (although it does incorporate many cyberpunk elements and themes) and covers elements of several sci-fi genres.

One of the key themes that particularly stood out for me in the show was the question of who matters in society. This was brought into stark relief when Flynn Fisher (Chloë Grace Moretz) states to her “employers” in an alternate future timeline (like I said, it gets into broader sci-fi elements pretty quick), “I’m trying to think of you guys as real.” While this is the most obvious moment, it is far from the starkest divide, as the power differentials between various groups make up much of the drama in the show, and while they are mostly drawn with a broad brush and a heavy hand (yay science fiction), they still serve to illuminate the broader concept.

The most obvious divisions of course are in the future society between the major power players: the Research Institute (the intelligentsia), the Klept (the rich and powerful), and the Metropolitan Police (the government). The rest of the people in this future society are either servants of one of these groups or simply outcasts.

There are other, less obvious (although still not exactly subtle) divisions to be found in the show as well. The specific choice of a small town, rural setting for the 2032 “stub” timeline versus the metropolitan London of the “main” 2100 timeline dovetails nicely with the plot point of choosing groups of rural friends as soldiers for the haptic devices (an obvious allusion to the over-representation of rural Americans in the military), which then lends itself to the obvious division between veterans and civilians. There’s also the divide between disabled veterans and able-bodied civilians to explore.

It’s very easy to tell who the good guys are: just like in real life, pick the people you agree with, and there you go, you know who the good guys are. Because really, there’s no other way to tell. Everyone has an agenda, everyone does morally and ethically questionable things (to say the least), and everyone has a justification for their actions that essentially amounts to “I did what I had to do”. So like I said, just like real life.

It’s become fashionable to loudly proclaim “everyone gets a voice,” while sotto voce saying, “as long as we don’t have to listen to them.” For some groups it has become even more fashionable to simply say, “You are too vulgar, too violent; you shouldn’t be allowed to speak at all.” To those who insist that everyone deserves and must get an equal voice, here’s a short list of groups that I want you to look at and seriously tell me you want all of them to have an equal say:

  • Flat Earthers
  • Jews
  • Incels
  • TERFs
  • Trumpers
  • 9-11 Truthers
  • MGTOW
  • Muslims
  • Homophobes
  • Feminists
  • Conservatives
  • Disabled people
  • Racists
  • BLM
  • KKK
  • Antifa
  • Liberals
  • Veterans
  • LGTBQ+
  • Nazis
  • Hippies
  • Elderly people
  • Libertarians

Does everyone on the list get an equal say? If not, why not? Was it the same 20 years ago? 50? 100? Why is it different now? (And if the best answer you can give me is “because society is fairer” you get an A for optimism and an F for naivete.) Having a good rationale for not letting part of your population participate when you claim to be a free and just society is putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. Understanding the likely outcome when people feel they are not being heard, their needs are not being addressed, and they are being forced to participate in a society that is taking from them without giving in return is the first step to rectifying the situation. Because the hard truth is that, long-term, most groups are not going to just sit back and be grateful for what they are given. So what do you do then?

And that is a problem that can come from any direction. Look again at that list. I’m not asking you to like or agree with anyone on that list. I’m not asking you to condone or tolerate anyone on that list. I’m asking you to acknowledge that every one of those groups exists, that they have a point of view, one might even say an agenda, and every single one of them is capable of morally and ethically questionable things (to say the least). And I guarantee you, when they do them, they will have a justification for their actions that essentially amounts to “I did what I had to do”. Just like on The Peripheral. The question is, how will you know who the good guys are?

As I Slide Ever Leftward…

Posted: December 20, 2022 | Author: | Filed under: Politics | Tags: , , , | Leave a comment

I made a sarcastic comment the other day (and the world shudders as everyone who knows me tries desperately to hold back their utter disbelief) which I will neglect to repost here, as it is unimportant except in how it relates to the topic at hand. It got me to thinking about the debate around gun rights, gun control, and the Second Amendment. In particular the same tried and true (some might say tired and worn out) arguments that get trotted out every time there is a shooting event. *

*Note that I am using the term “shooting event” to be as neutral as possible and not to offend. Please feel free to substitute in your own mind “mass shooting”, “school shooting”, “gun massacre”, “lone gunman”, or whatever term best suits your personal worldview.

The particular issue that came to mind for me was the particular hobby horse of a lot of pro-gun advocates when discussing gun control: “We don’t need more gun control laws, we need to enforce the laws we already have.” I’ve heard this so many times over the years and I never really took the time to give it a great deal of thought; it just seemed obvious to me. For some reason today it struck me differently, and I finally have some sympathy for those on the other side of the fence when they hear this, and I’ll tell you why:

This isn’t an answer to the problem, it’s restating the problem without offering a solution.

Think about it: what’s the problem? There are people shooting other people with guns they shouldn’t have. Put that a different way: We’re not enforcing our gun laws properly.

Okay, so we know the problem. What’s the solution you’re offering? Um… the solution you’re offering is the problem itself.

Now, let’s look at it from the pro-gun control side:

What’s the problem? There are people shooting other people with guns they shouldn’t have. What’s the solution you’re offering? Enact more laws to prevent people from having guns.

Look, I may not agree with that solution, but I can at least concede it is a solution.

There’s a second issue, concurrent with the first. Let’s be extra generous and re-phrase the suggestion for the pro-Second Amendment side:

“We don’t need more gun control laws, we need to enforce the laws we already have by giving the government more money, power and authority to do so.”

There, now doesn’t that look more like an actual suggestion for a solution? Possibly even workable? And exactly how many people who have uttered the words “we don’t need more gun control laws” would ever say that complete sentence or anything in the same ballpark? I’m guessing the number isn’t zero, but it’s not a significant percentage, either.

And that’s the rub. You can’t demand the government be effectual while also insisting it be ineffective. You want a small government? Okay, sure. You want a government that can enforce laws quickly, accurately, and consistently? Can do. You want both with low taxation on the side? Sorry, genie’s all out of wishes.

The Great Debt Debate

Posted: June 26, 2019 | Author: | Filed under: Politics, society | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

There’s nothing like a heavily disputed presidential primary season to bring exciting new ideas out into the open, and there’s nothing like new ideas to generate debate (or if you’re on the internet, scorn and abuse). One of the big ideas being tossed around among Democratic presidential hopefuls is the idea of alleviating some or all student loan debt. Whose, how much, and how are all part of the mix, and of course the ever-present “why?” raises its head in the discussion, particularly when the question makes its way outside the narrow corridor of progressive thought.

In a lot of ways I feel like I’ve had this discussion before, on any number of topics, pretty much anytime the subject of government intervention in the economy (or any kind of government spending really) comes up. The simple fact is that government spending exists for a lot of reasons, but it always has one of a few intentions:

  • Providing basic services. This one seems kind of obvious, but it doesn’t cover nearly as much ground as most people think it does. That’s because there’s a significant amount of ground between what you want and what you need. We’ve become accustomed to a government that provides an awful lot of wants in addition to a scant handful of needs. This is not intended to be a polemic against government providing those things, merely pointing out that there is a difference between the two. This also goes hand in hand with…
  • Making a moral statement. You might not think something as dry as taxation and spending would have moral implications, but boy would you be wrong. Consider the phrase “provide for the common weal”. What exactly does that mean? What does it cover? And how do you intend to collect the money to pay for it? Once you figure that out, you’ve taken a moral stance, and your budget and taxation priorities will reflect that stance.
  • Stimulating the economy (whether it’s effective or not). I’m going to be generous and pretend that every time politicians have said that their various taxation and budgetary maneuvers were intended to “stimulate the economy” they were being sincere, regardless of the actual outcome of those efforts.

    Please stop laughing at me.

 

So where does that leave us when considering the idea of relieving student debt? Well, a lot of that is going to depend on how you feel about it coming in. As Obi-Wan once said, “you’re going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.” Do you consider college to be a basic service? If so, then government should have been providing it all along, and of course people shouldn’t have to pay for it, either in the past or in the future. Pay off ALL the loans and make all public colleges free. Perhaps you believe this is a matter of economic justice, in which case something more akin to Elizabeth Warren’s plan is more to your taste, with only a certain amount of debt being paid off, and an income cut-off being involved to ensure it’s more progressive than regressive. Or maybe you’re interested in stimulating the economy, in which case you want something a bit more modest but even-handed.

Or perhaps your stance leans more the other way. I have heard arguments asking why student loan debt should be privileged over other kinds of consumer debt, such as mortgage debt or credit card debt. These are important questions, and worth addressing by those who would forgive or pay-off student loan debt. I have a few answers of my own, although not sufficient answers I am sure for those who are asking those questions.

Regarding comparisons to mortgage debt, mortgages have been privileged over other kinds of consumer debt for as long as the modern income tax has existed. Last I checked I couldn’t deduct my credit card interest or my rent payments from my income taxes, and while I can deduct the interest from my student loans from my income taxes, there’s one big difference on those that I’ll get to in just a moment. So suggesting that relieving student debt would be an anomaly because we would be “privileging” one particular kind of debt is disingenuous at best. While there’s a fair argument to be made that the price of the mortgage deduction has already been “baked in” to the price of housing, the same can be said for the price of tuition, with the cost of public four-year institutions increasing 213% in 10 years. I’d like to flip that house.

As for credit card debt, that’s a tougher lift. Despite the calls to limit interest rates at 15%, I haven’t heard any suggestion of relieving existing debts, nor do I seriously expect there to be any suggestion for that happening either (nor do I think such a suggestion would get any traction). Going back to needs and wants, there is an understanding in America today that you need a college degree; despite the realities that many Americans face of having to get by week to week using any means at their disposal, including high-interest credit cards, there is still a Puritanical moralism that says credit card debt represents wants. Regardless, though it has been made significantly more difficult in recent decades, there is still an option available to credit card debtors that is not available to student loan debtors: bankruptcy. Yes, it’s an ugly word in America. Yes, it will ruin your credit rating. But it sure does beat insurmountable debts. At least it does if it applies to the insurmountable debts you have.

I am not unsympathetic to any of these positions. I am a renter, and I have been a home owner. I have dug myself out of the bottom of a very deep hole of credit card debt more than once, and I know how awful it can be. Worst of all, I have carried substantial college loan debt for a quarter of a century, and every time I make a payment I am reminded of all the stupid choices I made that got me into that debt. I own those choices, I do not deny it. And I have been paying for them for over twenty years. It is not something I would wish on another human being.

The best answer I can give, ultimately, is the same answer I have always given when it comes to government policy or societal action: someone’s gotta take it in the shorts. It may not be “politic”, but it is absolutely egalitarian. It is the recognition that in a cooperative society, there are only two ways to manage things: everybody goes it alone, in which case the winners and losers make themselves, or we do things cooperatively, in which case we collectively make winners and losers. Either way somebody takes it in the shorts. There is no scenario in which everybody comes out ahead, but there are many scenarios in which everybody is worse off. The question we have to answer is which scenario we choose to pursue, and who ends up taking it in the shorts.

Anybody who says the student loan industry is getting it right is someone who is profiting off college students. And it’s not just teenagers. Veterans, working professionals, career switchers, stay at home parents returning to the workforce; these are all people who are trying to navigate a complex and often predatory environment, and they don’t have decades before retirement to pay back overwhelming loans. I’m not advocating any particular approach, I’m saying a conversation needs to be had now before the bubble bursts and it’s too late for a conversation, and all that’s left is to try to clean up the B.S.

A Monumental Mistake

Posted: June 20, 2019 | Author: | Filed under: Politics, society | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Far be it from me to sit in judgement on the Supreme Court, but then playing armchair judge is a pastime for most of America. And the case of American Legion v. American Humanist Association practically begs for review (pardon the pun), particularly with so many individual opinions being written in spite of the 7-2 ruling (to be honest I wasn’t aware the Court could even issue anything other than a 5-4 ruling anymore). In this case I think the Court got it exactly wrong largely based on those express opinions as reported in the Washington Post, which I will be referencing throughout this piece, so feel free to call me out if there is some nuance of legal thought I am overlooking by not reading the entirety of their opinions. However I do believe the underlying premise is sound.

The initial argument is basically that a cross on public land favors a specific religious point of view, which is unconstitutional. The mental gymnastics that the justices who voted to allow the cross to stay had to go through are particularly astounding, and the fact that so many of them took so many paths to get there shows that there really isn’t any clear logic or reasoning to support it, unlike the opposition argument. Note that this in itself does not indicate they are wrong; there can be several good arguments in favor of something, and reasonable people can disagree about which one is the best. However the fact is that none of the arguments put forward by the justices are good or even sufficient arguments, particularly as a matter of practical law when considering that they will be used as precedent in other cases.

What sort of cases? Consider for a moment the issue of Civil War memorials. While many of these memorials may not have a religious component, some may, and all of them are subject to First Amendment challenges (either by those who want to tear them down or those who want to keep them up). Let’s consider the justices opinions in terms of these memorials:

Justice Alito, from the main opinion (WP):

“For some, that monument is a symbolic resting place for ancestors who never returned home. For others, it is a place for the community to gather and honor all veterans and their sacrifices for our Nation. For others still, it is a historical landmark. For many of these people, destroying or defacing the Cross that has stood undisturbed for nearly a century would not be neutral and would not further the ideals of respect and tolerance embodied in the First Amendment.”

Alito was joined in deciding that the cross may remain by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Take out “the Cross” and replace it with “the monument” and this passage would apply equally well to every Civil War memorial in the country. I know from personal experience it would apply to the entirety of Monument Avenue in Richmond, VA.

Justice Gorsuch, according to the Washington Post, “would have dismissed the case because he believes the “offended observer” has no legal standing to sue.” So if you’re offended by Civil War memorials… tough titty.

“Breyer said he was persuaded by the specifics of the case: that crosses are specifically linked to World War I sacrifice and that the cross had stood for 94 years without controversy.” (WP) Oh, good. Because the Civil War happened before WWI, and many of those monuments stood even longer than that without controversy. Because, y’know, a lack of controversy in the past totally trumps any present controversy. Or future controversy. Just ask Dred Scott.

To be fair, a couple of justices did give me hope of nuance, even if I didn’t love the way they decided. “Kagan praised Alito’s ruling, but said she refused to join it in full “out of perhaps an excess of caution.” “Although I too look to history for guidance, I prefer at least for now to do so case-by-case, rather than to sign on to any broader statements about history’s role in Establishment Clause analysis,” she wrote. Kavanaugh said that the decision allows the cross to remain on public land but does not require it. Maryland officials could make other arrangements, he said, such as transferring the land to a private group.” (WP) From reading these comments, I’m almost persuaded to believe they might be thinking about the same sort of issues I am. Of course I might be flattering myself (wouldn’t be the first time), but it is nice to see a bit of judicial restraint even in the face of a poorly decided issue.

I understand that reasoning by analogy is flawed, but I am only using an analogy to highlight my point, not to establish it. And the point is this: decisions coming out of the Supreme Court, particularly ones that have a sizable majority such as this one, set a strong precedent for the entire country. I am a fan of stare decisis and history as much as the next Court watcher, but even more I am a fan of an awareness of the future and what it might hold. While nobody can predict that with even a reasonable modicum of accuracy, it’s not too hard to draw reasonable conclusions from the present, and a bit of restraint in current decisions could yield significant room to maneuver in future cases.

Not Forced to Buy

Posted: June 5, 2019 | Author: | Filed under: Culture, Politics, society | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

For those of you who don’t know, I spent the better part of two decades working in email marketing. I think Scott Adams described marketing best: “we don’t screw the customer; we hold them down while the salespeople screw them.” That being said, I did (mostly) enjoy my time as a marketer, and I became more than a little familiar with a little company named Salesforce. If you’ve never heard of them that’s not surprising; they’re what’s referred to as a B2B company (that’s “business to business”), and their products are used to manage and run e-commerce across the nation.

Why that’s particularly relevant is because of a recent change in their acceptable use policy. Salesforce is now in the business of driving social policy as well as sales. While I might personally disagree with their stance, I want to get out in front and applaud them for making this move. I would love to see more companies, particularly big companies, making moves like this, for a few different reasons.

First it appeals to my libertarian desire for private action over government action. Yes, I have come around to accepting that not all government is bad, but I still believe that government should be the answer of last resort, not the first thing we try and then we turn to private solutions only after every possible governmental approach has been tried and failed. Also, there are a few common misconceptions that need to be addressed regarding private actors versus government action.

The big one that bothers me the most is the idea that somehow private actors can violate your right to free speech. Let’s take a look at the text of the First Amendment, shall we? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Yes, I can see pretty clearly in there were it says that “Facebook shall not delete your posts because reasons.” The government cannot legally censor you (aside from a few exceptions). Private actors are not required to provide you with a platform for your crazy. In fact, that would be a violation of the First Amendment (freedom of association).

How does that apply in the case of Salesforce and their terms of service? By doing business with Salesforce, you are voluntarily associating with them, and vice versa. Their terms of service are, quite literally, the terms under which they are willing to associate with you. Don’t like it? Fine. Don’t do business with them. Nobody is forcing you to. It’s a free market. So long as Salesforce doesn’t use their market dominance in an anti-competitive way there is no issue (and by the way, that has nothing to do with the First Amendment, that’s standard antitrust stuff, which last I checked is justified under the commerce clause; but I could be wrong). And let’s not even try to drag the Second Amendment into it. I don’t care if they prohibit you from selling guns or gardenias using their software, the point is the same: they are not the government, and nobody is forcing you to do business with them.

That’s not to say there aren’t any First Amendment issues to be concerned with here, it’s just that nobody seems to be focusing on the relevant party, by which I mean Salesforce. Anybody remember a little case known as Citizens United? Yes, I know liberals love to hate on that case, but every dark cloud and so on. In this instance, it’s relevant because Salesforce as a legal entity has rights. The right to free speech. The right to free association. The right to not be compelled to provide a service to someone who will use it in a way that they deem inappropriate. Note that this last point is ethically in line with the baker who refused to serve the gay couple in Colorado. Whether liberal or conservative, you don’t get to pick and choose who gets to express their moral beliefs through their business just because you happen to agree with them. The law applies to everyone equally or it is worthless (which says more about the law de facto than de jure).

Fools Rush In

Posted: May 30, 2019 | Author: | Filed under: Politics | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

There is a vocal and growing contingent of the liberal left that is demanding that Donald Trump needs to be impeached now. Today. That anything less would be un-American, and perhaps even bordering on High Crimes and Misdemeanors. There are several justifications for this stance, and I felt I should take a brief moment to address them.

  • He’s Guilty.

Let’s start with the elephant in the room (pardon the pun). Regardless of the crime de jure Trump is being accused of, there never seems to be any doubt that he’s guilty as sin and twice as ugly. However, I would like to point out that while impeachment proceedings are not a traditional trial, we do still have a tradition of “innocent until proven guilty” in America, and insisting that someone is guilty of a crime before you have even begun the trial or even gotten an indictment yet (that would be the actual articles of impeachment) looks kind of bad. One might even call it political opportunism or partisanship rather than actually trying to get at the truth. Or hey, we can just skip all that investigation nonsense and impeach the motherfucker.

  • Get Votes On the Record.

It’s pretty well accepted at this point that the Senate won’t convict Trump. Not right now, possibly not ever. For those who say “definitely not ever,” I point you toward Richard Nixon. When Watergate was first coming to light, it didn’t look like there was any way the Senate would convict if impeachment went forward for him either. Things change. But that takes time and effort (I’ll get to that). People who want to move forward now are more interested in getting votes on the record, to show who stands for America and who stands for Trump, because they honestly believe you can’t be for both. Regardless of how you might personally feel about Trump, to assume that nobody can in good faith still support him AND support America is a pretty big leap. It’s the sort of leap that the Republican Party took in 1998 with Bill Clinton, and they paid a price for it in the next election. And there are still quite a few Democrats from moderate districts who will likely end up paying that price.

  • It’s the Right Thing to Do.

Is it? There are plenty of people who say this isn’t a political decision, it’s a moral one. That’s fine. If you have solid, not indisputable but solid, proof of “Bribery, Treason*, or High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” then by all means it’s the right thing to do. But just because you believe Trump did something doesn’t mean you have proof he did it. There are a lot of conservatives out there who believe that life starts at conception that are making all kinds of laws based on that belief; last I checked those laws were getting challenged in court in large part because they can’t prove that assertion. More to the point impeachment is a legal mechanism, and the law doesn’t care about what you know. All it cares about is what you can prove. Yes, I know there is an argument that it is a political mechanism, but I reject that argument. Impeachment calls for an indictment and a trial; it may be outside of the standard court system, but so is the Uniform Military Code of Justice, and you don’t hear a lot of folks suggesting that a court martial is a “political process”. And no, the Mueller Report doesn’t say that Trump obstructed justice. Mueller said as much himself. There might be enough there to support the charge, but you need to connect the dots yourself and you need to do the heavy lifting on your own.

*Despite what Donald Trump seems to believe, treason against the United States is a very specific crime that “shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” So yeah. Good luck proving that one seeing as we haven’t had an active war declared in a long time… although maybe you could get two people to testify that Donald Trump gave aid to Poverty. That War’s been going on for decades.

  • Going Through the Courts Is the Wrong Strategy

This is the one that confuses me the most. It is often tied to an argument about “not being respected as a coequal branch of government,” but such arguments often come across as “you didn’t do what we want and you stole the election and you stole Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court seat so we’re gonna get you!” Seriously, there’s supposed to be a balance of powers, and to be honest for the last several decades Congress has given away the farm to the Executive branch. That’s nothing new; Trump just happens to be taking particularly ruthless advantage of it, with the assistance of a particularly obnoxious Mitch McConnell. But the truth is this is not out of character for either Republicans or Democrats; it is a matter of style and degree, not the actual substance. The tit-for-tat historical back and forth justifications have been pointed out multiple times, and they are completely irrelevant. What matters is that Congress does have tools at their disposal to rein in the President if they chose to use them. Both the House and the Senate have such powers, and they can be effective.

What’s more important is that going for impeachment and losing is not going to suddenly make Congress more “respected as a coequal branch of government,” either by Trump or the American public. You know what will? Winning. Which is exactly what is happening in the courts. What’s even better is that this is no longer a partisan fight of Democrats vs. Republicans, or Congress vs. the White House. Now it becomes two branches of the government vs. one. Almost as if two coequal branches, neither of which is more powerful than the other, had to go to a neutral arbitrator to settle a dispute rather than letting things get nasty and out of control.

Look, I get it. As Abraham Lincoln once said, “you shouldn’t believe everything you read on the internet.” And yet Donald Trump keeps getting away with making outrage claims on Twitter and making even more outrageous policy. Surely the old ways are gone, the norms have all been destroyed, working within the system is pointless and we have to act NOW to save our democracy while there is still something to save! Or perhaps given time and the efforts of reasonable and well-intentioned people, our system will prove more resilient than the fools who are trying to upend it.

What’s Good For The Goose

Posted: May 21, 2019 | Author: | Filed under: Politics, society | Tags: , , , | 1 Comment

In case you’ve been living under a rock, states such as Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama and others have passes highly restrictive abortion laws, with Alabama passing an outright ban except in cases where the mother’s health is threatened. I’ve seen a few arguments being put forward against these bans, and I’d like to take a moment to offer my own (admittedly biased) opinion on them.

The first I’ve seen, and what I consider the weakest by far, is that these laws are being passed by men and therefore are somehow illegitimate. This is a variation on the canard that men are not in any way entitled to have an opinion on abortion. One could as easily suggest that women are not entitled to an opinion on prostate cancer. If we applied this legislative logic uniformly and consistently, only veterans would vote on bills affecting the armed forces or veterans, only minority legislators would vote on affirmative action legislation, and only legislators who have endured mental illness of some kind would vote on legislation addressing mental illness.

More to the point in this specific case, regardless of their gender, these are the elected representatives for their respective states engaging in the established legislative process for their states. That does not make the legislation they create ethical, moral, or even constitutional, but neither do their respective genders invalidate it. It is also worth noting that, at least in the case of the Alabama law, it was signed into law by Gov. Kay Ivey. While that doesn’t completely or even mostly offset the gender imbalance, it does show that this isn’t completely “a war of men on women”. In fact, according to Vox it’s not about men vs. women as much as it’s an ideological split.

The next argument, and still weak for my taste, is that some of these laws don’t include an exception for cases of rape or incest. One of the few things I can actually respect about the politicians who pushed through the highly restrictive law in Alabama is that at least they are morally consistent. They believe, wholeheartedly, that life begins at conception. Full stop. Not “life begins at conception unless of course it was a case of rape or incest in which case things get kind of squicky so we have to kind of just look the other way”. If you’re going to impugn someone’s bodily autonomy (don’t worry, we’ll get to that) there should be no half-measures just because the originating cause is distasteful. Either you’re all in or you don’t have the courage of your convictions.

So let’s get to the only argument that I believe is truly sufficient and relevant: anti-abortion laws are a violation of a woman’s bodily autonomy. The question of whether life begins at conception is, quite simply, irrelevant. That may sound harsh or even disgusting and immoral to you, but let’s take a look at a few tangential issues of bodily autonomy and see how they might shed some light on the matter.

First consider the matter of blood and tissue donation. Compulsory donation of blood or tissue of any kind is not only considered illegal, it is immoral and unconstitutional. Even if a criminal were to stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody (just to pick a random example) and, by complete coincidence, turned out to be a perfect blood type match for their victim, they could not be compelled to donate blood. No matter that it would do them no long-term harm, no matter that it would be a form of restitution for their crime. A criminal has bodily autonomy in this country.

Second consider organ donation. Whether from a living donor or a deceased donor, you have to have positive consent before you can take an organ for transplant. Not “lack of opting out of the system”, someone has to actively opt-in while they are alive. Consider the implications of that. If there is literally only one person in 10,000 who can provide a life-saving organ to someone who has literally been waiting for years on the transplant list, if they did not register as an organ donor or put in their will that they wanted to donate their organs after their death then too bad, so sad. A corpse has bodily autonomy in this country.

How about the legal ramifications? The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, which the Supreme Court has extended to the collection of DNA in the absence of a warrant or arrest (a decision I have issues with, but that’s for another time). While these protections could (and should) be stronger, they still proscribe the government from taking DNA from anyone on a whim, including (just as a random example) non-citizens coming in at the border. In the absence of an arrest or a warrant compelling the production of DNA, even non-citizens have bodily autonomy.

So, here’s my proposition: the What’s Good for the Goose Act. A gender-neutral application of bodily autonomy in the law. Either everyone gets it or nobody gets it. Do away with these and all other forms of bodily autonomy under the law – or enshrine the idea of bodily autonomy in the law and do away with the idea that you can legislate another person’s body. Simple, fair, and easy.

Personally, I’m looking forward to getting that new kidney. And I say we go for the politicians first.

 

Note: While all of the ideas herein expressed are my own, I drew inspiration from questions, answers, and discussion on Quora.com. I highly recommend the site (and no, I’m not getting paid to say that).

I’ll Take Your Word For It

Posted: May 19, 2019 | Author: | Filed under: Culture, Politics, society | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Just the other day I read two articles, literally back-to-back, that struck me as emblematic of one of the glaring problems in society today. I’m going to venture to call it an epistemological problem, because it seems like what is happening is that people of a certain social and political bent have a serious case of cognitive dissonance, carrying two completely different ideas simultaneously and not even recognizing how they cancel each other out.

The first article was about using the word “guys” to refer to mixed groups of boys and girls. You might assume I would go off on a rant about how the author of that article was blowing things out of proportion and needed to get over himself, and at first you would be right. But I gritted my teeth and read the whole thing, and I found he actually had a valid point (yes, even I can admit I’m wrong from time to time). The key take away is this: words have power. Words have meaning. When we use words, deliberately or casually, we need to think through and own the effect those word have, including the unintended consequences.

This is important for several reasons in our society today, not just for the reasons he cited in his article. Too many people try to hide behind “I was just joking” or “I didn’t mean it that way”. Perhaps not but you still said it, so own it. I don’t intend to give free reign to everyone who wants to take offence to anything and everything (see my last post about outrage culture), but the flipside to rights is responsibilities. In the case of free speech that means accepting the consequences of your speech.

Which brings me to the next article and where the disconnect comes in. It seems that in what turns out to be a surprise to approximately nobody there has been a significant increase in the number of male managers afraid to be alone with women. Do I think this is a good thing? Of course not. But I saw this coming two years ago, and so did a lot of other people. Why do I bring it up in this context? Because the key take away is this: words have power. Words have meaning. When we use words, deliberately or casually, we need to think through and own the effect those word have, including the unintended consequences.

#TimesUp. #BelieveWomen. These men are taking you at your word that you will believe any woman, any accusation, prima fascie. There is no room for negotiation, there is no benefit of the doubt, and there is absolutely no reprieve. In the absence of iron-clad proof to rebut any accusation, they are unwilling to risk their own careers. So just like teachers who will not be alone with a student to prevent any accusations of misconduct when a simple accusation itself is a career-ender, these men have chosen the same path, and for the same reason. When the narrative is that it is better that a hundred innocent men go to jail than one guilty man go free, fear takes hold.

Is that an accurate narrative? Is it fair? Depends on who you ask. And that’s a large part of the problem. There are arguments to be made both ways and fingers to be pointed in both directions. But accurate or not, fair or not, this is the unintended consequence of a movement that has done a lot of good but also had some serious failures. Not acknowledging self-inflicted wounds like these and attempting to find ways to do better moving forward only exacerbates the problem.

← Older Entries