Should the Rich Rule?

Various sources number the millionaires in our country at either 10.8 million, or 6.8 million or 4.8 million.  Regardless, the number of people who control liquid assets in excess of $1 million dollars has risen dramatically.  They represent either 8.6% of American households, or 5.4% or 3.8% depending on the number of millionaires you choose to go with.  Another way to look at our wealth is to recognize the top 1% wealthiest folks control 24% of our nation’s liquid assets, and the top 5% control 59% of our nation’s assets.  That is a small number of people controlling a huge amount of resources.  The opposite is also true, the bottom 70% of American households control less than 10% of our wealth.  And the gap between the top and the bottom is growing.

The Urban Institute considers anyone with an income of $100,000 or more to be in the upper class.  The Census Bureau notes that the median income is $24,600 and the average income is $32,000.  Poor households earn less than $24,000.  So just for the sake of clarity, let’s call the upper class the people who make more than $100,000; the middle class are the people who make between $24,000 and $100,000 and the lower class those folks who earn less than $24,000 per year.

Given those numbers I wonder if we believe majority votes rule, or do we believe majority assets rule?  Do we believe in democracy or plutocracy?

It must be great to be a millionaire or a billionaire.  They get all the secular stuff they want: houses, cars, jets, clothes, vacation trips, etc.  More than that, they do not worry about the things most of us do.  They are not worried about setting enough money aside for retirement because they have so much money.  They are not worried about health care costs or health insurance because they either buy the best or just write a check when needed.  They surely do not worry about their kids having health care protection.  Nor do they worry about the kind of education their kids will get because they can buy the best education available.  

Evidently, what they do worry about is paying taxes so that other folks get health care, or other folks get food subsidies, or other folks get social security, or other folks get Medicare or Medicaid, or other folks get quality housing, or other folks get quality education.  The rich do not want to pay for the things they can provide for themselves.  They do tend to support paying taxes for military expenditures because they know being protected from aggression is a good thing.

Welcome to the new budget.  It cuts taxes for the wealthy and cuts services for everyone else.  The wealthy benefit the most.  The middle and lower classes benefit the least.  Teachers can no longer deduct expenses for their classrooms, but rich folks can deduct tuition for private schools.  And on and on it goes.

And as if that is not enough, the wealthy have enough disposable cash to contribute heavily to political candidates and shape media coverage.  There are wealthy folks in this country who spend millions of dollars supporting candidates that follow a philosophy that protects the plutocracy (a.k.a. rich folks).  They do not spend those dollars just in the races where they live, they spend those dollars across the entire nation so they can influence the election of conservative candidates everywhere.  They support candidates that support a trickle down economic theory though such a theory has never worked.  They own media outlets like Fox, a network that candidly admits they support the conservative agenda more than they support the reporting of facts.  They advertise on the programs the likes of Limbaugh keeping him in business.  The US Supreme Court even ruled in Citizens United that corporations can give big bucks to political candidates.  Big bucks buys a lot of ads and a lot of yard signs.  Most amazing to me is that the wealthy have spent big bucks to convince the middle and lower classes to support their agenda.  Why people making less than $100,000 a year would support the conservative agenda can only be explained as a product of the expenditure of big bucks on dubious claims.  Thinking people see through it.  Many do not. 

Big bucks promulgates the myth that middle and lower class people will benefit from supporting the conservative agenda.  The most bizarre data in the US is that middle class, working people support Republicans when the Republican agenda is designed to protect the plutocracy and make sure that the rich do not suffer, but allow the middle and lower class to suffer.  That can only be explained by looking at the propaganda spewed by the plutocracy and the fact that so many folks are buying it.  So many have bought it, in fact, that the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of our government are now controlled by pro-wealth party members.  By spending money the minority have bought the majority at the polls.  We have moved from a democracy to a plutocracy and not even noticed.

But the outcome in the Alabama senate election gives me hope.  Perhaps if enough people vote the tide can change and democracy will again rule over plutocracy, as it should.  I am not anti-rich people.  I am anti rich people convincing poor people that the agenda of the rich helps the poor when it does not.  The rich are able to do that convincing by spending money.

So, what needs to happen now?  Several things.  The current proposed tax bill should be scraped and totally redone.  The wealthy and corporations do not need tax relief.  They need to get on board supporting social services for the least fortunate.  Children should not lose heath care.  Health insurance should be the right of every American.  Public schools must be funded and end charter schools and voucher programs.  Social Security and Medicare should not be touched by a Congress seeking more money to spend on other things.  Net neutrality must be preserved.  Environmental protections must be re-instated.  We must join the rest of the world by supporting the Paris Accord.  We must overturn Citizens United.  We must take female reproductive decision making out of the hands of old White guys and religious zealots and put it in the hands of women.  We must stop empowering so-called Christians to discriminate based on their faith.  And we must make the purchase of a weapon much more restrictive.  And on and on. 

Only in a nation where the vast majority shows up to vote and they cast their votes with knowledge and understanding of the differences between candidates will we in fact have a representative democracy.  How can we do that?  Make election “day” a week and include Saturday.  Allow on-line voting.  Automatically register a voter via income tax or driver’s license issuance.  Perhaps even establishing a penalty fee for those who do not vote.

Radical?  I don’t think so when we look at how far down the road we have drifted from democracy to plutocracy.  Our history as a nation, as an international model, has been to protect minorities, expand civil liberties and provide safety nets for our citizens.  Every time we abandon that to protect the wealthy and business interests we have chaos as in 1929 and 2008.  We seem to be very slow learners.

Another major concern for me is to find a way to limit those who would prefer this nation to be a theocracy rather than a democracy.  Those folks are even scarier than the plutocrats because they believe God is on their side.  But that merits a separate post.

When you have the opportunity, please vote.  It matters.

Christianity First

If one more person tells me to put Christ back in Christmas I am likely to take his or her head off. How in the world can people live with their hypocrisy? How about putting Christ back into Christianity first? The dominant political thinking in this country now is to protect the rich, promote the rich, and give the rich tax cuts. Seems to me Jesus had something to say about that.  The dominant political thinking in this country now promotes the end of health care for children and poor adults.  Seems to me Christ had something to say about that.  The dominant political thinking in this country supports robbing Social Security and Medicare so that the rich can have tax cuts.  Seems to me Christ had something to say about that.  The dominant political thinking in this county now is to tolerate the abuse that showers down on Blacks, women, Muslims, Hispanics, gay, transgender, etc. Seems to me Christ had something to say about that. The dominant political thinking in this county is to ban Muslims and Latinos from coming here. Seems to me Christ had something to say about that. Meanwhile, the support of the dominant political thinkers stands behind pedophiles, bigots, sexual assaulters, climate change deniers and liars. 

If there is a God he or she better wake up his or her followers before they destroy not only this country but the late, great planet earth.

Followers of Christ appear to have shifted from an agenda of love, tolerance, support and caring to an agenda of me first, anger, fear and bigotry.  Any one wrestling with his or her faith during this time of year has but to look at the followers of Jesus, watch what they are doing and saying, to see what is in their hearts.  It ain’t pretty.  Give me an atheist who cares for the sick, promotes the poorest among us, cares for those who are cast offs in our society, and supports humans regardless of their physical characteristics or belief systems over the so-called Christians I see today. 

You want Christ back in Christmas?  Put him back in Christianity first.

Give Trump a Chance?

I keep hearing the phrase, “Give Trump a chance”.  I just heard a pro-Trump author interviewed on the Today show and he said he loves Trump because he is so genuine.  So genuine?  He is a consummate liar.  And once more I wonder:

If we know Trump constantly lies and Joe supports Trump, what does that say about that Joe?

If we know Trump has sexually assaulted 16 women and Jill supports Trump, what does that say about Jill?

If we know Trump is a bigot and Sam supports Trump, what does that say about Sam?

If we know Trump sees women as sex objects and Sally supports Trump, what does that say about Sally?

If we know Trump cannot consistently bring himself to condemn the white supremacists and Mark supports Trump, what does that say about Mark?

If we know Trump has personally attacked members of the media, members of his own appointed cabinet, other heads of state, and anyone who dares disagree with him and Paula supports Trump, what does that say about Paula?

If we know Trump does not know history, geography, foreign policy or economics and Donnie supports Trump, what does that say about Donnie?

If we know Trump has appointed family members and people with no knowledge or experience to important government positions, and Sue supports Trump, what does that say about Sue?

If we know Trump is willing to share right-wing, white supremacist British videos known to be false and Brandon supports Trump, what does that say about Brandon?

If we know Trump continues to attack and blame Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama despite the fact that the election is over and he won, and Ann supports Trump, what does that say about Ann?

If we know tax payers are forking over millions for Trump’s golfing outings at his own properties and Paul supports Trump, what does that say about Paul?

If we know Trump was involved in collusion with Russians regarding his Presidential campaign and business dealings, and Carolyn supports Trump, what does that say about Carolyn?

And if knowing all the above anyone suggests that Trump is genuine, we should let Trump be Trump, and that he deserves to be given a chance, what does that say about such people who take that position? 

Deplorable.

Give Trump a chance?  To do what?  Escape?

Hell no.

Dear President Trump,

I know you are accustomed to defining reality as you think it should be.  Doing so is called fantasy.  The problem with that, of course, is you miss vital information in reality as it is.  There are a few things I do not think you understand in the cocoon you have built.

First, if the election were today you would lose.  By a landslide.  That’s right.  There has never been a President with approval ratings as low as yours.  The American people do not like what you are doing and how you are doing it.  As long as you surround yourself with family, friends and supporters and do not really listen to the critics you are not likely to get this important piece of reality.

Second, you are not CEO of USA.  You are not the boss of the government.  I know you are used to being the boss, are used to having all your underlings hanging on your every word, seeking to do your will, agreeing with you all the time, fawning and respectful.  That may happen in a corporation where you can announce in reality show fashion, “You’re fired!”  That does not work in our government.  You cannot fire the legislative branch.  You cannot fire the judicial branch.  You are to be a leader, not a CEO, not a bully, not a boss.  Leading is much more difficult than being the boss as it requires you to listen.  Your tweets are an indicator that you think we are all hanging on your next pronouncement of how good you are and how bad someone else is.  That’s just not true.  We read your tweets because we are amazed at the extent you simply just do not get it.

Finally, you are a public servant as is every elected official.  You are to serve the public, the entire public, not just your rich cronies and friends.  You are to serve citizens regardless of their ethnicity, race, sexual preference or identify and religious beliefs.  You do not get to say I will serve these Americans because I like them but I will not serve these Americans because I don’t like them.  You will be judged on how well you served the nation, not yourself.  You have spent a lot of time in this first year serving yourself, playing golf, appointing friends and family who are not qualified for anything other than blindly supporting you, tweeting whatever enters your mind, dishing out group and individual critiques.  None of that serves the county.  It serves you.  Please stop.

Putting Russia, money laundering, perjury and lying aside, yours will be remembered as the greatest failure of any President this nation has ever seen.  You will be remembered that way not by your friends and supporters because they are a minority.  You will be remembered that way by the vast majority of us who still cannot believe you simply do not get it.  The apprenticeship for elected leadership is public service, not self-service and public pontification.  You will be fired one way or another. 

How to Change the World

We are in a dismal state of affairs as a nation and as a planet.  In so many ways we have discovered what does not work and we are doing those same things more and more.  It occurs to me that just a few interventions could dramatically alter the path we are pursuing, a path that I believe leads to self-destruction.

Power.  Our systems are built on the notions that electricity and fossil fuels provide our power.  It is those two notions that have most contributed to the state of our climate and the political hegemony on this planet.  We must master fusion.  Or solar.  Clean.  Limitless.  Once mastered and all corners of the planet have access to free power the world will change.  Hunger could end.  Pollution could end.  Disease could end.  Once power is as available to all in the same way that air is available to all our world will look very different.  It will look better.

Beliefs.  The largest obstacle to peace on the planet is an array of belief systems that seek to set policy, control people, and have their own way.  It is difficult to argue with “believers” because facts, science, logic hold no sway over those entrenched and intransigent.  But we must abandon our religious beliefs.  They are all false.  Once our decisions are made based on logic, science, math and standard ethical assumptions conflict on our planet will virtually disappear.  And the key ethical assumption underlying all our decisions is that all humans are equal and are entitled to civil liberties.  Religion is the source of much of the political and social and ethical conflict on this planet.  We can disagree, but one side will not be convinced they are right because some god is on their side making compromise impossible and war inevitable.

Education.  We absolutely must provide the very best education possible to every person on this planet.  We have institutionalized ignorance.  We have tolerated lies.  We have tolerated beliefs grounded in nonsense.  Women are denied an education in way too many places.  Children of all stripes do not receive quality education because of local customs and religious beliefs.  But until everyone on the planet is capable of digesting an ever growing array of facts and reaching conclusions, until everyone on the planet is capable of critical decision making, until everyone on the planet speaks the common languages of science, math, literature and the arts we are doomed to remain an ignorant and self-destructive species.  Privatizing the source of education is not the answer.  All must receive the very best.  And those who teach much be honored and valued more than those who play games, buy property, provide entertainment, and pollute the atmosphere.  Knowing, thinking and problem solving should be our most desired abilities.  Such abilities are only obtained via education.

OK.  That’s just for starters.  Accomplish these three biggies and we will be well on our way to living in peace on a planet we are not destroying where each human is valued.  Sounds like noble goals to me.

Make America Great Again

Another shooting, this time in California, and this time an elementary school as the target.  Conclusion:  Guns don’t kill people, people kill people and we do not need to restrict gun ownership in the United States.  We are safer with more guns out there.

Trump is averaging 5.5 lies per day 7 days per week since his inauguration.  He tweeted sympathy to Texas instead of California for the most recent shooting.  Conclusion:  Trump remains a competent President worthy of support.

16,000 scientists from 184 countries sign a letter to humanity warning us that planet earth is in serious trouble and if we do not do something the damage will be irreversible.  Conclusion:  Human impact on climate change is an unsubstantiated theory so we do not need to worry.  Oil companies continue to prosper.

Every nation on the planet except the United States signs the Paris Accords calling for a reduction in fossil fuel pollution of our atmosphere.  Conclusion:  Human impact on climate change is an unsubstantiated theory so we do not need to worry.  Oil companies continue to prosper.

Fox news anchor supports pedophile senatorial candidate.  Keurig pulls ads from his show.  Conclusion:  Keurig is wrong and we should trash our Keurig coffee makers.  Keurig backs off.

Surgeon General determines that smoking cigarettes may cause lung cancer and heart disease, and also true for second-hand smoke.  Conclusion:  seriously enforce restrictions on purchasing cigarettes, ban smoking in all public places, shame smokers and dramatically reduce consumption in US.  Tobacco companies lose money.

It is clear that the proposed tax plan only helps the top 3% of income earners and corporations in this country.  It hurts middle and lower class working Americans.  It dramatically cuts social security benefits and Medicare benefits.  Conclusion:  Congress is determined to pass the plan and many middle class and lower class Americans support the plan.

In the history of walls, no wall over time has ever kept people out or in.  Ever.  Conclusion:  we need to spend billions of dollars to build a wall to keep some people out.

Conservative Christians want to see the government endorse their religious beliefs and make them law.  Conclusion:  time to end the separation of church and state just as ISIS, Taliban, and Al Qaeda propose.

Athletes choose to exercise their Constitutional rights to peacefully protest the treatment of African Americans at the hands of law enforcement.  Conclusion:  Those athletes are un-American, un-patriotic and the NFL should be boycotted.

Except for tobacco it appears that every time we attempt to value human life and liberty over making money or enforcing the beliefs of some, such values lose. 

I agree.  It is time to make America great again.  A nation that stands for liberty, freedom, protects the rights of minorities, protects the rights of people who have diverse religious beliefs, values human life and health over corporate profit, protects the health of every American, not just the rich, and says to the world, we will do what is right no matter what the cost.  Our current America has abandoned all of that.  We have endorsed fear, bigotry, and ego-centrism.  That is not progress.  That is the path to war, not peace; conflict not leadership; judgment not tolerance; polarization not community.   

Why can’t we see that?  Our beliefs conflict with our logic.  Logic is losing.  When they look back on the late, great US of A and the paths we chose, they will say the seeds of our destruction were obvious.  It was not moral decline, it was the insistence that my morals, my beliefs, no matter how wrong or harmful become law. 

Please make America great again while we still have time.

Accused Equals Guilt

Such an interesting time in our nation as many values and practices garner new scrutiny.  Accusing someone of sexual harassment is one of the areas where dramatic change is occurring.  We have moved from a culture where women were shamed and threatened and castigated when making such claims against men to a time where once someone claims to have been assaulted by another the verdict is immediately assumed to be “guilty” and the punishment is handed down before there is even a trial.  Neither of those responses is appropriate in my book.

It takes great courage to step forward and accuse someone of committing sexual harassment, or worse.  The harasser or assaulter is usually someone more powerful, more influential in some way than the victim.  Those who accuse know they will likely be put on trial as it is a “He said, she said” kind of case with no witnesses, or the even happened in the past and the opportunity to collect any kind of evidence is long gone.  I tend to side with the accuser, with the victim.  As a school superintendent when either students or employees came to me with stories of harassment or worse I tended to believe them.  In those cases the accused was never likely to pay millions to hush the complaint.

And yet, I remain deeply disturbed with how we are responding to those who are accused.  In every criminal or civil case where someone is alleged to do have done wrong and/or broken the law we typically begin with the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.  What I see in these guys is assumption of guilt and the meting out of punishment before the accused has little more to do in their defense than to say, “I am innocent.”  A list of accused can be found at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/10/us/men-accused-sexual-misconduct-weinstein.html

Most interesting is that of the 22 who have been accused, some (9) have confessed their guilt, and most have claimed innocence.  All of them have already been punished.  They have been fired, replaced, removed from positions of responsibility, etc., and none of them have been found guilty in court.  Those who confess their guilt and throw themselves on the mercy of the court and of public opinion are to be commended for their honesty.  The others deserve their day in court before they are punished.

Accusation cannot equal guilt.  Not in a land where we cherish freedom, abide by law and trust our peers to judge us in an open courtroom.

Time for Sadie Hawkins Year

I am appalled by the number of women coming forward to share sexual harassment stories.  The numbers are incredible.  I am angered.  Evidently there are large numbers of men who use power, position, and threat of retaliation, etc. to force women into sexual activities.  Those males are wimps, one and all.  Clearly, in my humble opinion, no stable male, no reasonable male, no real male would be interested in affection that was forced or blackmailed.  I do have a hard time understanding these guys.

I have also have had a hard time from time to time reading signals from women.  Are you being nice to me because I am the boss?  Are you touching my arm a lot when we talk just out of habit?  Do you greet me with a hug all the time because we are friends?  I love for women to act as though they find me attractive.  It is a real ego boost even if we just smile at each other across the pews in church.  I don’t act on those cues. 

So it seems we might be able to solve a lot of issues if we all agree in the coming year to reverse roles.  Let’s call it Sadie Hawkins year.  If a women is interested in romance or affection it is totally up to her to initiate.  That would include dates and in the bedroom.  We guys will just sit and wait, bat our eyes or flex our biceps.  This should apply to married couples as well.  It is the year beyond women’s’ liberation, it is the year of women’s initiation!

Thank goodness we agreed to that.  I feel much more relaxed and can sit in the wings and cheer on the prosecution of the males who sexually harassed women.

Truth Tellers and Liars

Many of my friends lament the state of affairs in our nation and grow weary of the attacks flying around between the two political perspectives.  Conspiracy theories abound.  I spend a lot of time fact checking the news I hear and read, and am really certain that I know who is lying, who is spreading propaganda to protect their own self-interest, and who is in fact reporting news from the perspective of a non-biased journalist.

But there are ways to test truth tellers and liars that are fairly simple.  Ways I learned in my philosophy classes in college.  Here is how it goes.

There are two doors.  Behind one door are riches untold.  We’ll call that door 1.  Behind the other door is pain and death.  We’ll call that door 2.  Beside each door sits a man.  One man, Sam, always, always tells the truth.  The other man, Sean, always, always lies.  Sam and Sean know which door leads to wealth and which door leads to death.  Door 1 leads to wealth.  Door 2 leads to death.  You approach.  You can ask one of these men one question and based on their answer decide which door to open.  You ask one man one question, and open the correct door.  How did you do that?

If you asked Sam, who always tells the truth, what door Sean would tell you to open for wealth, Sam knows Sean will lie, so Sam will say door 2 because that is the truth regarding the answer Sean would give.  If on the other hand, you asked Sean which door Sam would tell you to open, and Sean knows Sam will tell the truth and answer door 1, but Sean always lies, he would answer door 2.  You open door 1 and gain untold wealth!  You choose the door neither report.

Among the many conspiracy theories floating around is one that posits Hilary Clinton had a hand in the sale of Uranium to the Russians, and somehow that is a bad thing.  The other is that Donald Trump and his closest advisors colluded with Russia to make money and gain negative information about Hillary Clinton.  How do you know which to believe?  Simple.  Let’s say Sean works for Fox News and Sam works for CNN.  Their truth and lie roles remain the same.  Ask Sean which conspiracy Sam thinks is real.  Sean will lie and say the Hillary conspiracy.  Ask Sam which conspiracy he thinks Sean will say is real, and Sam will say the Hillary conspiracy.  Therefore, the Hillary conspiracy is false and the Russia conspiracy is true.  You can change the players but the answer will always be the same.

Fox spends all day headlining false conspiracies.  Uranium, emails, Benghazi.  CNN spends all day headlining Trump, Manafort, Gates, et. al.  Fox lies.  CNN tells the truth.  In interviews on Fox the anchors always ask, “Why isn’t the mainstream media focusing on these conspiracy theories we keep bringing up?”  Simple.  They are lies.

Fox “News” is a misnomer.  Fox owner Rupert Murdoch insists that the news always favor Trump.  That’s sad because they then report beliefs rather than news, editorialize rather than report.  CNN, and ABC, and NBC, and CBS and MSNBC are committed to reporting the truth because they are owned by corporations who do not want to take sides, do not want to get sued, and want to present the news.  Therefore, those stations always appear out of step with Fox.  The problem, the liar, is Fox.  Fox Sports is pretty much what you would expect it to be, Fox TV series the same.  It is the “News” that is rampant campaign and propaganda material, totally slanted in one direction.  Perhaps the name should be changed to Fox Pas.

As soon as more and more Americans understand that, test that, fact check that, the more likely we are to agree that it is time for Trump to go.  (And take Fox and Murdock with him as far as I am concerned.)  Persecuting Hillary has been a Fox avocation for years and years.  They are determined to find something so scandalous that the real news will be ignored.  Hillary lost.  Proving anything about her is irrelevant.  She cannot be impeached as she does not hold office.  Trump is President and is responsible for all that comes out of his campaign and the Executive Branch.  Red Herrings, conspiracy theories and lies should not throw our fourth estate off the truth.  In fact, if one is perfect the blame is always cast somewhere else:  Obama, Clinton, Congress, “fake” news (which turns out to be real news), and now his son-in-law.

Trump lies.  All the time.  He must be removed from office to save America.  That is not a pro-Clinton comment.  That is a pro-American comment.

False Consensus Dogma: Political, Economic and Religious Polarization

On any given Saturday or Sunday it will become clear who is an ardent fan of any given football team.  The UT fans and OU fans and TAMU fans debate and jab and cajole; the Cowboy fans and the Texans fans and the Patriot fans do the same.  In such instances fans understand, I believe, that there exist fans of teams other than the one they support.  I have never heard even the most ardent of Cowboy fans demand that all football fans support the Cowboys, or that to support someone other than the Cowboys is somehow immoral or wrong.  Fans recognize the right to fandom and the right to support various teams and would not undo such fandom because they rub shoulders every week with fans of different ilk.  I further believe that fans have enough sense to know that the entire sport of football exists only because there are different fans.  If everyone supported one team there would only be one team and a sport could not long exist with only one team.  Multiple teams each with their own supporters make the sport stronger, not weaker.

Other areas in our culture do not fare so well.  Politics, religion, economics, patriotism, etc., are support systems, fan systems and/or belief systems where the likelihood of rubbing shoulders with contrarian views does not contribute to the overall health of the debate and strength of the systems.  Rather, such shoulder rubbing has become the source of polarization, rancor and vitriol.  Why is that?

I think I know two reasons why.

First is the way we are taught to listen.  There are at least two ways to listen.  In what is the current most common way to listen is listening for the purpose of finding flaw with an alternative view and emitting support for a commonly shared view.  Many folks listen as though nothing the Democrats say or nothing the Republicans say could possibly be right.  Listening to the party or philosophy that one agrees with eliminates critical thinking skills and fact checking and listening to the party or philosophy that one disagrees with promotes attack at every point, every turn, and every position.  Such a listening approach has now become institutionalized by some media sources and some pundits.  Nothing the “other” group says can possibly be right and flaws and exceptions are sought and highlighted as though anyone who thinks that way must be an evil fool.  We have now reached a point where failure to agree with the perception and beliefs of the “boss” can result in termination.

The second way to listen is called active listening.  As I hear what you say, or the media says, or a politician says I attempt to understand their position, I seek the ability to re-word their position in my own words.  I seek to understand what they are really saying.  Once I am convinced I understand their positions then and only then do I attempt to line up their reasoning with my own thinking.  Could their position have merit?  Do I need to fact check?  Might this work?  It is through this approach that our positions are ameliorated and we grow stronger and wiser from the minds we may most disagree with.  If I admit up front my position requires constant scrutiny then my position becomes more open.  When I listen to opponents and supporters I seek clarity.  This type of thinking remains in our culture, but typically is only found in families and in truly collaborative teams in both private and public sectors.

The second reason contact with alternative views is resulting in so much polarization is our tendency to interact mostly with folks who think like we think.  People of like mind.  If in your circle of friends and contacts it is accepted as true that Obama was a terrible president, that believing as a Christian believes is somehow how it ought to be, that patriotism trumps civil rights, that unions are bad, and/or that liberals are sick people, you are highly unlikely to engage in active listening when interacting with a contrarian perspective.  Psychologists call this “false consensus”, that is that everyone I know thinks this way so if you do not think like that you must be wrong.  The opposite, of course, is also true if one holds a liberal or atheist position and comes in contact with conservatives.  Because we surround ourselves with folks of like thinking we assume there is a rightness, a correctness to our thoughts.  Everyone should believe this way because everyone I know believes this way.  It is a false consensus rightness. 

I have been “unfriended” because I think differently.  What a sad state of affairs is that?  It means we literally do not want to even hear the other side.  I have FB “friends” who will post a positional piece and say right up front if anyone disagrees they do not want to hear it.  Really?  How will you know if your position is valid without critique?  Without input from other positions?  Without disputing facts?  To hold such a defensive position is also consensus rightness.  I am right.  You are wrong.  You must be a fool, or worse, evil.

This false consensus breeds upon continuing contact with only one point of view.  Conservatives only watch Fox News.  Liberals only watch MSNBC.  No one likes CNN or CBS or NBC or ABC, the networks consistently shown to be fair and open-minded.  We have even adopted a new term, “fake news” implying that anything that disagrees with my position must be wrong or fabricated.  We go to church and sit in pews with people who think like we think and may even hear messages from the pulpit perpetrating a given philosophy.  We go to football games and lean on the tailgates of other like-minded folks and take pleasure in lambasting those fools who think else wise.  We join social organizations based on the philosophical bent of the members, even if the club moto first asks, “Is it the truth?”  We do not want contact with thinkers and believers of alternative perspective.

Until we break down some of these barriers we are doomed to continue down this road toward a divided nation.  I see two solutions.  Active listening is one.  That is a skill that can be taught and practiced.

The other is to seek out folks of alternative perspective and talk with them.  Speaking to my Texas audience I wonder how many of you have actually had a conversation with a liberal, or an atheist, or a Muslim or read the literature supporting both philosophies?  Not many I suspect.  If you feel the need to shun such folks you are part of the problem, not the solution.  Speaking to my national and international audience how many of you have sat with conservatives and religious fundamentalists and truly sought to understand their belief systems?  It is past time to begin such efforts.

I am encouraged by some new bipartisan efforts in Congress.  I am encouraged by the words of some nationally recognized conservatives who are now criticizing both “groupthink” and “my way or the highway” sort of thinking.  I am encouraged that the NRA is opposing bump fire stocks.

But we have a long way to go.  Seek out a person who holds a different perspective, or do a Google or You Tube search and really listen, actively listen.  Do not listen so that you can quickly argue the point.  You will find, I believe, that those other folks are not evil, and you will find that they may have something to say worth considering, and you will find that your own perspective is more thoughtful, more rational and more hopeful.

I further believe that if more and more of us did this, more and more of us would slowly alter our perspectives from entrenched to enlightened.  Facts will move us forward, science will move us forward.  Moving forward to openness is hopeful.  Remaining stuck in our own dogma is damning.

True Trump

It was not easy, but prior to a one-on-one interview with the President, CNN was able to slip sodium pentothal into his drink.  Things got interesting very fast as Anderson Cooper asked questions.

Cooper:  Mr. President there are those who claim that your response to the needs of people devastated by Hurricane Maria on Puerto Rico was very different than your response to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, and there are those that claim it is going terribly in Puerto Rico while you claim it is going great.  How are things in Puerto Rico?

Trump:  First Anderson, let me be perfectly clear.  I was not at all interested in helping the folks in Puerto Rico.  I do not think of that island as part of the US.  Those people chose to live on an island in the middle of the Atlantic – what did they think was going to happen?  All the money we spend on them could have helped build a wall.  But when public opinion began to turn against me I had to trot out another lie to appease my base, so I did.  Thank God editors at Fox do not think and do not fact check, and thank God my base does not think or fact check.

Cooper:  Are you admitting that you lie to the American people?

Trump:  Of course I lie.  Why is that such a surprise?  I know folks think of me as a big negotiator, but I am really a salesman, a really great salesman, probably the best that has ever been.  I am not going to tell the consumer that the car I’m selling is terrible and the transmission will fall out in 50,000 miles.  I will tell them it is a wonderful car and they should buy it.  So far, my base continues to buy it.

Cooper:  What other lies have you told us?

Trump:  Most of my campaign was a lie.  I’ve been worse since the inauguration.  I knew I had fewer people there than Obama.  It pissed me off and I wanted to be thought of as the greatest, so I lied about the attendance.  I still cannot believe Clinton got more votes than me, so I made up the voter fraud issue.  I knew the FBI would eventually get around to investigating my ties with Russia so I tried to push some of that off on Obama.  I have been claiming these great economics since I was elected but all that is really due to what Obama did.  I hate Obama and I just want to wipe his record from the history books.  I don’t care if it hurts people or not, I want him gone.  I am embarrassed that we ever elected a Black man to this office. 

Cooper:  Can you give us an update on our relationship with North Korea?

Trump:  That little piss ant dictator really gets under my skin.  He’s a nobody.  He surely does not have the power or importance I have.  When I tell him to stop doing something, I expect him to stop.  He is strutting around like he is something important.  I’ll tell you, Anderson, I need a war.  I need to give the American people a reason to get behind me and support me.  I am ready to nuke him, but the generals don’t like that plan.  I may end up sending in a bunch of troops, but I am not putting up with his stuff much longer.

Cooper:  That is horrifying, Mr. President.

Trump:  I know!  I can’t believe it either.  This guy needs to back down.

Cooper:  You were very critical of President Obama for playing golf.  Now it appears you have played more golf than President Obama did in 8 years.  What is that about?

Trump:  First, do not refer to him as President Obama.  He is not President anymore.  I am the only President this country has.  Second, it’s none of your damn business what I do.  I am the leader of the free world.  I shouldn’t have to answer to anyone.  If I want to go to one of my resorts and play golf I am going to go.  I am not going to share the list of people who come with me, or the people who visit me in the White House any more than I am going to share my income tax.  I am a private citizen with an important job to do and everybody, especially you guys in the media, need to get off my back.  Do not mistake me for a public servant.  I am not.  I serve me and folks who support me.

Cooper:  Tom Price just resigned.  But he is but one of a long list of your appointments who have left.  Why is this happening?

Trump:  I can’t believe you asked me that question, Anderson.  He left because of you and others in the media.  I promised to drain the swamp.  That meant running all these long-time governmental officials and so-called policy experts out of Washington.  I appointed people to take their place that I knew thought like me, supported me, and were loyal to me.  Think of me as the boss of the United States.  No boss would tolerate his subordinates hurting his image or his power.  But you guys just keep hounding them.  You expect to look behind every door, under every carpet, inside every closet.  That is none of your damn business and you have to back off.  No leader shares everything.  Tom left because he became a liability, he was doing my image more harm than good.  He understood.  But the only reason he was hurting me was because of you pesky reporters.  Freedom of the press must be seriously reviewed.  I am sick of all this.

Cooper:  One final question, Mr. President.  Can you tell us what you think the Mueller investigation into Russian connections with you and your campaign staff will ultimately reveal?

Trump:  Sure.  I have told you I am a negotiator and a salesman.  Before and during the time I ran for President I was seeking ways to make money across this planet.  So yes, I was in contact with the Russians in hopes of doing business with them.  Once I announced I wanted to be President the Russians offered intel on Hillary that they claimed would sink her candidacy.  And they offered ways to hack the election so that I might win, place ads supporting me on-line, etc.  What kind of business man would turn down those opportunities?  Only business men who are no longer in business.  So yes, I looked to find out what that intel was and accepted the support in other ways.  No big deal.  I won and the story is over.

Cooper:  Are you aware, Mr. President, that those acts are considered treason in the United States?

Trump:  Yeah, so what.  I did what I had to do to win and my base will continue to support me no matter what comes out of this investigation.  I am just not worried.  I am the best President this country has ever had.  I will be the most loved and adored President ever.  You just wait and see.

Cooper:  Thank you, Mr. President.  And thank you for your candor.

Trump:  You’re welcome.  What did I say?

Knowledge is not Wisdom; Opinion is not Truth

When Kim Jong-un called the President of the United States a “Dotard” and “deranged” in response to the POTUS’ slurs calling him “madman” and “Little Rocket Man” I had to google the term dotard to find out what it meant.  And though my opinion is that both men are correct in their assessments of each other and that both men are operating at the same level as middle school boys on the playground, it is good to be able to know exactly what the juvenile insults imply.  I love Google, and Bing and all the other search engines.  I can get knowledge on any topic with a few keystrokes.  In fact, I can get multiple interpretations of topics, history, etiology, current use, op eds, etc., etc.  Encyclopedias are dead.  Long live Google.  (Perhaps as are dictionaries.  Long live spell check.)

In many ways I wish more people did research using search engines.  I saw a claim on line yesterday about something a celebrity said that triggered a fact-check search on my part.  The claim was totally false.  I wish everyone who denies climate change as a result of human behavior would google the research.  I wish everyone who thinks the earth is flat or that it is 6,000 years old, etc., would google those topics.  The knowledge is out there.

On the other hand, rapid access to knowledge does not make one wise.  It makes one knowledgeable.  There is a huge difference.  Google wisdom.  Each definition includes a combination of experience, judgment, expertise, critical thinking, global thinking; all accrued over time.  One simply cannot be wise at age 12 on any topic, except for those children who have experienced significant hardships.  No 30 year-old can be as wise as a 70 year-old, unless that 70 year-old stop learning and seeking a long time ago.  It takes life experiences, mistakes, errors, pain and expertise to accrue wisdom.  Knowledge alone is cheap.  Earning wisdom tends to be very expensive.  Wisdom is individually accrued.  Though the wise may seek to share their wisdom, they cannot pass it on.  Knowledge spreads.  Wisdom either grows in the individual or it does not.

I believe I am wise in some things and repeatedly unwise in others.  Ten years in the classroom, a master’s degree, four years as a campus administrator, five years as a central office administrator, seventeen years as a superintendent of schools and 3 years as a resident graduate assistant at a university.  I have seen much come and much go when it comes to public education.  I have deep knowledge.  I believe I have wisdom.  For instance, when the Texas Legislature considered implementing a career ladder (merit pay) for teachers I testified against it knowing that not only would it not work, that it was counterproductive, it had not worked anywhere else, and demonstrated a total lack of understanding of what happens in a school.  The legislature did it anyway under the umbrella of “make schools more like a business”.  It was a dismal failure and was repealed 8 years later.  The same is true with charter schools and vouchers.  They do not work, they harm kids and their only purpose is to provide the private sector access to public tax dollars earmarked for schools.  But, we continue to try it and continue to expand these failed notions.  The policy makers may have access to knowledge, but they have no wisdom when it comes to public education.  Worse, they do not recognize that they lack wisdom nor are they willing to listen to the wise.

Why is that?  I believe it is the second bizarre phenomenon that individual opinions, individual beliefs, tend to take precedence over the facts.  The stronger the opinion or the belief the less likely facts or knowledge will influence the opinion.  Evolution is a fact as is demonstrated over and over again.  Some do not “believe” in evolution and no amount of factual evidence will change their minds.  The same is true about climate change.  The same is true about religious beliefs.  The same is true about political beliefs.  No amount of evidence will influence the minds of the true believer, those who hold opinions, beliefs, attitudes that are free floating and are not grounded in facts and science and knowledge. 

It is for this group of people, or for any individual who holds a strong belief that runs contrary to reality, that wisdom will never come.  Faithfulness to the belief may come, but not wisdom and not knowledge.  For every legislator who believes the “cure” for public schools lies in emulating the private sector, implementing strict accountability, standardized tests, charter schools, etc., no amount of facts and historical data will change their minds.  They believe it.  They want it to be true, but it is not.  Those of us who see their folly would be amused if we were not subject every year to more and more attempts to implement their malignant beliefs.  It is as though they see they are headed down the wrong road so they decide to go faster.  Worse, our new Secretary of Education is a missionary regarding such efforts.  Lord help us and help the kids of the USA.

The same is true for supply side economics, or the trickle-down theory.  The entire notion that if we can somehow leave more money in the hands of the wealthy our economy will be better.  Time and time again such a belief has been proven false, sometimes with disastrous results.  And yet, we try it again as there are those committed to this notion despite the history and despite the facts.

I could go on and on.  But I would be amiss if I did not point out that the same philosophy that values flawed opinions versus facts now has a major spokesman and advocate in the White House.  Our President describes a world as he wishes it would be, not as the facts indicate it is.  Over and over and over fact checking his speeches reveals he is either grossly misinformed, ignorant or is flat out lying.  And yet there are those who so believe in him such facts are irrelevant.  And I find that very sad and very scary.

Our progress must be based on facts, on reality, on science.  To hope for progress based on beliefs and opinions is to advocate a return to the Dark Ages.  And that will not make America Great.  If our policy makers do not have the wisdom to seek out the wise for consult, then we shall be harmed by the enactment of opinion that runs contrary to fact.  We are in the midst of that right now. 

I have reached a place in my life where my intolerance for false opinions is at an all-time high.  Frankly, I do not care if you still believe in Santa Clause, still believe we should persecute people for thinking differently and being different, still believe that supply side economics works, still believe that junior high bullying is our best foreign policy strategy, still believe that some humans are “better” than other humans, still believe that oil companies have our best interest at heart, that banks still have our best interest at heart, that the Koch brothers still have our best interest at heart, still believe that walls to separate people work, and/or still believe climate change is a hoax, then I am here to tell you that you are wrong, the facts say otherwise.  Knowledge is not wisdom, opinion is not truth. 

God help us all.

Hoods in the Hood: A Robin Hood Variant

You know the tale.  Good King Richard was off fighting Muslims and his wicked brother, King John, took over in his absence, seeking wealth for himself at the expense of what in feudal times was already a very poor population.  John gathered up the properties of other nobles while they were off on the Crusades, and through his hatchet man, the Sheriff of Nottingham, levied heavy taxes on the poor, hard-working serfs.  Robin of Loxley returns from the Crusades, finds his lands claimed by King John, and gradually puts together a band of others who have lost everything.  They hide in Sherwood Forest and begin to steal from the rich.  What made Robin such a noble and lasting folk-hero is that he gave the wealth he stole to the poor people of Nottingham.  Once Richard returned, King John and the Sherriff were outed and peace returned to Nottingham and the surrounding fiefdoms.

The story could have been very different, however.

If King John were as astute as modern day politicians, he would have assembled criers, or spokespeople, to go from town to town, fiefdom to fiefdom, to convince the commoners that Robin was really a thief with no good merits at all.  John would enlist the help of clergymen like Friar Rush, Bishop Bannon, and Father O’Reilly to provide a steady stream of misinformation about Robin.  Among the claims made by John’s henchmen was that Robin was out to do them in by importing Muslim labor.  Not at all true, but a source of fear and concern to the locals.  They argued that the only way life would improve for the poor was to allow the rich to maintain their wealth so that they could support the poor.  Again untrue, but widely promoted.  And finally, that Robin was only interested in helping those who were not willing to help themselves so any support Robin received meant less support for the hard working poor of Nottingham.  Again not true, but because it connected with the fears of the poor, uneducated serfs, was widely believed.

Sadly, more and more of the poor began to believe these liars and friars.  Anger began to grow against Robin.  His deeds, once seen as heroic, were now viewed as promoting the wrong causes.  Many poor hardworking people came to believe they would be better off supporting King John.  King John’s priests even claimed that Robin was not of noble birth and that he was in fact a Muslim.  Robin clearly had some converted Muslims and Africans among his band and racial tensions were used to undermine Robin’s support.

Eventually, John’s PR efforts paid off.  More poor working serfs supported John than supported Robin.  Anglo Supremacists arose to stop Robin.  Wealthy clergy continued to bash Robin from the pulpit.  Rush, Bannon and O’Reily continued to harp at every public meeting.

New groups formed to stop Robin.  They went into Sherwood to root out Robin’s band.  They were hoods in the Hood.  They attacked Robin on every front and gradually Robin’s ability to steal from the wealthy to support the poor came to an end.  John argued that Robin should go to prison and many of the poor agreed with him.

Finally, Robin was vanquished and John took total control.  The poor who supported John seemed glad.  Until a year or two later they realized that no one was stopping King John from taking all their wealth again and that the richest in the land grew richer while the poor were suffering more and more.  Too late, they gave control of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches to John who simply used all this new power to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. 

Robocare ended and the poor suffered even more.  As Robin was marched off to prison he cried, “Follow the Money!  See who benefits!” and he was not heard from again, defeated by the Hoods of the Hood. 

Fireable Offense?

So Jemele Hill, an ESPN Black female sports anchor, tweeted that Donald Trump is a white supremacist. Then Sarah Huckabee, the White House spokesperson, calls Hill’s behavior a fireable offense.  I find this interesting, amusing and scary on so many levels.

So, are those the rules by which we play?  If you say good things about the President you remain in his good graces.  If you say bad things about the President you should be punished.  That is absolutely absurd and contrary to any sense of the right to have one’s own opinion and share it.  What sort of freedom does that promote?  Trump freedom from verbal attack and ridicule?  Please.  If we followed the same rules for everyone, then Trump should be fired for labels he placed on Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Glenn Beck, Joy Behar, Ruth Ginsburg, and on and on.  (Check out the 365 people, places and things Trump has insulted since becoming President:  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html?mcubz=1.)  The truly ridiculous part of all of this is that Trump’s insults are not backed up by facts.  Hill’s are.  And, Sarah Huckabee should be fired for her comments about Hill.  This kind of circular logic only works in a state where the leader is immune to questioning and second-guessing.  Such a state is not free.  Such a state is not a democracy.  Such a state does not have the Bill of Rights. 

The problem is bigger than that.  We appear as a nation to have devolved to a position that simply states think like me or get out of here.  I find that horrifying.  Why isn’t Colin Kaepernick an NFL quarterback this year?  He thinks differently than the owners.  He protested during the playing of the National Anthem.  Imagine:  A professional football player legally protesting and he becomes a pariah in his profession.  Yes, he upset a lot of people, people who think differently than Kaepernick.  So?  The majority perspective rarely needs to protest, that is why protest is protected in the Constitution.  But because Kaepernick does not think like he is supposed to think he is unhireable, which is tantamount to fireable.

Brooke Baldwin, a CNN commentator, ordered the microphone turned off and ended an interview with a panelist who said he believes in the First Amendment and Boobs.  Brooke was horrified.  How dare he say such a thing on her show and in 2017?  She totally disagrees with his attitude toward women, so she kicks him off the show.  Brooke entirely missed the point.  She violated the First Amendment by removing a person with an alternative view.  Even more interesting to me is when I did a search on Brooke and found an entire series of pictures of her clearly flaunting cleavage.  That’s fine.  But to take offense when a man says “boobs" while displaying your own is pretty hypocritical to me.

Fans at Fenway displayed a banner that read, “Racism is as American as Baseball.”  They were kicked out of the park.  Should people have the right to express what they think?  I think so.

I do not agree with Colin Kaepernick.  I do not agree with the panelist on CNN.  I do not agree with the insults Trump has thrown around at almost everyone.  I do not agree with the fans at Fenway.  I do happen to agree with Jemele Hill.  Does not matter.  Is it safe for me to have an opinion different from the opinion of those I work for or wish to work for?  If it is not safe, then I am not truly free.  Is it as safe for me to stand on a street corner and say I am a Christian as it is to say I am an atheist?  Is it as safe for me to stand on a street corner and say “Impeach Trump” as it is safe for me to say “Support Trump”?  Is it as safe for me to stand on a street corner and say that I think women are inferior to men, should obey men and exist as sex objects for men as it is for me to stand on a street corner and say I believe women are equal to men and in some ways superior? 

In a free society freedom of speech and freedom to protest are hallmarks of freedom. 

I remember a school board member telling me that the superintendent of schools should reflect the community values.  That sounds reasonable, but it isn’t.  Suppose a professional educator is in a community that does not value academics?  Suppose a professional educator is in a community that wants to punish kids for looking different?  Suppose a professional educator is in a community where there is no vision for students after high school?  Suppose a professional educator is in a Republican community that supports charter schools, vouchers, increases accountability, decreased funding, etc.  Should a real professional educator reflect those values or should he or she serve as a catalyst to question those values. 

When “right think” rules the day, liberty and freedom get fired.  I disapprove of what you say, I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.  (Probably Voltaire)

Liberal Assumptions

Just did a piece on the false assumptions that underlie the conservative agenda in the US.  I missed some, I know.  I will miss some in this piece as well.  My effort is to state as clearly as possible the basic tenets of my liberalism.

So, I’m a liberal.  A lot of people are liberal, but we tend to be less vocal than conservatives in church or leaning on the back of a pick-up truck.  It has been my experience that conservatives do not respond well when their thinking or beliefs are challenged.  I live for the day when a conservative turns to me and asks, “So Bob, what do you think?”  So in the event that may happen someday I should be prepared to answer.  This is what I think:

Human beings on planet earth have historically been ruled by tyrants, those tyrants identified by lineage and/or birth, or by force of arms when one army conquered another army.  Tyrants had the habit of acting tyrannical, that is they insisted that everyone should think like them, have the same religious beliefs they have, look like them, act like them, totally support them, and hold the tyrant in some sort of special esteem, sometimes even worship.  Punishment was swift and sometimes fatal.  What is the fun of being a tyrant if you are not the boss and can say “off with their heads” if someone disagrees with you?  By definition, tyrants tend to be the wealthiest people in their fiefdom because they simply take what they want.  Not all tyrants have been evil and many attempted to better the life of their subjects.  But even in such a benevolent tyranny many were at risk if they were not sycophants; brown-nosers or boot lickers.  So for the thousands of years of human history people have lived under the heel of military or birthright tyrants and religiously believed whatever the tyrant believed.  Some tyrants set themselves up as a god, some simply said god was a turtle or a cow.  Whatever, human lives were dictated by the dictator.

Then along comes Rene Descartes, an amazing French philosopher and Mathematician.  In the simplest terms Descartes said human life should be grounded in reason and science. "Cogito ergo sum," I think, therefore I am.  He was a brilliant mathematician, but his lasting impact is that he is the founder of modern day western philosophy.  Influencing Hume, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hobbes and others, he initiated the age of reason.  Tyrants should have trembled everywhere.

Especially when John Locke came along.  Locke was born in 1632, just 5 years before Descartes published his first philosophy.  Locke expanded Descartes thinking to include the notion that human beings are born free and equal, therefore, monarchs and kings have no justification to rule.  Wow.  He argued that individual consent should be the bedrock of all governments.  Read that to say, Democracy. 

I cannot stress enough that Locke’s philosophy promoting reason, science, individual human equality, and consent of the governed as the only legitimate form of government was the most radical, liberal thought of the day.  Nowhere was there such a government.  Everyone was ruled by a tyrant.  The simple thought that humans are equal at birth and that each human should participate in granting consent to the government was way out in left field.  Only the most liberal scholars of the day were willing to take his notions seriously because such notions meant replacing tyrants with individually selected leaders and policies endorsed by the governed. 

Among those who took him most seriously were Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.  These men crafted the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the US Constitution in 1789.  Both documents are firmly grounded in Locke’s philosophy.  Both documents stress the rights of every person, the equality of every person, the requirement that government governs only with the consent of the governed and that democracy was the fundamental form of such a government.  It is hard to describe what a shock it was to the world that a nation would be born following these premises.  It was so left-field that no one suspected it would work, much less last.

All of this is simply to say that the USA began with the notions of equality, the notions of democracy, the notions of seeking the consent of the governed, the notion that neither birth-right nor military force can be the basis of legitimate governments, and guarantees that the government would never infringe on the citizens’ rights to believe what they want to believe, say what they want to say, protest against the government, never be at risk of the government falsely accusing them or falsely imprisoning them, nor could any citizen be forced to testify against himself, and against the government conducting unreasonable searches and seizures of properties.  The colonists had experienced all these things and more under British rule and wanted to ensure that they would be safe in their person and property under a new government.  The very notion that government should be limited is profound.  The notion that individual human rights should be sacrosanct is groundbreaking.  The US of A began as a liberal bastion for the world.

So, what are my liberal assumptions?  First, all people are created equal.  Rich, poor, Anglo, Black, Christian, Muslim, atheist, men, women, homosexuals, transsexuals, etc., etc.  We are all created equal.  None of these identifiable groups holds a birth-right superiority to any other group.  When a liberal hears anyone proposing discrimination against any identifiable group, the liberal is outraged.  That is how it was before 1776; that is not how it is meant to be since then.  Our history is a march toward more and more civil liberties protecting every group from suppression.  At least, that has been our history until very recently.  We regress if we hire or do not hire people based on whether they think, believe or look like me, or of we hire people because they share a similar lineage.  That is old school.  The American school is we hire people based on the quality of their performance.

Secondly, there must be an impenetrable wall between religious beliefs and the government.  Never, ever should the government imply that one belief system is superior or inferior to another.  The inherent right of each human to decide what he or she believes regarding gods, afterlife, holy texts, etc., is purely an individual right and the government must stay out of it altogether.

Thirdly, government officials and governmental policies must be based on reason, rational thinking and our best science.  To base policies on antiquated or self-centered belief systems is not meant to be a part of this democracy.  So, evolution is real, climate change impacted by human behavior is real, a woman’s right to control her reproduction, etc. etc. are all liberal beliefs based on science.  Anyone who would argue that those beliefs should not form the basis of policy are arguing that their own religious beliefs should be held in higher esteem than someone else’s beliefs.  Such an argmument o a liberal is un-American.  Asking for your 10 commandments to be erected in governmental spaces, and asking that governmental employees lead others, much less children, in a prayer that is clearly supportive of one belief over another is a horror.

And finally, that while the government must protect individual liberties it must also protect the safety and well-being of its citizens.  That is a governmental function, not a free market function.  Monitoring and regulating production is the same as maintaining a standing army.  Both are government functions.  Maintaining a free public education is more important than providing entrepreneurs the right to siphon off tax dollars for private sector education as in charter schools and vouchers.  Liberals do not believe that the free market, free enterprise, or whatever, is a good way to promote the equality of all.  In fact, as the gap between the rich and poor in this nation grows and grows it appears it is a terrible solution from a governmental perspective.  Is health care a way the government should protect citizens?  A liberal would say absolutely.  The private sector has made some very rich while so many go without the protection of health care.

Those are for me, at least the big 4 liberal assumptions.  It remains hard for me to understand discrimination, especially government sanctioned discrimination, against any group.  It remains hard for me to see a difference in our military protection, our health care protection and the provision of public education all of which are fundamental foundations of a democracy.  And I am deeply, deeply concerned whenever I hear a follower of one religious belief system advocate that everyone should follow their belief system.  Individual rights are not measured by majority vote, if so, all of us in Texas would have to be Catholic.  In a democracy, the majority may feel empowered to act as tyrants and that is blocked by the Bill of Rights.

I bet there are more liberals out there than you imagine.  At least if you are a conservative you should be able to argue that you are not biased against liberals, and the proof is you know one.

The False Assumptions of Conservatives

It is highly likely that this post is merely a report on my own self-inflicted angst.  After all, I live in Texas, the home of grand illusions, and I actually read Facebook and watch Fox News.  All in all it appears to me that as a nation we have arrived at a position where history and science are ignored and false beliefs form the foundation of our national goals.  I fully recognize the risk in milking the sacred cows and pointing out that the emperor is in fact naked, but there is so much poppycock and balderdash floating around out there that I cannot live with myself if I do not protest.

Many of my friends and acquaintances are conservative.  They vote Republican.  They placed the leadership of Texas and the US in the hands of conservatives and they still lament government action or inaction.  It surely must strike them as at least odd to awaken to a world where conservatives control government and the world grows worse each day.  If not, then they are among those conservatives who would rather not think, would rather not review what we know versus what we believe.  I think the conservative angst exists because conservatives operate on a foundation of false assumptions.  We hear those assumptions from a host of conservative leaders, articulated in ways that imply these are some kind of bedrock truths.  Not so.  So, here I go:

There is an assumption that the United States of America was founded by conservative Christians and based on Christian principles.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Those who left Europe to come here were either fleeing religious persecution or seeking economic opportunities not available in the caste system of Europe.  Nothing scared our founding fathers more than a government attached to a set of religious beliefs.  They railed against it.  They placed that right up front in the Bill of Rights.  Never again should the state persecute citizens based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.  In Europe Anglicans persecuted Catholics and vice versa.  The colonies were populated by French Huguenots, Catholics, Jews, Dutch Calvinists, German Reformed Pietists, Scottish Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, and other denominations all of whom were fearful that the state would declare one of these beliefs as “the” belief.  Add to that widespread belief in astrology, alchemy, and witchcraft and the US was a hodge-podge of pilgrims seeking a safe place to believe what they wanted without state interference, without the state telling them what they should believe.  The very best evidence of this beyond our Constitution is the philosophical statement the Treaty of Tripoli, the earliest statement we have from an act of Congress regarding the relationship of our government to Christianity. This is Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, a Muslim state, in June of 1797, passed unanimously by the US Senate and signed by President John Adams:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Washington, etc., all wrote in clear language that the government should never be based on one religious belief system nor should the government ever act in ways to support one belief system over another.  The assumption that the USA was founded on Christian principles is just flat false.

There are economic assumptions that persist despite the fact they have never, ever worked.  The worst of these assumptions is that if we reduce taxes on the wealthy and on corporations there will be more economic growth.  That has not ever worked.  In fact, every time it has been tried the results have not only been negative they have been nearly disastrous.  Hoover argued that in the 1920’s and we got the Great Depression.  Reagan argued the same thing in the 1980’s and triggered a national debt beyond anything ever seen.  Bush 2 tried that in the first decade of this century and we got the Great Recession of 2008.  Trickle-down economics, supply side economics, whatever moniker is used, does not work.  It does not work for anyone but the wealthy.  Why so many lower and middle income people still believe this is beyond me.  Only those making more than $400,000 per year will benefit from the Republican proposed tax plan.  In simple terms, if one wants the economy to improve and jobs to be created the simple thing to do is to put more money in the hands of more people in the lower areas of our income brackets.  They are the ones who then go to stores, buy homes, etc. and stimulate the economy through increased demand.  The producers will not increase production if no one has money to buy their products.  This assumption is false.

Akin to the supply side nonsense is the government regulation nonsense.  Reagan laughed at the phrase, “I’m from the government and I am here to help.”  That is sarcasm if the government rep is talking to producers.  It is the truth if the government rep is talking to producers on behalf of consumers.  Maximizing income and profit is an incredible motivator and producers will reduce costs if they can to increase revenue.  Safety is expensive.  If you are the only producer working to keep your employees in a safe environment your costs will be higher than every competitor.  If the government requires all producers to practice occupational safety the playing ground is even and workers are safe.  The same is true for securing the safety of our food.  The same is true to protect us from pollution.  The same is true to protect us from harmful ingredients like lead and asbestos.  On and on.  If producers did all that voluntarily there would be no need for regulations.  Producers won’t because it adds to their cost.  Only if they are all required to do it will it happen and be fair.  The same is true of regulations regarding banks, hedge funds, stocks, etc.  If the regulations disappear consumers are put at risk even though those in the financial industry will make more money.  Government regulations are a good thing.  Seat belts, smoke detectors, monitoring pesticides and fertilizers in our rivers, ensuring the safe packaging of our food, etc., etc. are all good things.  To stop any or all of these regulations helps producers make more money and threatens the safety of consumers.  The same false assumption that providing more money to the wealthy and to the producers via taxes proves false for reducing regulations.  Yes, regulations are expensive and a pain to producers.  But reducing birth defects and other societal ills make them worth it.

Wrapped up in all this poppycock is the corollary assumption that the government that governs least, governs best.  Or again from Reagan, “Government does not solve our problems, government is the problem.”  Never has a bigger load of horseshit been dumped on the American public.  So, Harvey hits Texas and Irma hits Florida.  Who do we turn to?  Government.  First responders, FEMA, National Guard, NOAA, Coast Guard are all governmental agencies.  The very conservative governor of Florida was on the television this morning assuring Floridians that the he was from the government and he was there to help.  He talked about all the resources he is bringing to bear, yada, yada, yada.  In times of conflict and times of crisis we always turn to government for help and solutions.  When the economy crashed in 2008 the very first people standing in line at the government trough were the very corporations who contribute to candidates that want to reduce regulations.  They were not shy about accepting government support when they needed it.  They just oppose government support for others when they themselves do not need it.  The more we reduce government regulations, government programs to help the needy, the more hypocritical this assumption becomes when the wealthy need governmental help.  In fact, the only reasons to actually oppose government help is that it costs money, generated by income tax, and these folks are not willing to pay taxes for services they do not need to help people who are in need. 

And finally, for me, the conservative assumption that what I believe to be true is true despite all the evidence to the contrary.  It is anti-intellectual.  It is anti-science.  Such a believe is at best medieval and at worst pre-historic.  I am so sorry, but climate change as a result of human behavior is real.  No matter how much the fossil fuel industry wishes it was not real, it is real.  I am so sorry, but evolution is real.  It is verified over and over and over.  I am so sorry, but the earth is not flat and is 4.5 billion years old, not 6,000 years old.  I would argue that if you believe climate change is a hoax, evolution is not real, the earth is in fact 6,000 years old and Donald Trump cares about anyone other than himself, you should be required to forfeit air conditioning, internal combustion engines, cell phones, computers, microwaves, etc., etc.  To taste some of the fruits of the tree of science and then deny the existence of the inconvenient fruits is so hypocritical lightning should strike.

The evidence for everything I have listed above is public knowledge.  It is available to anyone who seeks to find it.  How the wealthy have talked so many working poor, so many hourly workers, and so many Christians into buying this bilk is beyond me.  I remain astounded.  But I also remain convinced that the conservative philosophy is self-serving for the wealthy and is grounded on false assumptions.  If this is a shock to you, I am sorry.  Get your information from somewhere other than Fox News, the pulpit, Brietbart, Rush Limbaugh and the like.  Those folks all have a self-serving, not a people serving, agenda.  Until we become the liberal nation we were set up to be we will continue to struggle.

Perhaps next I should address the basic assumptions of liberalism.

Don't Hate Trump

This is such an interesting political time I cannot sit idly by and watch it unfold sans comment.  The Trump Corollary is in high gear and the impact of the presence of this man in our White House transcends simple models of conservatism and progressiveness.  He has via his own mouth and tweets diminished his possible positive impact on our country and accelerated the impact of base yearnings from those groups who are organized to hate other groups.  Undoing kindness, tolerance, understanding and unity he has poured gasoline on the fire of prejudice, hatred, intolerance and ignorance.  His staff and his party are abandoning his positions not right and left, just right, (the left never supported him).  Most interesting is his loss of support among CEO’s, the military and congressional Republicans.  There apparently is no group Trump is not capable of alienating, and unless your last name is Pence or Conway there are no individuals immune to his attack, including the mother of a murdered protester.  I know it would be safer to deal with loftier issues like Ann Coulter’s leg room on airline flights, but the effect of Trump is like the reverse of the great asteroid impact of 65 million years ago:  species we thought were long extinct have now re-emerged on the political landscape wreaking havoc in a world not prepared for their carnivorous appetites.

I believe the simple phrase, “Make America Great Again” encapsulates what we are now observing.  That phrase carried much meaning to many people in our country.  People who were discontent with progress and change and fearful of where they might stand when the smoke cleared were emboldened by that phrase.  It simply meant we are not great anymore.  We were, but we are not now.  And it means there was a time in our history when we were great.  The theory is we should return to the values and policies of those times and we will be great again.  Sadly, nowhere in our past were we as great as we were in November 2016.  The phrase has also come to mean that nothing done in the previous 8 years has merit and no one of the party of the previous 8 years has any sense.  There are two things Trump prays for at night, a Kenyan birth certificate and Clinton criminal activity verified in emails.  Neither will ever appear.

When were we great?  It appears we were great during Ozzy and Harriet, My Three Sons, Leave it to Beaver and Father Knows Best.  We were great when Anglos married Anglos, slept in twin beds, every household had a working father and a stay-at-home mom, and kids never went without a good school, good clothes and good meals.  Women knew their place.  Blacks knew their place.  Everything was fine. 

Frustrating to me is that so many things were horrible in those days.  Movies and TV did not depict real Americana.  Prejudice was institutionalized.  Women were kept under the thumb and chained to the kitchen sink.  Women were limited to clerical roles in the work place.  Bright women went to college and became nurses or teachers, service roles, not leadership positions.  Black Lists, casting couches, and separate racial bathrooms and water fountains were the realities of those days.  Children and adults with special needs were kept at home.  Pregnant women who were not married went to stay with a relative until birth.  Pregnant school girls were expelled.  No movie studio would cast a Black as a lead, nor a woman.  It was all about the handsome men and the starlets on their arms.  We were sick as a nation and blind to the notion that the phrase “all men are created equal” meant all men regardless of race and religion and gender identity; and all women. 

I think that is the America Trump wants to return.  He Rumpelstiltskinned the last 5 decades.  He awoke as Archie Bunker.  In reality, he is laughable as are the goons and family members surrounding him.  We can never return to those days and I think he must know it even if he longs for it.  I remember science fiction movies of that era and the scientists were all evil.  It was the regular guy who saved the day.  So Trump does not like science and would rather have people with no knowledge, experience, training or skill run the show.  After all, those are his characteristics.

When I think of human civilization over the past 4,000 years I recognize we have come a long way in the technology department, but not so far in the social department.  Early scientists were persecuted for announcing that the earth was round not flat, that the earth orbited the sun, not vice versa, and that life evolves.  It is only in the past 100 years or so that women have gained the right to vote and own property.  154 years ago slavery was legal in this country.  Around the world we still see women forced to cover their heads and faces and denied education, we see an active human trafficking trade, we see blatant racial discrimination and religious persecution.  We have not come so far that we cannot remember those days.

But here we have come far from the days of persecution to arrive at the days of reason and respect.  We must resist the return to those former days with everything we have.  We must confront the dinosaurs who are now apparently roaming free and let them know that their cause is not just immoral, it is extinct.  There are always those who long for what they perceive to be the good old days, but they do so with simple minds and antique memories.  Everyone who believes our best days were in the past should forfeit their cell phones and computers and Novocain.  Our hope is not in the past.  Our hope is in the future.  Don’t hate Trump.  Resist his rear view mirror vision.  Pity him.  Or better, just laugh at him.  Our future is does not lie in racism, misogyny, and anti-intellectualism.  Our best future lies with pushing the boundaries of science while expanding the civil rights of all human beings.