It's a Culture Problem

There has been a lot of ugly stuff in the news lately that I haven’t commented on. For lots of reasons: it’s unpleasant to think about; we already knew the problem existed, and the surprising thing is how it is suddenly unacceptable to people who generally think there’s a right to sex under practically any circumstances.

Sunlight is a great disinfectant. So, even though it’s unpleasant, it is likely a good thing that these things are coming to light. There has been something of an avalanche since the Harvey Weinstein news of some weeks ago, with more coming out almost daily about yet another public person.

Some of the discussion is swirling around Roy Moore, who is running for the US Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions, who was tagged for the Attorney General job. These allegations include a range of things—all from some forty years ago—ranging from dating teenagers with their parents’ permission, to kissing and touching through underwear underage girls, to statutory rape of a 14-year-old. 

Judge Roy Moore, candidate for Senate
photo from here

I don’t know how to evaluate the information we know. It all comes from mainstream media, which we know we cannot typically trust. It comes at a time—many decades into the public life of this judge—that is so soon before a scheduled election that, even if he is totally exonerated in a couple of months, the damage is done. 

One of the frustrations of life is not always knowing whether people are telling the truth. If the allegations are false, then the accusers are not victims worthy of our sympathy and our efforts to bring about justice; they are instead the most vile of humans, lying with the purpose of ruining a man’s life. On the other hand, if the most serious charge is true, he certainly shouldn’t be in a powerful position like the US Senate. It looks like this case is either one or the other. I hope we learn what is true very soon.

Senator Al Franken
photo from here

Today another allegation came out—with photo proof—about Senator Al Franken. 

A couple of days ago there were claims of Congressmen sexually harassing female Congresswomen.

Rep. Jackie Spier
photo from here

I’m reminded of a Book of Mormon scripture passage, referring to our day, in 2 Nephi 28:22:

22 And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.

The leader of darkness convinces the self-indulgent human that he deserves special treatment, free of the demands of justice—until that human is trapped in lies. And then the devil abandons him, and, I imagine, sits back laughing while misery rains down.

If this new awareness that these previously hidden behaviors are immoral and unacceptable in civilized society moves people to change, then that is a good thing. I hope that is what we are seeing. Cynicism that this is common and “everybody does it” will not lead toward civilization. But if we can encourage people to stand up and speak the truth, holding the guilty accountable, that will take us in the right direction.

In response to the Congressional accusations, House Speaker Paul Ryan has suggested sexual harassment training.

So, in response to this whole situation, Facebook friend Shawn Rogers offers this:

Sorry, Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell, but this is not a training problem, it's a culture problem. You don't solve problems of harassment through training. It's not a case of awareness or not knowing what actions constitute harassment.

You don't fix a culture of harassment by mandating training. You solve it by applying disciplinary actions to those who commit acts of harassment, and by holding leaders accountable for allowing it to happen on their watch. You create a culture non-retaliation for speaking up. You foster a culture where complaints will be fairly investigated and disciplinary action will be taken when violations have occurred.

He’s right. It’s not a lack of training; it’s a culture that accepts lasciviousness.

In lieu of some classroom training, for government and Hollywood, Rogers also offers this comprehensive training:

Dear Hollywood and Government. Here's your anti-harassment training in under one minute.

Ready? Go!

1. Keep your hands (and any/all other bodily appendages) to yourself. (From here on out to be known as the "Franken Rule." See article and photo…..)

2. Don't ask for sexual favors.

3. Be faithful to your spouse or significant other.

4. You're in a position of power. Don't abuse it by pressuring subordinates to satisfy your lust. It's against policy, it's unethical, and might be illegal.

5. Keep your pants on. Don't show somebody something they didn't ask or want to see (in person or electronically).

6. Make hiring and promotion decisions based on skills and qualifications, not on what the person will do for you (or to you, or with you) personally.

7. Practice your religion and share your religion on your own time, not on work time. (Oh, and political or social causes as well.)

8. Don't hang stuff up in your office that you wouldn't want your mother to see.

9. Control your temper.

10. Be nice.

There, you've been trained on how not to harass someone, sexually or otherwise.

I'll send you my bill.

That’s it. That’s all that’s needed. Stop being deplorable human beings and start being civilized.

Longshots and Likely Outcomes

The date that has been looming on our calendars for so very long is upon us. And then life changes. And we don’t know what our country will look like the day after.

Found on Facebook,
credited to TheFreeThoughtProject.com 

I don’t know what is going to happen. But I thought it wouldn’t hurt to look at some of the least likely outcomes, and then look at what we can probably expect.

No One Gets 270 Electoral Votes

The 270 number is half of the country’s electoral votes. If the two major candidates are close, and a third candidate gets some electoral votes (wins in at least one state). Then no one automatically gets declared the winner. If this happens, then a weird rule takes over: the US Congress chooses the president.

This isn’t an impossibility. For the first time in half a century, a third candidate might possibly win a state’s electors. The most likely is independent candidate Evan McMullin, who has a chance of winning Utah, where he’s within the margin of error in the latest polls. (He was up by several points in some polls the week the audio came out of Trump from ten years ago claiming he’d sexually assaulted women with impunity.)

A less likely possibility would be Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson winning New Mexico, where he served as governor.

If it came to this standoff, so Congress has the historic opportunity to decide the presidency, what would they do? I think the assumption has to be that they would favor the candidate of their party, which is Republican.

Evan McMullin worked as a policy advisor to Congress. He is known there, particularly by Republicans. McMullin has been a conservative Republican all along, and is only running as an independent for the election—in contrast to Donald Trump, who is running as a Republican only for the election and has never been a conservative. Since the two main candidates are both strongly disliked by a majority of the country, it’s not inconceivable that there would be a sense of relief that we could choose someone else. So it’s not out of the question that Congress could elect McMullin. 

But it’s still unlikely. Pressure from the electorate would sound deafening. Many would fear to do anything except vote for their party’s nominee--unless something even more horrible comes out about Trump, like a sudden sexual assault arrest or some other provable accusation leading to prison.

The Electoral College Rebels

Contrary to popular belief, we don’t directly elect the president. We elect representatives of our state’s votes. This design was to protect the votes of all, rather than to allow large urban centers or particular regions from having all the say. Check out the Prager U video, if you need to review (here and here).

One of the less likely purposes for the electoral college is to address the scenario that the popularly elected president turns out to be unacceptable (new information comes out of criminal activity or moral turpitude). The electors wouldn’t be forced to vote for such a dirtbag; they could change their vote.

During the past week, this started to look like a possible outcome if Hillary got indicted between election day and the electoral college vote on December 19. Over the weekend FBI Director Comey came out again to say he didn’t recommend prosecuting Hillary Clinton for her multiple breaches of national security. In the meantime, a Democrat elector from Washington State has promised not to vote for her, regardless of the popular vote outcome.

Since her known crimes so far have failed to bring even an indictment, despite all the aides pleading the 5^th (i.e., admitting wrongdoing), and because the corruption in the entire Department of Justice is led by the current administration, who is ideologically aligned with her, we can’t expect truth and accuracy. The likelihood of more electors stepping up and refusing to vote for this criminal is low, alas.

One of the Main Candidates Becomes President

This is indeed the likely outcome. I’m not sitting on the edge of my seat, anxious to know which of them that will be. My guess is that it will be Hillary Clinton—the most corrupt, most socialist, most unsuitable candidate ever to step into the Oval Office.

Found on Facebook,
credited to Being Libertarian

Here’s one more longshot: those rumors about her ill health turn out to be true, and she becomes incapable of carrying out her duties as president. That would leave us with a vice-president stepping up. Tim Kaine is probably not better in policy, but it would be hard to be as corrupt as she is, so that would be considered a slight improvement. Also, because he would be unelected, Congress might be willing to stand up to him, we could hope.

There is a pair of Daily News Editorials—one laying out the case against Trump, followed by one laying out the case against Hillary. 

There’s enough accuracy in both that it brings to mind the battle of wits scene from The Princess Bride. Vizzini lists the reasons “I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you,” and then lists the reasons “I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.” Clearly either choice was deadly, as Vizzini shortly learned the hard way.

But, since one of the two choices will be foisted on us, what happens from Wednesday on?

Four years ago, the morning after a disappointing election, which made me feel that America was lost, this scripture came to mind:

Philippians 4:8

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

I’ve been trying to do that since. 

There are—and will be—things that are just wrong, that seem intolerable, things which should not be tolerated. But we cannot live our lives in outrage. We need to live. We can live as best we can, as most of humankind has had to do, without the blessing of the freedom, prosperity, and civilization we know we are missing. Whatever our circumstances, we can still live good lives.

Rising Sun Chair, Independence Hall

My Facebook friend Shawn Rogers wrote this prediction this morning:

My final election prediction: This election will end. The sun will come up on Wednesday, and again on Thursday. The consequences won't be as horrible as the losing side thinks they will be. And the results won't be as fantastic as the winning side thinks they will be. We'll have new political battles to fight. But life will go on. Families will go on. Faith will go on. Joy, hope, and happiness will still be within reach.

I think that we need a hopeful approach, for ourselves, our families, and our communities, even when w have less hope for our country as a whole. We need to live in gratitude, so that we can be guided to do what is best to do with our lives.

A couple of weeks I read an outsider’s perspective I thought was helpful. This is from Dan Hannan, a British conservative MEP:

Each presidential campaign thrives on fear of the other. Trump’s supporters tell us that Clinton’s judicial nominations will fundamentally transform America, tilting the balance toward authoritarianism. Clinton’s supporters retort that Trump is a quasi-fascist.

Both sides misunderstand, or affect to misunderstand, the Constitution. The United States was designed precisely to contain the ambitions of its rulers. Jefferson and Hamilton had seen arbitrary rule first-hand, and were determined to ensure that even the most Caligulan leader could not create an autocracy. We might almost say that they had Trump, or someone very like Trump, in mind when they drew up the rules.

Despite what Pelosi says, it is the Republican nominee who, in the unlikely event of his election, would be likely to face impeachment. There would be scant sympathy for President Trump in either House, and he seems to have as little concern for constitutional propriety as he has for telling the truth. Indeed, the only truly persuasive argument for electing him is the “Vote Trump, Get Pence” line.

What, though, of Clinton? … Is there not a danger that, by unbalancing the Supreme Court, she would transform the United States into an altogether more nannying and dirigiste nation?

Again, the Founders had her number. Barring some truly extraordinary electoral bouleversement, [Hillary] will not have a free hand in her first two years; nor, given the usual pattern of mid-term elections, is that likely to change in the second two years.

American liberty is too deeply rooted to be wrecked by a couple of judges. Take the most commonly voiced concern among conservatives. Suppose that a Clinton-made Supreme Court overturned the Heller verdict—that is, the ruling that interprets the Second Amendment as meaning that an individual can own and carry weapons.

The day after such a reversal would look just like the day before it. No state constitution would be amended. No legislation would be mandated at either federal or state level.

That’s what checks and balances mean: No president, no Supreme Court, has absolute power. The system, you might say, works….

I've never known Americans to be as gloomy about politics as now. And, looking at the two main candidates, I sympathize. But I can't bring myself to share in their pessimism. The United States has lasted for as long as it has, through foreign wars and civil strife, because the Constitution is bigger than any politician….

America [is] the wealthiest and the freest, because its system of government elevates the individual over the collective.

No single president, however demented, can undo the work of two-and-a-half centuries. That’s the true meaning of American exceptionalism.

It may be that he is right. It may be that, even with the most dire predictions, our lives will still go on, for the most part as before, albeit with more weight upon our shoulders as we go about the work of living.

But we can go on living. We’re still in a land of great freedom and prosperity, compared to most of world history. And we must enjoy whatever good we have, so that we know not to let that good be taken.

After the Can Kicking

I didn’t really plan on a third day related to the government shutdown. This one, however, is just commentary on the situation, rather than specifically related to contract keeping. So, while this isn’t exactly part III, you might want to first read Contract Keeping Part I and PartII.

One of my favorite responses to the WWII Memorial closure
photo from here

I don’t yet fully comprehend all the details of the bill that ended the shutdown. In short, it looks to me like, in the game of chicken, the GOP veered to the side—just as everyone expected. It was on day 16 of the shutdown. Seventeen years ago, the dreaded shutdown went to day 21, when the GOP caved (a day before President Clinton had planned to end things).

The continuing resolution issue comes up again mid-January. A week into February the debt ceiling issue resurfaces. At both of those moments, the government could shut down again, if there’s no agreement. In other words, the can has been kicked down the road.

But if anyone thinks the Republicans are going to grow a new spine in a quarter year, they’re likely to be disappointed. Our hope may have to be that we elect a few more Ted Cruzes and Mike Lees in every coming election. Meanwhile, it is hoped by the weaker-spined legislators that Obamacare might implode on its own, based on early signs of incompetence. Personally, I don’t trust dumb luck—even when that much “dumb” is involved. I want to see active efforts to remove the albatross from the neck of the free people.

A few people made good observations follow the end of this episode, that I’d like to share, concerning the propagandizing of the shutdown, and some of the things we’ve learned.

My friend Kim quoted something on Facebook, with a few details I hadn’t known (again, this is quoted, so I’m uncertain of origin):

Something I hadn’t thought about. How truckloads of those shutdown signs instantly materialized and were posted.

One of the pre-printed signs
photo from here

How did +21,000 signs (large, detailed, specific) just magically appear overnight at some 620 locations?

I have worked in the government on and off for 42 years. During that time I became completely familiar with requisitions, bidding, awarding contracts etc. It is a time-consuming process dealing with bean-counters and pencil-necked bureaucrats every step of the way. The simplest request takes months.

In less than 8 hours (probably within six hours) of the shutdown announcement professionally printed and painted 3X4 foot signs miraculously and simultaneously appeared all over the country, coast to coast and border to border, in the tens of thousands saying—"This (park, facility, etc. [with the appropriate custom logos for each of the hundreds of parks and monuments]) is closed due to the government shutdown.”

There has not been a government shutdown in 17 years, and it was for a matter of hours and no parks or monuments were closed. [Well, 3 weeks, and some park areas were closed; remember the guy with the sleigh ride concession in Yellowstone Park that was waylaid? But mostly accurate.]

Fact that can not be disputed: These signs were carefully designed, detailed specifications were determined, signs were then requisitioned, bids were posted and vetted, and government contracts were awarded. The materials were then ordered, and the signs were manufactured, then distributed nationwide from their manufacturing point by the U.S. Mail or freight companies.

This shutdown was orchestrated and planned well in advance, at least 6-8 month ago. Millions of tax dollars were appropriated and spent in this process. As usual there is a filthy paper trail a mile long leading directly to the Oval Office.

Americans do not realize just what cesspool-level of pathological lying, Chicago gutter trash, we are dealing with! What juvenile, 100% inept, phony, petty crooks and street hustlers are now running our nation! 

Another Facebook friend, Shawn Rogers, who frequently offers great political commentary, had this to say:

So, boys and girls, what did we learn?

·         We learned that during a "government shutdown" 83% of the government does not shut down.

·         We learned that during the "shutdown" most people are unaware that anything is shut down.

·         We learned that the Obama regime will punish the American people when he is displeased with them.

·         We learned that Obama had to spend money to shut down things which normally aren't shut down during a "shutdown" in order to make sure people are aware of a "shutdown." [I love this one.]

·         We learned that eventually the current Republican establishment will always cave. Well, some of us learned that. Many of us have known that for a long, long, sad time.

·         We learned that the Republican establishment would rather turn on its own than fight the liberal democrat agenda.

·         We learned that John McCain is a liberal sympathizer. We learned that Peter King is a vindictive, petty, and spiteful man. We learned that both of these men are beneath contempt because they put political party power ahead of the Constitution.

·         We learned that people like John Cornyn and Orrin Hatch think the citizenry is stupid and incapable of understanding the machinations and manipulations of the legislative process. [Cornyn did vote right in the end, and the airwaves are full of ads reminding us Texans of what he claims has been his fight against Obamacare; he is doing major damage control after his failure on the cloture vote.]

·         I learned that my ardent support for Senator Ted Cruz was the best political activity I've ever engaged in. I learned that Senator Lee is not one whit behind him in his defense of the Constitution.  [I strongly concur.]

·         We DIDN'T learn that Barack Obama is a tyrannical, spiteful, and evil leader of the country. We've known that for over five years.

That was the same evening the agreement was reached. Shawn had more the next morning: “That awkward (and pathetic) moment when 17% of the government starts back up and nobody notices a bit of difference.”

And he posted a link you might enjoy: “16 Things We Learned from the Government Shutdown.”

Thursday evening he added some hopeful words about Obamacare and the political future:

Prediction: Within 3 months the Regime will delay or otherwise stall the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, partially due to the horrifically incompetent roll-out, but also to the absolutely abysmal numbers of individuals signing up. You heard it here first.

Second Prediction: You will soon start to hear of democrats in the House and those up for re-election in the Senate pushing for some kind of delay or reduction in penalties under the ACA. They have to be getting extremely nervous right now.

Third Prediction: The 2014 mid-terms will be a repeat of 2010. It will be awful for the Democrats due to the failure of their policies.

Keep hope alive, people. We aren't always going to be in this adverse political climate. 

Thank you, Shawn. I appreciate encouragement to keep hope alive.

Gun Non-Violence

As one who loves our Constitution, I have strong feelings in favor of the 2^nd Amendment. I don’t write about that issue very often, because there are many others who are more clearly laying out the issue than I can. But the onslaught since last month, along with the president’s unprecedented 23 executive order yesterday, merit some comment.

Here are the two main points:

·       The main purpose of the 2^nd Amendment is to guarantee the God-given right for individuals to protect themselves against attack—from any (Spherical Model) southern hemisphere attacker, either from the chaos side, as criminals are, or from the state tyranny side, either foreign or domestic.

·       The only purpose of an executive order is to direct federal employees in the manner in which they will enforce duly legislated laws; the executive branch does not have power to make laws for individual or all Americans.

One of the best things I’ve read in the past month is a 13-part essay by my Facebook friend Shawn Rogers. He does have a blog, with a small part there: www.sbrogerstx.blogspot.com. But to get the full essay, you’ll need to “friend” him and start reading in the last half of December 2012. One article he recommends a piece by Larry Correia, from December 20, 2012, called “An Opinion on Gun Control.” It’s a very long but worthwhile piece (18 pages, about 10,000 words). This part comes after you’ve scrolled down a ways (links are from original):

It doesn’t really make sense to ban guns, because in reality what that means is that you are actually banning effective self-defense. Despite the constant hammering by a news media with an agenda, guns are used in America far more to stop crime than to cause crime.

I’ve seen several different sets of numbers about how many times guns are used in self-defense every year. The problem with keeping track of this stat is that the vast majority of the time when a gun is produced in a legal self-defense situation no shots are fired. The mere presence of the gun is enough to cause the criminal to stop….

So how often are guns actually used in self-defense in America? http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

On the high side the estimate runs around 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year, which dwarfs our approximately 16,000 homicides in any recent year, only 10k of which are with guns. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm Of those with guns, only a couple hundred are with rifles. So basically, the guns that the anti-gunners are the most spun up about only account for a tiny fraction of all our murders.

But let’s not go with the high estimate. Let’s go with some smaller ones instead. Let’s use the far more conservative 800,000 number which is arrived at in multiple studies. That still dwarfs the number of illegal shootings. Heck, let’s even run with the number once put out by the people who want to ban guns, the Brady Center, which was still around 108,000, which still is an awesome ratio of good vs. bad.

So even if you use the worst number provided by people who are just as biased as me but in the opposite direction, gun use is a huge net positive. Or to put it another way, the Brady Center hates guns so much that they are totally cool with the population of a decent sized city getting raped and murdered every year as collateral damage in order to get what they want.

Unlike the DOJ (I’m referring to the Fast and Furious debacle), I am in favor of keeping guns—of any kind that will shoot even a single bullet—out of the hands of violent criminals. That is already the law. So it’s puzzling why it would take four full years before this president finally mentions to his employees that they should enforce that law.

I am also in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of the criminally insane, even if they haven’t yet committed a violent crime. But doctors are not employees or agents of the federal government, and any directive to them is an overreach. And, as with all power overreaching, the unintended consequences bring about almost exactly the opposite of the stated intended result. If people thank that simply going for treatment for a mental illness, either for themselves or for a family member, could result in forfeiting their 2^nd Amendment rights, that discourages people from seeking treatment, resulting in more untreated mentally ill.

While I appreciate having a criminal data base, so that background checks can be quick and thorough, I am against any federal database identifying law-abiding citizens who own guns. There is no Constitutional reason for such a database, but it does hold the potential of laying the groundwork for the federal government to move ahead with an incremental encroachment on our civil liberties.

I appreciate the Texas response to the president’s overreach, pointing out the hypocrisy. I also appreciated the Wyoming response, to arrest any federal agent who attempts to enforce federal gun laws in that state. A growing number of states have responded that they will nullify any attempt by the federal government to infringe on the 2^nd Amendment rights of citizens within their states. In addition, various US Congressmen, such as Rand Paul, are putting forth legislation to nullify those 23 executive orders, defund them, and press the Senate to file a court challenge to them.

Standing up against tyranny is exactly what the 2^nd Amendment is about, so that’s what I like to see.

That being said, one of the interesting things I came across this week was Glenn Beck’s suggestion on Monday that there is a better way of standing up against tyranny than shooting any federal agent that shows up to take your guns. Resist, but don’t attack. (The full video clip is below.) I’m reminded that Ghandi spent a number of years in prison, when the government was in the wrong to put him there. It may be that, before Americans have a moral right to violently respond, a number must first be willing to say no, stand firm, and suffer even wrongful incarceration, to prove the wrongfulness of the tyranny—which is something best thought of in the calmness of theory before any of us must face it in reality.