Approval Isn’t Always Worth Getting

There was something that I heard this week that I’ve been thinking about, and expanding. I’m going to credit Andrew Klavan with what I heard, because I think it was him, although I couldn’t track it down. I re-listened to Tuesday’s show, and didn’t find it; maybe it was in Wednesday’s.

Anyway, what I think he said was that, only a non-racist culture would care whether you thought they were racist. In other words, the very fact that we find racism to be offensive, and to be called racist is damaging to our reputations, is because—We Are Not Racist.

If it were socially acceptable to be racist, it wouldn’t be possible to shame us for being racists. It has been half a century since Jim Crow laws were outlawed—and they were outlawed because most of the country recognized them as repugnant.

Vivian Malone registers as student
at University of Alabama, 1963
image from Wikipedia

There has been so little actual racism in this country that those who race-bait, who make a living from stirring up race-based hatred, need to redefine racism. And lately it has meant, if you’re born white, then you’re racist in your DNA and should be ashamed and bow down to the black race.

Think about that for a moment. You’re inferior because you’re born with a certain level of melanin in your skin, which you cannot alter. That’s actual racism.

How does that conversation go between a regular white person and a black supremacist?

White person: But, if I’m racist because I’m born that way and I can’t change it, then what do you want me to do about it?

Black supremacist: Bow down to the black person. Stop in the street and lick their boots, and apologize for your racism.

White person: But you just said I had no control over “being” racist, so what actions of mine am I apologizing for?

Black supremacist: Being white. You’re disgusting because you’re white. You’re inferior because you’re white.

White person: OK, I get it now. The color of my skin makes me an inferior, subordinate human being.

Black supremacist: Exactly.

Not that you could actually experience such a calm and reasoned conversation with someone who hates you because of your skin color. But you see the point.

So, if you fall for that accusation, and bow to the accusers in some misguided attempt to demonstrate that you are not racist—to avoid being one of those uppity white people who don’t know their place in the presence of their betters—what you’re doing is encouraging actual racism.

We’ve seen this somewhere in history before.

Racism is not the only area in which this shaming-the-innocent strategy takes place.

It’s a practice of manipulative abusers to make the abused feel like they are guilty—and are therefore required to change to earn the approval of the abuser. But, why does the abused value the approval of the abuser? Good question. Probably takes therapy to resolve.

But in day-to-day life, let’s assume you can see clearly enough not to value the opinion of someone who is attempting to manipulate you. Let’s take a look at some scenarios and imagine how some of the “reasonable” conversations would go, and maybe get some enlightenment from the thought exercise.

 

Economic Equality

image found here

Socialist scold: You have no sense of justice if you think it’s OK for some CEO to make $5 million a year while his line workers are making $40 thousand a year.

Income earner: Really? So, let me get this straight. Those line workers accepted the job for $40 thousand a year, but they were worth much much more? Why did they accept those terms?

Socialist scold: Because they didn’t have a choice?

Income earner: They didn’t? So you’re saying, they got the business degree, and the experience to run a company, and were willing to take on the risk, but they were, at that point, prevented from doing anything but taking a $40 thousand a year line worker job? How could such an injustice happen?

Socialist scold: Well, it wasn’t like that. It was just the systemic unfairness of it all.

Income earner: So a line worker should be paid more than the value he brings in for the company, and the CEO should be paid less than the value he brings in for the company—because that would mean everybody got treated fairly?

Socialist scold: Right.

Income earner: I get it now. Fairness is getting more than you deserve if you’re a person You favor, but fairness is getting less than you deserve if you’re a person You don’t favor.

Socialist scold: Exactly.

 

Climate Change

Greta Thunberg
image credit: Aaron Schwartz, found here

Climate scold: You hate the world and want to kill everybody if you don’t agree with the “climate science consensus” that says we need to totally eliminate fossil fuels. You climate denier! Get with the program and get behind the Green New Deal!

Rational human: So, I’m in denial if I notice that all the things in the Green New Deal will cause worldwide devastation, economic deprivation, starvation, and all? I hate the world if I don’t think all buildings need to be torn down or retrofitted? And all our cars and other transportation should be electric? And I shouldn’t notice that electric cars actually use more energy and create more waste than gasoline-powered cars? Am I on the right track now?

Climate scold: You’re getting there.

Rational human: And I shouldn’t notice that natural gas from fracking is responsible for most of the improvement in air standards over the past decade?

Climate scold: Fracking is evil! Say it after me: Fracking. Is. Evil.

Rational human: OK, then. What about nuclear, because, if you’re looking for a clean and safe energy source…

Climate scold: How dare you! No nuclear! Do you want to kill us all?

Rational human: No, I don’t actually want to kill us all.

Climate scold: Then stop being a science denier, and stop using anything but renewables.

Rational human: Like wind? I shouldn’t notice they cause a tremendous amount of waste and kill birds and don’t produce reliable steady energy?

Climate scold: Stop denying science!

Rational human: Sorry. What was I thinking?

Climate scold: Don’t bother thinking; we’ve done that for you. Just stop being evil and stupid and hating the planet.

Rational human: I think I get what you’re saying now.

 

Same-Sex Marriage

image from here

Woke scold: You’re intolerant if you don’t approve of gay marriage.

Decent person: I’ve been intolerant? In what way?

Woke scold: You have to approve of gay marriage and the gay lifestyle. You have to stop shoving your beliefs down the throat of others with different beliefs.

Decent person: Pardon me? How was I doing that?

Woke scold: By believing in traditional marriage, for one. You want to exclude gays from privileges everyone else has.

Decent person: Really? Were gays prevented from marrying an unmarried person of the opposite sex who was not a close relative—which is what the law has been for heterosexuals?

Woke scold: Don’t be obtuse. You know what I mean. You prevented them from marrying the person of their choice.

Decent person: Well, if you mean I was a not changing the definition of marriage to something that it never was, so that it would include their choice, then I guess that’s accurate. But then, if marriage is just a declaration of current sexual partnership, with no permanence, exclusivity, or procreative possibility—so, something other than marriage—wouldn’t it be better to just come up with some other name for what they want, rather than pretend marriage has suddenly become something different?

Woke scold: You’re just homophobic?

Decent person: I need you to help me understand. What do you mean by that?

Woke scold: You’re against gays. You’re so evil that you’d probably kill them if you thought you could get away with it.

Decent person: I’m sad you think I’m a murderous insane person for believing what people have believed for all the millennia of recorded history. But, what is it, again, I need to do to gain your approval?

Woke scold: Give up your stupid religious beliefs and support everything the LGBTQ+ community wants. And if you don’t, you should not be allowed to work or function in society; you should be cancelled.

Decent person: So, I should stop believing what I believe, and allow the LGBTQ+ agenda to be shoved down my throat, so I don’t get accused of shoving my beliefs down someone else’s throat?

Woke scold: Exactly.

 

Transphobia

The last one touched on the T in LGBTQ+, but let’s take that one separately.

Woke scold: You’re cruel and hurtful if you don’t accept what a trans person says they are.

Rational human: Oh, my! So, help me understand. Even if I’m compassionate toward them, and respectful and courteous, I’m still cruel if I don’t actually believe a person’s biological sex can be changed?

Woke scold: Imagine what they’re going through. All the ways this world rejects them and tries to tell them they’re not who they identify as. And all you need to do is admit that they’re no longer a woman when they have become a man, or no longer a man when they’ve become a woman—oh, and you need to refer to them with the pronouns of their choice, even if it’s a neutral made up pronoun like ze or zer.

Rational human: So, should I be OK with allowing them to go into whatever private space they want, including showing their, um, male genitalia in a locker room with other females whom the former male is still attracted to?

Woke scold: Of course. You shouldn’t even have to ask that.

Rational human: Sorry. I’m still trying to get the hang of waking up to being woke. So, what happens if the trans “woman” gets prostate cancer? Is it illegal to treat for a male problem now that he—er, she—is no longer male?

Woke scold: No, you’d just treat that particular woman who happens to have a prostate.

Rational human: What if a trans “man” still has a uterus and gets pregnant?

Woke scold: Then the world celebrates how great it is that a man with a uterus gives birth. Not that this should be considered a rare thing; some men have uteruses; some women have prostates, etc.

Rational human: Then, is it allowed to notice that a trans “woman” still has a Y chromosome in every cell of their body?

Woke scold: Irrelevant.

Rational human: Oh. So, I should deny biology and just go with whatever the person says on a given day?

Woke scold: Right. And if you don’t, you evil transphobe, you shouldn’t be allowed to make a living, or have any free speech; you should be cancelled.

Rational human: Because I’d be so intolerant?

Woke scold: Exactly.

 

Abortion

Let’s do one more.

ultrasound image, from here

Feminist scold: If you don’t agree with abortion—paid for by taxpayers—up to at least birth, then you hate women, and you’re anti-freedom of choice.

Pro-lifer: I wouldn’t want to be hateful or anti-freedom of choice. But it’s kind of an adjustment to killing babies.

Feminist scold: They’re not babies until they’re outside the womb; up until then they’re just fetuses, which means they’re nothing more than a clump of cells.

Pro-lifer: So they suddenly become a living human being by crossing the birth canal?

Feminist scold: It becomes a baby when and if the woman wants it to be a baby.

Pro-lifer: So, if the woman wants a baby, then it’s a baby in the womb, but if she doesn’t want it, then she can decide it isn’t a baby? At any point during gestation?

Feminist scold: At least that long; we should have a conversation about what to do with one the woman decides she doesn’t want after she sees it. I mean, what if it’s badly deformed, or has a disability, or the wrong color eyes or something?

Pro-lifer: Um. Wrong color eyes?

Feminist scold: We need to stay open-minded; it’s the woman’s decision, not yours.

Pro-lifer: So, just to be clear, it’s not a human life when it’s a human embryo, or when it gets a heartbeat, or when it grows hair and fingernails, or when it can feel pain, or when it is developed enough to be viable outside the womb?

Feminist scold: Only if the woman says so.

Pro-lifer: The father of the baby doesn’t have any input?

Feminist scold: How dare you! Of course not.

Pro-lifer: So, I hate women if I don’t want to pay for a woman to kill her offspring? And I’m anti-choice if I would prefer to protect life once it has begun, or—Baal[i] forbid—consider giving the biological father any say?

Feminist scold: Now you’re getting it. And if you don’t go along entirely, then you should be prevented from making a living, or speaking your hateful, offensive words anywhere; you should be cancelled.

Pro-lifer: Because I’ve been so intolerant?

Feminist scold: Exactly.

 

For the sake of your sanity, ask yourself, do you really care about getting the approval of someone who wants to bully you into shame for believing these things?

·         Character matters much more than skin color, and diversity of thought is more valuable than diversity of skin color. You’re not racist if you believe this.

·         Science isn’t settled unless all the data is in, and policy based on unsettled science is about power and politics. You’re not anti-science, or anti-earth, if you believe this.

·         Marriage, with permanence, exclusivity, and the possibility of offspring being raised by their own mother and father, is an inherent good to society. You’re not unfair, uncaring, or intolerant for believing this.

·         Biological reality is more real than someone’s mental image of themselves. You’re not unfair, uncaring, or intolerant for believing this.

·         A human life within the womb is not the same person as the pregnant woman; her “choice” ended sometime before the beginning of that second human life. You’re not anti-woman or anti-freedom of choice for believing this.

My guess is, if you believe these things, you’re already a better human being than the manipulator trying to shame you for those beliefs.

---

[i] The ancient idolatrous god, required child sacrifice according to Jeremiah 19:3-5.

Pledges and When They're Broken

There were 16 better options as our candidate for president. And there was one option who actually believes in the Constitution—which the president takes an oath to uphold and defend. So it might be relevant if we look at oath upholding.

The original 17 candidates
Image from here

The question of the week is whether Ted Cruz broke an oath to endorse Donald Trump as the nominee.

Let’s go back to when that “oath,” or pledge, was made. It was a question put to the candidates by liberal moderators of a debate. The question was whether or not Donald Trump would at some point up and leave the party he was newly and only tangentially connected to. (Was it a coin toss that made him decide to run as a Republican instead of something else as in previous half-hearted runs?)

In August 2015 Trump said he wouldn’t promise, and then in September he said he would if everyone else did, depending on whether he was “treated fairly” by the party—which he would judge for himself. There was also a signed statement by each of the candidates saying they would remain Republican supporters, and it included the phrase “endorse the nominee” without defining what that meant. Again, the purpose was to prevent Trump from manipulating everyone and then going third party.

And this past spring, when Cruz had momentum and was additionally acquiring delegates at state conventions, Trump declared that this was unfair and all promises were off.

Right now everyone is declaring that endorse means going out and making an explicit statement of endorsement—or pledging a vote and encouraging others to vote with you. But it does not necessarily mean “I will come out and express my endorsement at the convention, so help me God.” It was a promise of fealty to the party, and to not undermine the nominee. This could mean simply not fighting against, not leading his followers to rebel, not spending his money to continue the fight against. And especially it means to continue to support the Republican Party, including other GOP candidates in various other races.

So far, the only one who threw out his pledge was Donald Trump. Along with that he has thrown out the principles of the party and made everything about him. And so far he has done next to nothing to support other Republicans down the ballot. Cruz has been keeping that pledge.

In addition, Trump followed up what was seen as a successful convention—not with revitalized energy to go against the Democrat opponent, but with a vendetta to take out his final two rivals: Ted Cruz and John Kasich—governor of the state where the GOP Convention was safely and successfully held.

Trump intends to put $10-20 million each in Super PACs to defeat Cruz in his 2018 reelection bid for US Senate and John Kasich for his next run as Governor of Ohio. Not because either of them has betrayed the party and its principles, but because Trump is personally offended that they both believed they would make a better president than he would, and refused, after defeat, to bow down to him and tell the American people to vote for him.

This isn’t about broken promises—because Trump is the only one breaking promises here. This is about a vendetta against anyone who refuses to be submissive to him.

People have been accusing Cruz this past week of holding a grudge and breaking promises. So I’d like to go back over the events to see whether that’s true.

Trump spent months calling Ted Cruz “Lyin’ Ted,” saying it so often that his followers took it up as true, when Ted Cruz is one of the most honest people in politics today. Where did it come from?

On February 1^st, in the evening, just before the Iowa caucus began, Chris Moody of CNN tweeted the news that Ben Carson was possibly suspending his campaign; the Carson campaign had actually said the candidate was going home to Florida and then would show up in DC a few days hence for the prayer breakfast It was at a time when the various campaigns were moving to New Hampshire; and to go home at that point appeared to the politically savvy (i.e., anyone outside the Carson campaign) to be a pre-announcement for dropping out. CNN announced the news on TV, including words on the screen, at 6:45 PM. Someone on the Cruz campaign—as well as someone on the Rubio campaign and probably others—passed along the news report to caucus goers—including the CNN screen shot.

CNN, about twenty minutes later, sent out a follow-up saying the report that Carson was dropping out was an error. By then the caucus was underway. Things were loud and chaotic. There wasn’t any verbal awareness of the tweets either way. There is no evidence, based on polling before and after, that the tweets had any effect on the outcome (Carson did better than polling predicted but still came in fourth). Not a single caucus-goer was found who had changed a vote away from Carson based on the mistaken report.

But Cruz was blamed for passing along the erroneous CNN report. He apologized later that no one had followed up with the retraction in the heat of the moment—an apology that I think was beyond reasonable expectation and was never required of anyone else, including CNN.

Carson said he lost the state because of dirty tricks and blamed Cruz (apparently forgetting the drubbing he got from Trump a couple of months earlier, which effected his slide in the polls). Trump seized on Carson’s accusation and started calling Cruz “Lyin’ Ted.” Cruz hadn’t lied. He hadn’t been involved in any falsehood at all. Nor did the CNN error affect the outcome in the state. And Cruz was more gracious than he needed to be.

But Trump continued the “Lyin’ Ted” theme, because he likes nicknames for anyone he dislikes.

In late March, Trump people put out the accusation that Ted Cruz was guilty of multiple marital infidelities—something Trump is known for, and something no one believed about Cruz. It was painful, but it passed, because Cruz has lived his life in such a way that no such accusation could gain traction.

But there’s more Trump-to-Cruz mudslinging.

In 2000, before they were married, and before he thought he might make her first lady, Trump oversaw a photography session of Melania posing nude, which were published in Britain’s GQ Magazine. So when an anti-Trump (not pro-Cruz) Super PAC found and published the photo, Trump claimed that it was a Cruz Super PAC doing Cruz’s bidding (which would be illegal and Trump had to know it hadn’t happened). Trump immediately sent out an unflattering photo of Heidi Cruz, a snapshot caught mid-blink or other expression, side-by-side with a professional glamor shot of Melania, and commented on how much better looking his wife was than Cruz’s. And not content to stop there, he threatened to reveal bombshell accusations about Heidi’s mental health and/or infidelity.

Trump supporters say Cruz started it, and so of course Trump simply responded. But Cruz didn’t start it. Nor did Cruz threaten or sue or otherwise respond with histrionics and cruelty; he showed his righteous anger at the attack on his wife, called Trump a coward, and then went about his campaign with greater resolve.

Then, at a time when Trump knew the internal polling showed him winning in Indiana, which was something of a final stand for Cruz, he gratuitously attacked Ted Cruz’s father, claiming a grainy photo of JFK’s killer with a Hispanic-looking person next to him was Ted Cruz’s father, a story dug up by the National Inquirer (run by a Trump friend, and claimed by Trump to be a reliable news source).

Remember, there was no strategic reason for the hit piece; Trump already knew he was winning. And of course there was no validity. Trump is simply a beast.

Between Cruz’s suspending his campaign and the convention, there continued to be talk from the disheartened about a coup at the convention. But that did not come from Cruz. He was silent on all of that and went back to the Senate—where he has worked on keeping the internet free and fighting various other Obama extralegal power grabs.

Should Cruz have changed his mind about Trump’s unworthiness to be president after all the sleazy attacks? Trump didn’t apologize, didn’t reach out to Cruz, didn’t broaden his attraction to win over Cruz supporters. Trump even went so far as to say he didn’t want anyone in the party who didn’t fully support him.

So then we had the convention. Trump has party officials doing his bidding, and they silence the floor, claiming it’s to keep people from changing the rules to stage a coup (which was not going to happen). He had asked Ted Cruz to speak, knowing there would be no endorsement.  Note that not all the other speakers endorsed. Some just spoke on their topics and went on their way.

Cruz didn’t have to speak at all. Governor Kasich didn’t attend—in his own state. But Cruz took the opportunity to speak on the superiority of conservative Constitutional principles over the failures of the socialist Democrats. Seems like a reasonable, even essential, message for a Republican convention.

But the failure to explicitly endorse in the speech is being used by Trump as a reason for more venom. He orchestrated the boos. He stirred up the controversy—when people who had heard the speech cheered and approved the message. Frank Luntz’s focus group gave it very high ratings.

Trump could have reacted by thanking Cruz for his support—meaning support of the party—and it would have been enough, and maybe won him some Cruz supporters.

Instead he has reiterated the story about Cruz’s father being involved in the JFK assassination—rallying the GOP chair to join in on that bullying. And Trump vows to take out Cruz and Kasich—because they don’t even belong in the party, or in public life.

Who lies? Who holds a grudge? Who fails to keep his word? Trump.

And who bullies others into submission? Trump.

Anyone out there who is claiming Cruz is petty and unforgiving doesn’t know Cruz. And anyone who thinks Trump’s hateful bullying has been justified because of the slights he has suffered needs to realign their entire moral compass, because it’s off kilter.

As of today, Trump is leading in the polls. I’m not writing this to change that. A rat with bubonic plague ought to be leading Hillary Clinton in the polls. She is the worst Democrat party candidate in the history of the United States.

But that does not mean that the worst candidate in the history of the Republican Party would be good for the country. He may win. But it will have to be without Cruz's submission. Or mine.

But that does not mean the worst candidate in the history of the Republican Party would be good for the country. He may win. But it will have to be without Cruz’s submission. Or mine.

Being the Arbiter

ar∙bi∙ter  noun  1. A person selected to judge a dispute; umpire; 2. a person fully authorized or qualified to judge or decide

There are two sides to every disagreement. Not necessarily equivalent sides. Sometimes one side is in the right and the other is in the wrong.

If we are in the position of being the arbiter, we do harm if we dismiss the differences. All of us at some point are the arbiter—the authority needed to make a just ruling among disputing parties. So today’s post is about learning to be a good one.

Example 1: You are the parent of two children who are quarreling—at least at the point you arrive on the scene. Both kids are giving you their side.

found here

Sister: “He took my cookie.”

Brother: “No, I didn’t.”

Sister: “He did. Look. He’s still eating it.”

Brother: “It was my cookie, not hers.”

Sister: “He took his already. I was going to eat it right after I finished my lunch.”

Brother: “It was just sitting there; everyone was done. One cookie left—I took it.”

Sister: “He knew it was mine.”

At some point you get tired of hearing the complaints. You stop listening to the details, and just want it to stop.

Parent: “No more cookies for either of you the rest of the day. You don’t deserve any if you’re going to fight over them.”

Parent sees the argument has been silenced and breathes a sigh of relief. Brother smirks at sister; he’s finishing his second cookie, and she gets none. Sister gets no cookie, because hers was stolen. And she has learned that she cannot trust the arbiter to deal with the injustice to make things right for her.

Example 2: Big guy walks down the school hallway, bumps into little guy, knocks him aside, gives a little extra nudge and causes him to drop his books. This is the third time in a week this exact thing has happened.

Little guy: “Hey! Cut it out, you jerk!

Big guy (stops): “You talking to me.”

Little guy (stands up after picking up mess—says nothing, just glares).

Big guy: “You need help with those things?” (knocks books again, blocks a punch from Little guy, then tries to punch him.)

Fight ensues. Other students surround them in a growing circle. A teacher steps out of a classroom. Tries to step between them to break up the fight.

Teacher: “Hey. Stop! No fighting allowed.”

Big guy: “He started it.”

Little guy: “He started it. He knocked my books to the floor—twice.”

Big guy: “He punched me.”

Little guy: “After he’s been shoving me around.”

Teacher: “I don’t want to hear it. No fighting allowed at school. Both of you—straight to the principal’s office.” (Walks them there.)

The teacher stopped the fight; he’s satisfied. Big guy and Little guy will both get reprimanded equally by the principal, because of the “no fighting” rule. So the Big guy has done additional damage to Little Guy without much effort or risk. The Little guy gets punished because he stood up to a bully after being victimized several times.

What would a just arbiter do in these circumstances?

·         Pay attention.

·         Hear both sides.

·         Weigh the evidence.

·         Make a wise judgment.

·         Base consequences on what actually happened.

That may be more challenging than it looks, since judging whether a person is lying is a somewhat rare skill. But these are kids. You ought to be able to ascertain some truth, if you’re attentive and caring.

Some years ago I read about a family (too long ago for me to know how to cite the story) that held court. If a contention came up during the day, Mom could ask if this was something they wanted to take before the court of Dad. When Dad got home on these days—maybe after dinner—he would hold court around his desk. Each child in turn would present his side, including evidence, and possibly testimony from witnesses. Sometimes the true wrongdoer just gave up. But just about without fail, the Dad court could tell, after hearing both sides and paying attention to the evidence presented, what really happened. And then he could mete out consequences.

He did those five steps. And the result was that whoever was in the wrong (like the cookie stealer) would be held accountable. The one who got her cookie stolen would feel vindicated and supported. Right and wrong are put safely in their places. Both kids are better off for it.

At school it’s a little more challenging—yet another reason to homeschool. Still, a lot depends on what the teacher does, and follow that with what the principal does. If the principal assumes both are equally guilty, because of the no fighting rule, then she has been unfair to the victim of the bully, and she hasn’t done anything to reform the bully.

Wouldn’t it be better if the principal heard both sides—possibly separately—and heard from witnesses when possible? Maybe look at the record (chances are a bully, in a school with a just arbiter, would have a record). Then the bully might even learn what kind of behavior is unacceptable among civilized people—which ought to be an important part of education.

So, what about bigger, grown-up challenges?

Example 3: Israel exists in a country about the size of New Jersey, surrounded by enemies, subject to frequent, continual attacks. The “Palestinians” have been refugees since 1948, when they joined with the enemies of Israel to annihilate Israel—but they lost. They think they should be let back in to the country they tried to do away with. Generations pass with them failing to assimilate anywhere and continuing to blame Israel.

So you have one side that attacks innocent civilians, then sets up circumstances to make it nearly impossible to fight back without harming innocents, by using schools and hospitals and population centers as their military attack points. And the other side is totally defensive, and goes beyond what anyone should expect to avoid harming civilians.

Anyone who says the two sides are equivalent and ought to just learn to get along hasn’t taken the steps to be a just arbiter.

Who is the arbiter? In this case, it is individuals, like us, as well as the nation we belong to. The current leader of our country is not a just arbiter. That does damage to the small country in the Middle East that has heretofore been our ally. Without paying attention, hearing both sides, and weighing the evidence, there’s not much chance of making a wise judgment, let alone leading to a just consequence.

Example 4: A political candidate (Trump) makes personal, untrue attacks on all of his opponents in turn, as each one seems to become a threat. Another candidate (Cruz) consistently stays on the message of issues, comparing plans, persuading based on law and principle. Trump sees the comparison, using his own words along with video of himself saying things, as an attack. And he attacks back—without truth, without shame, without limits (admittedly, so far no murder that we’re aware of).

This past week there was an exchange that included the candidates’ wives. Trump’s current wife worked as a model. Back before they were married she did a nude photo shoot for GQ Magazine—the essential bikini parts are covered, but it’s obvious she’s unclothed, and it’s meant to be provocative. She made a living that way back then. It’s available out there on the internet, but I’m not linking to it. (I heard that the shoot took place on Trump’s jet, with his approval. Don’t know how to verify that.)

If it’s in print, it still exists. That’s what published means. Besides back issues available online, libraries out there keep back issues of practically everything. So it’s not surprising that the photo surfaced. It was used in an anti-Trump ad—a single-frame internet picture with words over it, saying something like, “Is this who you want as First Lady?” If Trump is so proud of his sexual exploits, and his wife’s body, then he should be expected to just say, “Yeah,” and shrug his shoulders. But he didn’t. He used it as a political media opportunity.

He accused Ted Cruz of running the ad. He didn’t—it was an anti-Trump PAC (political action committee). Then Trump said they did it because Cruz told them to. Cruz couldn’t—besides it not being a Cruz committee, law prevents any interaction between a candidate and a PAC.

Before blaming Cruz, Trump immediately retaliated with a threat of bad news he was ready to spill about Heidi Cruz. Shortly after that turned out to be a photo of Heidi, taken mid-sentence and mid-blink, side-by-side with a professional head shot of Melania. Trump not only implied that Heidi was ugly by comparison, he stated it bluntly. 

And then, a day or two later, suddenly there are accusations that Ted Cruz has had, count ‘em, five affairs with women. In my opinion, the accusation is laughably false. No woman will verify. The story comes through the National Enquirer, purveyor of lies for profit, which happens to be owned by a Trump friend.

Cruz's response to the attack; it looked at the time
Trump was involved, which may prove true. But little
has been said by Cruz about it since. Found here.

Trump immediately says it wasn’t him, but that “Lyin’ Ted Cruz” will have to deal with it himself. Stories are starting to build the case against Trump on this, but it may be that someone who supports him or simply hates Cruz put out the accusation without Trump’s direct involvement—in which case Trump would see himself as innocent, even though he insists Cruz was responsible for the actions of an unrelated Super Pac. Hmmm. 

And on radio Monday in Wisconsin,  Trump reiterated his reason for the escalation of personal attacks to include family: “He started it.”

So it has been frustrating to hear multiple media sources, typically supposed conservatives, complain about all the bickering—and that it’s both sides’ fault. They should just get together and get along.

That, to me, sounds like an unjust arbiter. They have not paid attention. They have not noticed the overwhelming evidence that one side is a lying, manipulative narcissist whose campaign is based on, “Vote for me; I’ll make America great again, but don’t ask for details, just believe me that I will do it,” while belittling women, talk show hosts, all of his opponents, and anyone who disagrees with him. And the other is an expert on the issues related to our constitutionally protected freedoms and how returning to the Constitution will bring us a return to the freedom and prosperity we expect in America—a promise given while being scrupulously against personal attacks on his opponents—up until the attack on his wife.

If you’re a Republican voter, you’re an arbiter in this case. You need to pay attention, hear both sides, weigh the evidence, and make a wise judgment. If you do that, you will definitely know better than to send a crude, vulgar, self-obsessed bully to the White House. You might instead consider sending a very smart, very accomplished and principled man there.

If you’re in a position to judge—and you are, in many circumstances in your life—then be a just arbiter.