Everyone Has the Right to Life, Yes?

Me: I think the United States should express more concern and support for the thousands of innocent Palestinian lives lost in Gaza.

Other people: That’s antisemitic.

Me: What? Everyone has a right to life, yes? Isn’t it supporting human rights?

OP: No. You are not allowed to criticize the actions of Israel. That is antisemitism.

Me: Oh? I didn’t know that. So maybe the United States should not acknowledge any major loss of life due to state action to avoid upsetting any other countries. For example, maybe we should stop remembering Pearl Harbor Day on December 7 or the Nanjing Massacre on December 13. It might be seen as anti-Japanese.

OP: No that’s different. You’re allowed to remember Pearl Harbor Day and the Nanjing Massacre.

Me: But won’t the Japanese feel like it is a criticism of the actions of their country?

OP: I don’t know. Maybe. But it doesn’t matter. Any country can be criticized for its human rights record except Israel.

Me: Really? Why?

OP: Because it’s antisemitism.

Me: Who defines what it means to be antisemitic?

OP: Israel.

Me: Huh, very interesting. What if Japan decides that continued remembrances of Pearl Harbor Day or the Nanjing Massacre are anti-Japanese?

OP: They can’t do that.

Me: Why not?

OP: Because over 2,400 people were killed at Pearl Harbor and something like 300,000 in Nanjing. Such atrocities should be remembered.

Me: In that case, over 65,000 Japanese were killed when the US dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Should that be remembered?

OP: Maybe.

Me: And over 40,000 people have been killed in Gaza.

OP: No, that’s different. You are not allowed to talk about that.

Me: Why not?

OP: Because Israel cannot be criticized for its actions. That’s antisemitism.

Me: So you’re saying that the only country in the whole world that can declare itself immune to criticism is Israel?

OP: Yes.

Me: Fascinating.

America Throws Hissy Fit, Elects Class Bully President

In a temper tantrum over things not going their way, America chose an aged convicted criminal and bully as their chief executive.

Citing no valid complaints, Americans overwhelmingly opted for a chronic liar who utterly failed in his previous attempt at running the country, to run it again.

“Waaaaah! Border security! Waaaaah!” said a voter named Adolph, who withheld his last name out of fear that people would learn about his belief that White people are the Master Race.

When asked what policies Donald Trump would be effective at implementing, Adolph said “Waaaaah! No socialism! Waaaaah!”

Voters once again rejected a woman for president, citing sexism and misogyny. And racism. But mostly sexism, and some racism thrown in for good measure. But definitely sexism.

And racism. Yes, that too.

An average voter, who identified himself as Vladimir, said a woman cannot be trusted to run America.

When it was pointed out that women have successfully run Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Finland, Pakistan, India, the Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand, he said “Sure.”

When asked to clarify, Vlad said “America will never have a woman as president as long as a single man remains breathing.” He then commenced to flex his muscles for this reporter.

Polls show that Vlad, Adolph, and other average natural born Americans lean heavily toward a dystopian style of government, where guns are plentiful and civil rights are few.

Also, a majority of legal, registered voters said they are the downtrodden minority fighting against an overwhelming number of illegal noncitizens.

Plans are underway for the most spectacular inauguration of any president ever in the past or the future. Sources close to the planning, who have requested to remain anonymous due to threats from the dangerous radical left, have confirmed that the ceremonies will include detonation of a nuclear device.

We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ King

A few years ago I wrote a post that said, essentially, that in getting himself elected president in 2016, Donald Trump wanted to be the head of state. He wanted all of the adulation and ornamentation that accrues to heads of state, such as monarchs. But he did not want to be bothered with mundane things such as passing laws and governing.

I’m learning that there is a lot of agreement on this point.

Recently, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sent out mailers saying exactly that: No Kings In America. They don’t implicate Trump directly but it’s clear what point they’re trying to make.

I think it is worth noting that our Founding Fathers were very aware and very concerned about this new country devolving into a monarchy. They were breaking from a long tradition of people ruled by hereditary kings and they wanted to guard against the citizens of the United States running for the comfort of the familiar when things got tough.

The Constitution specifies that the chief executive is an elected position and that they are in power for only four years before being subject to reelection by the people. It also says that we have a republican (small R) form of government, i.e. not a monarchy.

More explicitly, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 69 took pains to point out exactly how unlike a king the office of president is intended to be, including the following: “The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for FOUR years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and HEREDITARY prince.”

America does not need a king. We are a republic founded on democratic principles, and we are admired for it.

Now is not the time to abandon the effort. I believe we can make our system of government work without a king. But we have to want to.

Because I Am Involved in Mankind

As I said in a previous post, lies spread because people want to believe them. They need to believe because often it goes to their very identity. Without those lies, they would lose their sense of self.

And people are fed lies for related reasons. Primarily, it is to create an atmosphere of confusion, out of which power brokers, politicians, and cultural elites can solidify and reinforce their power.

I just read an insightful article on this topic, laying out the framework under which lies are used to seize and retain power. Written by Leo E. Strine, Jr., a law professor, and published by Harvard Law School, it says that “The utility of those [false and misleading] issues is to inculcate a sense of identity and fealty in the masses who serve as their power base.” (“Inculcate” means to impress upon the mind through frequent repetition–I had to look it up.)

Think about it: picture for yourself someone–either in person or online–who is vehemently defending the position that all abortions should be illegal everywhere, or that climate change is only accepted by those “indoctrinated” by the “woke”, or that vaccines cause harm and create no health benefits. When you try to present an alternative to their worldview–using facts, logic, or reason–what happens? They get angry, they get upset, they start name-calling, some even begin to issue threats.

Why? Because they are scared. Like a cornered wild animal, they are lashing out.

And why is that? Because your perfectly legitimate views–based on facts, logic, and reason–threaten their very existance.

Because those lies have created for them the equivalent of family, of The Team, of Us (versus Them). It is protection from the terrors of an uncertain future. It is where they feel most safe and secure, even when, paradoxically, they are actually embarking on a path toward their own harm (such as with the refusal to get vaccinated against preventable disease, or the refusal to take rational action to prepare for a changed climate).

What then? We have seen hints of what is coming: fanaticism, tribalism, dissolution, violence.

Would it not be in everyone’s best interest if those stoking the fires with their self-serving lies were to turn down the rhetoric? Show some humility? Show some humanity and acknowledge that all lives are interconnected?

Strine’s advice is this: “When someone denies fact, mainstream institutions should call that out and refuse to legitimize their misinformation tactics.  Lies should be labeled as lies.”

That’s as good a place to start as any.

Tucker Carlson is a Miserable Human Being

It is widely known by now that one of this country’s most awful people, Tucker Carlson, was fired from Fox News.

My first thought was that it should have happened sooner. Why it didn’t says a lot about Fox News and the people who run it.

What I only just learned is that Carlson, born in 1969, is only a few years younger than me. In other words, he is a member of Generation X.

This I find shocking and sad.

Why? Because I generally think that Gen Xers are better than that. I look back on the events that brought me to where I am today and I feel that I was shaped by those events. These are what the Pew Research Center calls “period effects” and they are the social changes, economic circumstances, technological advances, or political movements of a period in time and how people react to them.

My response to those period effects made me turn out to be socially liberal, fiscally conservative, a critical thinker who feels that diversity and inclusion are good things, and that all people deserve to be treated with a certain amount of baseline dignity and respect as a result of our shared humanity.

Carlson ended up completely different. He ended up as an egocentric self-promoter who cares more about money than he does about other people. He apparently thinks that diversity in America is a weakness, not a strength. He is someone who feels no remorse over peddling abject falsehoods, under the disguise of “scholarship” and “journalism,” for his own personal gain.

He somehow missed the lesson on shared humanity and has instead arrived at middle age as miserable human being.

Carlson it appears, is the evil twin of Eric Garcetti. Garcetti may also have an outsized ego, since many politicians do. But he devoted twelve years of his professional life to steering Los Angeles, a large and diverse city–home to more people than the entire state of Wyoming–in a positive direction. One cannot do that by peddling division and discord.

I don’t think we’ve seen the last of Carlson. But wherever he pops up next, I can guarantee it will be bad for America.