So we have the bad, instead of the worse. That is only a bit of a relief. In truth, I really have no idea how Mr. Trump is going to govern. His current overview/summary is at www.greatagain.gov is largely heartening, and it deserves its own post. He may actually deeply love America with an agape love, as he has said many times over the years. But given his failures of Christian charity that the Clinton campaign was so at pains to show us, and his lack of Christian humility, this is not a man who deserves our unqualified support. His actual policies will bear close scrutiny, and I expect a number of them will merit fierce opposition.
While it's possible that his governance will be even worse than what we could have reasonably expected from Mrs. Clinton, I regard that as unlikely, just because her predecessor set the bar so low, and every indication suggests that she would have been Progressively worse.
If there's anything I really hope the Clinton supporters take away from this election, it would be that they notice and remember how wildly the mainstream network news shows and mainstream news networks lied to promote their candidate and demonize her opponent, and how hard the social network sites like Google, Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, and Twitter worked to suppress the voices of Trump supporters and interfere with their ability to collaborate. They are nothing like objective, fair, or balanced. They are in the tank for their side, and they are more than willing to resort to propaganda and lies, because they have no standards.
If there's anything I hope that Republicans take away from this, it is that they have to go a lot further from the Democrat party's platform than they have been of late (for that matter, since I've been old enough to vote). Trump did a LOT better with traditionally Democrat voters like Blacks, Hispanics, and the poor than Mitt Romney did (see this video), and probably better than any of the others he faced in the Republican primaries would have. He didn't win majorities of any of these groups, but well enough that they swung a lot of battlefield states to Republican red instead of Democrat blue. This ability to appeal to groups that are regarded as solidly Democrat is something he shared with Ronald Reagan.
I am not particularly surprised that Mr. Trump went after the Deplorable vote, in addition to the Pro-Life vote. We will see which group(s) he decides to throw under the bus. While we Pro-Lifers are probably on the short list, Trump's sudden abandonment of his "Prosecute Crooked Hillary" rhetoric suggests that the Hillary Derangement Syndrome Voters are already there, and so too, perhaps, the Deplorables.
The very funniest thing I've seen, and it made me laugh out loud, was an item on David Warren's antiblogue: "I will hope he [Trump] is sufficiently Machiavellian to nominate Ted Cruz for the Scalia vacancy on the Supreme Court."
Oh, what a BRILLIANT maneuver that would be! Cruz is an actual constitutional scholar, a man who has a collegial relationship with the rest of the Senate, the man to present the largest number of oral arguments to the SCOTUS, and it takes him out of the running for President in all future elections!!
Saturday, November 12, 2016
Sunday, August 21, 2016
Is the Media Unfair to Mr. Trump?
So I'm watching this speech by Donald Trump. John C. Wright has been going on about how the media is carefully and deliberately trying to hide anything about Trump that might appeal to voters, and only present those things which they will find frightening or repugnant. I figured it behooved me to let the man speak for himself.
He opens with some solid statements that men like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have been making for years, to wit, that crime hurts Black communities most, and that riotous protests especially are hardest on the people who are already hurting most. He points out that the results of Democrat party fiscal and domestic policy has been the opposite of progress. All well and good, but it's been ridiculously difficult to convince the victims that they are in fact in an abusive relationship with the Democrat Party.
He also wants to reverse NAFTA and some other free trade agreements because one result has been that production of easy to manufacture goods (eg, textiles), has gone overseas, and the Americans who used to do those jobs no longer have them.
If you only look at the jobs and production that has gone to foreign countries, it's easy to suppose that free trade is a bad thing. What gets ignored is how free trade helps us be richer by lowering the prices we pay for easy-to-make goods, and makes those desperately poor people who have started making those goods richer, by becoming more productive. The upshot/counter argument is that ending free trade is our way of saying that poor people in Third World nations don't deserve to have an industrial revolution, or wealth.
And then he makes the second half about how the election is his Personal Struggle against corruption, and attacks on his opposition (for results and policy, as well as for their personal characters). Admittedly, our system of campaign and election laws is designed (or, as he says, rigged) to make sure that only the Demicans and Republicrats can win elections.
He calls for an end to the crony capitalism which has made him rich.
Uh huh.
He says he's going to protect every American job. For each job protected, we've found that eight others wither before they can be created. He's going to cut taxes for all workers and small businesses. Good for him. He says he'll make it very expensive for a company to pull up stakes and go elsewhere. Bad populism, there. He plans to reform the regulatory regime to make it more business friendly. I hope so, but good luck with that. He continues to take a hard line on immigration. The idea that we should have immigrants who want to be Americans, who hold American values of justice, hard work, self-reliance, and tolerance dear, appeals to me. The idea that we ought to tighten immigration otherwise doesn't. It is absurdly difficult to become an American citizen. Unless you're already a millionaire, you'd be lucky to make it in even a decade.
He wants educational reform -- school choice, charter schools, merit pay, tenure reform. Jeb Bush did do some of that at one point in FL. Perhaps he can be Mr. Trump's Secretary of Education. He wants more police, more enforcement, and better judges and prosecutors. He's out to take down cartels and gangs like was attempted with the Mafia in a previous generation. But at what price for the innocent? Will he bear in mind Blackstone's Formulation that it is better for many guilty to go free than that one innocent be punished?
In healthcare, he's out to repeal the PPACA, better known as Obamacare. While not every clause of that law is bad, it's not worth it to try to save what was beneficial. He intends to improve consumers' ability to choose the healthcare they want. Well and good.
He says he'll restore honor and reduce corruption. That requires giving more teeth to the federal government's equivalent to internal affairs. Didn't Mr. Obama also promise us the most transparent administration ever? A particular policy, though: no speaking fees paid to spouses of high-powered administration officials and bureaucrats.
He finishes with more populism, promising to fight for average American people. There's a fair bunch of conservative virtue-signaling in his speech. I find myself agreeing more and more that conservatism is just the liberalism of the previous two generations.
So far, I'd say the media probably aren't trying to be fair to him. There are a few more recent speeches posted by the same Youtube account I can watch to see. And I probably ought to revisit Mr. Trump's campaign site to see what his particular policy recommendations are.
He opens with some solid statements that men like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have been making for years, to wit, that crime hurts Black communities most, and that riotous protests especially are hardest on the people who are already hurting most. He points out that the results of Democrat party fiscal and domestic policy has been the opposite of progress. All well and good, but it's been ridiculously difficult to convince the victims that they are in fact in an abusive relationship with the Democrat Party.
He also wants to reverse NAFTA and some other free trade agreements because one result has been that production of easy to manufacture goods (eg, textiles), has gone overseas, and the Americans who used to do those jobs no longer have them.
If you only look at the jobs and production that has gone to foreign countries, it's easy to suppose that free trade is a bad thing. What gets ignored is how free trade helps us be richer by lowering the prices we pay for easy-to-make goods, and makes those desperately poor people who have started making those goods richer, by becoming more productive. The upshot/counter argument is that ending free trade is our way of saying that poor people in Third World nations don't deserve to have an industrial revolution, or wealth.
And then he makes the second half about how the election is his Personal Struggle against corruption, and attacks on his opposition (for results and policy, as well as for their personal characters). Admittedly, our system of campaign and election laws is designed (or, as he says, rigged) to make sure that only the Demicans and Republicrats can win elections.
He calls for an end to the crony capitalism which has made him rich.
Uh huh.
He says he's going to protect every American job. For each job protected, we've found that eight others wither before they can be created. He's going to cut taxes for all workers and small businesses. Good for him. He says he'll make it very expensive for a company to pull up stakes and go elsewhere. Bad populism, there. He plans to reform the regulatory regime to make it more business friendly. I hope so, but good luck with that. He continues to take a hard line on immigration. The idea that we should have immigrants who want to be Americans, who hold American values of justice, hard work, self-reliance, and tolerance dear, appeals to me. The idea that we ought to tighten immigration otherwise doesn't. It is absurdly difficult to become an American citizen. Unless you're already a millionaire, you'd be lucky to make it in even a decade.
He wants educational reform -- school choice, charter schools, merit pay, tenure reform. Jeb Bush did do some of that at one point in FL. Perhaps he can be Mr. Trump's Secretary of Education. He wants more police, more enforcement, and better judges and prosecutors. He's out to take down cartels and gangs like was attempted with the Mafia in a previous generation. But at what price for the innocent? Will he bear in mind Blackstone's Formulation that it is better for many guilty to go free than that one innocent be punished?
In healthcare, he's out to repeal the PPACA, better known as Obamacare. While not every clause of that law is bad, it's not worth it to try to save what was beneficial. He intends to improve consumers' ability to choose the healthcare they want. Well and good.
He says he'll restore honor and reduce corruption. That requires giving more teeth to the federal government's equivalent to internal affairs. Didn't Mr. Obama also promise us the most transparent administration ever? A particular policy, though: no speaking fees paid to spouses of high-powered administration officials and bureaucrats.
He finishes with more populism, promising to fight for average American people. There's a fair bunch of conservative virtue-signaling in his speech. I find myself agreeing more and more that conservatism is just the liberalism of the previous two generations.
So far, I'd say the media probably aren't trying to be fair to him. There are a few more recent speeches posted by the same Youtube account I can watch to see. And I probably ought to revisit Mr. Trump's campaign site to see what his particular policy recommendations are.
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Should the strong kill the weak?
I've discussed this issue before.
The foremost issue in every election is this: should the strong kill the weak?
I say, NO. I say that our government should always prohibit the strong from killing the weak. If the government fails to protect the lives of ANYONE within its jurisdiction, it has failed us all. It has diminished our humanity. If the government draws a line to separate one group, which can be killed legally, from the rest, then be assured that the government can move that line at any time, to include any other group in the list of who can be killed, for any reason or no reason at all.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are brawnier than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are angrier than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have better weapons than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they outnumber their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have more money than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have more votes than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are of the preferred race and their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are given legal privileges that their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are healthy and their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are legally competent and their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are photogenic and their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have no genetic or developmental abnormalities and their victims do, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have been born and their victims have not, the strong should not kill the weak.
Believe it or not, this is NOT a settled question at this time. In the previous century, numerous governments have adopted a variety of positions on the issue.
All governments have prohibited the strong from killing the weak in SOME cases. But that is not the full story.
Some governments have prohibited the strong from killing the weak in all cases.
Some governments have sometimes merely inhibited the strong from killing the weak.
Some governments have sometimes permitted the strong to kill the weak.
Some governments have sometimes aided the strong in killing the weak.
And some governments have actually REQUIRED the strong to kill the weak.
If you think the last ended with the fall of the Third Reich and the liberation of their death and concentration camps, you are in error. Both Stalin and Mao demanded that their political opponents be slain; in Mao's case, by their neighbors when enforcing the One Child Policy.
You can escape that lowest tier here in the US if you're very careful to delve deeply into the coverage provided by your healthcare insurance company, and you have enough money to opt out. Regardless of whether your plan covers abortion, if any of the plans offered by your insurer do, you are contributing to that coverage. And certainly if your state's Medicaid coverage includes abortion, then your state government is helping the strong kill the weak. This is why local elections areas or more important than national elections.
And when you vote, remember that the most important issue is whether your governments will prevent the strong from killing the weak.
The foremost issue in every election is this: should the strong kill the weak?
I say, NO. I say that our government should always prohibit the strong from killing the weak. If the government fails to protect the lives of ANYONE within its jurisdiction, it has failed us all. It has diminished our humanity. If the government draws a line to separate one group, which can be killed legally, from the rest, then be assured that the government can move that line at any time, to include any other group in the list of who can be killed, for any reason or no reason at all.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are brawnier than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are angrier than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have better weapons than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they outnumber their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have more money than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have more votes than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are of the preferred race and their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are given legal privileges that their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are healthy and their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are legally competent and their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are photogenic and their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have no genetic or developmental abnormalities and their victims do, the strong should not kill the weak.
It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have been born and their victims have not, the strong should not kill the weak.
Believe it or not, this is NOT a settled question at this time. In the previous century, numerous governments have adopted a variety of positions on the issue.
All governments have prohibited the strong from killing the weak in SOME cases. But that is not the full story.
Some governments have prohibited the strong from killing the weak in all cases.
Some governments have sometimes merely inhibited the strong from killing the weak.
Some governments have sometimes permitted the strong to kill the weak.
Some governments have sometimes aided the strong in killing the weak.
And some governments have actually REQUIRED the strong to kill the weak.
If you think the last ended with the fall of the Third Reich and the liberation of their death and concentration camps, you are in error. Both Stalin and Mao demanded that their political opponents be slain; in Mao's case, by their neighbors when enforcing the One Child Policy.
You can escape that lowest tier here in the US if you're very careful to delve deeply into the coverage provided by your healthcare insurance company, and you have enough money to opt out. Regardless of whether your plan covers abortion, if any of the plans offered by your insurer do, you are contributing to that coverage. And certainly if your state's Medicaid coverage includes abortion, then your state government is helping the strong kill the weak. This is why local elections areas or more important than national elections.
And when you vote, remember that the most important issue is whether your governments will prevent the strong from killing the weak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
