"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT)
DADT should be the official United States position on military service by any US citizen. The policy should prohibit military personnel from discriminating against or harassing suspected unvaccinated service members or applicants, from military service.
A proposed new policy would prohibit people who refuse to participate in an unproven medical experiment from serving in the armed forces of the United States, based on the idea that their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the cohesion that is the essence of military capability". Recent data indicates that the role of vaccinated/unvaccinated people play in the spread of the COVID19 or other variants is statistically indistinguishable.
Therefore, discriminating against unvaccinated citizens is wrong on two principles:
The United States should pass an act prohibiting service members from disclosing their vaccination status or from speaking about any personal medical decisions made between themselves and their doctors while serving in the United States armed forces. The act should specify that service members who disclose their own personal medical information, or that of other service members, should be discharged.
The "don't ask" part of the DADT policy would specify that superiors must not initiate investigations of a service member's vaccination status without third party evidence of viral infection such as a PCR positive test result. Even then, all inquiries must be made only by qualified military medical personnel and results must be closely held. Unauthorized investigations and harassment of suspected unvaccinated servicemen and women would qualify as a criminal invasion of privacy and lead to an investigation and/or legal proceedings against those involved.
For years I was just the Reagan Conservative in my family and among some of my friends. I had no problem with that tag. I felt mainstream then and I still do. But in recent years, my political characterizations have changed a lot.
During the Clinton Years my profile was marginalized a bit more when I suggested Bubba disrespected the office by having sex in the West Wing with an underage intern, and then lying about it while under oath. Clinton fans said my moral views were Victorian, and that Republicans were hypocritical because they cheated too, despite their religious beliefs.
Fair enough, but I don't.
I had no hatred for Bubba, I just thought he was reckless and too quick to blame everyone else for his shortcomings. The fact that dozens of Clinton's friends, co-workers and potential criminal witnesses committed convoluted suicides bothered me.
When Bush Senior sent troops to protect the sovereignty of Kuwait, I was called an Imperialist because to the Democrats 'Operation Desert Storm' was just another way to annex Arab oil fields to help Big Oil dominate the worldwide energy industry. The Kuwaitis got their freedom and we got cheap gasoline. That's a win-win if you ask me.
Later Bush Junior went into Iraq and "People died because Bush lied" about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. Since I supported that war, I was considered a tool of the Military Industrial Complex, and delusional because no WMDs were ever found. Apparently, using overwhelming force in a Muslim country to liberation it from a psychopathic megalomaniac dictator made Republicans hegemonic bigots.
When the Middle East went off the rails and ISIS appeared to be in control, my support for Neo-Cons wavered. GWB never lived up to his post 911 bravado, and then the 2007 Wall Street Meltdown crashed the economy and he just quietly went off to his Texas ranch to take up oil painting.
I was not surprised to see Obama become President. It felt like a natural stepping stone towards finding resolution to our historically divisive racial dysfunction. He promised to give Black Americans hope, to reach out and bring all Americans together. I didn't like his economic and lead-from-behind foreign policies or his disrespect for American Exceptionalism, but I did like the idea that America was willing to give a black man a chance to repair our increasingly dysfunctional family.
But that never happened.
Instead I suddenly had another title on my resume: Privileged White Supremacist. That one was like a left hook I never saw coming. I don't live a privileged life. I have never been to any foreign country except Mexico. My wife and I have often worked two jobs each just to make ends meet. We both drive 14 year-old cars. If I am exercising supremacy over others, I have definitely wasted my opportunities.
Now I am told that I am a Terrorist too. Presumably because I supported Donald Trump's policies and programs to protect our borders and renegotiate our treaties to better serve American purposes and that obviously makes me a Nationalist Nazi.
Since I resist participating in a radically new medical experiment that admittedly reprograms my God given immune system and for which there are no long term studies to understand exactly what that means, I am now considered a dangerous Anti-Science Terrorist.
The most unbelievable, double talking expert in America, Anthony Fauci, says resisting the Covid Jab means that without the vaccine I am more likely to get a disease that has a 99.7% chance of survival. Therefore, it only makes sense that I should ignore a growing body of evidence that the genetically modifying injection could be more dangerous than the virus itself, because I wouldn't want to be responsible for spreading something to all of the other people who protected themselves by submitting to the experiment.
Got that? Me neither…
Do you know how complicated it is being a Delusional Sexually Repressed Imperialist Islamophobic Nazi Anti-Science Warmonger and Privileged White Supremacist Terrorist? If malicious political terms of derision were worn like military award epaulets, I would be looking like a Highly Decorated 4-Star General.
You Don't Deserve A Dog
During a recent TV political program featuring bickering talking heads, I heard one Progressive activist say to a conservative Trump supporter, "People like you don't deserve a dog!"
That stopped me in my tracks. I think that verbal assault illustrates how depraved and condescending so much of our social dialogue has become. For one person to suggest their political opponent was not qualified to own a pet dog was, in my view, beyond just an insult. It was beyond condescension. It was below the belt! It has no place in any civil discourse.
Why are they dragging man's best friend into the discussion, anyway?
But it was also very revealing! The person saying it was claiming that the conservative has no compassion, no sense of responsibility, and should never be given the opportunity to care for or own a dog. And by implication, that means their judgement on civil matters or to exercise power in any form should be ignored and denied.
These are typically the same know-it-alls that tell us not to refer to our animal friends as "pets" because that is the same thing as slavery. By keeping dogs and providing them protection and food in exchange for affection, pet owners are denying them their liberty.
But aren't these same celebrity hypocrites carrying their comfort dogs in their purses? Wrapping their snakes around their shoulders in the grocery store? The same PETA activists that chastise everyone else while they build elaborate private zoos in their million dollar backyards?
"PETA is committed to a future in which people would not be able to own pets, claiming on their website “The selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering,” Their vision includes a future in which our dogs and cats would be successively neutered into extinction."
On this particular TV show, the panelist called himself a Progressive Democrat, but what he just proposed is very regressive. It harkens back to World War II and the reign of Stalin and Hitler. If you are not all in with us, then you don't deserve to live!. This TV talking head has appointed himself God. He alone knows with moral certainty what qualifies as compassionate animal treatment.
We all know some people mistreat their pets, but that is not what the discussion was about. The issue was public policy and how we should manage our community or national affairs. It was about the political response to the COVID19 pandemic, and one side said the Trump administration was responsible for 400K deaths because President Trump initially suggested the situation would be controlled without massive government intervention. The Progressive Democrat said the Trump defender was a threat and a monster because conservatives in general have no compassion for suffering.
Talk shows are our modern version of the public square where we discuss policy and procedure and exercise our civility. Sometimes the subject matter can be obtuse and vacuous, other times it can have massive implications for civilization. Talk shows are Americanism on display. We invented the TV news talk show format to bring together educated adults, to exchange mature and informed ideas about our communities and how we can improve them. In the traditions of iconic broadcasters like Walter Cronkite, Barbara Walters, and others, Americans have benefitted from the most open, wide ranging and unfiltered political discussions in the history of mankind. This discussion was serious and important and deserved a high level of respectful discussion.
I didn't tune in to watch The Gong Show!
It featured a panel of so-called "experts" in their field of study and political analysis. The attack on the Trump supporter was not meant to be humorous. The program was a production of the news department of a major media cable system. It has major advertisers that spend millions of dollars to put these shows on the air so the viewers will associate their memories of the show with the complimentary images of the sponsors products. This association results in, theoretically, brand awareness and favorability. The talent receives big time financial compensation for their participation.
If I was a sponsor of a show where one of the "expert guests" used abusive insults to discredit the integrity of the opposition, I would fire the producer. You have to ask yourself, how can those people allow the discussion to devolve into such a disgusting personal assault? How can this contempt for propriety benefit the sponsor?
But this has become all too common in modern television news and talk programs.
I think I can offer some insight to why this is happening throughout our culture…Remember when the movie Young Frankenstein came out? The aid to Dr. Fronkinsteen, Eye-Gore, played by Marty Feldman in his most diabolical and hilarious role ever, was assigned to retrieve the brain so the good doctor could place it in the skull of the newly completed monster. Later, when the monster goes mad and wreaks havoc on the village, and suspects he may have used the wrong brain, Dr. Fronkinsteen, played by Gene Wilder, asks Eye Gore, "do you mind telling me which brain I put in?"
Eye-Gore says "Abby Something."
Wilder calmly asks "Abby who?"
"Abby Normal, I think."
I will come back to this analogy later, but I want to set the table first...In the year 2021 we all have cable, broadcast, online streaming and social media platforms from which to choose, for our entertainment and news sources. There are literally thousands of feeds available to us. And this leads to fierce competition for attention, which in kind leads to unbelievable forms of self adulation and promotion. It leads to a Ringling Brothers Circus of perversions to attract audience share.
Talk and news show guests have to justify their existence and their enormous salaries. They have to demonstrate the reason they are privileged to appear on a nationwide broadcast. They have to be the two-headed monster at the three ring circus that draws viewers. They are groomed to be outrageous and controversial. Credibility and accuracy are not as important as shock and flamboyance. Our social intercourse, which mirrors these cultural icons, has devolved into meaningless verbal exercises in political and cultural mental masturbation.
In other words, serious discussions are now just another form of theater.
By saying his opponent is so worthless that he should be denied the company of a dog, the panelist is, by implication, saying his own value system is superior. So what is his value system? Where did he get the idea that his values are superior to conservatives, or anyone else for that matter? Where did he get the authority to be so presumptuous?
He is most likely a graduate of one of our major universities...he is illustrative of why so many people are asking, "How did our society get here?"
When did America descend into such a cesspool of anger and vitriol? When did we abandon any sense of propriety? Half the population HATES the other half. But what is unintentionally ironic, is that that half believes with all their heart that they are the forgiving, the compassionate and the diverse half. They are convinced conservatives want to march them into gulags. They rail against HATE, and conflate any form of criticism with fascism and authoritarianism. They epitomize what they condemn.
They do, however, have an excuse. They were taught in Progressive schools that it is inappropriate to criticize, to challenge or to refute. They never learned how to make polemic arguments, how to make their case, or how to dissemble the arguments of their opponents. Instead, they were taught that their opponents have no value, and therefore don't deserve to be argued with. They were taught that offering a well structured set of reasons their opponent is wrong, they would justify their existence. Therefore, dont. Just dismiss them as ignorant and mean spirited, and move on.
For decades our students have been taught that they are victims, and victims should demonstrate outrage whenever they are challenged. They have been taught that conservatism equates with social injustice and anger and violence are justified to discredit conservatism.
Facebook, Twitter, television, and even entertainment formats like films and music, are filled with anger and vitriol. We ask ourselves what is wrong with these people? Why do they have to bring their anger and profanity to every forum? Why do they have to drag kids and dogs into the fray? Why do they have to interrupt speeches and disrupt public events to bring attention to themselves and their so-called "righteous" causes?
Let me return now to my analogy about Young Frankenstein. When Eye Gore mistakenly handed the maniacal Dr. Fronkinsteen the wrong brain, he didn't have any bad intentions. He was simply doing what Eye Gore always does, he screws up! The character was established early in the story to be somewhat dimwitted. The crazy and self obsessed mad scientist, in a perpetual hurry to become famous, to be the first to reanimate a dead corpse, the first to make a hybrid human monster, was simply too busy and lazy, to take the time to assure the right brain was implanted in his monster's head!
So he delegated the responsibility to someone he employs.
Dr. Fronkensteen was too important to spend his precious time to actually perform the most important function of his scheme! No, he would assign that relatively menial task to the town idiot! Then complain later when his invention, his groundbreaking new species, his earth shattering creation, ran amok!
That makes the Doctor a victim! No responsibility, no accountability! But what matters is he stands to get all the celebrity, all of the attention, no matter how much damage his scientific first causes! Isn't this the same scenario we see over and over with arrogant narcissists who insist they know what's best for society? Aren't these same so-called "visionaries" the same ones who consistently lead our nation into war? Into disastrous financial collapses?
My point is we, by that I mean my generation, have to take responsibility for offloading the task of properly implanting the right brain in our kids. We gave that responsibility away. We let Eye Gore, the schools do the work. They tried. They meant well. They just picked the wrong brain, not because they wanted to create a wicked and dangerous monster. They thought the Progressive Teaching Method they adopted was the best method. It wasn't because they wanted our kids to become dependent, weak and irresponsible victims! No, it was because the Abby Brain seemed attractive and friendly and would fit perfectly with the goals and aspirations of the Good Doctor!
Fast forward a generation or two, and isn't Dr. Anthony Fauci the modern equivalent of Dr. Fronkinsteen? When the Wuhan Virus was recognized as a public nuisance in February 2020, Dr. Fauci proclaimed, "We must follow science!" He demanded that people be willing to accept a temporary suspension of their civil rights, their jobs and businesses, their family relations and social support systems, to fight the spread of the most "dangerous threat to mankind" in recent history.
He was sure he could, if given the right brain, control the monster.
Some consider the sacrifice of individual freedoms a small price to pay to curtail the potential death of millions of people from the COVID19 virus or other mutations that develop from it. And if we were certain that what we are being told was 100% scientifically accurate, that would be one thing.
But is it? Do I equate Dr. Fronkensteen with 'science' in general? No, but there will never be a consensus among scientists because the nature of the discipline is skepticism and exploration. Dr. Fronkensteen simply illustrates the natural conflict society faces when confronted with the unknown. In the film he is amusing. The monster is frightening but science fiction. So we laugh and entertain ourselves with the idea that such a fantasy could ever come true.
But something happened in a laboratory in Wuhan, China. A monster was created! It did break loose and wreak havoc on the village of planet Earth. It was a man made creature that destroyed people and families and buildings and jobs. It has been more destructive than any natural disaster in modern recorded history!
It was Abby Normal!
Bill Gates and other philanthropists suggest their entire lives have been to better the condition of mankind, and for all I know that may well be their intentions. Just as was Dr. Frankenstein's intentions. It is not my role to impugn anyones intentions (I hope you won't mine), but what will be judged by history is the results of the work in the lab and in the halls of Washington DC.
And science has come to the rescue. A newly developed and untried wonder vaccine. Bypassing years of experience in trial and error drug trials, our Fronkinsteen leaders assure us that their new cure will protect us all from the Monster Disease. They tell us not to worry that we are playing with genetic fire, that the risk is worth the return, and what choice do we have but to "follow the science"?
To suggest there is a consensus we should all 'follow' is folly. Historically , society has learned that as time passes the realities of what we know vs what we think we know usually makes us all look naive. The view from the rear view mirror is 20/20. Unless, of course, you listen to self obsessed know-it-alls that will never admit their mistakes.
F'ing Our Republic
Have you ever encountered counterfeit money?
Probably not. It is pretty rare, and most people, should they come into contact with it, just pass it on unnoticed. That is why the Federal Government takes printing counterfeit money so seriously. The penalty for counterfeiting currency is a fine of up to $250K and up to 20 years in prison. For each offense! There are other penalties for counterfeiting documents, trademarked products, stamps, or contracts. It is more likely you have been exposed to fake merchandise like phony Rolex watches or a Michael Kors handbag. We all must be conscious of the possibility of fraud because it is nothing less than robbery. In fact, counterfeiting is a serial crime because it victimizes people over and over again. Each time it goes unnoticed, someone suffers a loss.
And to make things worse, each person that holds or passes counterfeit money, documents or merchandise, is also guilty of a crime!
The act is something that transcends borders, so that is why counterfeiting is considered a Federal Crime. Like cancer, it metastasizes, spreads and destroys credibility and legitimacy as it goes along.
The recent Presidential election was counterfeit. It may have passed as legitimate to some, but anyone with a discerning eye recognized it for what it was, a lousy representation of the genuine article. Unfortunately, it has now been passed around for so long, and so many people have participated in the crime, we all just wish it wasn't so.
In our Constitutional Republic the voting franchise is one of the most important and valuable possessions we have. Millions of American patriots have laid down their lives to give and preserve that precious right for the American people.
Other than volunteers at polling places, who is looking out for voter rights? What is the security device, the authority that serves to stand guard over that precious jewel? Aren't Americans entitled to have their voting franchise protected from fraud? From being hijacked by some unknown force, some anarchist group, or some unseen cyber thief? If we are supposed to be a Constitutional Republic that gives citizens the power to govern themselves, then how do we do that if we can't trust our governmental authorities to protect the integrity of our ballot? By extending the voting process to mail in, to vote by proxy and to count votes using computer devices, aren't we compromising accountability?
The slightest hint of fraud in the election process suggests a cancerous tumor is present and should it be malignant, it would certainly be deadly to our Republic. No system of self government can exist without a secure system of collecting the will of the people. Representative government is a myth if the vehicle of representation is simply a realistic facsimile, an electronic digit or a ballot with no connection to an established identity.
Listening to claims that the election was rigged is like having the flu. For a few days you think you are going to die, but in a week or so you start feeling normal and you quickly forget how sick you were. Before long you simply go back to normal and wait for next time. This has become the standard political reaction to any claim of "stolen" elections. The major parties just look the other way, which implies that they both participate in some form of cheating.
Most people hate the idea that cheating is in any way acceptable. It doesn't matter what party you favor, most Americans understand that there is no such thing as being a "little bit crooked".
The most insidious form of disease is the invisible kind. Same with fraud. Being victimized without knowing you are being victimized, as happens with counterfeit money, makes the victim an unconscious co-conspirator. It is easy to ignore, but the disease is still there.
There is ample evidence to show that the same may be true with voter fraud. If Americans capitulate to systemic voter fraud, if we look the other way, we have participated in the f''ing of our Republic. We will have abandoned the idea of self government, because when one vote is F'd, all votes are less valuable, less legitimate, and less influential. Our Constitutional Republic will be feigned, and the American Dream will be deceased.
Little White Lies
The truth is everybody shades the truth. My mother used to call them "Little White Lies". She said it was a normal thing to shade the truth because it protects people's feelings. When she asked my dad "How do I look?" he always had the same answer no matter what she was wearing.
Shading the truth is one thing, but saying things you know are inaccurate is lying. It is like murder. Murder is when you plan to take another persons life. That is different from killing someone in a hunting accident or punching someone in a fit of rage, and they die. That is not intentional so it is considered manslaughter. It is still a major crime but it is a different crime than lying in wait and purposely murdering someone.
The same is true with fibbing, shading the truth, and outright lying. When you tell someone something that is inaccurate, but you didn't know it was inaccurate at the time you shared the information, that is not lying. That is spreading misinformation. Also a bad thing, but less malevolent than telling someone that you didn't run over their dog when you know you did.
In California, Governor Newsom constantly says the state has a surplus. That we have a Rainy Day Fund because his administration has done such a wonderful job of managing the state's finances. But that is a whopper. The state actually has a massive unfunded debt.
If proper accounting procedures are used, the numbers are terrifying. California collectively owes $500 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. None of which is considered in the budget process. Because new pension liabilities accrue faster than we can pay off the old ones, the state can never collect enough taxes to pay it all back.
California politicians are operating a massive Ponzi Scheme, telling citizens that our finances are in order, failing to mention that future generations are actually going to have to pay for our current excess spending. During any given year, the state floats a bond, or increases fees on some benign service like telephone calls. It is a relatively painless way to confiscate money, and it makes sense in the short term, but it never really retires the debt. It just kicks the can down the road.
To call it Good Government is a lie. It might be good 'public relations', or even good political propaganda, but it is not good government. It is true that our Governor and our State are not alone, that this form of creative bookkeeping is Standard Operating Procedure for most large government operations. It is how the United States Post Office manages to continue operating while losing billions every year. Massive government departmental cash registers never really close the drawer after each spending spree, so the transaction paper trail is inaccurate. They are cooking the books.
No one ever gets held accountable. It is like counterfeit money: Most people pass the "little white lies" along without ever knowing they are participating in a criminal enterprise. After it has circulated for a period of time, and has drawn millions of people into the crime, it becomes normalized. Each new generation of elected officials passes along the illusion of financial stability just like passing around counterfeit bills.
Unfunded liabilities are simply unpaid bills. Unfortunately for younger Californians, the state's Rainy Day Fund is just another little white lie.