Oregon’s Tyranny of the Majority

            When Donald Trump got elected I had a lot of friends tell me, “Well, he lost the popular vote, that’s how we should elect our president anyway.” I tried to explain to them, badly as I still had not clearly thought the idea out, about the Tyranny of the Majority. One person I knew laughed at the idea and said “Tyranny of the Majority, isn’t that just democracy?” This made me reflect on that idea as I had no counter to it.

            After thinking about it for a while I came to the conclusion that, yes, pure democracy is the Tyranny of the Majority. This is one of the Tyrannies that the founding fathers sought to prevent when they created the Government of the United States. They were concerned about the Tyranny of an Individual, such as a monarch or dictator, on one end of the spectrum and the Tyranny of the Majority, mob rule on the other end.

            The Tyranny of the Majority is a more difficult concept to grasp than a Tyrant. With a Tyrant you can point to the Tyrant, see them, hear what they have to say and can see the concentration of power. The Tyranny of the Majority spreads the power out to the mob. It places the group above the individual, in a way that if sacrificing the individual will benefit the group it will be done regardless of the individual’s desires. The new rosy term for this idea is called Social Justice.

            In Oregon, the city of Portland (Multnomah County) and Washington County run the state. The bulk of Oregon’s population is in these two counties, so that makes sense. Yet it leaves people in the rest of Oregon’s counties frustrated because they feel they do not have a voice. Not only that, but they also feel that the people in the big cities are basically bossing them around. This is due to the Democrats holding both houses of congress as well as the governorship.

            As someone of the Millennial Generation who grew up in Washington County and went to college in Multnomah County (and who, no thanks to my teachers or classmates, held conservative/libertarian views) Republican was always thrown around as a dirty word. In fact it is used as a pejorative in some groups. I kept my mouth shut in college because, one I was a shy person, and two I found that if you said you voted Republican you got a lot of scorn and bullying. The insulation from different ideas coupled with the demonizing of the word Republican turns people away from even listening or understanding Conservative points of view. Libertarians also get lumped into the not Democrat box and are seen as just as bad if not worse in some cases.

            I know Republicans in Oregon do not expect, nor would they want, the government to fix this problem. Yet I do think they would want to see a Republican candidate running the state, just to get things back on track. My question is, what’s it going to take to make that happen?

Phobia: The Truth Behind the Lefts New Favorite Buzzword

            It is telling that the left quickly paints anyone who disagrees with them as being afflicted with some sort of phobia. Transphobia, Islamophobia, Homophobia, Xenophobia. If you are not a hard line Progressive you have probably been called one of these names before. While these names are being used as a cudgel against political opponents, it is curious that they have attached to the suffix phobia. But why?

            First let’s define Phobia: A Phobia is an extreme or irrational fear or aversion of something. This definition still holds as far as I know, that is unless the Progressives have changed it to mean irrational fear + privilege = phobia. Let’s just assume that isn’t the case and go with the correct definition, which is the one I’ll be using. So why is it that they are describing everyone they do not like as suffering from one phobia or another?

            They are the ones who experience fear and are projecting. With the left praising ideas such as microagressions and safe spaces this one becomes obvious. They are afraid of ideas or that someone is making aggressive moves against them without even knowing they are doing it. They hate the things they are afraid of and probably, rightfully so, believe that fear is a tool used for oppression. Since, from their perspective, they hate things that they fear, it is easy to project that things other people hate (or dislike or disagree with) must stem from fear as well. Since they are not afraid of those things that other people do not like, that fear must be irrational, thus a phobia.

            It furthers the idea that if you do not think like they do, than you are irrational. This can best be observed in comments aimed at The President. Comments like, he is completely irrational, he has a mental disability and is unfit to be President, and he is unstable. Naturally if someone is unstable or irrational you attempt to avoid them. We all have enough of our own problems in life, we don’t need unstable people around making things harder. Also if you believe or agree with, in part or wholly, with someone who is irrational, you must be irrational yourself. To a Progressive, if you do not like something they like, you must either be ignorant or irrational. If you are ignorant you don’t argue with them but if you speak up and disagree, you must be irrational.

            The words allow you to sound smart, without actually being smart, or doing any work to gain knowledge. Phobias, real life phobias, need to be diagnosed by a doctor. So when the left uses the word Phobia, they are appropriating the language used by doctors and psychologists. It is universally accepted that doctors go through a lot of training and schooling, thus they are very educated. Most people will see a doctor as an intelligent person or at the very least an educated person. So if someone sounds like a doctor they must be educated. If it walks like a doctor and talks like a doctor, it must be smart.

            Social stigma attachment. If hear someone say, “This person is afraid of spiders” you kind of feel bad or sympathize with that person. Spiders can be scary, but also it can be hard for the person to function if they have an irrational or extreme fear of spiders, so you end up feeling for them. But if someone says, “This person has arachnophobia” it is immediately associated with the language used by doctors, who you go to when something is wrong with you. Your brain immediately, usually subconsciously, will jump to something is wrong with them and trigger an avoidance response. That does not mean something is wrong with you, instead it is a survival mechanism that has its roots in biology.

            While these things may be interesting or give us a good laugh, it is important to understand. The better we can understand Progressives the easier it will be to point out the flaws in their arguments and understand their reasoning behind them.

Universal Basic Income: Another bad idea or a fair compromise?

 

            The GOP and Libertarian Party often get accused by the Democrats for not caring enough about the poor. The best answer I have seen is that the states should take care of welfare programs or private charities. While I believe those are good answer, the Democrats will never go for those. That is when I ran into the idea of Universal Basic Income.

            Basically a Universal Basic Income guarantees a minimum income for every citizen. There are a number of benefits to having a Universal Basic Income. First, it simplifies the welfare system on all levels. For those receiving benefits, they would get cash to use as they need, granting them the liberty to allocate funds to suit their individual needs. It will allow the government to end the massive bureaucracy in place to distribute benefits, reducing the size of and cost to the government and reducing the challenges for the individual in obtaining the benefits they need. We could end programs like social security, food stamps, low income housing, WIC, and more. It would also eliminate businesses to game the system though lobbying for contracts to build low income housing or to get their food accepted on a food stamp card.

            A few of the drawback would include having the government follow through with eliminating the other welfare programs. It is easy to get the government to spend money, it is very hard to get them to stop.

            If people can meet basic needs they will have no incentive to work. Our current system has this problem too but has government bureaucracy costs on top of it. The Universal Basic Income would have to be set high enough so people can survive, but low enough so they cannot afford things they want, such as an iPhone, a car, or good internet service.

            The level of Universal Basic Income would become a political football. This is a huge problem in our current system too, one party wants less money for entitlements (though they never say which ones and never follow through once they are in office) while another party will want to increase the level of income. The simplicity of the Universal Basic Income will make it easier for the voter to understand how it works and will make it easier to hold our elected representatives accountable.

            The biggest problem most people have is that they do not like to give out cash. They claim that the money will not be spent on taking care of themselves but be used for drugs or gambling or some other frivolous pursuit. That is exactly right, they will, but we still see this problem under our current system. People buy a stake at the store with their food stamps and sell the stake for 50% of what they paid for it to get cash, which they use to buy lotto tickets. The person on food stamps finds a way to get what they want and if they waste tax payer money they don’t care. The only people that are hurt by forcing money to go to specific things are the tax payers. We lose because the recipient finds a way around and we lose because we then have to pay someone to monitor the recipient.

            Universal Basic Income may or may not be the best idea. Instead it is a compromise that will reduce the cost of government, increase the personal liberty of the individual receiving the benefit, while providing help to those who need it. Let me know what you think, are there certain safeguards you would want in place? Is this a terrible idea that will waste time and money? Or is it an idea that will cost money but cost less money than our current system and will be a step in the right direction? Let me know in the comments below.

An Individual’s Declaration Against Progressivism

 

            It is a time of chaos and unrest that we find ourselves. When the truths that we hold to be self-evident are questioned and placed under relentless assault. When we are told people are not created equal, but instead suffer because they were born with a different skin color or gender. When we are told that the rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, come not from the highest power, but instead are granted by the government and can be alienated by that government as they see fit.

            This is the form of government the Progressives seek to impose on the American people. A government that derives its power, not from the consent of the governed but through coercion and force. A government that secures these right, for which the government was instituted to protect, for some and not others. A government that seeks death, subjugation, and the pursuit of misery, and denies the Right of the People to alter or abolish it. This form of government, seeking nothing but destructive ends, will not be built on principles of limited power, but built to impose power under the auspices of securing Safety and Happiness.

            It seems we have forgotten that prudence dictates that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. But when a long train of abuses designed to reduce people under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and provide new guards for their future security.

            It is in this time of chaos where truth must be our guiding principle, for truth spoken to chaos will bring about order. Talk to each other in as clear and honest a manner as possible. Do not be ashamed for speaking truth badly, it is a hard thing to say clearly and an even harder thing to comprehend. Our great Republic is worth saving, Western ideals are worth preserving, do not be afraid to be proud of either.

            Show no fear when baseless insults are hurled in your direction. Instead present an open hand, for which you will receive much suffering. Yet this suffering is a small sacrifice for a better future. One where all men are created equal and possess unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is with these self-evident truths that I let this statement, by an individual, an echo of a declaration long ago be submitted to a candid world.

Communist Creep

Flow Chart for Communistic Thought Process

            Charles Schumer (D-NY) said “Old fashioned capitalism has broken down, Adam Smith has lost his way amid these big corporations.” The thing I hate most about this statement is that it is partially correct. Free market capitalism has lost its way and big corporations have helped it along. I do not blame the corporations though, they are acting just as they should, and trying to make the most profit they can. The problem is that government has put its foot on the scale of the market. The free market solution would be to limit the government and allow competition to thrive and regulate the market place.

            Each new regulation hurts the small businesses and the poor and lower middle class people. The small business cannot afford to keep up with the new regulation and goes out of business or has to lay people off. While the regulation may hurt a large corporation a little at first, most are usually large enough to absorb the cost right now for the increase market share they gain when there smaller competitors go out of business. This decreases the amount of competition in the market so good do not improve as much or reduce in price as much. This means the goods and services the poor and lower middle class want slowly move out of reach. It also means less jobs as more businesses move away or shut down.

            Schumer and House Minority Leader Nacy Pelosi (D-CA) announced their party’s new economic agenda called “A Better Deal” hoping the echo the New Deal under Roosevelt. They hope that this agenda shows that the Democrats are the party “on the side of working people.” And that their main goals are “higher wages, lower costs and the tools for a 21^st century economy.” (C-SPAN). Schumer goes on in an Op-Ed he wrote in the New York Times to call for $15 minimum wage and providing paid family and sick leave.

            The problem is that he does not say who is going to pay for this. Of course he wants the government to pay for it, meaning hard working people like you and me. To people like Schumer the government is the answer to all the problems of society. He wants to set wages and lower costs, and I doubt he wants to use the free market to do so. The Democrats are starting to sound more and more like Socialist/Communists rather than free market personal choice European liberals they claim to be. The government only has one way to lower prices, the use of force. Centralizing prices is a disastrous idea not only for business owners but for consumers as well. It causes shortages and forces businesses to go under because they cannot adjust prices to help meet costs.

            The minimum wage increase is the worst. A $15 minimum wage will only help the large corporations who can absorb the costs and make it up in the increase in the market share when competitors drop out. It also hurts low income people who may not have the time or money to go to college or trade school by denying them the ability to sell their labor at a lower cost. It takes the liberty away from the worker to determine the value of their own labor. It prices the low skilled laborer out of the market by denying them the chance to work for less now and learn a skill that they can use to increase the value of their labor in the future.

            This is thinly vailed Communism. If the government is lowering the prices and setting wages, they pretty much own the means of product at that point. The only hope I can offer is that the internet, the place the younger generation such as myself get their information from, is pretty good a pointing out socialism and how it is a failed system. Will the American people see through this Communist creep or will they be taken in by these utopian delusions?

 

If you enjoyed this please like and share, and comment below and let me know what you think. Also you can subscribe in the upper right and get new posts sent directly to your email. Thanks for reading.

The Important Questions About Oregon New Minimum Wage Law

            For people who do not live in Oregon, on July 1^st, Oregon State passed a law increasing the minimum wage. I personally find it abhorrent that the state of Oregon is telling everyone that they know better when it comes to how to run their business or how much they should be paid for their labor. If I decide that my labor is only worth $5/hour, than why can the state tell me I cannot work for that amount? Personal rant out of the way I had a few questions about the new law.

            First the new law has a higher minimum wage for people in the Portland Metro area as opposed to those in the more rural areas of our state. Basically saying the state believes the labor of those in the metro area is worth more than the labor of those who do not live in Portland. Is this law discrimination based on geography?

            It is well-known that the majority of the state outside of Portland and Eugene vote Republican, so is this an attempt by Democrats who control both Oregon houses and the Governor’s mansion to discriminate or is there a logic behind this variation in wage? The counties that are getting the smaller minimum wage have fewer people in them, so they have less voice when it comes to making laws.

            Was this law put to a vote of the people and if not why not? I searched but could not find where the people had a say in this law other than through elected officials. I did find stories of these elected officials being harassed and threatened by protestors and activists, who they immediate capitulate to. These activists are demanding a $15 minimum wage so they see the new law as not going far enough. It seems to me that these loud minority voices are the only ones the politicians are listening to. It is hard to blame them, when they do not hear from the other voices due to the loud and unrelenting voices of these full time activists.

            These were just a couple questions I had about this new law. The bigger questions of how to wrestle the state away from the oppression of activism and the tyranny of the moral busybody are the undercurrent to these other issues, of which I am still thinking on. If you have any sort of answers or opinions to these questions I am open to suggestions.

How Capitalism is Making Education Free

            Living in a Progressive state one of the big talking points I hear a lot is how people believe education should be free. When I say education, I mean all education, k-12 and higher. These same people say the Government needs to be the one who pays for it. Despite the fact that the government does not have any money, they get all their money from people through taxes, they still do not care. Often the retort will be, I’d be willing to pay a little more so that everyone can have an education, the more educated someone is the more it benefits society. Instead of going down the moral and factual rabbit hole of everything wrong with that statement I have decided to go a different route. Specifically how capitalism is making education extremely cheap if not free.

            According to Collegedata.com “In its most recent survey of college pricing, the College Board reports that a "moderate" college budget for an in-state public college for the 2016–2017 academic year averaged $24,610. A moderate budget at a private college averaged $49,320.” After four years in college at this averaged rate you’d end up paying $98,440. To most of us this is a lot of money to pay back, especially since we did not land that six figure dream job we wanted.

            So how can we get the same education for cheaper? Welcome to the internet. Today most people in the US have internet access, either through our computer, our smart phones or even on our TV. If you have a problem with your car, a quick google search will provide you with several videos on how to do the repair yourself. To start a YouTube channel, posting and viewing videos is completely free. It is free because of ad revenue. Advertisers pay money for views and YouTube provides those views.

            What does that have to do with education? Lately I’ve been watching videos put out by Professor Jordan Peterson. On his channel he provides his college level lectures for anyone to view. Meaning you can get the same information that someone paid hundreds of dollars for, for the price of an internet connection. You can find several videos like his online covering a wide range of topics, from history to literature to science.

            Audible is also a great source for college lectures. At about $15 dollars a month you can download an audio file of the Great Courses series. This series provides lectures from experts and professors on a number of different subjects. You can also find the classics as well as educational books for download at Audible.

            Amazon, as well as other services, provides book downloads that are very cheap. Some older books, whose copyrights have expired are even offered for free download. It is not uncommon to find books in the $10 or under price range. This means you are able to access the knowledge in these books for a fraction of what you’d have to pay at a college book store. PDF versions of some books are also available online. This brings the library to you in a way a brick and mortar library never could.

            All of the information presented in a college course can be found online or even in a library. All it takes is dedication and a desire to want to learn. If you want to be a mechanic or just fix your own car, you can do that. If you want to learn about the Bronze Age Collapse you can find videos on that as well as published creditable sources. If you have a hard time with some subject, I am sure you can find a forum already discussing it. That forum will probably be more active than the ones you’d find at college because the people participating in it want to be there, instead of being forced to be there by class requirement.

            The only major way this free flow of education is lacking is there is no way to provide accreditation to prove you have the necessary education. In essence colleges hold a monopoly on selling accreditation. On selling a piece of paper backed by in institutional authority that says you are smart enough.

            So, are universities going to fall away as more and more people find they can get the same education cheaper online, or do the universities offer something more than education? Let me know in the comments below.

A Regular Guy’s Plan for Healthcare

 

            Obamacare brought the topic of healthcare front and center. Since then we have seen premiums increase, options decrease, and costs flux wildly. Proving once again that government can truly screw up just about anything. To be honest it seemed like government had already messed with the healthcare market with the use of regulations.

            First step would be to scale back the amount of government and regulations on healthcare. By reducing the regulations on the healthcare market you could increase the supply. This increase in supply would create a drop in price once the supply reached or exceeded demand. Medicare and Medicaid and now the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have all increased the demand for healthcare, while regulations like the federal certificate of need that requires the acquisition of a certificate in order to build new medical facilities have restricted supply. This high demand and low supply is why healthcare prices have increased.

            Next would be price transparency. If you know the price of a checkup at doctor A is more than doctor B and they both have the same quality, of course you will go to doctor B. Doctor A will either have to lower the price or increase the value of the service. Price transparency will be a tough thing to nail down given the nature of medical procedures. If the doctor go

es to do a surgery and has to provide another service to save your life than you don’t have time to compare prices. The same can be said in emergency situations. This is where insurance would come into play. Like car insurance, medical insurance should cover these emergency services and help mitigate cost.

            Transparency of prices would mean that you can compare the cost before you get a service. You would do that along with reviewing the reputation and quality of the service the doctor has provided in the past. This would mean the best doctors who offer the lowest price would get the most patients. As a consumer you would get the best service for the lowest price, something government is clearly unable to do.

            The last thing would be to scale back demand for healthcare. It does not matter if you love or hate Medicare and Medicaid the truth is that it artificially increases the demand on the healthcare market. This demand increases the price for everyone, forcing low income people who earn too much to be eligible for Medicaid, off of healthcare, thus forcing them to pay for someone else’s healthcare at the expense of their own.

            These are just my ideas as a layman so if I am wrong feel free to tell me. Also let me know what you think, do we need single payer healthcare or should we get rid of all forms of government healthcare? Is there any role for government to provide healthcare? The comments section is open and all ideas are welcome.

The Dangers of Weaponized Compassion

            When you hear the word compassion you typically think of it as a good thing. It means you empathize with someone typically when they are going through a hardship. Seeing compassion in this way makes it understandably difficult to see it as a dangerous weapon. Yet when you are overly compassionate you can do as much damage as you can lacking compassion.

            The first danger of compassion is toward those you feel compassionate towards. If you are too compassionate than you want to do everything you can to protect and comfort them. This means you shield them from anything that may cause them harm. A real world example of this can be seen on college campuses in areas known as safe spaces. By removing any sort of challenge or difficulty to someone’s life you are depriving them of a chance to grow.

            Sheltering people in this way also prevents people from building the skills they need when they have to function in the real world on their own. An over protective mother might think she is doing what is right by protecting her children from every hardship, but the truth of the matter is she is depriving her children of necessary skills they will need to function as adults. The urge to always protect your children is very strong and it is difficult to see them in pain or struggle, but it is a sacrifice that must be made so that they can grow and become an adult you can be proud of. If that sacrifice is not made that is when you see infantilized adults.

            The next danger of compassion is toward those who you see as a threat to those you feel compassionate about. A mother bear is not going to kill you for getting too close to her cubs because she hates you, instead it is a deep compassion for her cubs that will lead her to attack. It is this basic idea that drives much of the activism we see today. You have people screaming at those they perceive as a threat to the ones they are showing compassion toward. This hyper-compassion should not only be seen as offensive to those labelled as a threat but to those they are claiming to be caring for.

            The person who is seen as a threat should be offended by being slurred as a threat (usually by being called a racist, Nazi, etc.) just for existing. The person being protected should be offended because the hyper-compassionate activist is claiming to do all of this on their behalf. In reality the activist sees the protected group as children who are not capable of protecting themselves and need someone, like them, to stand up against threats for them.

            It is this hyper-compassion that has been weaponized by politicians and activists. In politics it is seen as a way to solidify votes all while attacking the opposition. It turns the opposition into a threat that only the politician can deal with. You can see this in the near daily meltdowns over anything Republicans do or say. Let me know what you think about compassion in the comments below. Can you have too much of a good thing where compassion is concerned or the more compassion everyone has the better?

Oregon SB 719 Extreme Risk Protection or Extremely Risky

            People in favor of this bill will tell you that is will be used to prevent veterans from committing suicide. It will also be a step toward preventing those with mental illness from possessing firearms. While those are possible benefits from this bill they do not tell you the whole story.

 

            This bill will allow a “family or household member” to petition the court to take any weapons you may possess away without your involvement. Meaning if someone asks the court to take your weapons, and they agree, you have to give up your weapons. You have a right to appeal this decision after it has been made and your property has been taken. If this becomes law it essentially says someone can accuse you of being a danger and if the court agrees with the statement, then you are guilty of being a danger to yourself or others. All without your involvement in the matter. You then have to go in front of a judge and prove you are not a danger in order to get this ‘extreme risk protection order’ lifted.

 

            Not only does it make you guilty until you are proven innocent, this law will allow children to petition the court against their parents. A child who is upset at their parents or a child who has been taught all guns are evil can get their parents weapons taken away from them. Of course I can hear the critics now, “that will never happen, you’re over reacting.” I agree that it might not happen right now, but you cannot deny the fact that there are people who would love to use this law to take guns away from people knowing full well they won’t have the time or resources to go to court to get them back. They may not be in the position to exercise this power right now, but what makes you think they will never gain that position?

 

            The good news is on the outside it looks like this bill does not have a legal leg to stand on. If it is signed into law it will be challenged in the courts for casting aside the right of due process and the right to bear arms. Not to mention the tense situations it will create when the first time you’ll hear about this ‘extreme risk protection order’ is when the police show up at your door to serve you and confiscate your weapons. The potential for escalation is enormous and the danger to the police and lawful citizens is clear and present.

 

            On a basic level this bill enshrines the power of the state to take your property on the say-so of someone else without giving you a chance to defend yourself until after your property has been seized.

 

            The 14^th amendment states: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The 2^nd amendment also states: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

            Let me know your opinion on this in the comments below. Does this Bill have any benefit at all or could it be changed to make it beneficial? Or is this bill a thinly veiled attempt to take weapons away from lawful citizens?

The Winco Affair

            Yesterday a video was posted online of two Winco Loss Prevention (LP) employees detaining a young girl. She was kicking and screaming and crying as the two LP officers were trying to get her back into the store. While this was happening a woman was filming while she and a couple other people excoriated the officers. Comments included statements such as, you are going to lose your job, I’m posting this online, the cops are going to come and arrest you, you cannot do this, you are hurting her, you beat the crap out of her. In the video you can see that the girl had a scrapped knee but no other injuries were sustained. Toward the end of the video a police officer arrives and the girl is arrested and charged with robbery in the 2^nd degree.

            The video of the incident went viral. Videos do not go viral without a reason and this video seems to touch on an important debate going on in our society right now. On one side you have people like the person behind the camera saying this is wrong and that Winco has no right to do this. On the other side you have people saying, you should not steal and she got what she deserved. As a point of honesty I lean toward the she got what she deserved side of this. So why did this video in some town in Washington State of a 15 year old girl stealing candy and getting caught capture so much attention?

            The video speaks to a wide range of issues. It is a mini version of what people see going on in larger society. One side sees an excessive use of force by people enforcing the law. They see two adults trying to wrestle a child for simply taking some candy. One of the guys in the video said he would pay for the candy if it would make it all stop. They see the girl as a child who is being victimized by these adults all over candy. They naturally side with the child and see the LP officers as bad guys.

            The other side see that someone broke the law. The girl is 15 years old, she is old enough to know that stealing is wrong and still did it. She got caught stealing and when confronted she refused to give the stolen property back. It does not matter that she just stole candy, theft is a crime and she got what she deserved. The LP officers have every right to take the property of their company back. They see the LP officers in the right and the girl as the bad guy.

            Some people see this as an extension of police brutality. While others see this as an extension of outrage culture and helicopter parenting. The truth is this girl was not badly hurt, she was just upset that she was going to be in a lot of trouble and she knew it. She knew what she did was wrong and she got caught. She suddenly felt the very real consequences of her actions and understood that they are not going away any time soon. The people who sided with her empathized with that and wanted to protect her from it. The people who sided with the LP officers understand that the girl will suffer a little now but be better off in the long run. I’ve told you my take on this, what is yours? Were the LP officers’ actions excessive, or was the girl way out of line and brought this on herself?

Beware Of Politicians Bearing Gifts

            It is not the government’s job to make sure you have a place to live. It is not the government’s job to make sure you have enough to eat. You need to take care of that for yourself. You need to earn it, and the great thing about America is that you can earn it. It is not the government’s job to make sure you have a good paying job, it is your job to earn that. If you want the government to provide housing and food and work then you might as well bring back the plantation.

            To ask the government to provide housing is a terrible idea. First it makes you dependent on the government, meaning if you do not do as they say, they can take that housing away from you. Secondly if they are providing housing, they get to decide the standard of living for that housing. You won’t get a nice house with a yard that you can paint or build on, instead you’ll get a box with a roof, unreliable utilities, and terrible conditions. Why would it be like that you ask, because the politician who gave you the housing ran on helping you out, and if you always need help they can always get elected. If they make you independent or self-sufficient they will lose a platform to run on as well as reliable voters who are dependent on what they are providing.

            If you are not getting enough to eat it is not the job of the government to make sure you do. In the wild every animal works for their food, with the exception of babies. We are not wild animals and are able to help those who cannot get enough food for themselves. This does not mean that the government should be the one to make sure you get food. You should be earning that food yourself. If the government provides the food, then you will only be able to get the amount and type of food that they determine that you need. Do you think a government official, who has never met you and does not know you, will know how much and what kind of food you need better then yourself? Of course not, so why give them the power to decide that. The politician will only want to give you enough food to not starve. That is because if you have enough food, he won’t have a platform to run on and will have nothing to offer you. But if you are lacking he can obtain your vote by offering you just a little more. This more, he’ll remind you, would be greater if the opposition party weren’t standing in his way.

            The minimum wage should not be raised to $15/hour. It is not the government’s job to make sure you have a good paying job. All this will do is make businesses flee, force them out of business, cause them to cut hours, or cause them to lay people off. It will also cause the price of goods and services to go up. It is also morally wrong for the government to force private business owners to pay a private person an amount they determine to be enough. If two consenting adults want to sign a contract and mutually agree to wages for labor then who is the government to decided what they can or cannot do? Instead of being given better wages, you need to earn better wages, provide a value to someone else that they are willing to pay you a lot for. The politician wants to do this because it will create more people who are dependent on her for their livelihood. It will price people out of the job market and they will need assistance from the government something she will be more than happy to offer.

            That is not to say if you are in need that your need is not real. Instead I am saying that you have the ability to fulfill that need you have yourself. It might not happen in a day or a week, but if you keep aiming toward your goal you can make your life better. The moment you expect that from someone else, you are giving away part of your agency in the world. Don’t be afraid to ask for help, instead be afraid of those who want you to continuously ask for help. They probably do not have your best interests in mind.

Hate Crime Prevention or Totalitarian Experimentation?

            Today the Oregonian (a local news organization in the NW United States) published a story with this headline: Portland Offers Grants to Combat City’s Rising Hate Crimes. Of course a million questions come to mind when reading this, first among them, what is a ‘hate crime’? A quick Google search reveals that a hate crime is ‘a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence.’ Yet this is not the only definition you can find, leaving the definition being used by the city of Portland ambiguous at best.

The article goes on to report that:

 

“The grant calls on community groups, collectively eligible for $350,000 in city grants, to act as a point of contact for those who have experienced hate crimes, to train individuals or groups how to resist hate crime, or to gather, analyze and publicize data about such crimes.”

 

The city of Portland wants to give money, taken from tax payers, and give it to community groups so those groups can train individuals or groups to resist hate crime. This brings to mind a billion questions, such as: what kind of training will these groups receive? What does it mean to resist hate crime? What actions will they be able to legally take in order to resist hate crimes? It also says that these community groups will be able to gather, analyze, and publicize data about such crimes. Meaning the city is basically going to be funding people to share private information publicly on individuals these community groups deem guilty of hate crimes.

            In a time when someone is labelled a racist for being Republican or for advocating for enforcement of our immigration policy or a sexist for debunking the wage gap or Islamphobic for speaking out against Islamic Terrorism or called a transphobe for citing biology when it comes to gender, it is very easy to see how this sort of program can be abused very rapidly. It reminds me of programs they had in the Soviet Union to report anti soviet agitation, which was a crime. Just replace anti soviet agitation with hate crime and you’ll have the same thing. In this case city funded groups reporting to the government on the private actions of individuals who say or do something that can be seen as a hate crime.

            The biggest flaw in this plan is that it will most likely backfire and create more division among the people of Portland. It will put the power of dispensing justice into the hands of community groups. This will cause everyone to identify themselves based on race or gender or whatever and join with one of these groups. This basically breaks everyone down into tribes and when you have several tribes in one area you will get conflict. For the sake of the good people in Portland I hope that the city government will abandon this irrational plan and find a better more productive use for that money.

 

A link to the original Oregonian Story:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/07/portland_offers_grants_to_comb.html

When CNN Attacks

CNN Logo
(this blog is not affiliated with CNN in anyway)

From CNN:

“CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.”

            A bit of back story. This quote is part of a larger article where CNN explains that they tracked down a person who posted a GIF on a Reddit form called r/The Donald. The GIF was a clip of Donald Trump on WWE Smackdown tackling and beating up Vince McMann but in place of McMann’s face was the CNN logo. This GIF was retweeted by Donald Trump. Journalists, without an ounce of self-awareness, claimed this tweet was the President advocating violence against journalists. CNN responds by not only running stories about this and playing the victim card, but sent KFile, one of their leading investigative teams to find the person behind the GIF. Through information they found online they were able to track the man’s personal information down and get in contact with him. The next day he issues an apology and backtracks everything. Then CNN writes this article where CNN includes the above quote.

            This behavior is known online as doxing. Doxing is obtaining someone’s personal and private information, such as home address, phone number, place of employment and names of family members, and publishing it publicly. CNN actively ordered people in their employ to find this information, they proudly say so in the article. What purpose would CNN have to obtain this information other than to dox the GIF poster or to threaten him with doxing? The added line “CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change” seems to be a clear and public threat that if HanA**holeSolo steps out of line or retracts his apology then they will release his identity. I am no legal expert but this does seem like a form of intimidation, if not blackmail, on the part of CNN toward a private citizen.

            CNN an international company with profits in the millions brought its force down on one guy who posted a GIF on the internet all because Donald Trump Tweeted out the GIF. If you found the GIF funny or in poor taste should not matter. What does matter is that CNN, a major news network with viewers all over the world, used its size and power to threaten one guy for ‘wrong think’. It is easy to say, well it’s not my problem, but the truth is it is not your problem today. But what about tomorrow? Or a week from now when CNN does not like something that you’ve said or posted online? I’m not going to back down, what about you?

#CNNBlackmail
 

The Manifestation of Cain and Abel

            I am not a religious person, though I do believe the old religious stories do have value to them. I mean if they did not have a value, why would they have been repeated over and over again? They are stories known, more or less, throughout the Western world. What makes them so great is that they play on archetypes. This allows them to be applied almost universally and still make sense, still hold truth. In the story of Cain and Abel, Cain (the older brother) kills Abel. He kills his younger brother because God favors Abel’s sacrifices more. Cain resents his brother for living a better life then he is. This can be seen played out across the Western world in the guise of Social Justice.

            One of the earliest movements of Social Justice was Occupy Wall Street. The protestors do not really want to help the poor, which is not their aim. Instead they aim to hurt the rich, or the 1% as they call them. Yet the protestors fail to recognize two glaring personal contradictions. The first being they are from a well off upper middle class family attending college. They are going to become the 1% they claim to hate. They broadcast this hate using laptops and cell phones produced by the very capitalistic system they are marching against.

The second is that maybe it is a good thing we have people who are able to get things done have a lot of money. Elon Musk is in the 1% and he is a very intelligent person who seeks to eliminate fossil fuel cars. Not by regulating them out of existence but by providing a better cleaner option in the market place. Bill Gates is using his fortune to wipe out disease and parasites such as the Guinea Worm. Perhaps it is a good thing these are the people in the 1%.

            Next is the Social Justices love of Communism. In the Soviet Union as part of their ‘glorious revolution’ they ended up killing all the ‘rich’ farmers. As it would be the ‘rich’ farmers were also the most productive farmers. The people who hated them were glad to be rid of them, but when winter came and there was not enough food people starved to death. So many people that the government had to put up signs staying it was illegal to eat your children. This makes sense in the context of the Cain and Abel story because Communism is predicated on the idea of resentment. The working class should resent the bourgeois because they are doing better than them and the only way they are doing better is because they are stealing from the working class.

            You also here this when Black Lives Matter marches or speaks. They blame their problems on racism, specifically institutional racism. They do not think that maybe something they are doing wrong has anything to do with their situation in life. Instead they blame racism or white people for what has gone wrong in their lives. College professors and politicians are feeding into this resentment victim narrative.

            The common thread between these stories is the resentment of those who are doing better. They do not look at their life and say ‘what can I do to make my life better and thus the lives of those around me.’ Instead they look at other people’s lives and get angry that they are not doing as well. If the story of Cain and Abel is playing out in our society and these groups are at the resentment stage, how much longer until that resentment leads to the tragic end?