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?