Politics

Trump: Business, Not Bombs

Standard

Trump has been full of surprises in the first few weeks of his delayed second term, but this latest proposal was the least expected and one even the professional fault-finders won’t be able to oppose.  He has just made a proposal that could change the world for a generation to come: A trilateral agreement between Russia, China and the US to reduce military spending by 50% and decrease our nuclear stockpiles.

But this isn’t out of character for Trump.  He got started then before he officially entered the office.  According to the Israelis, Trump, who told Netanyahu that the war must end, deserves full credit for the Gaza ceasefire deal.  And this is just a pattern.  Trump has no interest in wars.  He is about business, not bombs, and it goes all the way back to his youth when he, rather the be beholden to phony patriotism, stayed out of Vietnam.

Avoiding War By Any Means

Back in 2016, when Trump was running for President against Hillary Clinton, there was a hearsay report that the MAGA candidate had avoided military service in Vietnam by using a diagnosis of a foot injury.  There is yet to be documentation to prove this.  But it has led to some ridiculing him as “Captain Bone Spurs” and alleging his cowardice.  

To me, knowing what I do about Vietnam, I can’t see how avoiding that meat grinder is a reflection of poor character.  

No, the war was an absolutely horrendous waste of life and resources, a quagmire, in defense of a dying colonial order.  What the US government did to that country and it’s people is beyond the pale.  

Over one million people died, bombed with napalm in their villages—scores of young American boys killed in the process—and nothing was gained besides an ecological disaster.  Our veterans were left scarred and many of them (like the father of a friend of mine) suffering from debilitating illness—which is likely due to the widespread use of chemical defoliant agents.  

It is easy to see the vanity now.  In the end Vietnam did become a Communist nation.  And yet this did not lead those dominoes falling across Southeast Asia, as ‘experts’ predicted (like they do now claiming Putin has ambition to take all of Europe) and we should be celebrating that anyone avoided this pointless conflict.

Trump may have avoided the Vietnam War for selfish reasons, nevertheless the moral reasoning was correct: Why kill thousands of Asians, at risk of your own life, when you can just do business instead and everyone wins?

Trump Angers Neo-cons

In his first term Trump did something even Obama didn’t do and despite being given a Nobel Peace Prize.  Both Obama and Trump would continue the war in Afghanistan, but it was Obama who bombed Libya in pursuit of “regime change” and turned that country into the hellhole it is today.  Trump, on the other hand, avoided war and even started negotiations for peace with a country we’ve been at odds with since 1953.

I recall being told by a die-hard Democrat friend that Trump, the terrible loose cannon and narcissist he was, would start WW3.  It is quite interesting, to see how that this dire prediction compares to actual reality where the last administration had pushed us to the brink of a nuclear Armageddon.  But in four years of Trump’s presidency, despite all the insane fear-mongering rhetoric from his opponents—nothing close to this happened.  

Instead, what happened under Trump, but not Biden, was a slight thaw of relationship with North Korea.  Yes, Trump engaged in a little rocket size comparison, but eventually would walk across the DMZ to shake hands and get some pictures with Kim Jong Un his counterpart.  That is unprecedented.  And is a legitimate reason to award a peace prize, but nobody recognized that moment and it has faded as Biden returned us to a status quo of use of threats and the proliferation of arms deals, rather than diplomacy, in an attempt to dictate terms.

No, Trump is not a peacenik or even a nice guy (depending on who you ask), but he did avoid a dangerous escalation with Iran over a down surveillance drone.  With neo-cons salivating and only ten minutes from strikes, Trump—learning that 150 Iranians may die—called it off.  This is likely why John Bolton turned on him.  The warmongers wanted a violent confrontation, dead bodies, whereas Trump valued human life.

And maybe it was all just a cynical ploy and part of deal making strategy?

Nevertheless, those Iranian men got to go home to their families rather than die so a President could look like a tough guy.  And, when all lives matter peace is possible.  A President that is even doing a little bit of lip-service in concern for enemies will be even less likely to put US service members into harms way.  Yes, he would retaliate against Qassem Soleimani, the Iranian General who was responsible for the deaths of American people, which shows Trump prefers to hold decision-makers accountable rather than subordinates.

Business, Not Bombs

What makes Trump unique, as a President, is his willingness to entertain different ideas in the open.  Our tireless defenders of the status quo claim it is unpresidential, that he suggests alternatives, but this is how a true innovator works.  Why not float a thought or start a conversation?

A prime example is his proposal for Gaza.  I mean, certainly, the Palestinians have truly got the short end of the stick.  They, being Semitic people themselves, get labeled as being anti-Semites, for fighting for their own deeded land, by the most powerful lobby in the world.  Theirs is a legitimate grievance, if there is any, they were chased off of their land by a campaign of violence and terror—are now portrayed as the villains.

So when Trump proposed they walk away it seemed grotesque. Israel is the one country in the world that didn’t see their foreign aid disrupted by Trump’s America-first doctrine and clearly Netanyahu is in agreement with the plan or they would not be doing a joint press conference.  Palestinians had nobody to represent them in this.  How do you make a deal with only one party present?

However, upon some further thought, this could be the best deal Palestinian people can ever can expect to get.  What really is the alternative?

They are in a war they can’t win.  October 7th caught the IDF off guard and yet it was never a serious threat to the Isreali state nor a reason for the Israeli government to come to the negotiating table.  Hamas may have hoped for a hostage exchange in order to get their own captives back.  But hardliners, like Netanyahu, saw it as an opportunity and used it.  Sure, many in the world do protest indiscriminate bombing that kills far more non-combatants and children than it does members of Hamas, but holding a sign or occupying buildings won’t stop this ethnic cleansing campaign.  

Enter, “Riviera of the Middle East”

Trump reframed the conversation from one of fighting for soil, that has led to decades of suffering and death, to what is truly best for me and my children.  Sure, Hamas may disagree, but many Palestinians will likely take a buy-out deal.  Why stay in Gaza if you have a choice to relocate?  There is no new real estate, the Saudis have a lot of money to invest, so why not redevelop Gaza into a modern vibrant city, like Dubai?

The reality is Palestinians aren’t only being kept walled in by the Israelis.  They are truly caught between the two stubborn sides of a regional conflict, like Ukraine, and they (with their children) are paying the full price.  The nations of this region have not forget about colonialism and obviously consider a nation of expansion-minded European settlers to be a thorn in their side.  Add to this that the official policy of Israel is to destabilize their neighbors and you have a breeding ground of resentment.  Palestinians are their way to return the favor—used as a tool to provoke and prove the evil of the Jewish state.

So, for my liberal friends, is this land really so important that we should, for perpetuity, continue to sacrifice more children.  Or do we find a new and creative way to break the deadlock?  And, for my conservative friends, is it better that we send Israel bombs, at the expense of taxpayers, when we could help to broker some kind of buy-out instead?  It is time for a business deal, to give those in Gaza—who just want to live normal lives—a chance.  

So, Trump, I realize this is at your “ridiculous first offer” stage, but I’m listening.  

Tell me more.

The Status Quo Alternative 

The political establishment has only known old divisions and escalation.  It is one big area of bipartisan agreement.  Republicans and Democrats in Congress may disagree on details, but nearly all support an endless war with Russia and China, through proxies or even direct threats.  The goal is always to box their rivals in militarily or back then into a corner economically—as if this is the only way forward.  

Diplomacy took a back seat.  Instead of the slightest acknowledgement of Russian and Chinese security concerns, our government has made regime change the goal with even near-peers with a nuclear deterrence.  And it is this attitude that led to the bloody conflict in Ukraine that has cost countless lives and billions upon billions of US taxpayer money, all after the US had orchestrated a coup on Russia’s doorstep, leading to a civil war in that country and—after eight years of Kiev’s regime lobbing shells at civilians—a direct intervention by Russia.

The problem is a combination of Cold War ideology and institutions.  Endless war is where the big money is.  Many, in the West, profit off conflict and chaos.  That and they are old.  They’ve become functionally fixed, see only one solution (to further humiliate or defeat those who stand in their way) and lack imagination or even the will to come up with win-win resolutions.

Truly, the only way to win any war is not to fight it.  Wars cost both sides.

Trump, for better or worse, is disruptive of the status quo.

As for his proposal, I would consider 50% to be the “ridiculous first offer” stage of negotiations and do not expect China or Russia will go along with it.  For them that would leave the US on top of the balance of power—given our tremendous head start in comparison—and this maintaining our advantage over them leaves their interests vulnerable.  They will probably come back with an alternative proposal and the horse-trading will begin.

Nevertheless, it sure beats a strategy of endless escalation—that eventually ends in a nuclear war or our bankruptcy.  Even a 10% reduction in defense spending would go a long way to slowing down inflation and give hardworking Americans more bang for their buck.  Our sons not dying in Europe or in the East China Sea the biggest benefit of avoiding confrontation.

Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way

Like him, love him, or loath him, Trump is the President of the United States and has resolve to make his second term historic in ways nobody imagined.

Even if we disagree on some policies or we have a different understanding of his drive for government efficiency, we should agree with this aim to convince the great powers to beat their swords into plowshares. 

There is just too much to lose (and also too much to gain) by this to not jump on this unique opportunity to challenge existing order and build a better one. 

Business (and buy-outs) rather than bombs—that’s the Trump way of doing geopolitics.

Even his idea of buying Greenland, as part of a containment strategy for Russia and China, is far better than the alternative we see playing out in the steppes of Ukraine.  There is no way to bomb and kill our way to world peace or at least not a kind of peace where humanity survives and thrives.  We need to find a different approach, we need to dissolve the Cold War organizations and agencies that encourage military solutions or regime change.  We need to double down on diplomacy and fair-trade agreements.

It is time to give peace a chance.  We need to be disruptive, to change the conversation, and work with those who are willing to work towards a better future together.  If Trump is a partner in this, then we should embrace this as his role and not hinder this with old partisan battle lines.  Maybe he’s not pure or perfect, but at least he’s oriented right as far as war and avoiding the costs.

A Divided House—Yesterday’s Revolution

Standard

It has become a Superbowl tradition to hate the halftime show.  The performance is a no win situation for the NFL, it is impossible to please such a broad audience.  I’ll confess, probably revealing my age, that I really didn’t know Kendrick Lamar existed and nothing I saw convinces me to go buy his album.  My overall reaction is basically, “Meh, another mediocre halftime show, what’s new?”

Now, should I start my critique with some deconstruction of themes or with some of my own lived experience?

Let’s do the latter.

Rebellion is part of the American cultural zeitgeist.  From the throwing tea into the Boston harbor, in 1773, to women burning their bras in the 1960s and soot-spewing diesel pickups with obnoxious flags, we’re not going to take it—anymore!  Basically, we’re a nation of rebels without a cause.  If you tell us not to do something we’ll feel obligated to be defiant because “We got rights!”  The “culture wars,” in this country, really all come down to whose big grievance with authority is most recognized.  

As far as the prior, I have been conscious of rap and hip-hop scene since “Hammer time” and seeing my middle school classmates turning their clothes inside out to be like Kris Kross.  Yes, I was a sheltered, a part of the conservative Mennonite cloister, but would also end up sampling a lot of the popular music and had a special affinity for the harder stuff.  Heavy Metal and Gangsta Rap appealed to me as a sort of alter ego.  I had to be well-behaved—yet had pent up anger and could identify with any expression of existential angst.

The pinnacle experience, regarding the rap genre, was cruising through Compton with a former classmate, in his Mitsubishi Eclipse, while bumping to “California Love.”  I had stayed relevant up until around the time when 50 Cent showed up and listened to Eminem as a sort of guilty pleasure—before he became a whiny Democrat shill.  Ludacris, Cypress Hill, DMX, Kanye West (specifically “Jesus Walks”), Biggie and Tupac rounded out my play list.  Never as a first choice, but always part of the mix or when I was in the mood to change things up.

So, approaching the halftime show, I’m an equal opportunity cynic and not moved by the moral panic on both sides.  Nobody needs to love hip-hop music.  You are not special if you love it—you are not special if you hate it.  Announcing that it is the worst halftime show ever doesn’t make you better than claiming it is the best ever.  We have our unique tastes, different preferences, and personal opinions.  You’re not less racist if you like it nor are you eugenically superior for viewing it with total contempt.  I’m unimpressed knee-jerk reactionaries on both sides.  To me “the worst ever” people sound no different from religious folks who dutifully post “I don’t watch the Super Bowl” to virtue-signal to their peers—I suppose we all like reaching out to our own respective tribes for validation?

First thing I noticed that GNX shell on the stage.  That 1987 Buick was a monster for it’s time, under the hood a turbocharged 3.8 liter V-6, and one of the few GM cars I have desired.  It made me a bit sad when dozens of backup dancers emerged from the coupe and showed the classic wasn’t more than a hollowed out empty prop.  Nevertheless, it was a good choice of vehicle, showed someone had decent taste.

My overall impression?

The flag choreography was cool.

Samuel L. Jackson played a funny role.

But the lyrics were muffled—difficult for me to decipher as someone who doesn’t listen to the ‘new’ stuff—and nothing really stood out besides the those things I have already mentioned.

I’ve learned later that there was a ‘diss track’ mixed in.  Apparently this Lamar fellow has some issue with a Canadian rapper (yeah, I also think that those two words “Canadian” and “rapper” are hilarious together) named Drake.  Which is what you call a male duck and may fit given ducks are promiscuous and aggressive.  Who knows?  But what I do know is that Mr. Canadian Duck dated one of the Williams sisters—Serena (or the more feminine one), and apparently things did not go too well?

Wherever the case, we have two grown men in a petty feud, both of them nearly in their forties, both multi-millionaires, sort of juvenile.  Then again, we also had a guy named Donald Trump in the audience—and know the beef between him and a Canadian named Justin Trudeau.  So, of all people, a MAGA voter should appreciate the art form.  There’s also a reason why Big Don was so loved by rap artists prior to them finding out that he was running for office as a Republican.  His ‘mean Tweets’ are basically a battle rap.  I still say it was a huge mistake of the Democrats to label Trump a “convicted felon” and give him some real street cred.

An aside here: Rednecks are basically the country version of Ghetto.  The two really should ‘get’ each other.  I mean, these are the two groups that were, by far, the biggest reactionaries against the mask mandates.  The rural resistance going to social media to announce to us, “I can smell ma farts through dem dar masks, y’all look dumb,” whereas the other busting a cap in the ass of any who dared (as part of their gainful employment) to “disrespect” them by asking to wear a mask or leave the store.  So there is some real common ground.  Unfortunately both are too bleary-eyed with alcoholism or general substance abuse to realize that they are being played against each other.

So, back on the halftime show, I thought it was a great trolling moment when Samuel L. Jackson, the parody Uncle Sam, exclaims “Too loud, too reckless, too ghetto!”  Which is a dig at the very people who went online, the very moment the performance started, to voice their displeasure.  It basically the same thing that the political establishment pearl-clutchers hate Elon Musk, and his new boss, Donald Trump, for doing.  Yet, in this case, NPR will do a breathless review, to showcase this wonderful artistic expression, and the right-wing WWE crowd will bray in unison about how unsophisticated it is.  Strange.

All that said, while there was a little bit of self-awareness in the act, it was not edgy or even fresh.  Oh no, here’s another artist who is worth $150 million and somehow at odds with the world!  Boo!  Put Ye up on stage, at least then we would get a couple unscripted moments and a genuine controversy rather than a refresh of the same tired old tropes. Tell me again how the police harassed you for the crimes confessed in lyrics and how it makes you special. *yawn*

Hip-hop is mainstream.  The self-declared king of the rap genre (who vastly undersells his rival) represents youthful rebellion only as much as those old prunes—called the Rolling Stones—did in their prancing on the stage a few years back.  The presentation, overall?  Just plain campy and unoriginal.  Like the angry girl with pink hair or that disaffected guy who puts a Confederate flag on his wall.  It is not counterculture, there was nothing really clever.  To me it was about as exciting as the latest Britney Spears dance video and cry for help/attention.  A demonstration of poor taste or trying too hard.  Maybe that’s why I stopped listening to rap music?  Just too much repetition of same old themes and not enough true revolution?

I mean, politics right now have more value as far as entertainment goes.  Trump got shot, on stage, and his bars make actual world leaders squirm in their seats.  Why settle for make-believe ghetto turf battles when you can gun for Greenland or claim a gulf for ‘merica?

I didn’t hate the halftime show.  I just simply did not care.  I spent the time watching with one eye and writing checks for my property tax bill.  My thirteen year old son didn’t look up from his phone the entire time.  Boring is what I saw.  Other than that GNX and a flag formed from the dancers.  Discussion of it is much ado about nothing.  Those days of N.W.A. causing riots or Wu-Tang Clan being controversial are over.  Unless you’re looking for the exit at a Diddy party, the menace that made rap rebellious is gone.  This rerun is as dated as the car on the stage.  The professional critics just can’t say that because they’re too busy trying to be relevant themselves.

And maybe that’s just the nature of things—the revolution eventually becomes the old news?  The wild Anabaptists who burned a path through the cultural landscape of Europe became today’s Amish.  Other than those three cages hung from St Lambert’s Church in the city of Münster, the place where the most extreme of these rebels were put on display, as an example, there is nothing to show of them in the old world.  Likewise, having a Slayer patch on your old blue jeans don’t mean that you’re going to murder your family—it simply means that you’re over forty and clinging to the past when you were too cool for school.

As for the halftime show whiners, complaining when the NFL—what do you really want?

Taylor Swift?

Dead Men Talking—Why MLK Was Made Into A National Hero?

Standard

When I was in elementary school we sang a song with lyrics, “Martin Luther King, Martin Luther King, was a great man.” Looking back it was even strange then.  Why were we, in a rural Pennsylvania public school, instructed to heap such adoring praise on this man?  It was a weird indoctrination.

One explanation is that this was atonement ritual.  Dr. King was murdered.  Thus maybe the weight of guilt on the generation of the Civil Rights Era was just that high that this was a way they try to correct the injustice.  And it is sufficient to explain why the rank-and-file liberals, such as Mrs. Lawrence, my elementary music teacher, would promote his legacy or turn him into a legend.

But was it all well-intentioned?

I don’t have a black and white view of MLK Jr.  I think he was a complex character, he advocated for peaceful protest and yet was also a sexual deviant despite his status as a Baptist Reverend.  He’s probably as worthy of honor as any other figure in the American pantheon.  However, the big question is why is he there?  Why was there a holiday put on the calendar to celebrate this man?

The answer to how is that there was a bipartisan effort, after a significant campaign, to put him there.  Everyone, except a few racist hold out Democrats, supported this move.  Jimmy Carter endorsed it, and Ronald Reagan signed it into law, lauding King as being “a drum major for justice” in a Presidential proclamation.  So it is a reminder to carry on the mission of the man who preached a brotherhood that goes beyond race and reconciliation.

As a child of the 1990s, I was indoctrinated into an ideal of a colorblindness—a society that made the dream of Dr MLK Jr a reality:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

It had worked.  Racial tensions had dropped off and it had really felt then like a new post-racial epoch had begun.

Unfortunately, since then the progress has been backwards.  Or at least as far as sentiment.  Many are convinced that race relations are worse than before.  And that what MLK had preached is impossible, that we must see color, and many advocate that we discriminate in favor of racial minorities—or against them.  Both the far-right and far-left agree with racism.  They both refuse the multi-variant analysis, one which considers factors like fatherless homes apart from race, and have decided that race determines all.

The left claims that the content of character speech is misused and that we must force equal outcomes or we are disingenuous—while the right uses disparity in outcomes as the proof of inferiority at a genetic level.  It is truly amazing how the same data can be read so differently.  However, I disagree with both sides and put far more weight on culture and messaging than they do.  Telling people they need our help in order to reach their full potential is disempowering and the worst kind of political opportunism.

Which does make me wonder if this is the real reason why we celebrate MLK?  Would we ever turn him into an immortal figure if he were alive to speak for himself?

No, I don’t believe so.  I believe that MLK Jr. became much more useful to the political establishment in his death.  No matter what side you’re on, Republican or Democrat, you can make use of his words.  And the reason they recognize him is to use his legacy as a tool for their own ends.  This is the beauty of all those made maytrs for a cause, they always get turned into whatever the current owners of their image want them to be.  I would contend the holiday is intended as a way to co-opt his legacy—both as a way to pacify and to bend it to their own agenda.

MLK was silenced.  His legacy of words and of speeches are now open to interpretation.  He’s a national hero only because he’s dead and cannot oppose those employing his name on all sides of the debate.  Those who made his birthday into a holiday were likely doing it as a virtue signal, a way to prove (to those who cared in the voting public) how they are better than his killers. 

These same people would likely have destroyed him—for his sins—if he were alive and opposed them.  Only dead heroes are useful in politics.

‘Masculine’ Orthodox Growth

Standard

I awoke this morning to a message from Fr. Siewers. He shared a NY Post article, “Young men leaving traditional churches for ‘masculine’ Orthodox Christianity in droves,” which I read with my coffee. This is a trend within Orthodoxy, and arguably I’m part of it, where (relatively) young men are leaving the consumerist ‘Big Box’ and the compromised traditional churches for a weird alternative that feels foreign to most Americans.

I know, in past blogs, about Orthodox growth, I’ve done a sort of victory lap about Orthodoxy and in doing so left out valid counterpoints. Yes, indeed, many young men are finding Orthodoxy. But it may not be as big a trend as articles like this NY Post story or the Orthodox faithful make it out to be. The growth from fundamentalist reactionaries is limited—most especially if it is only drawing in males. It is difficult to sustain this if no accompanying young women are willing to procreate with these transplanted men.

The truth is that Orthodox, in the United States of America, only number around 6-7 million. Who knows how many show up on Sunday?  For sake of reference, that is less than the estimates for illegal immigrants who currently live in this country, around 11.7 million, and basically makes the Orthodox contingent a demographic drop in the bucket. Yes, growth is good, but is this sustainable? Or is it just a blip driven by those desperate to do something a little different from everyone else and destined to fade like Hipster fashion after a decade?

My own conversion to Orthodoxy was not the same as the template laid out in the NY Post article. I wasn’t running from a church with a ‘woke’ or social justice agenda that replaced the Gospel. Yes, maybe I was a bit disgruntled with a feminized church culture where marriage and family were sacrificed for impossible ideals and visible missions. But it wasn’t in reaction to liberalization. I had done it from a conservative Mennonite church and was attracted to Orthodoxy as it was different from fundamentalism.

Ironically, this new flow of reactionary men to Orthodoxy may come at the expense of the attitude of the church that had initially drawn me. While adopting the Orthodox worship ritual, some bring their Protestant or Catholic baggage with them, there are too many Ortho-bros or those simply trying to be edgelords and unique. It is part of the Alt-right vibe, those who have rejected the far-left’s absurdity on one hand and yet are still looking for a reaction more than they are serious about their faith.

There will always be that small percentage of people who will buy a Tesla Cybertruck to be strange. Those who do things to piss off everyone else with normal tastes. And the growth of Orthodoxy is as much a rejection of the political mainstream as it is about seeking God. It feels more like cosplay, in my experience, than it is something born of a repentant spirit and desire to truly submit to the authority of Christ vested in the church. It is a bunch of dressed-up Protestants.

Case and point? The parish I left has an old Baptist convert as a priest who offended a couple (very fragile extremely idealistic homeschoolers) and the mom of this union made it her personal mission to pull as many people away as possible through lies and attacks. That’s where much of the new growth in the ROCOR parish down the road has come from and why I’ve been inclined to stay home on Sunday to be away from all of it. Not all growth is good growth.

As a postscript, my wife and I do not share the same perspective as far as worship and what church is ideal. She got along with the folks at Holy Cross. But didn’t get much out of the preaching (which was fundamentalist in flavor more than Orthodox) and practice. We sometimes attend a generic Protestant consumerist church, with a rock band and a coffee shop, because it is what reminds her most of her own generic Evangelicalism in the Philippines. My son and new daughter remain unbaptized.

What Is the True Cost of EV?

Standard

The battery electric vehicle (EV) versus the internal combustion engine (ICE) powered debate is one of the most irrational of our time. On both sides of the discussion, you have those frothing-at-the-mouth types who attack the moment you disagree. And this is exactly the response that I got after I had casually mentioned that ICE is 1/3 the cost under a click-bait post…

Model Y starts at $43,990 FYI.

One just called me ignorant, but others tried to make an argument, including this response:

I’m trying to figure out what car cost 1/3 of the price of a Tesla🤔🤔? The long range Model 3 (the one you want for a roadtrip) is $42,500 – $7500 tax credit is $35,000. This is not factoring in gas savings. Please tell me what new car is availability for under $12,000 (that’s the 1/3 cost of a Tesla you mentioned)?

Fair enough question.

Note, I never said new, but assuming that I did…

Believe it or not, and even in this inflationary age, there are still reliable sedans that come in under $20,000. Starting with a Mitsubishi Mirage G4 ($18,500), the Kia Rio ($17,875), and the Nissan Versa ($17,075), the lowest-priced option is half of even the subsidized price of the Tesla base model.

But you can’t exclude the subsidy from the cost of the EV, the government doesn’t have a magic wand to create value and we all end up paying for their expenditures in our taxes or by inflation due to money printing. And it only begins with that “tax credit” (so-called) given directly to privileged people who can afford a new luxury car.

What is the true cost of subsidies?

According to a study by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, the cost to us is nearly $50,000 for every EV produced:

Federal and state subsidies and regulatory credits for EVs totaled nearly $22 billion in 2021, or nearly $50,000 per EV, socializing the true cost of these vehicles to taxpayers, utility ratepayers, and owners of gasoline vehicles

Tens of billions of dollars have been spent trying to make EVs viable, and yet still the average cost of these vehicles is $65,000, compared to $48,000 for ICE. Why haven’t these subsidies leveled the playing field? It is simply the fact that batteries require tons of extra material and a much more complex process to produce.

So we can at least double that visible “tax credit” subsidy and already the true cost of an EV is close to three times a comparable ICE sedan.

We could stop there—the 1/3 number reached—but let’s continue…

What is the true cost of production?

The cost of a vehicle isn’t just the window sticker price or the money that it takes to manufacture. The bigger question—given the reason many say we should switch to EVs is about emissions—is what the increased environmental impact is of producing the batteries that go into these cars. Is this a trade-off we are willing to make?

Lithium batteries are costly, they require an enormous amount of water and also leave a toxic legacy that will grow exponentially as EV is adopted. Is it worth this cost to only marginally reduce carbon emissions?  That is to say, around 17-30% less emissions according to European Energy Agency? 

Sure, it could get better with a heavy investment in electrical generation and transmission—yet that is another huge cost financially and environmentally…

What is the cost of infrastructure demand?

This is where the conversation is the most interesting. We have the refining capacity and distribution network already built for ICE vehicles. Gasoline and diesel fuel have the advantage of being energy-dense and can be moved around using the existing highways. But what about EVs?

There is an illusion that comes with plugging something in. The load we put on the system is invisible. But there is no magic to it. Electricity is something that must be produced somewhere and then transmitted to the charging stations. If everyone adopted EV technology the grid would collapse.

We’re currently nowhere even near what it would take in capacity to convert everyone to EV. The easiest route to more electrical generation is to go anuclear. So how many new nuclear power plants would it take? Well, if we use miles driven and the number of cars on the road today, then we would need to build 250 additional nuclear power plants as big as the largest plant in the US, and the supporting infrastructure to keep up with this demand.

So are you willing to have a Palo Verde in your own backyard?

It cost 5.9 billion dollars to build one in 1988 (the equivalent of 13.9 billion in 2023) and we needed to start building 250 of them yesterday.  The solar and wind equivalent would be even more costly to build and maintain.

The costs would be astronomical and that’s just considering only passenger vehicles. Switching Class 8 trucks would take even more of these massive power plants and spending—the cost of switching would be insane.  Not to mention you would need more trucks to do the same work as you did with diesel.  And remember, every dime that we spend on this mass EV conversion could go to health care or education instead.

Can you now see how extremely costly EVs will become as they are adopted?

But it does not end there…

Why is the cost of wear items greater?

Batteries are heavy and weight is the enemy of “wear items” like brakes or tires—which is not to mention the additional damage to the highway infrastructure.

EV tires wear 20% faster than comparable ICE vehicles.  That is a cost out of your own pocket and also a concern for the environment. And do not forget, to be safe you’ll need those heavy-duty EV-specific tires. Sure, maybe this is not a very big problem for those who can already afford the premium cost of a new EV?  However, for that waitress struggling to make ends meet she will have to make the choice between safety and home utilities.

Next up is excess road wear.  Big trucks are obviously the leading cause of damage to roads. However, EV proliferation will start to cause problems for existing infrastructure:

A 6,000-pound vehicle causes more than five times as much road damage as a 4,000-pound sedan. A GMC Hummer EV, which weighs 9,063 pounds, will cause 116 times as much road damage as a Honda Civic, weighing 2,762 pounds.

The article cited above isn’t about EVs yet does apply given it is about the vehicle weight. Even the Model 3 is a whopping 3,862 to 4,054 lbs. Sure, one vehicle is not going to do a whole lot by itself, but the volume over time will significantly impact bridges and parking garages that were designed for lighter ICE vehicles. This EV vehicle weight bloat caused by batteries will require very costly upgrades to prevent catastrophic failures—like the Ann Street Building Collapse:

Speaking of disasters. With EV there is potential for a thermal runaway or reaction that can’t be stopped—like an ICE fire—by simply denying the source of oxygen. This hazard will result in more damage to road surfaces, more time spent in traffic jams after incidents, and additional toxic emissions. This is a cost to be seriously considered with all of the others.

Cost of time, capability, and resale value…

Many of the costs and drawbacks of EVs are hidden under a pile of subsidies or are moved upstream like the emissions—out of sight out of mind.

But what cannot be ignored is performance in terms of range. Time is by far our most valuable resource and nobody wants to spend hours in a place they don’t want to be because their vehicle battery is drained.

As far as capabilities, even EV trucks are useless for towing, both the Tesla Cybertruck and the Ford Lightning—both costing around $100,000 in the higher trim levels—aren’t so good at doing typical truck things. Sure, they produce a ton of low-end torque and are very fast. But the F-150 EV only went 90 miles pulling a camper and the Tesla only fared a little better.

7000lb luxury land yachts

And finally, we need to talk about plunging resale values. For a while EV was a novelty, the “way of the future” every suburban geek needed to virtue signal. But it appears that this is now starting to fade and reality is starting to take over again—46% of EV owners in the US plan to ditch EV to return back to ICE—and many will not recoup their cost because the floor is dropping out for used EVs:

A recent study from iSeeCars.com showed the average price of a 1- to 5-year-old used EV in the U.S. fell 31.8% over the past 12 months, equating to a value loss of $14,418. In comparison, the average price for a comparably aged internal combustion engine vehicle fell just 3.6%.

That’s bad news for the EV industry.  That is probably why Ford, after losing billions on their EV investments, has made plans to pivot back to hybrid.  Toyota, ever conservative, never made the mistake of getting sucked into the EV mania.  My wife’s C-Max (hybrid) has no range anxiety, saves fuel, and has a plug-in version that can go on battery for a length of a commute.  This is the right compromise.

ICE costs less to build, but the hybrid will likely emerge as the winner for being the best of both worlds. It has range like ICE, and torque like an EV, while also keeping its value and not requiring vast new expenditures to upgrade the electrical infrastructure. If costs are reflected in the market hybrid will come out victorious in the end.  Some can afford EVs today, but only because others are absorbing more than half of the real costs.

As a footnote, I’m not opposed to EVs nor do I think they are destined to go extinct. If resale values continue to drop I would even consider owning one. The whole point of this article is simply to give a bit of pushback against the Pollyannaish sentiments that would lead to an ill-advised mandate. There would be an enormous cost, and opportunity cost, that would come with this. Just the fact that EVs need massive subsidies to be sold should tell us enough. If it isn’t viable in the market it isn’t viable.

Truth Be Told—Who Really Cares About Waitresses?

Standard

Early on in this site, I spent significant time trying to explain the power of description and how bias works.   The underdogs are the ones who are assailed by less favorable language by those who have power in the group.  A good quality can be twisted into something bad or propagandists can cast the exact same actions in a very different light—which is what these two examples capture:

Bad when Trump proposed it.
Good when Harris copies it.
Only difficult when Vance suggests it?

When Trump proposed an end to taxes on tips the focus was on the ‘cost’ of allowing servers to keep more of what they earn.  But when Harris copied the idea, suddenly there is no concern for revenues lost and it is all about her “fight” for the little guy.  Likewise, when JD Vance offered a $5000 tax credit for children it was “difficult” and yet when the Harris campaign did the same it was all about newborn cuteness.  I mean, think of the children!

I suppose we should just be happy that the Democrats are finally coming around to the conservative idea of letting us keep more of our hard-earned wages.  It makes so much more sense than minimum wage hikes and giving everyone food stamps.  Of course, this means less power in the hands of the politicians, who love to run campaigns that scare their constituents about the potential loss of benefits.  

Trump had previously made the mistake of enacting an across-the-board income tax cut. This gave the media propagandists opportunity to claim it was a “tax cut for the rich” since those who pay more get a bigger cut proportional to the amount they paid.  That’s fair.  If you pay more how are you not entitled to more?  But everyone who paid in got a cut and the middle class a higher percentage, as outlined here:

According to IRS statistics of income data analyzed by Americans for Tax Reform, families earning between $50,000 and $100,000 saw their average tax liability drop by over 13% between 2017 and 2018. By comparison, those with income over $1 million saw a far smaller tax cut averaging just 5.8%.This pattern of middle-class tax reduction was also seen in key swing states.

For instance, taxpayers in Pennsylvania earning between $50,000 and $100,000 saw their tax liability drop by over 14%, while households with incomes over $1 million saw their tax liability drop by just 3.1%.Taxpayers in

Colorado earning between $50,000 and $100,000 saw their tax liability drop by over 13%, while households with income over $1 million saw their tax liability drop by just 4.5%.

Clearly everyone was getting a cut, and the middle-class got a higher percentage back than the rich, but the media coverage obsessed with the dollar amount people kept—rather than the percentage being cut—to distort the public perception.

The Trump-Vance ticket has learned and is now outmaneuvering the left.  Most people know that keeping more of their own money is efficient and much better than a new government program.  It is just that the Republicans didn’t sell it. 

But this time, with an idea to end taxes on tips and another to help all young families, the typical deceptive spin doesn’t work.

Harris had no choice but to try to outbid her opponent. 

The problem with this? 

Harris was the tiebreaking vote on a bill that sends IRS agents after waitresses.  Now, yes, the Democrats will claim that they need the 80,000 agents to go after ‘the rich’ since they know CNN, MSNBC, and NY Times would never run a story linking a poor minority woman being audited to DNC policies, yet it in this case is too hard to deny who the true beneficiaries are.

We should question the sincerity of those who only introduced their policies after the other side did.  At best, they’re like the kid who cheats on the test by copying off the smart student in their class.  At worst, they are simply saying whatever it takes to get elected and have no intention to do what are now proposing.  We can’t trust the ‘journalists’ to set the record straight or give unbiased presentation of facts.

Go listen to the interview and see if the headlines match with the reality.

The most frustrating kind of misinformation is factually based. 

They lie by structure or omission, by presenting the costs and not the benefits, and sadly it works because people aren’t able to read through it. 

They did this with Trump’s tariffs, stories zooming in on the few who were inconvenienced and ignoring the many long-term benefits.  But the criticism ended when Joe Biden took over the policy, suddenly it was silence—just necessary to push back against China and finally rebuild some of our deteriorated manufacturing strength.  Nothing changed about the actual policy or benefits, only the presentation.

Now the choice is yours, do you go with the side that originated these steps in the right direction or with those who lied about Joe Biden’s declining mental health, saying he was “sharp as a tack” until the debate made the truth undeniable and now would have us believe they’re telling the truth?

Add that Harris is trying to introduce disastrous price controls and could end up creating food shortages as happens when central planning replaces free markets. If you think inflation is bad, then wait until more food-production businesses start to close, like this fruit farm and market, due to the increased compliance costs and lack of profit. We can’t afford four more years of economic mismanagement.

Sight, Sources, Statistics and Science

Standard

Social media provocateurs love to push popular controversies to generate clicks on their sites and get those heated comments sections.  The question about the gender of two boxers in the female category of the competition was that perfect story.  It was not straight up or settled, but generated a lot of strong opinions on both sides.

For myself, it is fairly evident that these two boxers do have a competitive advantage or they would not have won in their respective divisions.  I mean, that’s not even a matter of dispute.  An advantage is how anyone wins an athletic contest and it doesn’t mean they cheated.  However, when not only one but two people with the same extremely rare and potentially enhanced condition—both get the gold?  What are the odds?

Only one out of 500,000 people in the world go to the Olympics.  But, of course, nothing is ever that simple.  Those who live in small countries, like Algeria or Taiwan, have a far greater chance of representing their home countries simply because there are fewer people to fill the same spots.  And then not everyone in the world is competing to be in the Olympics.  Most of us don’t try out.  It is sort of like my being sixth while wrestling in the Eastern National AAUs—many superior to me simply didn’t make the trip.

But to go to Paris and beat everyone?  There is a reason why we give precious medals to those who do.  It is one thing to be that PhD who identified as a breakdancer and ended up scoring zero, it is quite another to get on the podium.  There were 124 boxers in the female category, divided into six different weight classes, and went through three qualification tournaments.  This is certainly not an easy road.  The champion is one out of every woman in the world who can make that weight and is into boxing.

There is speculation that those two boxers who had been disqualified from IBA fights due to failed gender tests—and masculine appearance—is they may have a disorder called Swyer syndrome.  This isn’t a fact, but it would explain why they would have been declared women at birth and always identified as women.  Those with this very rare condition have a male Y chromosome despite their female sexual hardware and offer no male advantage.  

However, it is also possible that the two have Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, which impacts 2-5 out of 100,000 females, which means they would have characteristics of a female outwardly but also have male testes that are undescended.  Severe AIS wouldn’t confer an athletic advantage, according to the sources I’ve read, and yet that does not tell us anything about milder cases.  

Still, the conversation can’t end there, we have other possibilities:

Some press reports have mentioned 5alpha-reductase type 2 deficiency.  This rare syndrome is best reported in the Güevedoces in the Dominican Republic.  Affected XY individuals are apparently female at birth because they can’t activate sufficient testosterone to the much more potent dihydrotestosterone to masculine in utero and thus appear female (the default gender in the absence of masculinising hormones).  However, they have testes in what appear to be labia.  At puberty, the testes produce much more testosterone sufficient to activate receptors and masculinise the child.  Such subtleties are beyond the capacity of most regulatory bodies to accommodate.

The chances of two women with these rare chromosomal disorders somehow making it to the Olympics would be incredibly low.  For example, Swyer Syndrome is around 1 in 80,000 births.  So multiply those odds by the chances of getting to the Olympics and then take that times two.  The number is incredibly large.  There is a far greater chance of being struck by lightning.  If the XY chromosome is present in these two—along with higher testosterone levels—the fact they dominated the field, given what coaches have said, should be considered proof of a potential unfair advantage.

Sources Please Vs. What We See

Much of the smirking response of mid-wit “sources please” types—who simply went along with the ‘official’ International Olympic Committee (IOC) narrative—comes down to many of the slightly dimwitted “I see what I see” types misidentification of the issue as being about transgenderism.  When the real issue is whether or not these athletes have intersex characteristics and thus an unfair advantage in female competition.

Yes, the right is too reactionary.  However, not without cause, they know too well how the NCAA and corporate media denied that Lia Thomas had an unfair advantage as one born a man and still having a penis as well as the rest of a man’s hardware.  And they correctly see that these two Olympic boxing competitors have a masculine appearance.  They had incorrectly assumed that this was just another case of a man cheating his way to the top by pretending to be a woman.

However, that misunderstanding of some is being used as a strawman of the real issue, the real argument is source versus source.  Specifically, the fact that these two athletes were disqualified by the International Boxing Association (IBA) for having male XY chromosomes.  These laboratory tests took place in Turkey and India  So, despite the attempts, by bigots, to smear the IBA as being corrupt for ties to Russia.  But the reality is that no organization is totally without political ties and there’s a reason why the IOC has never banned the US for our military aggression around the world.

So it really comes down to who we want to believe.  The IOC rests its entire claim of gender, on legal documents, passports, and birth certificates, provided by the country of origin, and says this gender assignment makes the boxers women.  By contrast, the IBA cites biological science and test results and tells us these two ‘women’ have XY chromosomes.  Right off the bat, the criteria of the IBA are science and laboratories whereas the IOC is relying on political entities.  Should we follow the science or believe those appealing to non-scientific evidence?

At this point, the mid-wits completely lose the plot and rely on their confirmation bias rather than logical deduction.  They’ll simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious, that the official IOC criteria to determine eligibility is entirely inadequate for solving this riddle; that the IBA at least has what appears to be scientific evidence, and thus this is a question to be answered in the lab rather than the court of public opinion—so they double down on their insults trying to deflect from the real issue.

But, in the end, this isn’t about science, what we see, statistics, or sources.  No, it is about partisan politics that blind many somewhat intelligent adults to what even a child could see.  It exposes those “sources please” mid-wits as just another level of ignorance.  And social conservatives could help themselves a whole lot by not jumping the gun and not oversimplifying complex issues.  Both sides are guilty of false dichotomies and believing misinformation.  Lastly, those who are suggesting that I-man Khelif is representative of Algerian femininity are guilty of the bigotry of low expectations.

The Displaced Aggression Of Ruby Hamad  

Standard

As someone who prefers getting news from non-Western sources, I occasionally read Al Jazeera for some perspective, and that is how I came across an article, “Imane Khelif and Western delusions of white innocence” and had to hit back.  For the remainder of this blog, I will identify as a minority woman to obtain maximum victim points, and so I don’t need to pull my punches.

Editorials are often wild swings, some are so off-balance and contrived that they invite a counterpunch.  I had no idea who Ruby Hamad was.  But her profile reveals a Syrian-Lebanese woman obsessed with ‘white’ European women and how they are loved more than her.  She has made her name through her racist and misogynistic attacks on ‘white’ feminists.  It’s a little bit weird given how white she is.  But hatred is not always rational—she only has a platform because she helps ‘woke’ white leftists with their self-loathing.

In response to the recent outcry, about the two Olympic boxers who had previously failed their gender eligibility test, Hamad politicizes.  She rides on her favorite hobby horse—that being ‘white’ women—and she tries to reframe the discussion as being about the protection of ‘white’ women rather than a matter of maintaining integrity and fairness in the competition.

Now typically I’m sympathetic to those trying to break free of US hegemony and who are tired of their national stability and desire to self-govern being constantly undermined by US-led Western powers.  European colonizers are responsible for the current disorder in many parts of the world.  And, I also believe the Palestinian voice should be heard and that their innocent population should be protected by international law like any other occupied nation, and the killing of children and non-combatants in Gaza is horrendous.

Victims aren’t just Israeli — nor are ‘people of color’ the only ones who suffer injustice.

However, Hamad does exactly what those on the Zionist side do to Palestinians—with a broad swipe she tries to make all people in a place share guilt for what governments have done.  In essence, she has exactly the same attitude as Israeli spokespeople who claim that all in Gaza share in the blame for the Hamas incursion and—outraged that we care that Palestinian babies die—then turn the attention back to the suffering of their own people on October 7th. 

It is a whataboutism.  A deflection.  And doesn’t deal with the actual issue.

This does highlight one aspect of the controversy, that being the solidarity with the two athletes centers on racial or religious identity rather than their gender.  Those who most vehemently deny the complexity of the gender question are Arabs (or Taiwanese, in the case of Lin Yu-ting), which suggests their political partisanship and that the racial motivation is a projection that is entirely their own  Hamad believes that it must be about white women because this is how she thinks.  But it is really about how gender is defined to keep competition fair.

I guess Istanbul is now white?

Hamad flails in her attack.  She makes the row about the Italian boxer crying—which totally reinvents the chronology and ignores the reality of where it all started.  People had already been talking about the disqualifications of Khelif and Yu-ting, by the International Boxing Association because of failed gender tests.  It had nothing to do with how they looked, where they came from, or the race of the women pounded by them.  It is, rather, everything to do with alleged XY chromosomes and higher testosterone levels, and fairness to female athletes.

Guess which one is a woman of color?

But the truth does not need to line up with her narrative.  An Italian woman, who has a darker complexion than Haman, is now made into the token example of “white woman tears” for being upset after a disappointing loss to a physically superior opponent.  Imagine that, someone who put an enormous amount of time into their sport, then forced to quit the fight after 46 seconds due to the strength of the blows that were landing, having very strong emotions…

Scandalous whiteness! 

Had silly Hamad spent 46 seconds thinking instead of trying to force the evidence to fit her own toxic ideology, you would have missed this rhetorical beat-down.

The biggest irony of this all is that Hamad is in complete alignment with the old imperial left—who, by far, are the most meddlesome of the political elements of the West both in the world and domestically with a constant barrage of moralizing emotive nonsense.  Like concern over ‘misgendering’ a trans ‘man’ who is competing as a woman and is born a woman at the same time they tell us we can’t question the gender on birth certificates or passports. 

The self-loathing face of white privilege.

It is truly only the privileged people who have the time to virtue signal and stir up division between people, the rest of us need to work and provide for our families—hoping these lunatics don’t start another war.

What makes this personal is I have a good friend who is Algerian and is one of the most beautifully feminine women I’ve ever met.  Had she not been a devout Muslim (who, unlike Khelif, wore the traditional dress which always included a Hajab) there may have been been good chance of a romantic relationship between us.  So this notion that European femininity is somehow different or more vulnerable is plain ridiculous.  Khelif is no more representative of Algerian or Arab femininity than I am Britney Spears.

Stunning and brave!

Ultimately this is all political.  Hamad does not care about boxing, certainly not things like safety or fairness.  She is just another myopic and mean-spirited partisan who only cares about injustice when it comes to her people.  She’ll never write an article about the Arab abuse of their foreign help (many of them vulnerable women of color) nor is she intellectually curious enough to know about the slave trade of Europeans (yes, many women) by Muslim Arabs who raided shipping and became enshrined in the anthem of the US Marine Corps: “To the shores of Tripoli.” 

Incidentally, the ‘Barbary’ pirates capturing US sailors for ransom led to the re-establishment of the Marines.  At the time, the US was not oriented towards global dominance and only started along that path of being a sea power because of this provocation.

Muslim Arabs, before they were conquered themselves, pillaged the Christian Middle East and subjugated all in their path.  No, this is to villainize them or say that ‘white’ is better.  What it is to say is that conquest is human and we’re all guilty of the best and the worst parts.  The only real difference between myself and the Hamad types is that I want to escape the tribalism of the past while she thrives on it.  I envision a world where everyone wins whereas she can only be happy when those who she declares “not white” rule.  She’s not truly anti-colonial, she is simply enraged that her own tribe lost the civilizational struggle to those she believes are inferiors.

In addition to this, she is like the angry PhD candidate, also from a Syrian background as I recall, and as vile as Hamad, who—despite a progressive feminist lean—was very racially prejudiced and to the point that she scorned me for my once having a black fiance—told me she would never go with a man who had been with a black woman.  This is what makes me amused when Hamad gestures towards the African American grievance.  Blacks may have been second class in the US, but they would be far worse off in the Arab world she represents.

The truth is that men beating women is as acceptable in Algeria as it is across Arab and Muslim regions.  I believe this is why intelligent women from these places have such cognitive dissonance.  They believe, on the one hand, this religious cultural identity makes them better.  But then, on the other hand, they’re also battered and afraid of the men in their own places.  They’re resentful.  They would love to be treated as a Western woman and protected.  This is why they want to see the women they envy to be hurt.  It is displaced aggression:

Displaced aggression is a statistically robust psychological phenomenon. It involves a specific form of attack prompted by rumination on anger-inducing experiences and/or revenge-related thoughts, which might lead to the expression of anger on innocent people. Often, victims of aggression will not seek to confront the actual source of aggression (the original provocateur), and instead bully subordinates in an effort to relieve themselves of the stress that they carry.

Incidentally, in a conversation with a black female neighbor, she described the toxic reality of the community she left and how much she loves to live amongst us ‘white’ rural people who encouraged her rather than trying to tear her down and ruthlessly compete.  Her mother, an alcoholic, used to deride her with the slur that she was ‘white’ for showing a little bit of ambition and self-respect.  This black woman wisely chose to bring her children to the safety of a community still governed by a culture of self-restraint and looking out for the vulnerable.

White women are targets of jealous rage.  Hamad would be better to acknowledge the true origin of her self-loathing and challenge the framing that makes her only care about the tears of those who look like her.

Hamad’s book “White Tears Brown Scars” is an attack on feminism and the West’s culture of protecting women.  She popularized the phrase “white women’s tears” as a way to downplay and dismiss the suffering and display of emotions by white women.  It is dehumanization.  Making her sexual rivals into manipulative animals that do not deserve our empathy or concern.  A license for calloused and cruel disregard in response to actual injustice.  What it really amounts to is an attempt to normalize the abuse of women who step out of line—which is allowed in the Islamic culture that produced Hamad. 

Ruby Hamad should clean up her own side of the street first before commenting on ours.

But I reject her, with her displaced aggression, because it is not okay for men to beat women—despite what her Syrian–Lebanese culture or the Quran says:

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

This is key to understanding the big difference in attitudes between Christian and Islamic traditions, I know the Old Testament treats women more as property of men—like the Quran—but the Gospel radically changed the conversation.  St Paul tells husbands to sacrifice themselves for their wives like Christ died for the Church. 

My wife tells me you couldn’t walk around in her home country like American women do, go out in revealing clothes, alone.  She claims men where she lives would take it as being an invitation for assault and they would likely find your body in the ditch.  If it is ‘white privilege’ or some form of imperialism for women to be able to stroll safely through their own community, then so be it.  I’m not going to apologize for valuing the tears of my wife, the woman I love, over Hamad’s bitterness about not being able to find a man like me.  I’m quite alright with a daughter who cries.

Philosophical Candidates

Standard

Remember, as a child, those day-dreams of a life unrestricted by parental control, where it would be video games all night, ice cream, pizza, and soda all day?  What is amazing is upon reaching adulthood the thought of this lifestyle is disgusting.  First off, it would be horribly unhealthy—in the sense that those who indulge bulge.  Second, a party every day is totally unsustainable, someone has to do the work to keep the lights on and put food on the table.

Many people become more conservative as they mature and start to realize the value of the limitations they once spurned.  Yes, an adult will modify what was taught to them by their parents and community.  And some grew up in social environments where there was not much worthy to be preserved.  But to totally throw away everything inherited from prior generations is a terrible mistake.  Only an ideological extremist believes stripping it all bare is necessary and good.  It is wiser to build on what works.

That is not to say that the tradition passed down can’t become stifling and overbearing or limiting our potential either.  There must be a bit of flexibility, some Oikonomia, or means to adapt the rules as the need arises.  However, the opposite ditch, of discarding everything and starting from scratch very quickly becomes chaotic, everyone does what is right in their own eyes, and it soon requires authoritarian measures to enforce the vision.  This is the thing Nietzsche warned about—our morality is not self-evident and we should think long and hard about those monsters that we will release with our neglect.

This wasn’t a sacrilege, it was a lament of what happens when you yank the foundational rug out from under a moral system.

Cultural revolution, while always promising to upend systems of oppression and usher in a new utopian age, ends up being worse than what it is replaced.  Yes, “All animals are equal” may be the founding cry, but is very soon after modified by opportunists who sadly are now unrestrained by those institutions despised and yet there for a reason.  The only good thing is that this out-of-balance off-kilter, ‘we know better than all who came before’ attitude, tends to implode on itself if given time.  The Soviet Union only lasted as long as it did because of Christian ethics within the population.

Two Visions For Our Future 

Recently, with the decline of Joe Biden and a failed assassination attempt against his rival, the Democrats decided it was time to make a change up top.  It is her time now—that is to say Vice President Kamala Harris—and there is plenty that could be said about her career thus far, but there is one peculiar repeat statement she has made that really deserves our attention:

“What can be, unburdened by what has been.”

This strange little mantra has been widely panned by the right.  This is more Kamala word salad, they chortle, and yet—while she does sometimes explain things like a school teacher talking to a kindergartener—it is not gibberish.  This is something Harris has apparently put some thought into and is something with a meaning that we should try to unpack.

What does it really mean to be unburdened by what has been?

I’m not going to sinisterize.

Most on the left I know have a glowing hope for the future and could never imagine that their philosophy could lead to Gulags.  I do not believe Harris intends it this way, but it does hint heavily of Marxist thought where we are to be liberated or emancipated from all that came before.  On the surface, this is an inviting thought.  Imagine a world with no abuse, no poor, everyone has their needs provided and has complete freedom.  This would be wonderful—and this is what every cookie-cutter college leftist has in mind as the end product of their efforts.

So how does the unburdening begin?  Well, it already has.  If you have been paying a bit of attention, everything normal is now being called fascist.  Believe that women exist as a category and isn’t something a man can ‘transition’ to?  Fascist!  Maybe you like the nuclear family and see it as a praiseworthy social convention?  Fascist!  How about a border where there is reasonable control over who is allowed in and who is kept out?  That makes you literally Hitler!  And Harris has embraced this side of the debate, she announced her pronouns and the nature of her politics.

None of this is to say that Harris is a terrible person.  I simply don’t want a leader unbound to existing ethics or any standard of decency, or who can write off Constitutional law as being a “what has been”  product of wealthy white men with some of them slave owners and thus should be discarded.  Sure, it may be a document with flaws, and could possibly use more amendments too, but it is better than nothing and represents the will of the people who signed onto this national project to this very day—white, black, Native, or immigrant alike.

What was established is for our benefit.  It is no more a burden than a wool coat in the blistering cold.  To think that we know more than every other generation that came before us, that science and technology have made us into gods, is delusional. 

Furthermore, the left’s unboundness means they do not care about precedents (except as a tool to restrict their rule-obeying opponents and the ends justify the means.  And they mean well.  They plan to fight injustice.  But this script has played out many times before and is the very thing that tradition is a bulwark against.  At the very least those who believe what “has been” has value will hesitate and consider before they destroy the foundations of civilization.

Make America Great Again

Donald Trump rolled out his red hats and MAGA slogan in his 2016 campaign.  The message was simple, a repeat of Ronald Reagan’s “Let’s make America great again” encouraging answer to the total economic disaster of the Carter years.  As he said, in the 1980 Republican convention:

For those without job opportunities, we’ll stimulate new opportunities, particularly in the inner cities where they live. For those who’ve abandoned hope, we’ll restore hope and we’ll welcome them into a great national crusade to make America great again.

Trump knows a good brand and borrowed it from the best Republican leader since a guy named Abraham Lincoln.  The progressives lost their minds.  They dug up the one time it was used by the KKK.  And couldn’t decide to condemn with “America was never great” or be offended because “America is already great and how dare Trump suggest anything otherwise!”  If you were playing a game of “wrong answers only” this harsh criticism of MAGA as white supremacy would make a bit of sense.  

MAGA is not hateful.

When the left says, “Do you know who else said make America great again?” and then goes on to associate this benign statement with all manner of evil, they’re poisoning the well.  There is zero reason to interpret this slogan as Trump’s desire to bring back Jim Crow or the racial policies that were once championed by Democrats.  But this does whip the left into a frenzy and it keeps them from deviating and making an independent decision whom to vote for based on the actual positions of candidates.

What does Trump mean by “make America great again”?

Trump is a businessman, his interests are mostly economic, rebuilding our industrial base, bringing back gainful employment for blue-collar workers lower taxes, and less red tape standing in the way of entrepreneurial spirit.  My wife, who opened a store in her home country, complains that the US is not a free country and is appalled by the many layers of taxes and requirements.  This is what dooms many to working for “the man” or corporations that can afford compliance costs while drowning their competitors with cheap imported foreign goods.

The legalism of US law would make a Pharisee uncomfortable.

From a 2016 Trump campaign speech on jobs and the economy:

Jobs can stop leaving our country, and start pouring in. Failing schools can become flourishing schools. Crumbling roads and bridges can become gleaming new infrastructure. Inner cities can experience a flood of new jobs and investment. And rising crime can give way to safe and prosperous communities.

Had Trump’s first term not been sabotaged by COVID and blue state shutdowns, there is no doubt this would have been fulfilled.  In fact, by the third year of his presidency the minority unemployment rate reached record lows.  Even NPR, while downplaying it, could not deny these numbers Trump touted were real.  Biden’s only success comes from not rolling back those tariffs the fear-mongering media had so roundly criticized.  It is strange how the success and failure of policies is determined only by who is employing them, isn’t it?

No, Trump’s not woke.  He believes in hiring based on qualifications.  He doesn’t want to continue world policing and the massive expansion of government programs.  This is why he is the enemy of those who derive all of their power from the administrative state and sap our resources.  He is keenly aware that a free flow of cheap labor, while it helps elites who want nannies and landscaping at a discount, pulls down wages for those who do not come from wealth.  Even a Senator named Barack Obama understood this:

If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole—especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan—it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.

Make America Great Again is not about a swerve in the direction of Nazism or some new form of ethno-nationalism.  It is about restoring the economic conditions that had allowed our grandparents to buy their home and a car on a single income.  Back in 2015, Bernie Sanders had blamed open borders on a right-wing conspiracy, that will make everyone poorer, but now the left is saying that normal border security is racist.  What changed?  Why are these Democrat policies, like the immigrant cages during the Obama administration, demonized under Trump?

Compassion means disincentivizing illegal crossings where human trafficking is a concern requiring sorting facilities.

It is really disorienting for those who soak propaganda like a sponge.  They never see that Democrats did this full 180 on multiple issues where they had been right.  Trump is right about the border.  It should be the top priority.  Just the Fentanyl overdoses alone are a reason.  I’ve lost a former high school classmate and football teammate this way— 83,000 Americans died in 2022 alone—and it had ironically played as much role in the death of George Floyd as a knee on his shoulder.  Why do we even talk about that dozen killed in a school shooting or Ukraine in light of this?

Reform, Not Revolution 

Progressives tear at the fabric of civilization without understanding the consequences of their actions.  They believe that the erasure of history, destruction of monuments, or the degrading of religion (see Paris Olympics) is a path to a better future.  But this amounts to cultural vandalism and is ignorance of the positive contribution of these religiously created values we’ve internalized.  There is truly nothing that is written on the substrate of the universe that says slavery is wrong or that genocide is evil—the stopping point to “unburdened by what has been” is a return to animalistic impulse.

By design, not accident.

The frontal lobe of the brain is developed by the myths and moralities that progressives do everything in their power to destroy with ridicule and sacrilege.  And it will inevitably go much further than anticipated.  We rarely have enough appreciation for what we have been given.  Everything is taken for granted until it is gone.  And when there is a vacuum that is left to fill, and the ‘demons’ waiting in the wings will come rushing in:

When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it.  Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order.  Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation. (Matthew 12:43-45 NIV)

Christianity led to equal rights in the West, the abolition movement, is a product of St Paul advocating for Onesimus or telling the Galatian church, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”  The left assumes the values it has are universal.  They see only the faults without giving credit.  

“You will not surely die!”

The progressive left, by contrast, denies all limits and conventions.  Their “can be” may seem good at first glance.  But is opening Pandora’s box, it is releasing what previous generations have built social structures to contain and could end up being more like a trip on Event Horizon.  America has been good and bad, had moments of greatness and failure.  We should tune the ideal it was founded on, not tear it down to start all over again.  There is much to conserve in “what is” with an eye to improvement.  Veer not too far to the right or left.

At least with Trump, morally corrupt as he may be, he comprehends that our inheritance is not a burden. For him, there is something that can be recovered “again” from the past generations even if those lessons were not perfectly applied to him.  He’s a grandpa, he has seen trends come and go, old enough not to care about what is currently popular.  Trump may have some narcissistic traits, at least that is the character he plays on television to the roar of the WWE crowd—but he isn’t trying to be God.

Conspiracy Central

Standard

Conspiracies happen all of the time. It is not a surprise that people plot evil schemes and would be more strange if they did not.  But it doesn’t mean that everything that happens is a conspiracy.  Being old enough to recall the black helicopter theories and warnings of imminent UN takeover.  Who can forget the FEMA camp claims and those pictures of ‘coffins’ Barack Obama’s administration would soon be loading us into?  Strangely many dates come and go, but none of those who push these wild global plots come forward later and say, “You know, I may have been wrong about JFK being the Antichrist… “

Wild conspiracy theories are about political ideology more than evidence.  It is oftentimes a product of those who feel disempowered and seek uncomplicated explanations.  The left, for example, hallucinates nebulous things like systemic racism or white privilege.  Not entirely claims without any merit and yet if it is used to explain every outcome—if you see it lurking behind everything people do—then stop, get some help!  The fringe right likewise, turns to fantasy when reality is too hard for their simple minds to understand.  Inflation can’t just be about the Fed printing trillions of dollars devaluing currency, no it must be fires at food processing facilities! 

There is always a motivated misunderstanding of evidence that is involved beneath this kind of claim—a misuse of statistics and facts to form grandiose theories.

The common thread of conspiracy theories is that they can’t be disproven.  They are all established on faith, firm belief evidence connecting all the dots can be found and can shape-shift as needed.  If one part can be disproven they can simply move the goalposts or deny the evidence is legitimate.  If someone does not want to believe that the moon landing happened you could show a Saturn V rocket, introduce them to one of the astronauts, thoroughly explain all of the alleged irregularities they see and they’ll still believe that it was faked. 

It is a matter of political orientation, not facts or plausibility, and stems from assumptions and a general mistrust of the system.

To the conspiracy-minded folks, everything becomes a conspiracy, there can never be an accident, or a lone wolf attack, no such thing as coincidence in their world. Sandy Hook couldn’t be a deranged (drugged out) Adam Lanza.   No, to Alex Jones it must’ve been a false flag with the casualties being crisis actors rather than real people.  And some of those hunch I understand, this is what happens when every tragedy is treated cynically as an opportunity by control-freak politicians. 

Why did we go to war with Iraq after 9/11? 

Is it so hard to believe that the CIA may have played some role in the JFK assassination when they do regime change all around the world?

The real issue I have with Q-Anon, where all is a hidden criminal plot (and everything is going according to the plan) is how it sucks the oxygen out of the room for discussion of real observable corruption.  The far-flung theories, worse, are used to discredit those reasonable concerns about the expansion of government power and proliferation of unaccountable agencies.  We should be far more concerned with what those with power are ‘legally’ doing in plain sight—and not giving them cover of cockamamie theories they happily use to dismiss us all as crackpots.

That’s the irony here, the conspiracy theorist is aiding the conspiracy.  For example, fact-checks of “Covid is a bioweapon” were used to strawman the reasonable questions about a possible Wuhan lab-leak.  This is why we couldn’t have a serious conversation.  

So why do the kooks need to speculate so far beyond the evidence?  Why can’t they stick to what is known or factual, the most plausible explanation, rather than always having to gallop to the craziest possible conclusion?  In some cases it might just be stupidity, that they simply aren’t very good at tracking normal human motivation.  But in many cases, it is just a form of resentment, they are unserious people—with a massive inferiority complex—who both need to distinguish themselves and also discredit those who did attain more.

It is basically the working-class equivalent of pulling the race-card.  

And yet this is not entirely without cause.

They’ve endured globalism, they have seen their jobs outsourced, prices rise and wages stagnate.  This was not the America that was promised to them.  A place where their own dreams would be the limit.  They see things going the wrong way, opportunities drying up for people like them, as a flood of new faces replace the familiar.  There has been a sort of conspiracy against them, but not in the way they imagine.  Yes, in many ways, they have been screwed over by their betters—so perhaps that is where the deep suspicion originates?