Hatred of People is an abhorrent display of the worst of human nature

 Do you "hate" anyone?

Why?

My Dad once, when I was discussing what my benefits would be if I tried to do a particular thing, responded that I should never consider "what I would make or accomplish" as a first question.  "What do you mean?" was my response.  He said, "first, ask what is the cost or the effort needed, then ask if you have the time, effort or the money and if you can afford to lose the time, effort or money.  If the answer is that you can't, then don't bother with the consideration of what you might gain...you can't afford it."

If one considers his or her "hates" it is likely that the "why" has very little to do with the soul or essence of the person, but is about fear of the effect on the hater of the beliefs or the actions of the person they claim to hate.  And the basis of the fear is immaterial; it can be behavior (speeding down your road) or politics (favoring policies you find threatening) or something else.

Hatred also reveals a mind out of control, under the influence of the "flight or fight" emotional response that drowns all trace of logic and inevitably leads to unfortunate consequences.

All homo sapiens are of "mixed" instincts and behaviors.  The worst of criminals or psychopaths has performed some (perhaps singular) act of kindness or goodness, while even those among us who we consider "saint-like" or "good" has some secret (again, perhaps merely a singular) act that is sinful or abhorrent.  All or nothing appellations are simply doomed to be inaccurate...and inaccuracy of judgement leads to bad decisions and unwanted consequences.

Also...hatred, when exhibited, demeans the hater and demeans and brings disrespect on his or her beliefs or arguments.  It is not attractive. And it is never productive.

Perhaps the next time you think, or say, "I hate him (or her)," it would be well to pause and consider what is causing you to be fearful or threatened.  Is it an actual act by the person?  Is it something they believe, or something or some action that they support?  Because that same person may also be in favor of any number of things that you also favor and see value in...if you hate the person, you are hating those things too.  That is illogical and flawed reasoning, so it would be well to think it through.

Hatred displaces logic and loses arguments on the merits.  When someone with whom we are arguing starts calling you names or resorts to swearing, that person has lost the argument and fear of that has directed him or her to insults rather than reason.  Hatred is just an extreme extension of the same.

Our lives on this earth are short enough.  Do any of us really have enough time to waste on "hating?"  Frankly, I pity those that "hate" and just refuse to spend time listening to or spending time with them. Many can argue, disagree, discuss and even if unconvinced can still respect each other and be civil...perhaps even be friends...even while honoring differences in our lives and minds, and those are the people I want to be around.  How about you?

"Mob" Rule apparently now acceptable in America

Life in America today suddenly seems like a combination of a seriously illogical dream and being on the trip that Alice took to "Wonderland."  It appears as if someone set off a device that has deprived almost everyone of any common sense or logic.

Dealing with the relatively new phenomenon of "Terrorism" is bad enough; the senseless killing of innocent individuals by Muslim Extremists, Mentally Ill individuals and a couple of Far-Right Fanatics is an unfortunate fact of life today.  All violence or any sort, whether against persons or property, is to be condemned and punished no matter who the perpetrator.

But by what logic does this sudden desire to sanitize and/or revise History become a populist movement, seemingly endorsed by the Media, the Democrat Party (and its members) and the Republican Party (and its members)?  Has the entire country become so narcissistically enthralled by a desire to "attack" something that such action a denial of historical truth will erase anything or improve life in America in 2017 for anyone?  If this was the 1850's in our West, tomorrow the mob would wake up feeling guilty and avoiding looking each other in the eye out of embarrassment and guilt.

Our President condemns the violence in Virginia by all who took part in that violence, and goes on to condemn the attitudes of Racism as being "wrong" and "unacceptable" but the Media, the Democrat and Republican elected officials and anyone on the ideological Left insists on misinterpreting his comments as equating the beliefs of the Racists with the beliefs of those who declare that Racism is wrong.  Instead of seeing the statement(s) as the plea and demand for non-violence by both sides, promising punishment for those who act violently, as the call for sanity that it clearly is, they incorrectly label his comments in an attempt to profit politically.

Seems as if there is a strong logical basis for suggesting that all of America...or, at least the media and the political establishment (all sides)...should properly be undergoing treatment in a mental hospital.

The only speech allowed these days seems to be Leftist, Socialist, Progressive, Marxist, Liberal and Fascist.  All others are shouted down or prevented from speaking without being denigrated and insulted with the aid of the media.  What is going on today is the over-turning of the Constitutional guarantee of "Free Speech."

For those who respond that the "speech" being quashed is "bad" speech, they might consider that if a group that disagrees with that definition gains power, the reversal will make it impossible for them to speak at all.  The court held that the church that demonstrated at military funerals with a message that clearly was hurtful to the families involved had a Constitutional right to so demonstrate.  There was emotional hurt but no violence.

How much more effective would it have been if the legal march in Virginia (they had a permit, after all) had simply been allowed to take place...BUT NO ONE ATTENDED OR REPORTED ON IT?  After all, they were after publicity.  Any intelligent person or group would have won the day by simply ignoring the matter...it is a fringe group with no significant support and that would have been clear is all had simply stayed away.  But unfortunately today's attitude is that anyone with whom you disagree must be shouted down and "prevented" from saying anything.  Why?

Politicians say a lot of things that I don't like.  But they get to say them anyway.  News reports are very often wrong on facts or incomplete and slanted...but I don't get to shut them down.  But I don't want to shut them down.  If I feel strongly enough about a matter, I can write letters, make calls, ask questions and made suggestions.  But the actions of the last week suggest that my right to do so will not exist for long, because this feels like an attack on our very rights under the Constitution.

When History is being sanitized revised, and re-written...and mob rule replaces our Constitutional guarantees, we are in very big trouble.

"Words"...or "actions"

Children aren't taught this anymore, but I grew up to the mantra, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."  And it was a factual comment.  As I grew up, I learned to listen to words for understanding, learning and as an indicator of the the nature of the person speaking the words.  For anyone who wants to learn, words and the manner of speaking reveals a lot.  Words contain promise as well as threat.  Words provide nuance that is available for the listener who wants to hear it.

Actions, however, provide no choice.  They simply "are" and the results cannot be changed.  Actions can hurt as well as provide pleasure.  Of the two, actions are the most immediately dangerous.  Words, if used to deceive or misdirect, are just as dangerous...sometimes more so...as actions because they, unlike actions, can seem to promise even as they deceive.

A person who lies lacks both honor and character and is to be avoided.  Above all, such a person should never be allowed to have power or authority over you.  But such a person, provided that they are aware of their lying, is not the most dangerous.

The most dangerous of people is that individual who not only lies successfully to others, but who also lies so successfully to themselves that they no longer are aware of their own dishonesty.  Why is such a person so dangerous?  Because they actually exude a sense of belief in their lies that can be very effective in convincing or conning the listener...they come across as believing what they say and there is little defense against such a presentation other than research and verification.

Today children and young adults, particularly those who attend College or University, seem to be indoctrinated with the concept that they should never be challenged by words or ideas which they have been taught or either wrong or hurtful.  They have absolutely no emotional callouses; they are ill prepared to evaluate or research ideas, much less challenge them.

But even more concerning is that these young people seem now to consider the "nicety" of words and ideas to be more important that honesty and actions; they are less insulted by those who lie to them and fail to fulfill promises (provided that the lies are phrased nicely and in a complimentary way) than those who speak bluntly and are not "politically correct" (which is clearly an oxymoron).  For those who know the "Music Man" play and movie, they would honor the smooth talking liar for his ability to talk and accept the lack of honesty...and then consider themselves superior for so doing.

How can we, as a nation, accept such perverting of our values?  How can we allow our children to grow to an age when they must become self-reliant while we allow a government that we elect to spend our children and grandchildren into financial ruin?  By what reasoning do we allow our children to be indoctrinated to value "group think" and "avoidance of (or even absence of) consequences" while we fail to teach them that any person or government that is strong or big enough to give them anything is also big and strong enough to take everything away?

One of my own grandchildren has become a victim of this American failure.  I am embarrassed that I was not aware and did nothing to attempt to provide some counter instruction.  I am embarrassed for all of us who assumed a dedication by our educational and political systems on the part of those who educated and who have and continue to rule us.  Our cost of our negligence will be visited upon our descendants and, if justice is served, we will be reviled by those who come after as narcissistic cowards who failed our offspring.  I would apologize, but those would just be words...I have already allowed others to throw the sticks and stones.

Blame the "Protectors" but not the "Doers?"

It often appears as if the so-called civilized world has lost its mind.  One of the recent news articles said that those who erroneously allowed the truck driver in Nice onto the road where he killed so many people were being blamed...at least in part...for the deaths.  The anger in France...or in any country where terrorists act out...should be focused on the terrorist(s), not those who do their level best to protect others.  The French are not alone in their apparent desire to ignore the actual "doer" of the atrocity in favor of attacking those who were trying to prevent such occurrences.

In America, I have seen minorities "cop and attitude" with police when approached for almost anything.  In an era where minorities have ambushed and assassinated police, those who serve as police are logically on alert.  When they approach someone and issue an order (such as "don't move your hands" or "keep you hands where I can see them") and that order is not obeyed, I know of no logical person who wouldn't react as if there were a developing threat and react accordingly.  But in the aftermath of these events, even our President accuses police of "overreacting" ...or even of discrimination.

Today, in America it is not hard to get a cop fired.  This administration will virtually require local police departments to punish and/or fire any officer who is complained of by any minority.  The logical action, then, would be to behave very quietly when approached by any member of the law enforcement community and then bring it to the attention of the police department and the Justice Department.  Instead, some just insist on not obeying commands and/or mouthing off as they move their hands in ways that could constitute a threat.

Who is blamed?  Why, the law enforcement officer(s) of course.

Over the years, I have been approached by police nine or ten times.  Each time, I responded as I would have to any person with authority: directly and politely.  Was I uneasy?  Sure...in some cases I wasn't sure what I had done wrong, in others I had been speeding and was chagrined that I had been "caught."  Another time there had been a "hit and run" and I was questioned if I had seen a particular color and make vehicle.  And one time, coming home from school, I had a brake light that wasn't working.  Big Deal?  Not really.  Life goes on around us and sometimes we're the hammer and other times we are the nail.

What I don't understand is why the human race seems bent on allowing those who initiate behavior that results in consequences feel that it is appropriate to deflect consequences on the responder instead of the "doer" who's actions began the whole thing.  I can understand how the people involved would like to accomplish that...but not society as a whole, each member of which should know better.

Trump is the Republican's Obama

For the third Presidential election cycle we are experiencing an abandonment of reason by American citizenry.  That this can happen in a world where data is virtually unlimited and effective research no further than your laptop is astounding and does not speak well for homo sapiens.

Mr. Obama was elected twice on emotion, with virtually no vetting or inquiry as to his experience or training to handle the rigors of the job.  "Hope and Change" was the motto.  Never did Mr. Obama define those terms, so quite naturally every voter inclined to wish him well interpreted those terms to mean what the voter expected it to mean.  Salesmen for years have used that tack and one expects some success with it...but not total success.  The old adage was that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time.  So...how did Mr. Obama not only win, but be re-elected four years later when it had become clear that he had his own definitions that were not influenced by the electorate and further that he was disposed to dis-ingenuousness (that means, lying),

The press almost universally failed to inquire of Mr. Obama specifics, nor did they suggest to readers, listeners or viewers that they might want to make such inquiries.  Whether this was failure on their part, or conspiracy with Mr. Obama's supporters I will leave for others to consider.

But one thing is crystal clear:  Mr. Obama's election and re-election was based on emotion, not logic or knowledge.

One might be excused for believing that, having seen the result of emotional indulgence, the public might be a bit more oriented toward logic, inquiry and thorough vetting the third time around.

Apparently, not so much!

There was once a time in America when the voting public acted much as a jury; they listened to the promises, they looked at the past record of behavior, they evaluated whether the promises were ones that could be kept, they even evaluated the moral behavior and reputation of the candidate for public office.  One candidate withdrew when it was discovered that he had a girlfriend in addition to his wife...and without any proof of physical infidelity.  Such a person was not fit for public office...then!

Since then we've had a President who seduced and intern, another who has been proven to have lied to the American people multiple times,  and failed to even try to keep promises made multiple times.  And in this third election cycle we have the leading candidate on the ideological right (well, he says that he is on the right!),  who until less than a year ago was demonstrably a political liberal and until days ago denied that he was involved in any bankruptcies, only to know admit that companies that he controlled did, on four occasions, declare Chapter 11 Bankruptcy and...seriously...now claims that having done so will help him solve the country's challenge of reducing and eliminating a National Debt that exceeds Nineteen Trillion Dollars.  No joke!

And on the other side of the ideological aisle, we have two candidates: one has a track record of enabling a womanizer while claiming to be the perfect person to defend women against a claimed "war on women" by her opponents, has a proven record of lying about events in which she was involved while holding high appointed office, and is under investigation for potential violation of the United States Espionage act by failing to keep Top Secret documents and information safe.  And her opponent on the same side is earnestly is promising to redistribute income, taking from those who have earned it legally to redistribute it to those who have not, on the basis of claiming that such earnings were and are immoral; who is promising that college education for all should be "free"...to those receiving it, but with no realistic suggestion of who or how the cost will be paid; and who is an avowed Socialist.

What provides the most consternation is that these three people are serious candidates for President of the United States of America!

We are about to see the third Presidential election in a row determined, not by the American Voting Public sitting as a Jury but by an emotional mob.

Mr. Obama's first election was by a Happy, Enthusiastic, Optimistic mob, looking for high standards and statesmanship on the part of a supremely educated member of a minority race.

His second was less Happy and Optimistic, but was still a Mob that had "Faith."

Now the Mob (on both sides of the political aisle) is angry and turning on the "usual suspects" to a remarkable degree.  They are identifying on an emotional level with those who are confirming their own unhappiness with the government.  That unhappiness has nothing to do with Truth, or Logic, or a thorough vetting to statements and promises being made.  No, it is still emotional and reason has been thrown away.

Mr. Trump is the Republican's Obama, and he is being seen and treated with the same emotional mind-set with which the Left treated Mr. Obama; merging of their anger with his statements of anger, independent of and absent any evaluation of his past positions.  Ms. Clinton is a continuation of the policies of Mr. Obama, but without the "blackness" which benefited him.  Sen. Sanders is all emotional promises of "free stuff" to young voters who already are emotional by the dearth of opportunity in a stagnant economy and are prime for any promises of a better life, regardless of whether those promises are practically possible.

The Mob Rules...still.

We have nine months to see if any logic or sense will return to the political arena.  There is no apparent reason to be optimistic.  And if all continues, there will be an emotional hangover and we all will suffer the longest headache of our lives.

Do Candidates for Public Office always have to resemble Piranhas?

Politics is ugly.  There is a lot of passive/aggressive behavior lying just beneath the surface too.  During the middle of the last century there was a veneer of civility that provided just a slight softening of the rhetoric.  You could sense the vitriol, but it wan't just thrown out there, but couched in nicer terms with a softer, more civil voice.

There is no question that earlier practice of politics in America was extremely crude and lacked any real interest in truth.  It seemed actually to thrive on emotional name-calling and broad insults designed to anger the foe and inspire smiles, cheering and clapping by those on your side.

I would suggest that there was a conscious effort to "refine" the political rhetoric as we reached into the middle part of the 20th Century.  I always felt that an effort was being put forth to come across to the public as "civilized" in both action and speech...even as the comments sent us all to the dictionaries to determine just how great an insult had just been brandished, albeit by inference or innuendo.

And even as the battles waged at periscope depth, there was what seemed to be genuine friendships among those on opposite sides.  As in the courts, folks could argue emotionally and feverishly one against another, yet sit down and share a drink and good conversation as dinner was served with your erstwhile foe.

Today, rare indeed is a friendship...or even acquaintanceship...that crosses ideological lines, even after the close of the work day.  Not only do people on opposite sides not understand each other...they don't want to understand each other.  At least that is how most of them act, even when saying words to the contrary.

Given that unfortunate state of political art, it nonetheless is confounding to me how people in the same general segment of political ideology can be as negative with each other when vying for a nomination as they are with those diametrically opposed to their point of view.  When viewed as the bigger picture, their differences are extremely minor and, while demonstrably important, don't seem to rise to the level that calls for a "take no prisoners" conflict.  Yet that is what happens in both major political parties...at least as I view it.

I remember Ronald Reagan's admonition to not speak ill of any fellow Republican.  I always like both the sound and the content of that statement.  Even as we now embark on the very beginning of a campaign that will result in a new President of these United States of America, we see this strange sense of cannibalism becoming more apparent.  There used to be an art to a candidate explaining the plus' of their positions that did not require an attack on anyone else; "I am better than 'xxxxx' because I would 'xxxx.' " caused a listener or reader to think about how that person's election would effect the body he was trying to join...and how it would serve our own community.  Those who simply explained why one shouldn't like someone else never used to be a reason to presume that the person deriding another would be a good office holder.  So...why does that seem to work now?  I doesn't with me, but there has got to a serious expectation of its efficacy since almost everyone seems to do it.

And the serious downside of such negative campaigning is that regardless of who wins, that survivor finds that the infighting has handed the real opponents much ammunition to use in the general election.  So...where is the advantage?  I just don't see it.  Short term, maybe there is a boost...but in the age of video tape and recording the long term result is usually disastrous.

Are politicians and political really so stupid as to continue this absurd practice?  I guess we will see in just a bit...

Sports and Domestic Violence

It used to be that when one's transgressions reached the stage of being prosecuted by the authorities, the result of that process was deemed to be the extent of punishment.  Some went to jail, and when they got out, there were a variety of ways for that person to earn his or her way back into the work force and into society at large.

Should the transgression not reach the level of prosecution by authorities...or whatever the disposition by the courts...the matter was deemed over with and done.  For the most part, a transgression did not trigger a doomsday scenario.

Apparently those days are gone forever.  Mind you, I am in favor of the strictest possible punishment and treatment that will deter and prevent violence in any situation.  Domestic violence is abhorrent.  And I would think that random violence in society among and between those who do not know each other is equally abhorrent.  Although one would not know that by current standards.  A person who gets in a bar fight with a stranger, may be fined, or even get probation and go right back to work with little public notice.  The exceptions are Politicians and Athletes...providing they are men.  Women get a pass.  Not sure why...but they do.

In the NFL now, you lose you ability to earn a living in your chosen profession if you are accused of Domestic Violence.   If you are convicted of Domestic Violence, you lose that ability permanently...or for so long as to amount to permanent, given the short productive period for an athlete.  The Legal punishment now is simply a preliminary element.  Is that right?  Should there be a discussion about that.  If there are children and an ongoing family existence, is removing the earning power helpful to the family?  Does that make sense?  Does keeping a person from gainful employment teach anyone anything?  Progressives and Liberals for years have been preaching about the fallacy of revenge, arguing for rehabilitation and counseling...but in this case they now preach of revenge.   Should this switch and the motivation for it be open for discussion?  Because I have heard nothing along that line...and whatever the outcome it would seem appropriate to think and talk it through to understand the logic.  Because the current logic escapes me and I would like to hear it laid out fully.

And...I would suggest that if the logic is there to support this extended punishment and behavioral level for participation in sports, that it be extended to fans also.  It seems only fair...especially given the behavior of some fans at all sorts of sporting events.  Perhaps one should not be able to buy a ticket to a sporting event unless they can show that they are free from DWI or any alcohol related charges or conviction, of any arrests or convictions for any sort of violence (Domestic or otherwise).  And if they are buying multiple tickets, that the same information should be put forth for whoever is going to be sitting in those additional seats.

Fair is fair.  Equal is equal.  What is good for the Goose should certainly be good for the Gander.

Let us have this discussion...

Changing Definitions just confuse me...and I get no response when I ask...

I have written before...and will not repeat it here...about the changing definitions of such things as "Right", "Progressive", "Fascist", etc., and whether they are "good" or "bad." But I was surprised these last few days by a chance foray into just what "Liberalism" meant...and how long it had meant what I (and, apparently, it's advocates)understand it to be (basically,being in alignment with Barack Obama, progressivism, Occupy Wall Street, and the Democratic National Committee).

But...back in the days of the Revolution the attitude was a bit different: American patriots rallied around the cause of “No taxation without representation,” there was fear of centralized governments that ruled with great authority, and a great desire for the relationship that people have with their government to forever change to one of the people holding their government in check. American liberals then, the most famous of which are known as the Founding Fathers, supported limiting the power of government as much as possible. They believed that government power would naturally and inevitably corrupt and needed checks at every turn. They did not subscribe to the view that empowering the government with more and more power would lead to a better society. They stood against such expansions as they already knew what happened when the government’s size and scope was beyond control. That is why the Constitution was designed the way it was, pitting each branch of government against the other, so that no one branch would grow powerful beyond control. I forget where I got the quote, but Economics Professor Don Boudreaux said, "Experience and reason recommended to liberalism’s founders (that) restraining the power of government might not be sufficient to ensure harmony and widespread wealth, but it is certainly necessary.”

Try running that by some of your Liberal friends and watch their minds self-destruct...if they even acknowledge these very real facts from the past. So...what happened between then and now? Just consider that Ludwig Heinrich Edler Von Misis, a noted Austrian-American economist, philosopher, and classical liberal who had a significant influence on the modern Libertarian movement and the Austrian School and who lived from 1881 to 1973, wrote, "Imagine a world order in which liberalism is supreme . . . there is private property in the means of production. The working of the market is not hampered by government interference. There are no trade barriers; men can live and work where they want.” Clearly if he were alive today, he would be declared a Libertarian, not a Liberal. Again...what happened and How...and Why? 

I, for one, have no idea. I wonder if today's Liberals do...or care.