What the Left Media Does Not Get

I get AND WELCOME all sides of the political debate. I live with a liberal (probably 2 liberals – my daughter/maybe and her mom/for sure*). I live in one of the most liberal zip codes in the country (look it up – 55405) and I work in two of the most conservative states in the country (Texas & Louisiana).

What I don’t welcome is people portraying themselves as neutral and not accepting that their personal opinion of something may not be accepted as fact by (probably) half the country.

If you support Trump you can’t deny that his lack of discipline with regards to his rhetoric makes it way too easy for those on the other side to label him as a racist. That doesn’t mean the majority of those supporters believe he is racist.

Most of Trump’s supporters DON’T believe he is racist. Maybe they are wrong about that – and is an entirely different discussion. But they can be wrong about something and still have an honest opinion that isn’t based on hate.

I have referred before to the article Our Culture of Contempt where Author Brooks describes the polarizing effect of assuming that “your ideology is based on love and your opponents is based on hate”.

If the left wants to be taken more seriously on the issue of race, they should stop labeling EVERY opponent they face as a racist. I’m 52 and have never voted for someone that the left hasn’t labeled as a racist. So sooner or later you just stop listening to the chatter.

Sadly, I don’t see the problem getting better – but getting worse.

Does Trump help? Probably not.

Does he make it worse? Probably so.

Is it necessary? I don’t know – but it might be.

In the mean time, it would be helpful if we could stick to what we want and stop ascribing motives to people’s beliefs and why they support the politicians they choose to support.

Nobody knows those things about other people and it leads us down a very dark path.

History says those dark paths are way darker than we understand and way harder to get back from than we can ever imagine.

*She would take issue with the “for sure”, and would probably say she is independent – which would not be correct. 🙂

The Problem on The Left (or the problem everywhere)

Democrats used to be the party of the working guy (sorry – working person).

They built their base of support by fighting for better wages and better benefits.  They knew those two things were the clearest path to improving the quality of life for their base.  

Today – not so much.  

Fighting for someone else, the old democratic party always held the moral high ground.  While the republicans always came across as fighting to selfishly keep what they had.  As I life long Republican – that is annoyingly true.  

The democrats today are in a tough spot.  They are now the ones in power. They control the board rooms, the banks, silicon valley, the media, and the richest zip codes in the country are overwhelmingly liberal.  

In the past, the democrats rallied AGAINST the powerful.  Today – they ARE the powerful.  

It is clear now that better wages and better benefits for the working class is now something that doesn’t work as well given the left’s new found power base.  

But parties have to fight for something.  So, now instead of fighting for better wages and better benefits for working people – they fight for diversity. 

Why?

They have to know  it isn’t real – 0r it isn’t as real as money.  

For sure isn’t measurable.  And even better – because if something isn’t measurable it is easy to keep moving the goal posts – pretending like we aren’t there yet.  

We are for sure 1000x more diverse today then at any other time in history and somehow TODAY it is our biggest issue?  Is happiness correlated to this 1000x improvement?  I know wages and benefits can be tied to happiness – up to a point.  I don’t remember MLK fighting for diversity.  He fought for economic justice – a fair shake.  Diversity – doesn’t guaranty any of that.  It just sounds or feels good.  It isn’t real.  


Sounding good or feeling good lets the left keep the moral high ground they held in the past.  The can still be THE virtuous party.  Even though they know what they are fighting for isn’t actually going to help anybody.  
Maybe more than power – the other driving force not just on the left but for us all is the ability to feel good about ourselves and what we are doing – the ability to feel virtuous.  


I’m sure diversity does improve quality of life.  It is why I live in the city and not the suburbs (at a much higher cost).  But at an individual human level it isn’t the same as someone being able to put food on their table or pay their rent.  Those are things most of the people in power  have forgotten – if they ever knew.  


In fairness – nobody in Washington (right or left) remembers any of that too well.   The path to riches in Washington is a very short path.  Look at where AOC lives now.  


Diversity may make people that don’t fret about things like paying for food and paying rent feel better.  But it is clearly not the first problem we should be trying to solve.   


Here is why.  

Solving real problems would most likely do way more to address the real issues we are facing.  

It is clear that the less fear people live in, the less hate they have.  And the less hate people have, the more easily people can love each other, or at the least – hate each other less.  

Telling anybody that they need to focus on loving and accepting others more, when they have a boot on their neck financially, only comes across as out of touch and naive.  


This is all clear to anybody that is paying attention.  Republicans have been the party of the rich (arguable – but mostly true) and now the democrats are the party of the powerful (who are now the REAL rich).    


The working class woke up 1 day and realized they didn’t have a voice anymore.  Trump became that voice and it is that simple.  


Trump didn’t create this problem.  He was the result of the problem.  
Somewhere along the way we stopped talking to each other.  And that stopped way before Trump.  


Deny that – and Trump wins again – for sure.  


For a clearer picture, watch the documentary American Chaos, by Jim Stern who documents his attempt to understand how someone like Trump came to be.  He hates Trump.  He doesn’t change his mind on Trump AT ALL.  But he does start to get the why.  


Or read this more recent article by Tucker Carlson


Two takes from opposites sides of the political spectrum – interestingly landing in pretty much the same place.  When half the country feels left out of the conversation – not a lot of good can happen.  


The only path to start fixing any of this is to start talking (actually listening).  And sadly for me – I don’t see that beginning under Trump.  But I also don’t see a better alternative.  

Trump didn’t create this mess – and he probably won’t fix it.  

Maybe we can at least learn something from all of this and be ready when a real conversation starts again.  How can we learn something? Stop talking and start listening. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

Be honest (or accurate) about the U.S. Women’s Soccer Team’s Pay Gap

How are we supposed to take the issue of the gender pay gap seriously when “respected” leaders are at best out of touch, lazy, or worst – lying.  

Katie Jacobs Stanton sits on the Board of Directors for TIME. I doubt she is out of touch or dumb.  Can’t answer the lying part. 



Maybe there is another statistic that makes her case.  If so, she should have found and used that one.  Maybe her issue is that the US Men’s Team (who aren’t very good) get more money than the US Women’s Team (who are more than good).  If that is her beef, she has a point.  But it isn’t the point she made.  

The point she made is that the World Cup Men’s team winner got $400MM and the World Cup Women’s Team winner got $30MM.  I don’t know what she thinks they (men and women) should get. But, the underlying math in this case shows the women get a larger take of the gross than the men – actually 44% more.  




If there is a real gender pay gap (and I’m not saying there is or there isn’t), this type of reporting/tweeting isn’t helping to solve the problem.  

If solving the problem is the goal, 1) show where there is a real gender pay gap, 2) show what the facts, and 3) propose a real solution.  

If the gender pay gap is real, my daughter needs serious people to be way more serious and way less flip.  

Is Candace Owens Showing Us How to Disagree Better?

A few weeks ago Candace Owens was all the buzz when she pushed back on Congressmen Ted Lieu (D-CA) not allowing him to mis-characterize what she said and her character.  
 
You can watch that exchange below:

That clip became the most watched C-SPAN video on twitter.  
 
But the clip from the hearing that matters was her opening.  
 

 
Quick, sharp and un-flappable, Owens is quickly becoming a large part of the political conversation.  
 
A fan of Owens or not, her arguments are extension of Dr Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman – so she is swimming in the deep end of the pool.  An advocate for the the people she cares the most about (her own), Owens isn’t afraid of typically off-limit topics. 
 
A deeper dive shows what separates her from the pack is less about the topics she is willing to step into and more about whom she is willing to step into those topics with.  
 
In a recent article in the New York Times, Author Brooks argues that our problem isn’t that we argue or disagree too much, but that we don’t argue or disagree the right way.  
 
Our goal should not be to disagree less, but it should be to disagree better.  
 
 
Anybody who’s tried to disagree better knows it isn’t easy. 
 
So how can we disagree better?  
 
Talking with people we disagree with is a start.  
 
According to Brooks though, it isn’t enough.  
 
What also keeps us from disagreeing better is what he labels “motive attribution asymmetry” which is…
 
the belief that our ideology is based in love and our opponents is based in hate.  This not only leads to intolerance, but far worse.  It leads to contempt.  Contempt makes political compromise and progress impossible. 
 
Listening to Owen’s most recent conversations with Russel Brand (everybody knows him – right?) and Hank Newsome (the chairman of New York chapter of Black Lives Matter) shows someone trying to disagree better.  
 
While there is little agreement in the 3+ hours, there is almost no contempt.  
 
Owens and Newsome cover
 
  • Fathers
  • Police brutality and the blue wall
  • Food poison in the poor communities
  • Affirmative action
  • Why we should have more African immigrants 
  • Welfare being a crutch vs wheel chair 
  • What Shaquille O’Neil thanks about financial literacy 
  • Being offended
  • The first step act
 
Newsome closes with:
 
“I’m not looking for America to deliver liberation. I’m looking for it to do it’s part. In an effective way.”
 

 
Brand opens with:
 
“A great conversation with someone I disagree with about 90% of what she says and isn’t that the point of public discourse.” 
 
Brand and Owens plow through
 
  • anorexia
  • individualism
  • pre-existing ideology 
  • the impediment of debate
  • oppression olympics
  • spirituality and its place in politics
  • socialism vs capitalism
  • government bail outs and their role in capitalism
  • breaking up google
 
Looking at the components of humanity Brand quotes Solzhenitsyn
 author of The Gulag Archipelago 
 
“the line between good and evil runs not between nations, religions or creeds, but through every human heart”. 
 
and ads his own take
 
“I know there is selfishness, greed…. and the lot in me, so I need to exist in communities that acknowledges that I am flawed and can fail but can encourage the better parts of my nature”
 
About and hour and a half in, they make an attempt to build a government (Brand’s “utopia”) that works – Making it about 2 minutes before they give up or get distracted.  
 
Did those conversations solve anything?  
 
Maybe not.  
 
But they are a start.  And starting is hard.  Starting is the hardest thing and more people need to start.  
 
So, instead of attacking Owens, maybe Mr Leiu could learn from her and start trying to do his job by figuring out how to disagreeing better.  
 
Congress has to disagree better if it is ever going to achieve something.  
 
For politics to work, politicians have to be able to disagree better.  If they don’t we will lose faith in the system. 
 
Once we lose faith in that the only next step is not civil discourse – but civil war.  
 
 
 
 

The failure of the deep state & our path to come together or grow further apart

I read this article (Autopsy of  Dead Coup) by Victor David Hanson a while back.  
 
After the Mueller report came out this weekend I went back and read it again.  A few things stood out when I originally read it and even more so today.  
 
The deep state is by nature cowardly.
 
What James Rutenberg of the New York Times said represented a deep sense of my frustration with many (almost all) of the people that can’t seem to understand why someone can support Trump and not represent all that is wrong in the world.  
 
For those that sincerely want to understand why people support Trump they should watch this.  
 
For an understanding about how James Rutenberg sees the world read this.
 
James Rutenberg in 2016:
 
“If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, non-opinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable. But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?”
 
It’s clear a huge portion of people hate Trump and see him as a threat – maybe even a majority.  But it should also be fair to assume that the other half honestly considers the alternative to Trump just as threatening?  
 
If this country has any hope, honest and reasonable people have to realize that each side is equally threatened at the prospect of their political opponents moving the country further away from their own ideas about where the country should go.  It has been that way since the beginning and it isn’t ever going to change.  
 
What seems different today is how we are dealing with that sense of threat.  
 
We can either 1) ascribe the worst intentions or motives to our opponents or  2) give them the benefit of the doubt that maybe their heart could possibly be in the right place – or a right enough place.    
 
Option 2, is the only real way forward.  And option 2 starts with each of us individually.  It is hard and necessary.  But, it can’t start at the top – it can only start at the individual level.  
 
The alternative is much worse.
 
When problems don’t get solved, things get worse.  They always get worse.  
 
Things either get better or they get worse. They don’t stay the same.  It’s the way things work. That isn’t changeable.  
 
What is changeable is how we choose to view things and what actions we choose to take next.   
 
Doing nothing and choosing not to change is a choice and an action itself.  It will not lead to a good place. 
 
The leaders we have today are a reflection of us.  And they are all taking harder and harder tacks to their sides as opposed to coming together.  The few that try to govern from a point of consensus don’t get any traction.  That isn’t on them.  That is on  the majority in the middle that keeps supporting the extremes – even though they say they don’t. They do.  Elections every where prove that.  
 
The extremes are getting emboldening, the middle is losing power and the majority is being left out of the conversation.  If we want our leaders to change we have to change. 
 
This is not a small thing.  It is the thing.  When the only people left to govern are those on the extremes, nothing will get get done and the only possible next step is Civil War.  The extremes will fight the extremes and the middle will have to pick sides. 
 
And for the people that don’t think they like their choices today, Civil War eliminates all of the moderate choices. 
 
Don’t think Civil War is in the cards?  Ask those people in Rwanda and Sarajevo  if they thought Civil War was in their cards six-months before it was.  Sarajevo was hosting the olympics less than a decade prior to the Bosnian Civil War.  
 
For more on how Civil War is in the cards and irresponsible to deny it, read this article in the New Yorker, where Keith Mines lays out five conditions for civil war.  
  1. entrenched national polarization, with no obvious meeting place for resolution;
  2. increasingly divisive press coverage and information flows;
  3. weakened institutions, notably Congress and the judiciary;
  4. a sellout or abandonment of responsibility by political leadership;
  5. and the legitimization of violence as the “in” way to either conduct discourse or solve disputes. 
Yep.  
 
Looking for some hope?
 
The fact that our President isn’t a traitor or a puppet of Russia is a good thing – right?
 
The Mueller Report gives keeps the country out of Civil War.  If anybody thinks that Trumps folks would have sat still and watched him get removed from office peacefully are delusional.  They already thought the system was rigged against them.  This would have proved their point and justified their actions (in their minds at least).  
 
There is now an opportunity (small as it is) for the country to re group and re decide whether it wants to come together or stay on the divisional course it is on now.  The 2020 Election will allow that to take place in a national debate.  We get to pick what that debate is going to look like.  
 
We should decide what we really want, who we want to be and have that discussion.  
 
Want something to be thankful for Trump about?
 
Trump already turned the table over.  A majority of the positions that have been traditionally left and right are all now up for debate (trade, war, prison reform, globalism, immigration….).  Reasonable people can take a step back and ask them themselves what they really think about the key issues.  They are less held by parties than ever before.  New parties and alliances could be formed that more reflect what people really believe and want.  
 
A post Trump presidency (either in 2020 or 2024) is going to be a fundamentally different political structure than a pre Trump presidency.  It will be different.  What isn’t clear is if it will be better.  We get to decide that.  We should act accordingly.  
 
Bonus: A Second thing to be thankful about Trump….
 
He ended the Bush and Clinton dynasties.  That is something we can all come together around.  
 
 
 

Article: 100% Renewable Cities—Is Your Mayor Smarter Than A 5th Grader?

After reading the linked article from Hart Energy, I was left with this question.
 
What’s worse.  
 
A) One who doesn’t believe climate change is real or thinks it is a problem that needs to be solved? 
B) One who believes climate change is real and needs to be solved – but has no idea how to actually solve it?  
C) or, B + pretends like they do know how to solve it.
 
You pick.  
 
If you pick (A), at least (A) isn’t going to waste what some say could be over $100 trillion* (with a t) by the end of the century and improve nothing.  Waste is a crime because that $100 trillion could be put to real use helping real people.  
 
There is a lot in the article everybody should think about (especially if you care about climate change).  
 
The author of the article doesn’t come across as anti renewables but more anti dumb.  He has written what appear to be many thoughtful books on what good approaches to solving climate change could look like.  
 
 
A few gems from the  leaders where I live (gems – who I’m guessing are sincere):  
 
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter pledged their cities to 100 percent renewables by 2030. Major wind system build-outs during the last five years boosted Minnesota to the eighth-leading wind energy state in the US. Renewables now provide about 27% of the state’s electricity. But Minnesota residents are paying for it. Over the last nine years, Minnesota power prices increased 34%, compared to the US average price rise of 7%.
 
I’m thinking they don’t get that when energy costs go up 34% for working people – it is real money.  
 
*I would cite those or better numbers if they weren’t all over the place – which kind of proves my point.  If anybody had a real solution with a real price – all of the supporters would agree and promote that number.  There is no agreement even out there as to what the costs or benefits would be.  If there is agreement out there someone should point it out more clearly.  
 
As a side…  Wanna know what poor people around the world want the UN to spent $100 trillion on?  
 
Watch Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg and see what kids in third world countries think us rich countries should be spending our money on to help them (think – water, schools, medicine). 
 
Better yet.  Watch Lomborg’s TED Talk on global priorities that should be bigger than climate change.
 

Why Warren Buffett Should Keep His Money

Because he would have never given a company like Solyndra $1/2 Billion.  Why wouldn’t he?  Because it is HIS money.

The government has an inherent problem with managing other people’s money, and that is it is other people’s money – or more importantly NOT THEIR MONEY.

The is nothing wrong with what many in Washington want to accomplish.  Nothing at all.  The only issue most have, is that their methods aren’t very effective – or effective at all in some cases.

Warren Buffett may have an interest in “green jobs” too.  The difference is that Warren Buffett is going to insist that the company that wants to create good green jobs and wants his money to do it – has a pretty good chance of success.  Because it isn’t going to matter what good intention or story the company may have had to begin with.  The only thing that will matter in creating real jobs and real green energy will be success.

For sure, Buffett would have passed on Solyndra.  But, would we he have kept that money for himself?  NO!  That isn’t what he does.  Buffett would have found another Solyndra.  One that had a better business model and one that in the end – would have created real jobs around a real business.

That is the tragedy in all of this – Buffett wanting to send his money to Washington and have it go to more Solyndra’s.  Most people with common sense would see money in Buffett’s hands is just way more productive.

Who knows if Buffett is smarter than the guys in Washington – probably.  But that isn’t the point.  The point is that it doesn’t matter.  Some in Washington were actually very smart with regards to Solyndra.  They pin pointed the exact month that Solyndra would fail.  They did their due diligence just like any private sector Venture Capitalist would have done.  The problem was that the guy or guys at the top had other (political) reasons for throwing $1/2 Billion at a company like Solyndra.  Politics has never been able to pick winners and losers in the private sector and has never been able to create real jobs.  Never has – Never will.

The guys at the top in the private sector, for the most part, only win when they are right.  That is how they make money – long lasting money.  The truth is that it is hard to create long lasting money without creating long lasting jobs.  We’re not talking about the crooks and those that are making money by beating the system.  We are talking about 95% of the private sector that just shows up each day, puts in a hard days work and wins slowly over a long period of time.  Those are the ones (the businesses) that get Buffett’s money.

While the private sector only wins when it is right – politicians have the luxury of wining when they can convince people they are right.  They don’t have to actually BE RIGHT, they just have to SOUND RIGHT.

In nobody’s world is that a good system.

So we should hope that when the next Facebook or Amazon is out there looking for money to start their new idea, the money they need is in Buffettt’s hands and not Washington’s.

If creating real meaningful jobs and a growing economy is really the goal – let’s keep the money with the guys that know what to do with it.  On this one – the smart money has to be on Buffett.

Sorry Warren – you’re right, even when you are wrong.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta