Why silence is not complicity

Recently, we're starting to see more and more slogans that attack people who are "silent".  These slogans say things like "if you don't say you're against violence, you're a criminal".

Another example of this is Seattle Seahawks player Richard Sherman, who said "anyone who doesn't speak up and say they are in favor of black rights is a racist by default".

Or: "if you're silent about women's rights, you're complicit with the abusers."

These types of slogans are not good.

The problem with this kind of attitude is that it assumes the worst about people.  It says that, by default, all people are terrible, and in order to show that they are not, they need to speak up and prove it.

In other words, these types of slogans make everyone guilty until proven innocent.  That's the exact opposite of democracy and freedom.  In order for a society to be truly free, each citizen should, by default, assume that everyone else are GOOD, not bad.  We should be presumed to be innocent, not guilty.  That is one of the cores of democracy: that you give the other person the benefit of the doubt and assume that, by default, they are innocent and good.

This also means that that an average person should not have to speak up by default.

Why not?

Because most people (99%+) believe in equality, oppose the idea of violence, want peace, etc.  As the fathers of the Constitution said, "we hold these truths to be self-evident".  It shouldn't be a requirement of people to speak up and state what we all feel.

Think of it this way: suppose that you saw someone standing on the corner of the street market and yelling this: "I am against oppression.  I am against violence.  I am against abuse of women.  I am against racism."

And this person went on and on, yelling out what they were against.

How would that make you feel?

Most likely you'd be thinking "Why doesn't that fool be quiet?  Everyone feels that way, it's no big deal."

And that's the point: most people are good and decent already - they oppose human cruelty, oppression, etc.  They shouldn't have to "speak out" and say it; instead, we as a society should already assume that they feel that way and give them respect.

This is why slogans that say that silence or inaction implies approval are wrong.  Someone who is out beating up blacks - is a racist.  Someone who is hitting a woman - is an abuser.  Someone who is just living their life - is innocent - regardless if they express their opposition to racism or violence or not.

What a person actually does is what matters.

The real irony of it is that the people who use those slogans - THEY are the ones creating hate and suspicion.   They are the ones who are ruining society, because they are going around and saying that we, as a society, should assume everyone is guilty first, and need to be proven innocent.

In other words, we should assume the WORST about our fellow humans beings, and everyone has to PROVE that they are not a terrible person (racist, sexist, etc.)

That is a terrible attitude to have towards fellow human beings.

By default, everyone is a racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-freedom, oppressive Nazi?

No.

It's the other way around: by default, most people are hard-working, decent, and worthy of respect.

To be clear: the "if you don't speak, you are, by default, guilty" attitude is, quite frankly, completely bollocks.  It's an attitude that most of us find totally reprehensible.  It's negative, anti-freedom, anti-human, cynical, and anti-democratic.

And as this article shows, people certainly ARE willing to speak up: but don't be suprised if what we are speaking against - is YOU and your awful attitude towards humanity.

LKvi

TakeAKnee is just another Yellow Ribbon

A few years ago, in the country of Canada, there was a protest of sorts.  It was about violence against women, and to show that someone was against it, they bought a yellow ribbon and wore it.

In other words, if you opposed the violence, you bought a ribbon, and then...  nothing. 

That was it.  You did nothing else.  No need to actually do anything, like volunteer at a shelter to help a victim, or donate money to a charity that provides support, or do some self-examination into your own anger issues, etc.

So the "Yellow Ribbon" campaign was a sham; it gave people the feeling that they were "doing something" about violence, when in fact, they weren't really doing anything at all.  It padded people's egos, letting them thinking they were doing good for society, without actually having to do anything.

Now we see the TakeAKnee movement in the States, where pro atheletes are refusing to stand while the national anthem is sung.

It's the same thing.

If a pro athelete really feels passionate about the plight of African-Americans, there are many things they are do about it, like:

* Volunteering at a shelter
* Donating to support charities that help poor African-Americans
* Taking a million dollars of their own money and building a playground or a park in a poor neighbourhood
* Being a celebrity spokesperson for a support center
* Calling on government to increase funding for youth places like the Boys and Girls Club of America
* Choosing to be a mentor for a youth group

That would be real action.  That would create real change.

But that's not what's happening, is it?  These players are taking a knee, but then doing nothing else; nothing that would actually help the situation.

In fact, what these atheletes are doing is taking the easy way out.  It's really, really easy to kneel during the anthem, especially when you see your other teammates doing it.  But then, on their drive back to their huge luxury mansion, what happens if they pass through a poor neighbourhood?  

They roll up the windows and keep driving.

If these players really truly cared, they would show it through REAL action - they would be doing charitable acts to help the less fortunate.

Taking a knee does nothing.  Why?  Because it's like the Yellow Ribbon campaign: it's stating the obvious.  99.99999999% of people oppose racism: having a campaign to say "you should oppose racism" is pointless because it's pointing out the obvious that most people already agree with.

Instead, if these players truly care, they would band together and announce they are all volunteering at a shelter, or they are starting a charity to raise money for the less fortunate, or doing some other kind of true charitable work that would help.

Yes, it would be harder because it would be work for the players, but it would be real change, unlike taking a knee, which is, in the end, just another yellow ribbon.

LKvi

The effect of media bias

This week, there's been even more news about a possible scandal with Trump being somehow involved with the Russians somehow, doing something.

Looking at it objectively, though, it's kind of hard to believe what's happening.

Ever since the election over 7 months ago, there's continually been accusations that Trump did this, or Trump did that, and the media continues to come up with new angles and stories about it.   But the strange thing is: nothing ever happens.  A new story gets reported, people react to it, and then - nothing.

And it's the usual plot line from the Trump side: they just repeat the same line: "Where's the evidence or proof?"  Then the media backs down, saying they have an "unnamed source" or "inside information" - yet when it comes time for them to actually show the evidence that there's a problem, they never deliver.

Watching all this, it seems like quite a game.  The media comes up with a story, people are upset about it, the media gets challenged, and they can't prove anything, so instead, they just move on to the next story and no one holds them in account for reporting the first story which had no basis of truth.

So it's a cycle of: report, react, get called on it, and find something new.

Naturally, a question arises: why wouldn't anyone hold the media accountable?  After all, they are reporting story after story that ends up just not being true or unprovable or just a theory or rumor.

Why would anyone listen to it or take it seriously?

What would make a person continue to believe the stories when absolutely NONE of them have been proven to be true?

This is a very deep question, and if you're one of those people who are posting on social media and "liking" the latest gossip about Trump, you might be feeling offended by this, but here's something you need to consider:

You WANT to believe.

You really wish that something was true, because it would validate what you feel.

But why?

There is a concept called "confirmation bias".  What it means is that when a person has a set of beliefs, they are much more quick to accept news that corresponds to those beliefs, than to news that goes directly against those beliefs.

Let's look at that for a moment.

Right now, the majority (>90%) of reporting about the current government, and in particular, Trump, is negative.  Criticism, complaints, potential scandals, etc. are majority of the stories; positive stories and praise for the current government are rare.

This shows that people are content with news that is negative towards Trump and the government right now.

That's understandable.  The whole election campaign was very nasty with a lot of insults and anger from both sides.  Trump certainly jumped into the middle of that and offended a lot of people with his remarks and comments, giving people a lot of reason not to like him.  So it's understandable that people have a bad impression of Trump.

However, there's a danger there, and it's one that the American people seem to be unaware of at this point.

Yes, people will want to hear news that is biased towards their viewpoints, because they want to hear things that agree with what they believe.

However an important question comes up: At what point does bias go too far?

For example, consider a communist country like China.  The news in China will always be praising the communist party and be biased against anything that goes against the party's beliefs.  This is what is typically referred to as propaganda.

So on that same thought: At what point does news in a free society become so biased that it is also effectively just propaganda?

This is an very important question.  The news media in America have stopped hiding the fact that they are biased.  So for you as an individual, it becomes a question of: are you listening to news which is truthful and objective or just politically motivated propaganda?

These days, it's something that must be considered because the media, by their own admission, is no longer objective and unbiased.  And that bias is creating some seriously bad consequences as a result.  What we're seeing is that the continual bombardment of negative news is resulting in people becoming more violent.  They feel frustrated and angry with the constant "bad news" and it's getting to them.

This is why we are seeing more protests, more violence, more anger.  People are "unfriending" each other and being more hostile in person-to-person interaction.

That is the effect that the media bias is having.

And this is why we need to really start questioning whether the media has gone too far.

Some bias will always be there, because it's nearly impossible for anyone to be completely fair and objective; that's just human nature.  But when it gets to a point that society is seeing terrible effects such as these, it's time to start questioning whether it should be allowed to continue.

Fortunately, it's a relatively easy problem to defeat: you simply have to see that it's happening, and then decide to not just trust what you're told by the media and do a bit of fact-finding yourself.  After doing this, most people find that:

1) The situation isn't nearly as bad as the news is making it out to be.
2) Most human beings are actually good and decent people.

And: 3) just blindly trusting what the media is saying when they provide no evidence or proof it is a bad idea.

LKvi

Sorry Bernie, but you have no credibility

In the recent weeks, Bernie Sanders has been speaking out against various things that the US government is doing.  What's interesting to note is how his opinion is being received.  Sanders used to get a huge amount of attention and respect on his views, but nowadays, his audience has nearly disappeared (outside of fanatical Democrats who still believe that Trump will be impeached for no reason and Hillary will take the reigns of the country.)

What happened?

During the Democratic primary campaign, Bernie Sanders proposed a lot of good ideas for the country.  He also did a fantastic job in his debates with Clinton, showing her as the self-serving career politician that she was.  Most of Bernie's ideas for how the direction the country should be headed were in sharp contrast to Clinton's.
 

Sanders made it clear that he was not just "another Clinton".  He had a different vision, a different direction, one that he said would greatly improve the country.  His plan was keyed on not following the same approach as Clinton; if anything, his approach was radically different than hers.

And many voters liked it.  They bought into Bernie's plan because it wasn't the standard "business as usual" politics that Clinton was offering - Sanders was a viable change and a move in a different direction.

And Bernie's personal integrity was excellent; unlike Clinton, he didn't have a history of using his political position for personal gain; he wasn't bought and owned by the banks (he was actually very much opposed to the control the financial institutions have on the country).

In short, Sanders was nearly the perfect the anti-thesis of Clinton.  Someone who was for the people, the 99%, not the elites, not the political dynasties.

But looking at the response to Sanders these days, one would hardly know that; he's lost nearly his entire audience.

So what happened?

Leading up to the days of the DNC, evidence began coming in that clearly showed that Clinton and the DNC had rigged the primaries against Sanders.  We all watched with curiousity to see what his reaction would be.

And Sanders didn't disappoint: he refused to conceed the nomination to Clinton before the DNC started.  Smart move.

Then, at the DNC, Sanders insisted that all of his votes be counted, even though it was clear that Clinton was going to get the most votes. Again, another smart move.

So at this point, it was clear: Sanders was still fighting.  He was making it clear that he represented a different viewpoint, and his supporters were strong and fiercely loyal to him and what he represented (one of the key things being an alternate to Clinton).

But then...

The results were tallied, and as expected, Clinton received more votes.  It was Sanders time to give a speech.

This was Bernie's moment.  This was history calling.  This was the moment for Bernie Sanders to forever change the face of American politics in an honest and truthful way.

Bernie took the podium and began to speak.

But he didn't speak to his supporters, encouraging them to support his vision and continue to work towards it.

He didn't speak about all his key fundamental beliefs, and how he still held strong to them and knew that they would take the country in the right direction.

He didn't speak about being cheated by the DNC, and request a full investigation into how the primary had been conducted so unfairly against him.  That would have caused a huge uproar, but it would have been the RIGHT thing to do, because the primary had been rigged against him.  It would have been the honest thing to do, and would have shown his complete integrity.

Instead, Bernie did a complete reversal of everything, and spoke in support of Clinton and the very same policies and ideas that he had just campaigned against.

Sanders supporters were stunned.  Many of them left; they couldn't stand to see the person who they had placed so much trust in turning around and basically saying that EVERYTHING HE REPRESENTED WAS A LIE.

All of Sanders integrity, all of his honesty, all of the things that allowed people to trust him - evaporated instantly as he spoke.  He told his followers to support the very SAME person that he had spent months exposing as a self-centered, rich elite career politician who was completely unfit to be president.

Bernie, really, what did you think would happen?

You campaigned on a different vision than Clinton; you showed the voters what a terrible person she was, and how she would make a terrible president -- and then you thought that somehow, you could reverse your stance entirely?

This was Bernie Sanders defining moment.  But he failed.

He failed to continue support his own beliefs.

He failed to denounce Clinton.

He failed to demand an investigation into the DNC.

He failed to stand up for all the people who supported him.

And he failed to understand that you can't just reverse your entire viewpoint and then think that the people who supported you will do the same.

Sanders sold out, because he believed that it was better to sell out than allow the Republicans to win the election.

Guess what, Bernie?  NO.  It's WORSE that you sold out.  It's WORSE that, in the moment of your calling, you let everyone down.

That's what integrity is.  It's doing the right thing, NO MATTER WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES.

And that was the moment that the world saw the truth: Bernie Sanders actually has no integrity, no honesty, no courage.

He should have done what was right and spoke against Clinton.  But he didn't.

And the irony of it all?  The Democrats lost the election anyways.  So if Sanders had spoken his truth, and had been honest, and not sold out, it would NOT have cost the Democrats the election.

There's the bitter pill for you, Bernie: not only did you sell out, but you got NOTHING for it.

And what's also why no one listens to you any longer.  You can talk all you want, but the people have seen that when the moment is calling, you will NOT do the right thing.

So please, do us a favor, and give it up, Bernie.  You had your moment in history, but you lacked the courage to do the right thing, and you'll go down as a complete and utter letdown and failure.  I guess the one comfort in it all is that at least you can still go for drinks with your "good friend" Hillary.

LKvi

Clinton and the popular vote

There's been a noticible amount of complaining from people lately about the election results.  In particular, people are pointing out how Clinton won the popular vote, however, due to the electoral college, Trump won the presidency.  Many of these are subtle (and some, not so subtle) attempts to say that Clinton should be president instead of Trump because she won the popular vote.

But that's not how it works; Trump got the most electoral college votes and that's why he won.

To understand this, we need to ask the question: why is there an electoral college in the first place?

The problem with choosing a leader of a country that is composed of so many different states is that each state has different needs and challenges.  The water quality in the oceans is much more important to someone living in Seattle than someone in Wyoming, but at the same time, the cattle grazing rules are much more important to that same person in Wyoming than someone in Detroit.

So naturally, in a country as large as the USA, there are going to be differences of opinion, no matter who is running for president.  We need a system which tries to make things fair.

And this is what the electoral college was designed for; it prevents the situation where the majority of the states say "we do not want this person as president", only to have a couple of the most populated states effectively say "well, too bad for you" and then having their way because they have biggest population.

Why is this important?  Look at the biggest states by population: California (12.5%), Texas (8.6%), Florida (6.3%), and New York (6.1%).  In other words, 1/3rd of the US population lives in those 4 states. 

Imagine the scenario where you were living in a state like Ohio, but every time you voted for anything, you lost because the few large states always voted against you.  At some point, you'd have to ask the question: what is the point of being in the Union?  You aren't being represented or heard in government. The Union itself would begin to break down, because many states would simply not be represented.  A group of UNITED states needs to have a common ground and way of governing that is fair to all states involved or it simply won't work.

Otherwise, why wouldn't the smaller states just leave, or form their own government that has their interests in mind?  It would be a very difficult sell to the medium and smaller size states to remain in the Union if they never had a chance of getting anything they wanted from it.  And it would be ridiculous for the largest states to pretend this wasn't a problem.

The electoral college is set up to prevent the scenario where a couple of the most populated states want one person as president and can dictate to the remainder of the states who gets to be in Washington, because they have the most votes.

Now, looking at the election specifically: when Clinton announced her candidacy, her approval rating was just 15%. 

After a year and a half of the media portraying her in the most positive light they could, while showing her opponents as negatively as possible...

AND after the DNC actually rigged the primary in her favor...

AND after spending millions of dollars try to sell her...

Clinton's popularity rating was the same.  No one bought it.

Clinton was a corrupt career politican who would have lost to Joseph Goebbles, she was THAT hated by the majority of Americans.   There was literally no worse person that could have been pushed by Wall Street and the politican insiders.  The "It's my turn" attitude of her campaign just showed how arrogant she was, and she went so far as to show the American people how she had complete and total contempt for them by calling them a "basket of irredeemables".

And because she was so arrogant, she thought she could easily win by dividing the nation into neat little groups.  All of the division of the country that we see today: the riots, the anger, the political violence, the social media arguments, and the fighting?  Hillary WANTED it, because that's how she could win.  Why do you think she has been so quiet about the civil unrest since the election?  She created and unleashed this violent beast of division, but now she couldn't care less becuase it doesn't serve her political interest to stop it.  Quite frankly, she's also probably pretty terrified of it, and of what she has done.

On that note, if you don't like President Trump, you have Hillary to thank for it.  She is the one who told the media to push Trump in the Republican primaries, because she regarded Trump as the "pied piper candidate" who she could beat easily in the election.

Think about that for a moment: Hillary Clinton is the main reason that we have Trump as president today.  

And Hillary Clinton is the primary cause of the division that is rampant in our nation today.

So...  where are your complaints about HER?

If you look at the number of people angry at Trump in comparison to number of people angry at Clinton, it's at least 100:1, if not more.  And it begs the question:

Why does Clinton get a free pass after what she did?  Why shouldn't she be held accountable for it?

This is why most people aren't listening when you complain about Trump, but refuse to acknowledge the direct role that Hillary played in helping Trump become President.

And the original point is still this: the electoral college works.  New York and California are the reason that Clinton won the popular vote, but they would vote for ANYONE for president, as long as they have a "D" beside their name.  This just once again shows exactly why we CANNOT go by popular vote - because it would allow two states to dictate to the other 48 states who gets to be President, no matter what those other 48 states thought.

And that is EXACTLY the situation the electoral college prevents.

LKvi

Democrats and Negativity

The conspiracy theories continue to go mainstream these days - just watch CNN, MSNBC, etc and you'll see all kinds of negative rumors; things like theories that Russia hacked the election, that the world is going to end due to Trump, that Trump hates everyone, etc.

One has to step back though, and ask: what is the point of all this negativity? 

Do people really think that Trump is going to resign or that, months after the election, that somehow somebody will find a reason to legitimately overturn the results and hold a new election?

The fact of the matter is that regardless who won the election, for most people, it was business-as-usual the day after.  On November 9th, people woke up, took care of their families, dropped their kids off at school, went to work, and had a normal work day.  There wasn't a huge shift in average, everyday living.  There was no world-changing catastropy that ended modern civilization as we know it.

Yes, Trump alienated a lot of people during his campaign and there were a lot of people upset that he won the election.  However, it's completely unfair to think that there wouldn't also be just as many people upset if the Democrats would have won.  It's was a no-win situation; the country was very divided and neither candidate had a clear majority of support.

But what's surprising is the reaction since then - the Democrats claimed that after the won the election, the Trump supporters would riot and create all kinds of problems and be totally negative.  The irony is that the Democrats are doing the very thing they said the Republicans would do.

And what is the point of all this negativity, complaining, and rioting?

Barack Obama was hated by the Republicans, yet we didn't see the same level of social angst.  George W. Bush was highly unpopular before that, but again, the level of social unrest was still not as bad, even during his illegal war on Iraq.  

So what is different this time?

Bush was a politican who followed party lines.  Obama was a politican who followed party lines.  Trump is neither.  He is an outsider; he wasn't a politician before and less than 2 years later, he's now the president.

The problem for all the politicians, rich, and elites, who are used to their system running smoothly is that Trump isn't a part of that same system.  Trump is a loose cannon to them and it scares them because it threatens their power.

Hence, we see politicans, both Democrats and Republicans, opposing Trump.  Rich corporations can't control Trump, but they can control the politicians they bribe, so they use that control to oppose Trump by having other politicians oppose him.  Democrats have been absolutely shameless in this regard, with some going so far as to directly say that Trump "is not the president" and that we can expect a new election "shortly". 

The rich elites are the ones who own the media companies.  Is it any co-incidence that this president has receieved the highest ratio of negative to positive stories in history?  Positive stories about Trump on CNN are extremely rare, if they are shown at all.  Is it possible that Trump is truly this bad, or is it possible that perhaps the media might be biased?

One surprising reaction has been how average people have dealt with celebrities.  A lot of very rich singers and actors have all made major statements in favor of Clinton and against Trump, in order words, in favor of the system that made them rich.  The same system that funnels most of the profits to the 1% while leaving the middle class in a state where their true purchasing power has not increased since 1972.  Yet, with so many celebrities saying that they are anti-Trump, the majority of middle class are buying the story and joining the anti-Trump side.  Really?  Your favorite singer is 1000x richer than you, and you think that the politics that (s)he supports because it's good for them, are necessarily good for YOU as well? 

Perhaps it would be a good idea to step back and ask yourself why these celebrities are so anti-Trump, and whether or not if it's in your best interest?

The real question we should be asking, though, is this: Is what Trump is doing good for the American people or not?

During his campaign, Trump said many demeaning things and insulted a lot of people.  Since becoming President, has that behavior continued?  Has Trump learned his lesson and stopped being insulting to people?  And what has been done since being in office?

Those are much more important questions.  Instead, what we see many of these protestors and Democrats doing is simply holding a grudge.  Yes, Trump was rude and boorish during the campaign, but one can't say that Clinton wasn't also disgusting (as a simple example, consider how she called regular citizens "deplorable and irrideemable" and how she also said "there's one set of rules for me and one set of rules for everyone else".)  The campaign was definitely nasty, and neither candidate acted kindly and politely.

However, what has happened since the election?  Has Trump continued these patterns of negative behaviors?

The answer to that question seems to be no.  We haven't seen stories of Trump insulting women, minorities, or his opponents.  The only story that came close was the one that claimed that Trump removed Martin Luther King's bust from the Oval Office, but that story turned out to be completely false (and CNN apologised for it.)

So here we are - a couple of months since the election, and the Democrats, rich elites, corporations, politicians who benefited from the systematic corruption, and celebrities who got rich from that system, are now howling and complaining.

Why are you buying it?

Take a moment at look for the truth.  Yes, Trump isn't the best choice for president.  But he's also not nearly as bad or evil as these people have made him out to be.

It's a question of balance.

So, you might ask, why is there so much negativity and bad press about Trump?

It's a very good thing to ponder.  Notice who it is that Trump is angering the most.  It's the super-rich; the 1%.  Trump represents a threat to their wealth and power.

Consider this: if the average American has a better job, has more wealth, and has more power - where does it comes from?  The top 1%.   It means that the 1% lose their grip on the wealth and power and it becomes distributed to ALL Americans (as it should be).  But the 1% do not want to lose: hence, they are making loud noise.

It's something you may want to consider: just what are you supporting?

If you protest against Trump, are you protesting against his effort to create more jobs for the middle class?  Is that a bad thing - to want more jobs for people?

Yes, it's difficult to know who's telling the truth these days.  But as a citizen, it's your duty to do your best to inform yourself and try to figure it out, rather than just reading or hearing news from a completely biased source like the Huffington Post, and then taking action based on what you've heard.

And I'm willing to bet that if more of us made an effort to seek the truth, rather than just react to a news item, the level of negativity would drop -- and the level of confusion would increase.  We, the people, have a right to demand honest and unbiased reporting that we can count on.  The way the media has shifted to reporting based on their own political agenda is unacceptable.  It's misleading, and creating tons of unnecessary negativity.

And it's that negativity and political violence that we are all getting tired of.

So if you're feeling angry or upset or confused - rather than getting out into the streets or on social media and taking action - first, make sure you do your best to determine what is the truth.

If you're like most of us and you are completely honest with yourself, you'll most likely end up saying this:

"I'm just not sure exactly what's happening.  The media, the elite 1%, and the rich are making it very difficult to know what's really going on."

And that is true.

And that is sad.

And THAT is what we really need to be protesting and taking action against.

LKvi

Considering the alternative to Trump

Over a month into the Trump presidency, and we're continuing to see constant complaining, protesting, and people speaking out against him.  It doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon, which raises a question: what was the alternative?

In all of the backlash against Trump, it's something that not a lot of people seem to be discussing: what would the country be like had the Democrats won the election?

 

And this is something that absolutely needs to be considered, because we so many people who are in a furious rage speaking out against Trump, yet, they don't seem to have thought about what would have happened if Clinton would have won.

As far as "politics as usual" - this is exactly what Clinton represented.  The corruption, bribery, and political favors for the elite would have continued, as the things got worse and worse for the middle and lower classes.  That would have been a natural result, as Clinton would have been the first president who opened expressed their complete and total hatred of the average American.  It is somewhat surprising that a citizen would have even considered voting for a person who regarded them as worthless, deporable, and unredeemable.  Someone like this would clearly not have the best interests of the 99% in mind.

As far as equality goes, Clinton openly spoke of how she would fire men from their jobs so that they could hire a woman in their place, in the name of 'equality'.  However, this is completely wrong: equality means hiring the right person for the job, regardless of gender, race, or religous belief.  What this program would do is gender discriminate.  Women's liberation has fought for years against this very thing: not getting a job because of a person's gender, and Clinton's plan was to impose it once again, only in reverse: encouraging gender discrimination against men, instead of women being the target.  However, discrimination is still a problem, regardless who the victim is.

In foreign policy, Clinton was openly taking huge risks.  She stated that she wanted to impose a no-fly zone in Syria, where the Russians are actively in combat duty.  During the presidental debate, the moderater asked her what would happen if a no-fly zone was imposed and a Soviet fighter jet flew over Syria?  Would the US shoot the plane out of the sky and seriously risk a war with Russia?  Clinton had no answer and refused to talk about it, but it was a key question because it showed that she was clearly willing to get into a war with Russia; a war that most Americans do not want.

Some of the other complaints about Trump:

He's a liar - so is Clinton, it's easy to search on the internet and find videos of her saying one thing, and then a clip of the exact opposite actually taking place.  Clinton actually told people that she needs to have one 'public' face and then her 'true' face.  It's not possible to say that Clinton was any more trustworthy than Trump; if anything, it is the opposite.

He's catering to the elite - Look at the Clinton's history, and it's not any better.  Taking money from the ultra-rich of the world, pay for play politics while Secretary of State, etc.

He's only in it for himself - Again, look at the history of donations to the "Clinton Foundation" - there is no way to claim that the Clinton family is altrustic in any way.

So what is the point of all this?

It's simple: people who are protesting against Trump are so passionate that HE is the problem with the country.  Some of them are resorting to political violence to make their point (which is never good).  There is so much passion and emotion behind their voices that Trump is wrong that they haven't considered...

Would Clinton have been right?

The answer to this question is definitely NOT a clear yes. 

No one can say today that the country would definitely have been better off if Hillary Clinton would have won the presidency.

But that's the key point that all the blind anti-Trump protestors are missing: you're essentially trying to tell everyone that the USA would have been better off with someone more corrupt that Richard Nixon running it.  The most corrupt president in history, who hates the everyday American, would somehow have been a better choice than Trump?

Can you see why most people don't buy that?

Yes, Trump has a lot of problems, but it would be helpful if the Democrats could actually admit that so did Clinton.  Instead of raging against Trump, it would be much more prudent for the Democrats to ask how someone so corrupt was able to represent their party in the election, and then take the necessary measures to prevent another person like Clinton from ever being their nominee again.

Instead, the more that they protest Trump, the more they are showing no remorse for their decision to try to impose Clinton on the people.  The more unrepentant the Democrats are, the more they scream and get violent about the election result, the more the support for Trump grows, because it's quite clear that Clinton would have been a horric disaster as a president.

And what's most surprising about the Democrats is just how few of them are actually willing to consider that.  This is a candidate that was under FBI criminal investigation during the campaign.  No candidate in history has ever under federal investigation before; it's amazing that the Democratic party allowed Clinton to continue running - it showed an incredible lack of ethics or morality on behalf of the party.

Yet, these same people now claim that Trump is wrong, but...

But wait.

Actually, most of the protestors and Democrats aren't saying that, are they?

They aren't saying "things would be better if Clinton won".

They are just protesting, they are just being violent, they are just yelling...  and for... what?

Yes, Trump's presidency is going to be problematic.  He's certainly not the best person that could have been president.  But Democrats, you lost the election.  Trump won fairly.  What is the point of your protests now?

Because when you scream and yell that Trump is wrong, what you're really saying is that you think Clinton would have been right.

And that's just not true.

LKvi

The Perils of Globalization

So this week, Trump met with the manufactuering CEOs and said that he wants jobs to come back to America.  He's been meeting with many CEOs and top business people, asking for this very thing.  The question is: what is he doing?

The answer is simple: Trump is trying to reverse the effects of globalization on America.

Now, it's interesting to see that the effects of globalization have gotten so bad that the president of the United States is stepping in and getting involved to stop it.

Why has it failed?  In theory, globalization sounded like such a good thing; people were well off and it was going to be great to allow other people to have a piece of the pie as well.  The poor would be raised out of poverty, there would be great equality and fairness in the world, and it would all be great.  At least, that was the theory.

When we look at the actual results, it's not good.  Wages are down, unemployment is up, and the poor of the world aren't really that much better off.  Why didn't it work?

In a capitalist society, everyone is free to do as they wish: start a business, or get a job, or perhaps to do nothing.  In such a society, there will be some rich, some average, and some poor people.  That's how capitalism works, and for the most part, it works as long as there are safety nets and support systems in place to help those who are truly poor and destitute and need help.

Countries are the same way.  There are some rich ones, some average ones, and some poor ones.

When it comes to economic theories, the one that has been the worst failure is communism.  In communism, everyone is equal - a doctor makes the same as a plumber, and everyone from the highest educated to the least all get the same thing.  As the saying goes, if you have a phone, the government comes by, takes it from your home and installs a phone on the corner that everyone in your neighbourhood uses.

Communism is founded on Karl Marx's idea that all people are equal, and the problem is, that idea is false.  All people are not equal.  One person might be a fantastic mechanic, but be horrible as a carpenter.  Another person might be a great carpenter, but they can't do math.  And the mathematician can't fix his car on his own.

People have different skills and talents, and treating everyone equally does not work, because it drags everyone down to the lowest common denominator.  If you're going to be paid $50/week from the government whether you empty trash, fix engines, or are a doctor - where is the motivation to study for 8 years?

Communism fails because it takes the income inquality and flattens it out.  Yes, now everyone is equal and has the same amount - but that's because everyone is poor.

So why doesn't globalization work?  For the same reason.

Countries that are independent of one another are like people operating in a capitalistic society: some do better than others, but that's fine.

Globalization is simply communism applied to countries.

Under globalization, all countries are now equal, they should all have the same wealth -- and this doesn't work because countries have different costs. If a person is living in a country like England, yes, they make more money than someone living in India, but the cost of living in England is a lot higher.

So what happens with globalization?

Now a company can hire an American worker for $50,000/yr, or the company can "offshore" the work to a country like India, where the person living there can get by on just $10,000/yr.

What it means is that workers in well-off countries all of a sudden have to complete with people who can accept a much, much lower wage than them.  The result of this?  Wages and salaries have declined significantly in the well-off countries like America.

Now, in communist countries like China, there is great wealth: it's just that the government has it all.  All the people are poor, and the key people at the top in government control the wealth.  But when we look at well-off nations like England, the government isn't running surplus budgets.  So where is the money going?

It's going into the corporations.  And the corporations are owned by the already wealthy 1%.

This is why the wealth of the 1% continues to grow when the wealth of the average person is on the decline.  The corporations, which are owned by the 1%, are now able to save tons of money in labor costs by paying people in other countries much lower wages to do the work.  This is why the middle class in well off countries is eroding so fast.

So, who has really benefited from globalization?

It hasn't been the world's poor.  Yes, some of them are a bit better off because they have low-paying jobs that they wouldn't have had before, but the real winners are the super-rich elites.  Globalization has allowed their corporations to make even more money than before, by paying lower wages.

In other words, globalization was nothing more than the shift of money: re-distributing it from the middle class to: a) the ultra-poor, and b) the 1%.  But, it should be noted, not evenly.  The ultra-poor received some of the pie, but the majority of it went to the ultra rich.  It was like taking money from the middle class, giving most of it to the already-rich, and a few crumbs to the poor.

This is why globalization is not an altruistic thing.  There are many people who support and sing the praises of globalization, thinking that it is a charitible thing because it gives to the poor and makes everyone a little more even. 

No.

Globalization is a game, played by the 1%, to make themselves richer at the cost of the middle class.  And if you're angry as you read this article, then you're likely one of the people who fell for the lie that globalization would make the world a more equal and better place.  Or you might be one of the middle class who see your bills going up, you have less and less money, and yet you thought globalization would be good for you or good for the world.  It wasn't.

On that note, observe who has been complaining the loudest about Trump's policies which attempt to reverse the trend of globalization and allow the American middle class to have decent and well-paying jobs.  The countries that have been objecting to Trump the most are the same countries that have benefited the most from globalization: the ones to whom all the jobs have gone.

These countries are not angry; they are scared - instead of growing their own economy and taking care of their people, those governments instead simply relied on the prosperity that they were enjoying from taking money out of the hands of the middle class of America.  Now that the middle class has simply asked for fairness, it means these countries are going to lose - and that's why they are complaining so much.

But the reality is; globalization should never have been a route to prosperity for them in the first.  It's like a person who steals from their neighbour's yard every night.  Yes, that person is slowly getting rich, but not in a good way.  And when the neighbour installs an alarm (which is effectively what Trump is doing), that person doesn't have any right to complain and says that their "main source of income" is unfairly being cut off.

Globalization has been a disaster for the well-off nations.  It has benefited only the super-rich of those nations, while creating huge unemployment and massively lowering wages and the standard of living.  This is why the new trend towards putting an end to globalization is being embraced by so many people.  They simply want to end globalization and return back to a system where it is okay for some countries to be better off than others, and where the middle class can once again contain the wealth, not the rich 1%.

How that will play out remains to be seen.  But hopefully you understand now, there is nothing noble or altruistic about globalization.  Yes, we still need to solve the problem of economic inequality in the world, but globalization is not the solution.

LKvi

There is no "justified violence"

Recently, we've had several incidents of where we see people acting violently in order to achieve a political goal, and then on social media, other people applauding the violence as "justified" and good.  These people make statements saying that they have "no tolerance" for hate speech or anti-American thoughts.  In other words, they actually approve of violent acts because in their minds, those acts are appropriate.

The problem is, this is not how democracy works.

Humans have had a difficult problem for a long time; how can a group of people live together and function as a peaceful society when they all have different beliefs, goals, and ways of seeing the world?

Many systems have been tried, but the one that seems to work the best is democracy.  The basic concept is that people within the society agree to be ruled by an elected leader.  They may not agree with everything the leader does or all the laws, but they agree to it, so that everyone is following the same rules and the society functions with a common set of parameters.

It means that Joe may support political party "A", and Jane may support political party "B".  For a few years, political party "A" is in power, then an election happens and party "B" wins and takes power.

While "A" was in power, Jane doesn't riot, destroy buildings, or become an anarchist, she simply accepts that rule of "A", knowing an new election will come.  Then, when party "B" wins the election, Jane is happy.  Joe is not happy, but the same thing happens - he accepts the rule of "B" and the society functions under the new ruling party.

In other words, in a democracy, there is a social contract: your party might be the ruling one, or it might not be; but either way, you accept the ruling party and participate in society.

This is a much better system than being under a dictatorship, where you have no say and no hope of changing anything, as there is never going to be another election in which you have the chance to vote your party of choice back into power.

But this social contract is one of the cores of democracy - it means that we discuss things, we have open debates, and people can express their opinion.  No opinion is "bad", it's simply a different point of view, and no person in a democracy should face any sort of violence from someone who disagrees with them.

Violence is not a part of democracy; if anything, it is the enemy of democracy.  Once a person or group of people decide that they are not going to follow the social contract, and instead, will act violently to get what they want, they are not being democratic.  Democracy is not about the forceful subjugation of people to follow your way of thinking -  it is about accept everyone's opinions, ideas, and right to express themselves.  And you do not have a right to be violent in a democratic society; just the opposite; if you want to act violently, you are the villan.

Democracy is peaceful; it uses respectful and (often heated) discussion to make decisions about how to run the society.  Yes, it can be frustrating and hard at times, but the core of democracy is that everyone has a voice and a right to be heard, and that no one should use violent means to achieve their goals.

It is very ironic that many of these people who are applauding the recent violent acts are doing so because they call their victims "haters" or Nazis.  Let's look at that in detail for a moment.

The NSDAP was formed in a democratic society; initially, they were just a political party like any other party.  However, they believed in using violence to get what they wanted.  They caused fights, they attacked their opponents physically, and they justified it by saying that they were "right"; that their cause was "good" and so the violence was called for.  Many ex-Nazis were interviewed and they sincerely believed that there was a Jewish conspiracy against them.  They were completely wrong, but they truly believed in what they were fighting for; so much so, that they accepted that violence was necessary.

The question is: what is the difference between these people praising the violent acts and the Nazis?

• Both of them support the un-democratic concepts of using violence to acheive political goals.
• Both of them have a cause that they believe is "good".
• Both of them reject the normal democratic process to achieve their goal and prefer to be violent to achieve their goal.

In other words, if you support the use of "justified violence", YOU are the Nazi.

Also, consider this: the Nazis were wrong in their belief that the Jews were conspiring against them.  What if your motive for violence is also wrong?  Can you honestly say that if society followed your rules, that it would be better world for everyone?  If so, form a political party, get voted into office, and make those changes.

But until then, understand that the majority of us, who support democracy and freedom, are going to be against you.  There is absolutely no reason to support or encourage violence in a free and democratic society.

Imagine for a moment that more of us were violent.  Each person physically attacked other people who didn't agree with them on religion, politics, the way to raise kids, etc.   What kind of society would we have?

We wouldn't.  There would be no society, just anarchy.  Why?  Because people have many different opinions about everything.  So how is it possible that a person who supports political party "A" can live next door another person who supports political party "B"?  And that person's neighbour has an entire different party?

This is the beauty of democracy.  The individuals in the democracy have a common understanding that yes, they may disagree on religion, politics, etc - but the value of being free, of being able to say, think, and do whatever a person wants - is more important.  Hence, we tolerate each other's differences in religion, politics, etc - because we as a whole want our society to be free.

And that's actually what makes it work.  Because each person is free to live their own lives, they feel free, they aren't oppressed, and so they support the social contract that enables that freedom.  Thus, three people living side-by-side can belong to three different religions, and yet live in peace.

This is why democracy works.  And this is also why we do not get violent over disagreements on politics.  As stated before, violence is the enemy of democratic society. 

But, you say, what about hate speech?  What about those people who are truly evil?

If history has shown us anything, it's that those types of people: a) are in very, very small minority, and b) are generally just ignored and go about living their lives miserable and filled with anger, but doing no harm to society.

This is how democracy deals with radicals: it just ignores them.  They are the very small minority of the population and they have zero chance against the majority of the people who support freedom for all.

One of the key tenants of democracy is free speech: the idea that everyone is free to persue their own lives and live the way they want to, and that each of us supports and fights for those rights for all of us.  This was summarized well years ago in the quote:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

That is the essense of freedom.  It is not "I will fight against you until you follow what I say."

So when you take violent actions, or even support "justified" violence, you are in the wrong.  Don't be surprised when we, the majority, who support freedom and democracy, come down on you hard for it.  There is nothing "justified" about violence in a democratic and free society.

LKvi

This is why implementation details matter

A very interesting weekend.  The protests and backlash has already started over Trump's executive order that temporarily bans letting refugees into the USA from certain countries.

This order and it's effect caught many people off-guard and resulted in tons of people being held up at airports over the weekend (and that continues).

What was Trump doing there?

Yes, it's true that he promised to do this very thing during his campaign.  And yes, it's true that Obama did the exact same thing in 2011, when he put a hold on allowing refugees from Iraq from entering the country for half a year.

So why is there so much outrage when Trump did it, but very little anger when Obama did the same thing?

The answer is in the way it was done.

If you're going to make a major change to immigration policy, you need to announce it, set a date, and give people time to prepare for it, so that they know it's coming and can take appropriate actions in advance of the change.   That's what Obama did correctly in 2011.

Trump, on the other hand, did not.  He just issued the order, and as a result, no one had time to plan for it.  People were literally in the air on a flight, and their immigration status was changed by the executive order, leaving them in trouble when they landed.

What resulted?  Complete and total chaos.

So why would Trump do it that way, instead of announcing it, having it go through proper channels, and then giving time for people to prepare and adjust for it?  In other words, the normal and sane way of making a change like this?

We have to remember that Donald Trump is not a politican; he's a CEO.  And in business, when you want something done, you give the order and your people make it happen.  That's what he's used to, because that's how it works in the in the business world.   Trump is not used to following proper political process, and this event just showed that: CEO Trump's lack of political experience was made very clear.

Now, even if you agree that a temporary ban to improve the vetting process was necessary, one would hope that you can also agree that it was implemented incorrectly.  In fact, because it was implemented so poorly and has caused so much chaos and trouble for travellers, the whole question of whether or not the ban was a good idea or not has become a secondary issue.  It's like the old saying says: "the operation was a success, but the patient died."

To repeat: whether or not it was the ban was right thing to do has become completely irrelevant.  The resulting problems have become larger than the original issue.

It's not clear that Trump understands that yet.  Even if, in his mind, he thinks he has done the right thing, can he see that he "did the right thing", but in the wrong way?  And that because it was done in the wrong way, all of his "good intent" behind it does not matter?

So yes, Trump has made a huge mistake here.  One can only hope that he learns from it and comes to realise that running the country is not the same thing as running a business.  As a CEO, he gave immediate orders, but as President, he first needs to think of the impact of an order before he signs it.  And if it's an order like this one, that will create a huge change that people will need time to adjust to, he needs to give people that time.

Despite what Trump thinks, it's not about doing the right thing.  It's about doing the right thing correctly.  Whether or not you think the ban was the "right thing" to do or not, it's clear that it was not done correctly.  And THAT is the problem.

LKvi

Trump is what you get when you don't defend Democracy

The anger and disgust over Donald Trump becoming the president continues again today and likely will go over for the entire time he is president.

The thing that we should be wondering about, though, is this: how did this happen?

The answer isn't pretty: Trump is the result of the majority of Americans failing to defend the democratic process and allowing Clinton's corruption to go unresisted until it was too late.

It first started when the primaries began.  The Republicans had 17 different people decide to run and 12 of them participated in the primary.  That's a lot, but it's understandable.  The Democrats had only 6 people run, and just 3 of them actually participated in the primary: Clinton, Sanders, and O'Malley.  That seemed a bit low, but okay.

O'Malley dropped out early, leaving just Clinton and Sanders.  And this is where democracy got trampled.  The DNC, which is supposed to be a neutral and objective observer of the primary, got involved.  It wasn't just a small involvement either, it was headed up by the leader of the party, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

This group of conspirators called Bernie Sanders "a problem" that they needed to "get rid of".  As has been shown, this group deliberately sabotaged the will of the people and did whatever they could to ruin Bernie Sanders campaign, in order to have their preferred candidate, Clinton, win the nomination.

This is an abhoration against democracy.  The whole concept of an election, whether it is a primary or whatever, is that the people are told the truth about the candidates: their history, what they stand for, how they plan to help the people once elected, etc.  The people then make a decision about who they want to be the leader, and they vote for that person.

One thing that is key to the democratic election process is this: the organisation put in charge of running the election must be neutral.  They must act objectively and fairly, and do everything they can to avoid influencing the election in any way whatsoever.  Otherwise, we get the situation that happens in communist countries: they hold an "election", and the candidate from the communist party ends up getting 100% of the vote.  Everyone knows those so-called elections are a sham since the process isn't fair to all candidates - the person from the communist party gets special and preferred treatment, while their opponents are repressed and censored by the media and made to look terrible.  Elections like that are just for show, so the dictating party in power can claim that their rule is the will of the people.

This exact same thing happened during the Democratic primary.  The primary was not conducted fairly or freely; the body that was running the primary and that was supposed to be neutral and fair was, in reality, actually acting completely biased towards one of the candidates.  The DNC actively worked to discredit Bernie Sanders whereever possible and to influence people to vote for Clinton.

In the end, it worked.  Clinton won the nomination.

But it wasn't without word of the DNC's actions getting out.  Even before the DNC convention, evidence was leaking out about how the DNC had rigged the primary against Sanders and the primary was not being conducted fairly.

What the DNC did was a serious violation of democracy and freedom.

Now, the question is: where were you while this was happening - what were you doing?

Were you like this:

No.  That woman was in the very very small minority.  Most of you were standing there going, "owell, whatever..."

But that should have been your time.  THAT was the time to stand up and protest what had happened.  Even if you supported Clinton, it was still the time to say, "wait, I support Clinton, but was the primary conducted fairly?  It wasn't?  Then this is wrong."

What was most surprising about the whole thing is that even after it was clearly shown that the DNC had been biased and had definitely rigged the primary and thus, affected the result, very few people did the right thing and demand that the result be invalidated.

Democracy had been trampled on by the DNC: instead of being a neutral party, they had effectively dictated to the people who their next president was going to be.

This is when you should have stood up and said NO.

But surprisingly, almost all of you did nothing.  You failed to defend the democratic process.  Whether you supported Sanders or Clinton is irrelevant: the issue at hand was that the primary was conducted un-democratically.

Instead, most of you did this:

You accepted that democracy had been bypassed and just brushed it off like it didn't matter.  But it DID matter - if you believe in freedom and democracy, you should have been speaking out, objecting to the result, and demanding an invalidation.  We had many discussions with the Democrats, and what was said was shocking.  Despite all the evidence that Clinton's win of the nomination had not been done fairly, all people said were things like:

• "Well, it doesn't matter because she probably would have won anyways."
• "Now is not the time to worry about it, now is the time to focus on party unity.  We have to rally behind Clinton now."
• "Well, the primary is over, and we just have to accept it."

NO.  No you didn't have to accept it.  There should have been massive protests and social outrage over it.  The way the Democratic primary was run, with the DNC deliberately trying to help one of the candidates to win, is criminal.  It's anti-freedom and it's anti-democratic in every way because what it was, effectively, was a seizure of power.  The exact same way that dictators and totalitarianists take power.

How can you say it was okay to accept that, yet now it's not okay to accept that Trump won the election?

It was a huge disappointment to see how people just accepted the result.  Very little was said against it.  People were attacked for simply questioning if the primary had been fair.

And that was you - the majority of Democrats - attacking anyone who questioned the result - in other words, defending the illegal and undemocratic way the primary was run.

Why did you do it?  Why wasn't there a massive outcry against the primary result, in the same way that there is now about the Trump presidency?

See, you didn't stand up for democracy there.  You accepted it when Clinton and the DNC jackbooted democracy in order for her to get the nomination.  You weren't defending freedom there; you weren't standing up for what was right; and you were actually attacking people who had the nerve to question the injustice that was done to Bernie Sanders.

And guess what?

As a result of your actions, the Democrats ran a candidate who was so corrupt, so weak, and so bad that someone like Donald Trump beat her.  Think about that for a moment: your candidate lost to...  

Donald J. Trump.  Wow.

While it's impossible to say how Sanders would have done, all the polls indicate that he was much, much more popular than Trump.  It's very likely that Sanders would have won the election, though we'll never know that now.

And who knows - perhaps if you would have stood up for democracy and demanded that the primary result be overturned, perhaps a fair re-vote would have still made Clinton the nominee.  That would have been perfectly fine.  If Clinton had won the nomination through a fair and clean process, then yes, there would be nothing to say here and happily, this blog post would not have been written.

But Clinton didn't win fairly.  And you didn't stand up against it.  And now, Trump is the result.

If you're a Democrat today, and you're complaining about Trump now, but you did nothing about the un-democratic, unfair, and illegal process that was the Democratic primary, then you're part of the problem.  This is what happens when people allow the democratic process to be subverted.  You looked the other way when the DNC was biasing the primary.  Debbie Wasserman Schulz, Donna Brazile, and the entire lot of conspirators should be on criminal trial right now for what they did.

So if you're angry about a Trump presidency, remember this: THOSE are the people who had a great influence on it happening.  Those are the people that you should be protesting as well, demanding that the conspirators be arrested and tried for the crimes the committed.  They are the ones who bear a large responsibility for it.

LKvi