Labels

People like to classify other people using labels like conservative or liberal.  Once they apply the label they associate every position supposedly held by that group to you.

With the exception of the Trump Puppets, most people are much more complex than that.  We used to realize you could be a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.  We also used to realize you could  be liberal on one issue, say civil rights and still oppose things like abortion.

We have apparently devolved into a nation where individuals are assumed to simply except the party line.  Take a somewhat controversial congress women like AOC who represents a very progressive position and for various reasons has become something of a figurehead.  I agree with some of her positions but not all of them and I know I don't consider her my spokesperson.  She is of course entitled to hold her positions and the only ones she actually has to answer to are her constituents.

Someone who believes we should have universal health care can also believe we should balance the budget.

You can hold liberal, moderate or conservative views (or a mixture thereof) on each individual issue and ultimately support a candidate who comes closest to your views.

In the current environment one big issue is that the current incumbent of the White House is simply the wrong person who espouses or at least encourages some elements of hate.  You can unite in opposition to him while still not becoming a socialist.

In fact the person elected to the Presidency needs to represent all Americans, not just those who agree with him/her.

By definition that makes that person a moderate, or maybe more of a moderator.

The Executive Branch executes the programs passed by the congress.  If they determine the programs too we have lost one of main principles, democracy.

State and Church

Our country was founded by various people escaping religious persecution in Europe as well as others.  The reformation took place near the age of discovery and each country decided whether to remain with Catholicism or allow a different religion.  Few were tolerant and believing differently than the state could result is rather severe consequences.

The founding fathers, who themselves had varying religious views, decided that the State would not pick the religion for the people and the constitution prohibits the "establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

It couldn't be clearer that the state cannot establish which religion we have to practice.  This has however been twisted over the years into a system that comes close to doing just that.

Many people, perhaps a majority, would like to see the country declared a Christian country.

Many object to the practice of Islam specifically as if the part about prohibiting the free exercise thereof means nothing to them, although many of the same people are very protective of the Second Amendment.

It could be easily argued that we have gone a long way towards establishing a preference for many religions in our tax laws.  Not taxing them goes a long way to helping them get established.

Religions in this country should neither be helped or hindered by our laws.  Taxing them on the same basis as every other person or enterprise would achieve that.  Right now religions are treated preferentially and they shouldn't be.

Everyone should have the freedom to believe what they want, but no particular set of religious beliefs should dominate.  Yes, to some extent many of our laws have origins in things like the ten commandments, but we have codified the laws and we should enforce the laws we passed and not what is in some religious text in the Courts.

The other part has to answer to a higher authority, maybe.

Safety First

There is some encouraging news out of Oxford about a potential vaccine, but of course it isn't ready or proven yet.

On the other hand we have a dog who caught the virus in North Carolina.  So household pets are at risk but so far we are infecting them and not vice versa, at least as far as we know.

There are lots of issue that have to be dealt with  that have some real urgency.

First is getting people back on the payrolls and giving them a way to make a living.

Second is assuring that all Americans get a chance to vote.

We continue to see a widening gulf in this country between classes.  Many people who work in offices and similar jobs are in fact able to work remotely, at least to some extent.

Manual workers have to be there.  You can't drive buses, lift boxes, make products remotely, at least not yet.

Essential workers had to continue working and while some got infected, most did not.

Until there is an effective vaccine we need to make sure that the workers are protected with the measure that are proven to work.

It won't be risk free, but then again it never was. Voting is not as complex unless you don't want everyone to vote.

We clearly can send all registered voters a ballot with a unique code that they can use to vote and return by mail or in person.  One vote, one person.

Of course this would lead to allegations of voter fraud, although mostly they mean too many people got to vote.

One vote, one person is just right.

Ignore Their Diversions

There is a playbook used by certain people that is simply designed to avoid discussing real issues.

Generally the strategy is to dig up some weakly related point that diverts the conversation from the current issue to something else.  The argument that what my guy did is OK because someone who we have decided is on your side did something worse (generally not actually worse).

Its an attempt to deflect the argument and in our current age we have media that will play up things like this either because they are primarily a propaganda outlet or because they don't want to be accused of bias.

Its been successful and in fact it seems like they have a list of  talking points to roll out depending on the situation.  

In a recent documentary it was pointed out that the headline is often the only thing much of the public remembers.  

Similar to certain sports battles, the public serving as the referee often remembers the response more than the original issue.

A lot of this is orchestrated by sophisticated foreign cyber groups who spread the misinformation widely over social media.  

The only strategy that seems to be effective is to return to the initial point and ignore the tactic.

If you engage with the false narrative you give it credence.  We already know that in the upcoming election, there will be attempts to accuse Joe Biden of inappropriate behavior with an aide who worked for him.  The accusation has almost no credibility or corroboration but that doesn't matter to the cyber people.

Did something happen?  Doesn't seem likely based on the investigation that the Times did but it will be beat to death by the propagandists.  Best to let them wear themselves out.

Plan the Restart

There has to be some point where people are allowed to resume risky work if they take adequate precautions.

What is clearly needed is more protective gear and some strict rules about social contact.

It would be better if we could get a vaccine but we can't drag this on indefinitely.

I feel fairly confident that if you follow the rules, wear a mask, maintain social distancing, wash your hands frequently and sanitize and suspect items, you can greatly reduce the risk of infection.  Some risk will still exist and probably no matter what we do some risk will.

Yes those who flaunt the guidelines put themselves and possibly others at greater risk, but if we are hoping for a world where everyone complies we will wait forever.

Yes, risk takers who expose themselves may place their close associates at risk but it might be something we can't avoid.

I can tell people smoking is dangerous, yet some will still smoke.

It is a tough decision, but certainly we need to have a point where most people can rejoin the workforce.

Owners of factories or stores need to make the conditions as safe as possible but we need to produce and sell items.

We already have certain people working and while some have gotten infected, most seem to be OK.

Vigilance and compliance with guidelines should enable us to get the process started.

1984

In the book 1984 by George Orwell we are introduced to a world where truth is manipulated and the population is controlled by an authoritarian regime.

When I first read it I thought of it as a far fetched vision of a future that would never happen.

Unfortunately, some of the things in the book seem to have been adopted currently.

Truth has in many minds become subjective and as the book predicts, you see people believing what they are told to believe, even if it contradicts what they were told yesterday.

The trouble is that the true believers believe, and if you contradict them you are lying.

Black is white, facts are changeable, and you have to simply believe in your "prophet" so to speak.

If you declare that everyone lies and records are altered then there is no truth.

The virus will just disappear to I was the first one to realize it was a Pandemic are not contradictory statements but simply truth as provided on different days.

If you study history, especially Roman history, you will notice that the change from a democracy to an empire was a process, not a single event.  What is outrageous today becomes normal tomorrow.

Are we too far gone?  It's hard to say but we have a core who simply toe the party line and accuse everyone else of being sheep for believing in science and reality.

Did we land on the moon?  Maybe not.  Is the world round?  Maybe not.  Do vaccinations help people?  Not so fast.

You have to wait for truth to be revealed by the leader before you say.

Check your reality each day, it changes.

The Election is Coming

Any speculation about the November election seems a bit premature but the current situation is clearly going to influence it.

We live in a country where barring a major upheaval, there are Red States, Blue States and Battleground States.

In forming the country, we set up the Senate and the Electoral college to protect what were the slave states from the more populous and industrial states.  This has carried forward and gives our more rural states a disproportionate voice in many ways.

So instead of just the popular vote there has to be an electoral college strategy to achieve victory.

So what does this mean?  Last election, despite losing the popular vote by a significant margin, Trump managed to carry a small number of battleground states by extremely slim margins and win the electoral college vote.

He won those states for two reasons.  Much of his base was energized to vote since they believed he represented a significant change from "normal" politics and the democratic candidate failed to turn out or energize much of her base.

It turns out the three states that swung the election, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin did so by the slimmest of margins.

The factors that led to that are varied but perhaps the biggest one was the dislike many voters felt for the Democratic candidate, whether merited or not.

In addition, since the polls indicated she would win, many felt free to not vote in protest or to vote for a third party candidate.

If you consider the candidates from the last election, the two parties managed to nominate two candidates that had very unfavorable ratings.  It was one of the quirks of our system that an unpopular candidate can win in a crowded primary if they have a dedicated group of followers.

The next election is likely to be very different for a lot of reasons.  It is of course too early to predict but we are unlikely to hear many chants of lock him up, at least directed at the Democratic candidate.