The Covid Excuse

Why the political divide on Covid?

You would think that a health crisis would be a bipartisan issue.  Short of war, if there is anything that should pull us together as a nation and as a society, surely it must be a pandemic.

Yet, no.  If anything, this illness has further divided our nation.

Rightfully so.

I think the reason for this can be encapsulated in two famous quotes.  Famous, and absolutely correct.

David Horowitz:  Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out.

Rahm Emanuel:  You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.

The Left is using Covid as an excuse to do things they would otherwise not be able to do.  I really don't believe they give a damn about the health issue, such as it is.  Rather, why not use the Covid crisis (endlessly hyped by a compliant media) to further your political goals?  And just as importantly, to harm your political adversaries.

You know, all those Right-leaning small business people.  Covid provides an ideal opportunity to screw them.  And the Left is of course doing just that.  Adding their typical it's not what you do, it's who you know to the mix.  Lefty Amazon.com, still operating.  Local cafe:  Close or risk arrest.

I have been inside an Amazon fulfillment center.  The large staff is on top of each other.  Much higher risk of Covid spread there than in your typical coffee shop or restaurant.  I must add that Amazon and its employees are doing a very difficult job under trying circumstances.  And I thank them for it.

So my argument is NOT to close Amazon.  Rather, it is to allow all enterprises to operate freely.  Let adult Americans choose whether to work and patronize, or not.  Allow the fearful to stay home; allow the rest of us to get on with it.  But of course this idea is anathema to the progressive Democrat mindset vying for control of their chattel, er...citizens.

Of course there are people making these decisions:  Amazon is essential; the local cupcake shop, not so much.  Three points on this.  First, the people making these decisions are still being paid.  Second, I can assure you that the cupcake shop is essential to its owner and her staff.  And finally, I would argue that these decisions are driven by political motivations more than health care concerns.  Again, let's trust American adults to do what's right for themselves and their families.  Anything else is just shameful.

In my previous post, I wrote that live and let live is one of my guiding principles.  Regardless of what they may proclaim, this is simply not true for most people, left, right, or center.  Most want others to think and act as they do.  What is so insidious about the Left, is they do this not with persuasion, but rather with coercion.  The coercive power of government.  And everything government does – everything – is at the point of a gun.

To be fair, the religious right is not immune to this tactic.  Given the opportunity, they would outlaw abortion and gay marriage, and force their beliefs and desires on others, also with the coercive power of government.  Regardless of their motivation, this is every bit as pernicious.  But it is the Left, the true believers in government, the government faithful, where this tactic is accepted and promoted in all matters.

So if you are a fundamentalist Christian or a garden-variety Democrat and you support this behavior, well, you are just as bad as your political elites pulling the levers of power.  Make no mistake about it, you are not a good person.  Leave me alone.

Leave me the hell alone!

~~~

This will end.

We will resist or we will conform.

The elitist Leftists will try to bankrupt all of their political opponents.  But that will not be enough for them.  Because their political opponents will still exist.  And they simply cannot tolerate that.

So they will come for your freedom:

They will come for your free speech (in progress).

They will come for your businesses (free enterprise).  They will come for your churches (freedom of religion).  They will come for your schools.  They will come for your health care.  They will come for your automobile (freedom of movement and assembly).  They have a head start on these.

They will criminalize any behavior that does not conform to their political viewpoint and narrative.

They will come for your homes and families and children.

They will come for your guns.

After all, your homes and your children and your faith, and especially your guns, make those rich elitist lefty hypocrites very nervous indeed.

They do not actually fear guns.  What, with their armed security details, they are surrounded by them.  And they absolutely LOVE guns in the hands of a government they control.  No, what they fear is guns in the hands of the average, law-abiding citizen.  Scares them to death.

No, this is not about Covid.  This is about power.  Covid is merely the excuse.  It is the convenient crisis of the moment.  A supposedly once-in-a-century pandemic is too much of an opportunity for the progressive totalitarian Democrats to waste.  And the Left will use it, is using it, to their advantage.

Hyperbole?

We'll see.

But the time for resistance is upon us.

𓐵

On Atheistic Morality

Can one be moral without religion?

A few years ago I heard Glenn Beck talking about the origin of his morality.  His conclusion:  It comes from his faith and his religion.  I think this is probably true for him.  And true for most people.  But then Beck went on to further conclude that all morality comes from religion, and that without religion, a man cannot live a moral existence.

Now I am an atheist and an anti-theist, but I think that I am quite moral.  Who doesn't, right?  So of course Beck's comments struck a cord.  I asked myself:  So where does your morality come from?

The late Christopher Hitchens liked to make the point that he certainly hopes that his morals do not originate in religion – Because religion so often includes cruel mandates and examples.  I have also heard Richard Dawkins make this same point.  But I think this is unfair.  When a Christian says, I get my morals from the Bible, I think it is fair to conclude that he is talking about the New Testament and not the Old.  Certainly not all of the Old anyway.

So I confess, my first instinct was to sort of agree with Beck.  I was raised in the church and it was easy to assume that I had adopted Christian morality.  But with a great deal of thought, I came to realize that this was not true.  So...where does my personal morality originate?

For me, it boils down to two and only two common principles:

One:  Treat others the way you wish to be treated.

Two:  Live and let live.

Now the first, the Golden Rule, appears in almost all religions.  It is certainly found in the bible.  But I would note that there is absolutely nothing divine about this commandment.  Or if you prefer, injunction.  In fact, I would argue that it is entirely practical.  We may treat others well out of the goodness of our heart.  Or not.  But we hope that they will return the favor.  Some don't, but most do.

The second principle is quite interesting.  Most people agree with it in theory.  Just ask them (as I have).  But very few seem to be able to follow it.  People want other people to believe in their god, to join their church or political party or environmental crusade, and to basically think and act like themselves.  This seems to be human nature.  And when others fail to do so, this can and does lead to various levels of separation and dispute.

I have read enough on the subject of atheistic morality to know that quite often the authors want it to be complicated.  Perhaps it should be.  Perhaps I am missing something or oversimplifying it.  Perhaps I do not understand all of the nuance and complexities.  Yes perhaps.

But I think it is completely unnecessary to make this complicated.  These two rules pretty much cover it.  So much so, that I have never thought of a third principle that I needed to add.

So there you go:  My version of morality without God.  Your own mileage may vary.

𓐵

A Party of One

Post-Election Thoughts (2020 Version)

I have always been very interested in politics and have followed political affairs closely.  But as I have gotten older, I find that I am less and less interested.  I still find politics interesting, but I have become less invested in all of it.  How is this possible?

I think this is primarily because I don't have a party.  I do not belong to any political party.  I have no political home.  Why is this?

Well, there is at least one thing that is so disturbing to me about each party that it precludes my membership.  Let's take them in turn.

Republicans  While the Republicans talk good fiscal policies, they are much less interested in implementing them.  This includes both when they are in power and when they are not.  And I just cannot abide the religious right.  They are ill-informed and mean-spirited.  And the Republican social policies are set by the religious right.  In fact, the only thing the Republicans consistently get correct is foreign policy.

Democrats  While I pretty much agree with their social policies, I just cannot abide their fiscal policies or their foreign policies.  What's more, it seems like there is a progressive element with totalitarian tendencies taking over the Democratic party.  These people do not really support the First Amendment.

Greens & Socialists & Communists  I cannot think of anything to support here.  In fact, I find most of their policies just loathsome.

Libertarians  Which brings us finally to the Libertarians.  I think they largely get social policies and fiscal policies correct.  But they are absolute children on foreign policies.

Of course, there are a raft of individual issues which preclude my membership in the parties.  For instance, the Republican position on abortion and the Democrat position on the Second Amendment.  But I am not a single-issue voter.  I cannot be a Democrat only because of their stance on abortion any more than I can be a Republican only because of their stance on the Second Amendment.

And there can be lots of nuance around these issues.  I have written before about the Second Amendment.  So here, let me use abortion as an example.  Roe v. Wade is the most shamefully dishonest Supreme Court decision in the last fifty years.  In fact, I would argue that abortion is not a constitutional issue at all.  It is okay if you think that it is.  But even though I am pro-choice, I am not your political ally and I cannot be a member of your political party.

I am no fan of European governments.  But one advantage of their parliamentary systems is that they allow for the participation of multiple parties and easier formation of new parties.  So it is much more likely that an independent thinker can find a political home and political allies.  And actually participate.

In the United States, I am a party of one.  And I won't get far with that.  Sure, I pick the least-worst candidate, and give him or her my vote.  But it is far from satisfying.  And after a while, years and decades, it becomes demoralizing.  And perhaps pointless.

I am not suggesting that we get rid of the two-party system.  And I don't really think it is possible to get rid of it.  But surely we must recognize that this binary choice leads to gridlock and animosity and distrust.

Here's a little thought experiment for you:  Imagine if the Greens and the Socialists and the Libertarians and perhaps something along the lines of the Conservative Party of New York could all consistently muster say two to three percent of the vote and hold similar numbers of congressional seats.  Then the two major parties would be forced to cut deals with at least one smaller party to get anything done.

The small parties would be a lot more important and hence attract members.  They would be the deal makers.  And the large parties could lobby for their support rather than resort to gridlock or bipartisan fluff.  I think such a situation would attract new parties as well, as other currently independently-minded people come together under their own platforms.

I realize that this is impossible in the United States.  Each race is independent, winner take all, and we do not vote for slates of candidates.  Therefore one of the two major parties is basically assured of winning each and every race.  So I don't foresee any real change to the two-party system.  But it is interesting to consider the possibilities.

As someone pointed out after the 2016 election, there is something seriously wrong with a system that produces Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, perhaps the two worst people in the country, as the two major party nominees.  And personally, I don't think 2020 was any better.

If the Covid crisis has demonstrated anything, it is that we live in a kakistocracy – at all levels of government.  Surely we have the worst political class in the history of our nation.  By this I mean not only politicians, but also bureaucrats, academics, and especially journalists.  The 2020 election just confirms this state of affairs.

The deterioration of our nation, of our society, and of civilization itself, continues.

𓐵

Joe Rogan is Not Very Smart

And I don't mean:  He's not a rocket scientist.  I simply mean that he is just not very bright.  Not dim, but just not bright either.

Let me give you an example of the type of thing I have noticed on The Joe Rogan Experience over and over.

I am not sure what else there is to be said about this.  I once saw Rogan talk seriously and at an extended length on whether or not the moon landing was real.

I actually want to like Rogan.  He is a gifted interviewer and conversationalist.  But as soon as I think, hey I should subscribe to his podcast, something like this comes to my attention.
𓐵

The Competent Broker has been published

Click to find The Competent
Broker at Amazon.com

The Competent Broker:  Seeking Competence and Integrity in the Real Estate Business

The Competent Broker has just been published on Amazon, in both paperback and Kindle eBook formats.

The Competent Broker  Competence is a choice.  In the business of real estate brokerage, this is an absolute.  Brokers have a duty to their clients to be competent.  A duty of competence.  So competence is a character trait and a function of integrity.  It is not that brokers choose to be incompetent.  But they do choose to focus their attention elsewhere.  Competence simply falls by the wayside.  Unnoticed and unattended.

The purpose of this book is to help readers find and identify competence and integrity in an often murky and counterintuitive business.  We start with Competence is a Choice and a Code of Competent Conduct, which we expand into sections on Brokers, Buyers & Sellers, Fees & Business Models, Marketing, and Negotiation.

   

There are a few different and sometimes overlapping potential audiences:  People thinking about entering the real estate market either as new buyers or sellers, or perhaps those with a less than ideal experience in the past.  People thinking about getting a real estate license or newly-minted brokers just finding your way.  And finally, disaffected brokers seeking a better way.

Visit my Competent Broker page for a chapter-by-chapter summary.

I look forward to your comments and questions.

𓐵

On Comportment

I started this blog at the beginning of 2019 as a sort of journal.  A journal of ideas I find interesting and ideas that I am perhaps struggling with.  Writing helps me understand the issues and how I think, or should think, about them.  Posting online, others can read along...or not.

One focus of my writing over the last year has been on the way people treat each other.  The way we act towards and interact with others.  Not only our behavior, but our entire conduct, attitude, demeanor, and actions.  Do we treat others properly and with respect?  Are we honest?  Kind?  Sincere?  Do we follow the Golden Rule?  Do we follow the Waiter Rule?

In short:  Is our behavior towards others ethical?

And also, how should we deal with unethical behavior?  Of course we should forgive mistakes.  But surely remorse is a prerequisite for forgiveness.  So how should we deal with ongoing, and perhaps even willfully unacknowledged bad behavior?

For my own clarity, I want to group these posts together.  I thought about simply labeling them:  Decency, or maybe decorum or propriety.  Or including them with:  Grace.  But I seem to write more often about the dereliction of these qualities.  Going forward, hopefully that will change.

So searching for a more neutral term, I will label these posts:  Comportment.

Oxford English Dictionary:

comportment, noun

Personal bearing, carriage, demeanor, deportment; behavior, outward conduct, course of action.

And to be fully clear, I mean comportment towards others, both ethical and unethical, moral and immoral, decent and lacking decency.  Demonstrations of goodwill and malevolence and indifference; the well-considered and the ill-considered, the thoughtful and the thoughtless, the graceful and the graceless, etc.

But I think what makes comportment most interesting to me is this:  How we comport ourselves is a choice.  We all choose how to behave.  Never forget that.
𓐵

The White Pebble

*** Click if not crisp ***

From the brilliant Hugh MacLeod.

I'm not religious at all.  In fact, I'm an atheist and an anti-theist.  But what does it matter?  MacLeod's question is:  Who are you, really?  I might change it to:  Who do you want to be?

𓐵