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 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.
𓐵

Will the War on Guns Drive Gun Owners to War?

We citizens of the United States are more divided than ever.  Well, since 1860 anyway.  We seem to disagree about everything political.  And these days, almost everything is political.  I increasingly read that we are headed for a second civil war.

Our constitution is definitely under attack.  Especially free speech.  But I think most people quite reasonably conclude that we should keep the relentless assault on free speech at bay with the ballot box.

In fact, as I look at the political landscape, I don't really see any issues that people would actually be willing to die for.  Abortion, taxes, immigration, healthcare, education, climate change and other environmental issues, government regulation, sure, all very divisive issues.  But are you willing to die for any of these?  And the only somewhat more difficult question:  Are you willing to die for all of these issues collectively?

No, I just don't believe it.  These are bitter election issues to be sure, but are they go to war issues?  Are they, shoot your neighbor issues?  Are they really?  Okay sure, we might look down our noses at our politically-reprobate neighbors, we might take wayward family members off the Christmas card list, but we are not likely to shoot them.

Yes, I have noticed that Americans are increasingly judging others based on their political leanings.  We are definitely falling into two distinct and isolated camps.  I see it with my clients, colleagues, and friends.  I do it myself.  And it is true, there is genuine contempt.  But violence is something else entirely.

In passing, sure, I recognize that there are some people who would go to war over abortion.  But contrary to what the extremists on both sides would have you believe, most Americans are middle-of-the road moderates on this issue.  Quite reasonable and sick-to-death of the extremists alone framing the debate.

But there is one issue that could lead to war:  The Left's war on guns.

I say could because even this is not clear to me.  How will gun owners react to state-mandated gun registration and later to gun confiscation?  For now, some loudly proclaim bold resistance.  But my guess is that most gun owners will grudgingly comply; so much easier than the risk of becoming an unemployable criminal with a record.  And I suspect some, if they can, will move to less hostile states.

One’s attitude on guns is directly related to one’s attitude on government; let me summarize the two basic positions.  If you believe that government and the individuals running it are a force for good and can be trusted, then you will be willing to grant it a monopoly on firearms.  If you believe that government is a necessary evil, must be constantly monitored, and certainly not trusted, then you will be unwilling to grant it a monopoly on firearms.  In the United States today, this is a clear Left/Right divide.

But it is not simply a difference of political philosophy.  If we grant government a monopoly on firearms, the disarmed citizens will be much easier to control and less likely to threaten the governmental power structure.  Just ask the Chinese.  This would be true for any government, Left or Right.  But in this country, it is only the Left that wants to disarm the public.  Why?  I submit that they care less about liberal values, and more about power and control.

And you can be sure that leftist elites will continue to move about freely with a multitude of firearms.  Guns for me, but not for thee.  Their hypocrisy alone could spark a war.

As for mass shootings, the Left is delighted to turn this mental health issue into an excuse to disarm the public.  Do not allow this shameful subterfuge to distract us from their real agenda.

It is worth remembering why the second amendment exists in the first place.  It is not to protect hunting rights.  It is not to protect an individual's right to self-defense.  No, our founders added it to the Bill of Rights immediately after the armed citizenry of this country overthrew a tyrannical government.  Today we can quibble over whether our government is moving towards tyranny, or not, but surely the options afforded by the second amendment must be retained.

I would posit that one sign of a tyrannical government is gun confiscation.  So it comes down to how many gun owners will resist?  How organized will they be?  And how far will they take their resistance?

If the Left wants to grant government a monopoly on firearms, they should legally and legitimately repeal the second amendment.  Or risk war.
𓐵

Fauda on Netflix

If you have not seen the Israeli series Fauda, on Netflix, you are missing some of the best television of the last few years.  It is mesmerizing and difficult to watch at the same time.
𓐵

On Those Ridiculous Beards

The time has come for something to be said about the beards.

I first noticed the millennial lads sporting beards as a sort of avant-garde fashion statement.  Or so it appeared.  Then later I thought:  This is a fad and will soon enough pass.  But there was a time when I thought the same about Starbucks and its bitter coffee.  And yet the beards continued to multiply, spreading like a contagion to anyone under forty.  Today the trend seems more prevalent than ever.  It's an epidemic of pogonotrophy.  So what are we to make of it?

Let's start with a few simple questions.  Is it laziness?  I don't think so; some of these things must be a bear to groom (pardon the pun).  But for the ungroomed which we sometimes see, maybe it is just that, laziness.  Is it peer pressure?  Surely, there must be some of that as well.  Deteriorating societal standards of personal presentation?  Oh yeah, that too.

But I have a darker question:  Are these guys hiding an extreme lack of self-confidence behind a mask of facial hair?  Wait...what?  Surely that is reading way too much into a mere fashion statement, right?  Besides:  All of them?  Really?  But just for fun, let's push the question to the end:  Are these beards emblematic of a growing lack of confidence in the West?  Or at least for an ever-increasing number of its male participants?  And what does that mean for our future?  Over the top?  Read on.

I suppose younger men have it tough.  I mean current academic and other bien pensant attitudes towards masculinity are rather unsympathetic, and sometimes even hostile.  I have read that a beard is the last acceptable method for a man to demonstrate his masculinity.  Have these young men been so emasculated by academia and political correctness that they feel like they have to grow a Taliban-style beard to prove to themselves and to others that they are in fact male?  That's a sad thought; pathetic if true.  But when thinking about this trend, that is the word that most often comes to mind:  Pathetic.

And I do question the new beard's effectiveness as a symbol of masculinity.  A beard alone just cannot make an unmanly man look manly, much less be manly.  Rather it just makes him look ridiculous.  And fraudulent.  The problem is that these are not rugged, outdoorsy men, working in the elements, growing beards as a matter of course.  These are not lumberjacks, oilfield roughnecks, merchant seamen, or deep sea fishermen.  Men with constant traces of dirt and grease under their fingernails.  No, no, these are baristas and shoe salesmen and various liberal arts graduates who want to look like roughnecks.  And of course, we all see through that. 

Now no doubt these guys would argue:  "Hey, I know that no one will confuse me with a lumberjack.  But it's a look.  An edgy fashionable look.  And I'm an edgy fashionable sort of fellow."  And there is no arguing with that.  I mean Heidi Klum just married the Geico caveman. 

And that is part of the problem, ladies.  You are tolerating and perhaps even encouraging this absurd pretense.  Stop it.  Tell the men in your life just how ridiculous they look.

Will that arrest declining confidence in the West?  Absolutely not.  But at least it's something.
𓐵

A la Carte Cable Television Pricing in Three Steps

Working Theory

What follows is a thought experiment based on the theory that if you do not charge cable customers for any channels that they do not want, they will in turn be willing and able to pay more for the channels they do want.

Step One

Make ESPN a premium channel.  To make this explanation a bit easier, let's just say, it's $10 per month (for all the ESPN channels as a bundle).  But I think it could easily be less.

No, this would not increase your monthly bill under this plan (keep reading).

Step Two

Offer a required Basic Tier with any five non-premium channels, selected by the customer, for $20 per month.  This tier would also include all local and public-access channels.

Step Three

Offer each additional non-premium channel for $1.00 per month.  Channels can be added and dropped online with, say, 30 days notice.

Examples

ESPN Customers

So the minimum cable bill would be $20 per month.  If you are an ESPN junkie, and let's take the extreme case - you watch little else - then your bill would be $30 per month.  And with that you get five extra channels, plus all the local stuff.

What about those folks who just love having 100 channels?

Well, not that they watch all of them, right?  But let's say that's what you need; your bill would be $115 per month.  That is before any premium channels including ESPN.  If you need ESPN in addition, your bill would be $125.  Plus you would get all the local stuff.

What about most of us?

Let's see, most of us like sports, so sure, we want ESPN.  And we want all the local stuff.  And we love CNN and Fox News and the Weather Channel, and a handful of other cable channels.  So for this example, let's say we watch as many as 30 different non-premium cable channels from time to time.
Basic Tier:         $20
25 Extra channels:  $25
ESPN:               $10
Total:              $55

And I think 30 channels is a lot.  I bet if you really think about it, you watch fewer than that.  For non-sports-fanatics, such as myself, this is a $45 plan.  And the truth is, I could probably get by with, say, 15 channels.  That would be a $30 plan.  10 cable channels?  $25 per month.

And there is room to be creative here.  For example, buy the ESPN premium channel, get Lifetime and Hallmark for free (so take those two out of your selected five).  Something for him, something for her.

Local-Only & Single Premium Packages

Finally I see no reason why the providers cannot continue to offer a local-only package, without any cable channels, for say, $10 per month.  I also see no reason why the providers cannot offer premium channels without either the local package or basic tier.  So that ESPN customer above, could pay just $10 per month for that one channel or bundle.  Or ESPN plus local for $20 per month.  When compared to the existing system, that is an incredible bargain for the sports fanatic.  Same with HBO and other premium channels.

Goals

Of course we want to lower monthly bills for most customers.  But we also want a plan acceptable to the providers.  The networks would almost definitely need to give up the bundles they now foist on the providers (if you want X channel, you must also carry the Y and Z channels).  For this plan to work, the providers would only pay networks based on the current subscriber count for each individual channel.  And so under this scheme, some of the least watched cable channels would necessarily go out of business.  But as currently constructed, we are subsidizing them anyway.
𓐵