The Radical Centrist™

Think for Yourself!

Archives for August 2018

Trump’s numbers remain the same, no matter what

By Leave a Comment

This does not surprise me, nor is it likely to change regardless what happens in the future. It’s how people are. Support for Nixon remained at 30%+ after he resigned. Support for McCarthy remained at 30%+ even after he was thoroughly disgraced. Why do people do that? Seriously, why do some people continue to support a repugnant person even after the evidence, sometimes even proof, is blindingly obvious?

I suspect there are a couple reasons, not necessarily mutually exclusive. One, there will always be people that simply agree with the person’s ideology. Which isn’t automatically a bad thing, it’s just the blind extremism that starts the problems. And really, this shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone, and there’s no need to act all incredulous over it. These people who never waiver believe that the end justifies the means.

But, two, and I think this one runs deeper within the person and yet more shallow at the same time, to many of these people to admit that the person they’ve been following is wrong would be to admit that they were wrong. And, well, we just can’t have that. They’ve invested themselves into it. That would be admitting that they are somehow flawed in their thinking. That would be akin to admitting that maybe others have a better handle on the issues than they do. This would hold especially true for those who have roundly ridiculed the other side for so long. Their own base reputation is at stake. So, no, human nature and pride does not allow those deepest in to admit so publicly.

It’s not going to change and go down farther. Those who would never support Trump no matter what already oppose him. Those who exhibit something that at least mimics an open mind, whose who agree with some aspects but not all or who were lost, are now against him. That leave those who will always support the man no matter what, those who are pretty much mirror images of those who will never support him.

Mr Trump made a good point… by accident

By Leave a Comment

Don’t you hate when a person whom you regard as repugnant makes a good point? Something that you cannot deny, lest you come off as a hypocrite? That’s what happened a couple days ago when our illustrious leader, President Donald J. Trump, said that “flipping” should be illegal.

Now, let’s be real, everyone with an ounce of clear thinking knows that Mr Trump only said this because it works in his favor at the moment. He’s trying to discredit those who have made open statements about his alleged illegal activity. We all know that the only thing important in Mr Trump’s life is Mr Trump. So while Mr Trump’s motivation here is highly questionable, his point is still a good one. He may be a hypocrite… not to mention a loathsome liar… but I try not to be. I have some level of moral conviction that keeps me looking at things as objectively as possible.

“Flipping”, or as I and many others call it, “(jailhouse) snitching”, is the act of informing and/or testifying for the prosecution of facts relating to the prosecution and conviction of someone else for their own personal gain and value. Said value often takes the form of a reduced sentences or charges, better conditions, and sometimes no charges being filed at all.

Trump’s statement puts me in a serious quandary. I have long railed against jailhouse snitching. According to the Innocence Project, “…15% of wrongful conviction cases overturned through DNA testing, statements from people with incentives to testify — particularly incentives that are not disclosed to the jury — were critical evidence used to convict an innocent person.” Who in their right mind would believe a probable criminal when you know their motivation is to improve their own situation?

Alexandra Natapoff’s book, Snitching: Criminal Informants and the Erosion of American Justice, is an excellent and well-researched source on the subject, for those who want to delve into this topic more deeply and find out how insidious it actually is.

On the one hand, I abhor snitching in the criminal justice system. To me, these people are the absolutely least credible witnesses. To the point that, should I ever find myself on a jury for a criminal trial in the future, I will most likely dismiss out-of-hand any testimony by a jailhouse snitch. It would be dead on arrival to my ears.

On the other hand, it often does seem to work rather well, actually, in white collar crime cases. ‘Seems to’ should be the key concept here.  Which, of course, brings me to my dilemma. As a simple concept, Mr Trump made a good point.  His comment, and recognizing the contradiction, is also causing me to think more deeply about my conviction regarding jailhouse snitches, in general. Why would a white collar criminal be any more trustworthy or credible than a violent criminal? There does seem to be a difference in results, but is there really? The motivation, or incentive, to lie is still the same either way. I guess white collar crime doesn’t get the after-the-fact scrutiny that violent crime does, you don’t read about white collar exonerations much, so it’s hard to say.

“Fox News” = “fake news”

By Leave a Comment

Demonizing of news sources for political purposes seems to be the trendy thing these days. One of the most prominent strategies of Donald Trump and his administration… and his followers, his Suckers… is to label everything they don’t want to hear from the media as “fake news”. The idea that the media cannot be trusted, and is reporting distorted, or even outright untrue, information. Be a thinker, look deeper than what you’re told, the implication goes. Kind of creates a ‘boogeyman’ for the faithful to rally around, doesn’t it? The truly sad part is that it has proven to be very effective.

But ask yourself this: Where did they get it? Where did they get the notion that certain media outlets are not to be trusted… ever? Or better yet, where did they get the idea that demonizing opposite news sources is politically persuasive?

They got it from you, Mr/Ms Partisan/Extreme Liberal. You taught them that demonizing of opposite sources of information is a powerful political strategy. For years the left has been outright vilifying anything that comes from Fox. It has become so common and socially accepted, in fact, that those on the left will spout phrases like “Faux News” when discussing conservatives and conservative politics in general without even having a specific topic at hand. How is this any different from the right’s “fake news” mantra? Hint: It’s not.

It’s gotten so bad that I… so that I don’t get sidetracked defending the source because the point of a story has been lost in the shuffle… will often seek an alternative source before I discuss something. I can relate a news story to a liberal, and they’ll reflexively dismiss it if my source is Fox, but they’ll accept it… albeit grudgingly, sometimes… if the source is Huffington Post, or somebody else similar. The information can be exactly the same, but the source ends up being the overriding focus. Makes no sense. We’re losing sight of the issues themselves, at that point.

Now, is Fox News biased? Yes, they are. They have a chosen spin, they’re unapologetically conservative, and make no bones about it. But… they’re no less biased and spin-happy than somebody like National Public Radio (NPR). The difference between the two, other than the obvious opposite leanings, is style. Fox News will often report on many issues and tell half-truths, or lies-by-omission. Most of what they say isn’t necessarily untrue, but it’s also not complete. That’s bad, but is it really worse than the other side?

NPR will generally be more complete and truthful in the stories they report, but their bias and “omissions” are more subtle and take the form of not reporting on stories they don’t like at all. Seriously, if NPR were your sole source for information, you would be completely unaware that some issues and points-of-view even exist. In a way, that’s far more insidious than what Fox News does, yet NPR is respected as some paragon of journalistic virtue by so many.

NPR, this paragon of journalistic virtue, won’t tolerate reporters with opposing points-of-view on their staff. Just ask Juan Williams, who was fired for having the audacity to share an unapproved opinion on a politically charged topic. I’ve read his book, and it’s very interesting and worth the read, if you’re open-minded. And where does Williams work now? That’s right, Fox News, that supposedly blinders-wearing den of conservative reprobates, sharing his generally left-leaning opinions as a political analyst. So much for tolerance and diversity, I guess.

You want to know who is outright dishonest in their reporting? Outlets such as alternet.org and Occupy Democrats (OD) are two perfect examples. OD is probably the worst of the worst on either side. There will usually be a kernel of truth buried somewhere in a story of theirs, as a springboard to their own propaganda. It may be no more than the framing the issue. But the rest will be pretty much total lie-by-omission willful misinformation… yet I see people post this crap all the time as if it’s gospel, right after they slammed Fox News for allegedly doing the same thing. In the interest of fairness, Breitbart is down at this low level, as well, though not quite as blatant. If you post anything by any of these sources, you’re not engaging in honest discussion. We’re all suckers in our own little ways, aren’t we?

In case you’ve read this far and missed it, the point of this is not to defend Donald Trump, his follo… er, umm, his Suckers… or their strategy. No, the purpose is to point out that the left’s indignation over this is misplaced to the point of being hypocrisy. Really, the “fake news” mantra is no different than the “Faux News” label. Sorry, my left-leaning friends, you made this bed.

You’re with me, or you’re against me

By Leave a Comment

‘If you’re not actively against <insert issue here>, you’re complicit in its existence and continuance’. This paraphrased statement is a version of the Biblical, “Anyone who isn’t with me opposes me, and anyone who isn’t working with me is actually working against me.” (Matthew 12:30, New Living Translation) concept, which is a way of saying you cannot be on the fence and/or not involved. Pick one. There is no middle-ground. I’ve been hearing and reading this a lot in recent years over many social issues. And the thing is, it’s not technically incorrect. It sounds good. It sounds impassioned. It’s also terribly arrogant and presumptuous.

Another version I have seen over the years is, when a person is elected president or governor, multiple advocacy groups will all say some variation of, “<my pet issue> should have been the first thing you addressed.” I’m sorry, but only one thing can be first.  I get that you feel that way, but that’s arrogant.

The notion behind this is that if you’re not working against something, your individual lack of action enables it to continue. Ok. Sure. No dispute there. But, what about the flip side? There’s always a flip side. It presumes that your pet issue is THE pet issue that everybody should have at the forefront of their mind and action, bar none, and that everything else is unimportant in comparison.

That’s the fallacy of it. Fact is, it’s YOUR pet issue. It may most certainly be important, I can’t and won’t dispute that either, but just because it’s close to home, or indeed serious and horrific, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the over-riding #1 pre-emptive issue and that all others should take a back seat.

Women’s rights, human/child trafficking, race relations, abortion, immigration, cancer (and other insidious diseases) research, homelessness, opioid/drug addiction… the list goes on, pretty much infinitely. Some people have one or two of these at their forefront, and they’re all certainly important and need addressing in their own way, but no one considers them all equally, which is wholly unrealistic, or are willing to put forth equal resources and equal effort into all of them at once.

Some might have a child with leukemia, or their mother committed suicide, or their sister was killed by a drunk driver who already had seven DUI convictions, the list is endless. That’s their pet issue at the moment. They don’t have time to be deeply involved with fighting for abortion rights or immigration, even if they do feel strongly about it otherwise. Take any example I mention above, and the same limitations apply. Bottom line, it is simply unrealistic for people to equally address all the ills of the world at once and give them all the fair time that they each deserve, and it’s unreasonable to expect everyone to put everything else to the side and focus on your pet issue because you believe it is the most important.

The beauty of the flip side is that, because people have differing priorities, everything gets attention. We’re not abandoning children to be abducted and/or molested because we had to solve the opioid crises first. All issues are being addressed, as they should be, albeit in inconsistent sputtering fits and starts.

Essentially, if you say this to me, I interpret it as you identifying what your pet issue is, nothing more. You have your pet issue(s), that’s ok, I have mine. There are many things in the world that I see as repugnant, but I don’t have time or resources to give them all the attention they deserve. Do not mistake this for excusing no action at all, just don’t get offended if I don’t give your pet issue as much attention as you would and would like me to. Like everyone else, even you if you’re honest about it, have to choose. I make no apologies for that. It’s practical reality.