Inconvenient Truths

What's on my mind? Electric grid vulnerabilities, North Korean biological weapons programs, and IRGC expansionism in Iraqi Kurdistan.

What's on everyone else's mind? Harvey Weinstein. Hillary. And more Harvey Weinstein. WIth an occasional distraction in the general direction of Mueller (but never too far, or too deep).

There's no wonder I've been feeling so out of sync the last few weeks. Everyone is happy discussing the same topics ad nauseum or else vocalizing banalities regarding the hot topics of the day without proposing any concrete way of getting to the intended result. And the moment, you go beyond the surface niceties, you become an inconvenient bore.

We don't need some greater forces to keep us divided and distracted. We are doing a fine job of it ourselves.

The Rise of Political Hackery on the Right

Where is the outrage of the Trump supporters over the disastrous position his administration took over the course of this week, and the inane statements by the State Department, that are no different in tone or in substance from what we would have gotten from (and did) from the Obama administration?

There has been nary a word from the usual suspects, who've dedicated their precious time not to pushing their movement's leader to do better, but to discuss three subject matters: Harvey Weinsteing, NFL nonsense, and bashing anyone who is not a Trump groupie. Yes, I'm using this word deliberately, because rational people, no matter how much they support whoever they support, have something of substance to contribute to the discussion other than bashing critics and dwelling on the failures of others. Instead, I see my entire feed deteriorate into schadenfreude about the leftists and hatred aimed at George W., Bill Krystol, and anyone who dares say a word against Bannon, Trump himself (of course), or any of the policies that are worth at least discussing.

Being a yes-man does not make you any more loyal to the country, t he party, or for that matter, the president, than someone who is genuinely trying to ways of improving things that need to be fixed. Notice that you won't find me complaining about the administration's regulatory policies, judiciary appointments, or anything that I think they get right. I give praise where it's due. Likewise, I have praised Democrats, in the admittedly rare instances where they demonstrated rational thinking, moral clarity, or for whatever reason said and did the right thing. ((Here's loooking at you, Sen. Blumenthal, Schumer, & Menendez & Joe Biden).

I find it disheartening and infuriating to see people I once respected even when I disagreed with their political choices turn into unpleasant, bitter, political hacks who take on the worst aspects of the very things they once hated without blinking an eye, without realizing how much damage they are doing to their own purported causes.

The Known Knowns

It's very interesting how some people during the Obama administration believed that unless you are basically advising the president you have no right to have an opinion as you obviously can't possibly be informed enough to critique or assess what's going on unless your opinion is supportive of the administration. Needless to say, on the polar opposite end were the people who'd applaud anything you say as long as it's critical of the Obama and the leftists. The moment Trump took office, something interesting happened.

You are no longer allowed to have an opinion unless 1. You approve of everything Trump does AND 2. If you do criticize anything out of this administration it has to come from a very specific angle that is dictated by the former Obama/Hillary people. So literally, the past two administrations you cannot express an opinion without getting a) either viciously attacked b) dismissed as an ignoramus or c) personally insulting somebody by the mere fact of having a different opinion.

Here's a thought: You don't have to be in any administration to have a valid assessment and critique of the events as they unfold. Curious and open-minded people of all backgrounds can and should ask questions, analyze, learn, and strive to be as informed as they can. No, you can't possibly know everything, and yes, a lot of the time, you won't find out the full story until much later, if ever. But that does not preclude you from having an opinion based on the information you have; and frankly, even with very limited information, it's sometimes fairly obvious that a particular course of action is simply not a good idea. Furthermore, people who are familiar with particular regions, and their history, and US history can sometimes be more well informed than people who are serving a political purpose and know nothing but the talking points they are told to regurgitate.

Also, "I know better than you simply because I have my sources, and you don't" is never a convincing argument. Not just because relying on ambiguous and unknown authorities is a logical fallacy, but because you don't always know what I know and how. :) I see this time and time again come up both on my own and other people's pages, and in private conversations where when I expressed a concurrence with a particular policy decision, I was told that I can't possibly know better than "employees of agency X", even though the issue had to do with a completely different agency, and no staff of any agency is ever completely unified in its opinion anyway. Basically, when people , instead of putting forth a logical argument as to why your position is incorrect, tell you "You know nothing, JOn Snow", it's the first sign that their own access to information is actually very limited and they are grasping at straws. People who really know and know better than you will

1. Either simply tell you what they know
2. Break down your own argument if they are not in a position to offer in public their own information
3. Ask questions that make you think
4. Say nothing.

99% of the time people who really KNOW will go with # 4.

And 99% of the time people who are in the best possible position to know are not the ones chatting on FB. :)