Predictably, the mainstream media types are out to get Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany. Enter reliable tool Bill Grueskin, who claims she is undermining the credibility of the press. While Paul Bedard does a good take down of the gruesome column, I will simply note is that she has simply cleared the smoke and allowed all to see the loathsome state of modern media. For me, she has reinforced all the reasons for my decision to leave that trade. I will note simply that PRSA and marketing organizations have a far stronger code of conduct and actually — unlike the media — enforce it.
Category: Politics
Hold The Line
Some Wise Words
Over at Powerline, John Hinderaker shares some excellent words from a candidate for Congress. These need a far wider audience, so I’m sharing them here and hoping others will as well.
The GRU Bounty Story
Dezinformatsia. Period. Full Stop. Origin unknown, but it is yet another effort to meddle in our election/prevent a free and fair election. I hope that any competent authorities we have will look into the origin and possibly do something about it if it is of domestic origin. As for the Shady Lady who “broke” this “exclusive” all I can say is the Spirit of Duranty lives…
The Doctrine Of Persuasibility
Rational discourse and the Marketplace of Ideas is a philosophical cornerstone of our Republic. It is also under attack like never before as Progressives/Socialists (no real difference) can’t stand the concept of competing ideas. I want to pull some key points from pervious posts here that were mirrored at Blackfive.
Yet it was still a core part of my beliefs, but recently there was some discussion by author John Ringo that caught my attention. He recounted and amplified on the concept of persuasibility as presented by former professor and current author John Barnes. Dr. Barnes states categorically that much of his presentation is nothing more than classical rhetoric, but if so it is an excellent summation of same.
It also is a very clear example of what I feel rational discourse to be about. Rather than try to distill it down, I am with his permission going to quote the key points as he presented them to me.
“Where it is: The obligation of persuasibility is a moral and ethical obligation that flows from the enthymeme of reciprocity, which in turn is one of the quasi-logical structures of informal logic. It is therefore itself enthymemic, so it’s more firmly rooted than a mere preference or value (like the rules of baseball, driving on the right, “the Backstreet Boys suck”, “patriotism is good”, “all you need is love”) but less so than an empirical law or a mathematical theorem.
What it is: the obligation of persuasibility is the requirement that if you enter into a dialogue with another person or persons, your purpose will be not only to refute their arguments or to convert the arguer, but to consider their arguments as candidates for your own belief. That is, you will not reject the possibility that it may be your mind, rather than theirs, that needs changing; or in utilitarian terms, the greater good may be for you to be persuaded, rather than them.
What it ain’t: Although, obviously, if someone converts, they were persuasible, the other side’s not being persuaded does not prove that they violated the obligation of persuasibility — it may be, for example, that you made a poor case. It is perfectly possible for people to disagree throughout their entire lives while still upholding the obligation of persuasibility. (Indeed, it is likely).
Why it matters: because ethically, two people who have placed themselves under mutual obligation of persuasibility can co-participate in a political and social order peacefully and of their own free will. The obligation of persuasibility is thus a possibility condition for liberal democracy. The areas in which the obligation of persuasibility holds, within a given society, are the ones where society can be both individually free and socially ordered. Or, as I used to put it to my class, tell me how much of the obligation of persuasibility your society is willing to undertake, and I will tell you how much peace and freedom you’re going to get.”
To me, this is the heart of rational discourse as practiced in the colonies. It may or may not have been the correct interpretation of the continental philosophers of the day, but is built on the foundations laid by Aristotle and still taught at that time. The sad state of education today is a topic for another day.
That said, there are some things that will invalidate rational discourse/persuasibility. Again quoting Dr. Barnes, the things that do this are:
“1. communications aimed entirely at conversion; that character on your doorstep in the cheap suit, who is not there to find out what you might think about God or God’s nonexistence, but to deliver a single-sided message and try to knock down your objections. 2. communications aimed entirely at expression (or maybe “venting” is a better word, since the legal term ‘freedom of expression” covers much that is intended to be persuasive), e.g. shouting “N-word” into a bullhorn on a crowded city street, 3. communications whose purpose is to dismiss any need to listen to the other side (e.g. ad hominem, sponsor boycotts, a habit of characterizing the other side as morons or dupes), 4. therapizing speech (treating the other person’s opinion as a symptom of disease or vice), 5. listening solely to refute, 6. some kinds of extreme relativism (“that might be right for you but it’s not right for me”), 7. apathism (the position that the other sides’ distinctions are without differences).”
John Ringo also brought up a concept that deserves mention, because it is an area in which rational discourse/persuasibility has no bearing. This is the concept of a “religious” belief, i.e. one that is held on a matter of faith such that no amount of evidence, data, or other will change it. These are beliefs that can be core to a person, or are simply such that they will not be discussed or modified. A former co-worker and I discussed this point at some length in some rather fun discussions, and the term we had settled on to describe such was “prejudice.” For such beliefs are just that, they are subjects on which a preconceived opinion exists that is not subject to rational discussion or debate.
Note the seven types of invalidation. Then, look at current media reports and what is coming out of various political leaders at all levels. It really does say it all about the goals of current efforts. The freedoms we take for granted are under attack, and if either the first or second amendment falls, all fall. Keep this in mind over the next several months as efforts to eliminate free speech grow rapidly and potentially exponentially.
This effort to overthrow the American Revolution and the Constitution must be fought in the Marketplace of Ideas, in Congress, in legislatures, and even in council meetings. Heck, even in HOA and other organizational meetings. It must be fought in the courts. It, most of all, needs to be fought at the ballot box and efforts to ensure a free and fair election without fraud must be overwhelming. For if it fails at any of these levels, what happens will be a choice between slavery or watering the Tree of Liberty.
Choose wisely.
Politics And Big Business
John Hinderaker has the first part in a series of articles looking at the differences between small- and mid-sized businesses and big business in terms of politics. This is a good start, and starts laying out the case between capitalism, crony-capitalism, and what lies beyond including the boycott of Facebook by big business because it is backing free/free-er speech versus other platforms. Well worth the read, and I’m looking forward to the next in the series.
Fake Hate Versus Real Hate: The Real Barbarians Are Inside The Gates
I followed the 48-hour rule on the case of the NASCAR noose. I am unsurprised to find out that it was a fake hate crime. The fact that no one released a photo was a major red flag, and there were others. I was going to write a bit on the fact that if we truly were a systemically racist nation there would be no need for all the fake hate crimes. And, yes, look it up, most, almost all, of the so-called hate crimes that hit the news turn out to be fake. However, there is no need to write, as John Hinderaker has done so with some eloquence.
Now, turn from the fake hate to the real hate and barbarity that has not just become common, but is now the standard for our so-called civilization. Two cases show exactly how brutality is the new norm. First, there is this story of a teen girl who does something good for society by making special teddy bears for the children of policemen killed in the line of duty. That she has long gotten threats of violence and death is sad, but they’ve hit a point in the last few weeks that she’s had to effectively hide by taking the wrap off her jeep and undertaking other precautions. Then you have the loss of a science blog after the Shady Lady threatened to doxx the owner/author. There were both ethical reasons for him to be anonymous, as well as safety since he’s received death and other threats.
Sadly, such threats come with blogging, and have for a long time. I’ve had my share of them from terrorists and psychopaths foreign and domestic for my work here and at Blackfive, though my latest appears to be related to my China coverage and doesn’t appear to have originated in the U.S. The problem isn’t that I or anyone else has gotten these for a while, it is the explosion of such threats against almost every type of blog out there simply because they post opinions, coverage, and even data with which the unhinged mob disagrees.
As bad as such is, and it is getting worse and worse with real harm to those threatened growing daily; but, we are also seeing it in everyday life. If you are on social media, you no doubt have seen a number of videos posted showing people being attacked, often without warning, simply for the color of their skin. Many/most of these attacks are savage, and could easily have ended in the death of the victim. Some are likely to have permanent damage. I’ve seen Asian, Caucasian, and others I’m not not sure what they are, nor is it really important. What is important is that in almost every video the perpetrators are being egged on, encouraged, and protected. It is the new norm, and bodes ill for what is left of civilization.
More is needed than having each of us simply prepare and be ready to defend ourselves and others. After all, when we do we will be vilified as evil right-wing racist extremists, even if we are an African-American woman fleeing an armed threat on her life. NPR has yet to apologize to the woman and to the public for that ‘misrepresentation’ that should be called a lie.
What is needed is for law enforcement and the prosecutors offices to start taking such threats seriously, and to treat the attacks that are themselves racist as serious crimes and even hate crimes. Given the politics involved, the prosecutors are pretty much a no-go from the start. Law enforcement has many other things on it’s plate, and few there take such threats seriously. That said, I wish to thank LE where I used to live for taking one real threat seriously and working with me to deal with it.
Unless such crimes are taken seriously and dealt with firmly and publicly, the norms of civilization are ended — just as those encouraging such behavior want. The Marxists behind much of what is going on have no hope of getting what they want so long as the norms of civilization stand, and the Republic, which is founded in large part on those norms, also continues to stand. Civilization and the Republic are interlocking, and both need to be defended. The ability to do so via reason and persuasion is being systematically and deliberately destroyed. It’s not just the large sites, this war must be waged against the greater whole since no trace of dissent can be tolerated. Besides, the public elimination, if not soon a real execution, of those who dare disagree serves as a warning to others and to make many cow in submission. It is a deliberate feature, not a bug.
And there lies the real problem and the real threat. If you eliminate the soap box, that leaves few non-violent alternatives. The Marxists believe they have the edge on violence because they’ve been willing to, eager to, use it from the start. I believe they are gravely mistaken. They are pushing hard to get someone, anyone, particularly on the so-called right, to over-react to one or more of their stunts. So far, both President Trump and those who are not Marxists have refused to play along. For how much longer that will hold for the Citizens of the United States is the question. Even if we avoid the false-flag efforts to provoke such a response, the time will soon come when there is no other choice but to respond with force to the actions of the Marxists and the mob they incite. While I still hope for efforts through the courts, sane leadership at the State and local levels, and even the ballot box, I am not optimistic. I see no sign of any actions that will force the progressive Marxists to change their operations.
I’ve talked several times about what is to come, and how the Great Silencing and other activities are planned, coordinated, and executed. There is more planned, and it is not good. Parts have kicked off sooner than I expected, but that is not letting a good crisis go to waste.
I ask you to stop, look around, get outside the MSM/political bubble, and see for yourselves. Then, do what you can and prepare. If things continue as they are, what happened in the 1960’s will seem as an ice-cream social. We appear to be headed for the worst upheaval since the Civil War. I hope I, and others, are wrong about that. I hope the ballot box and the rule of law will prevail. But, given what is happening in prosecutor’s offices across the nation, in the courts, and in the halls of Congress, that hope is faint.
To quote the late, great Robin Williams on Jimmy Carter when the Martians invaded earth: “Good evening. You’re on your own. Good Night.” Prepare accordingly.
The Great Silencing: Phase II Underway
Earlier, I wrote about the Great Silencing that has begun. Now, as noted then, there have always been efforts but this is something new. This is a coordinated and deliberate effort to target anything other than progressive thought (and even wrongthought) and destroy the people behind it as well as to either deplatform or delegitimize those outlets.
Now, Phase II has begun with an effort to demonetize those platforms. Just as Professor Jacobson and Legal Insurrection were the first major effort for Phase I, Phase II is off (to a rocky start thank goodness) with an effort by NBC no less.
The basic story is here, at Legal Insurrection, but it is most telling that NBC fired the first shot by working with a foreign organization to target two competitors on the conservative/libertarian side. As I noted earlier, none of the three entities involved have covered themselves in glory. In fact, I hope an investigation is undertaken, as I feel it is more than warranted under Section 230, RICO, and anti-trust acts. What NBC has done is against every concept of a free and open press, but make no mistake: the progressive left does not want a free an open press anymore than they want free speech. They want an end to both, and to any expression of thought outside the orthodoxy of the moment.
Right now, as much as I support Professor Jacobson, I have no faith that Cornell will back him. In fact, I expect them to cave to the mob, sooner rather than later though I would be delighted to be wrong. Meantime, that they have held this long is throwing a spanner into the works for the next targets, which I believe have already been chosen. The unexpected pushback against NBC and what it did have likewise tossed another spanner into the works.
No matter what the outcome of these two cases, however, expect to see a lot more of this happen as all stops will be pulled out to push the chosen narrative. This will happen more, and more viciously, the closer we get to the election.
Nor is the Great Silencing the only campaign planned. Keep your eyes open and be prepared, for the progressives are going all in on the election.
A Rather Sad Commentary
On twitter and elsewhere, there is a lot of well deserved commentary on NBC working with a foreign organization to get two conservative competitors demonetized by Google. None of those involved, including Google, have covered themselves with glory. In fact, Google has opened itself up to some potentially serious charges in regard Section 230 and anti-trust issues. For the rest, there is both anti-trust and possibly even some RICO considerations.
The sad thing is, right now everyone is talking about this in regards The Federalist. There is effectively zero mention of Zero Hedge. Whatever one may think of them, they too deserve mention and protection from this vile and despicable action by NBC. The silence says a lot, none of it good.
Restoring America’s Interest Act
Something a bit different for a Saturday. A week or two ago, some of us kicked around some ideas, which led to this post. As a step forward, I took the time this morning to do a rough draft of legislation to start some of those suggestions. Here it is:
An Act
To expedite the return of critical American research, development, and production to the United States so as to provide for increased national security and to provide opportunities to expand the American economy.
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.
This Act may be cited as the Restoring America’s Interest Act of 2020.
SEC. 2. FINDING.
Congress finds that —
(1) it is in the national security interest of the the United States to ensure that American industry can provide a wide variety of products, goods, and services readily and without impediment of production, transportation, or quality; and
(2) it is in the national security interest of the United States to ensure that critical products, technology, research, and development are not subject to state-sponsored or commercial espionage, or to acts designed to interfere with research, development, production, or distribution; and
(3) it is in the national security interest of the United States to ensure that tax revenues are not used to directly or indirectly provide resources and opportunities for other nations, groups, or other entities to conduct direct or indirect espionage or to have means to cause damage to the United States by having control of critical products, services, and operations.
(4) it is in the national security interest of the United States to reduce the regulatory burden on industry in order to both facilitate relocation of all phases of industry to the United States and to ensure that needless and unnecessarily complex regulations prevent effective response to future emergencies
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS
TBD
SEC. 4. MEASURES TO PROVIDE FOR RESTORING AMERICA’S INTEREST
(a) In conjunction with inputs from industry and relevant government agencies, a series of tax incentives will be developed for companies, sole-proprietors, or other businesses that
(1) move to return mining, harvesting, and other actions to produce needed industrial and agricultural products, materials, or other components needed as precursors for industrial and agricultural operations to the United States; and
(2) move to return research, development, production, and logistic operations to the United States.
(b) that same panel will also develop a series of tax incentives will be developed for companies, sole-proprietors, or other businesses who are unable to return such operations to the United States for reasons of regulation, scarcity of resources or raw materials, or other physical limitation that
(1) move mining, harvesting, and other actions to produce needed industrial and agricultural products, materials, or other components needed as precursors for industrial and agricultural operations to countries or locations within specially designated trade zones outside the United States; and
(2) move research, development, production, and logistic operations to countries or locations within specially designated trade zones outside the United States.
(c) A working group will be established to include members from the Executive Branch, appropriate government agencies, industry, and others as needed to
(1) to create these special trade zones comprised of countries who have shown commitment to free and fair trade; open, transparent, and representative government; fair treatment of the United States and its Citizens in all areas; and, who are otherwise committed to improving the quality of life for its Citizens; and
(2) for purposes of this act, transparent and representative governments can and should include constitutional monarchies and other forms of government that provide for a truly representative government; and
(3) for purposes of this act, the zones must exclude all communistic governments, oligarchies, and other other one person, one party, or similar rule; and
(4) for purposes of this act, Taiwan should be recognized as an independent entity and included in an appropriate zone.
(d) Any business entity taking part in the incentives provided may not purchase, trade for, or otherwise use equipment, technology, or other products from any company in any country specifically excluded from the trade development zones
(1) such companies may apply for an exemption for raw materials unavailable anywhere else.
(e) no agency of government may expend any resources on raw materials, products, services, or other goods from any country specifically excluded from the special trade zones; nor may they use products, services or goods of any type from such companies even if provided at no cost
(1) agencies can apply for exemption if there is no other source for the raw materials, products, services, or goods of any type, with that exemption requiring review and a formal vote by the National Security Council after review by appropriate security agencies.
(f) the ownership of companies or other business entities performing critical operations within the United States may no longer include ownership by foreign governments directly, indirectly through companies owned in whole or in part by those foreign governments, or by others acting as agents for those governments if those governments are specifically excluded from participation in the special free trade zones
(1) for purposes of this law, such companies include those doing port operations of any type, airport operations of any type, logistics operations, research and development of any type, and other operations as determined by the appropriate government agencies; and
(2) the Department of Justice is to review all previous purchases by such companies or operations as outlined above to determine legality and to review for anti-trust and similar issues.
(g) outdated and needlessly complex regulations and standards having hampered or prevented effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic; and, such outdated, needless, and ineffective regulations serving to prevent both the full mobilization of the private sector and preventing the return of operations from overseas, an appropriate series of working groups will be developed to review all current regulations and related operations so as to allow the Executive Branch and Congress to eliminate unneeded and/or outdated regulations, update regulations and processes current levels of technology, and reduce the regulator burden on industry by executive action or the passage of new legislation as needed
(1) all such working groups must include independent and small business representatives from the field in question, and representatives from industry shall have one more individual representative than those from government; and
(2) the agency who’s regulations are being reviewed may only have one representative in the working group, though other agencies may have representation if such expertise is required
(3) academia is limited to one representative in the working group