I am one of those who has been tearing his hair out of late over the depressing choice of presidential hopefuls we face. I have decided that I cannot in good conscience cast a vote for Clinton (due to the continuous whirlwind of uncertainty around her ethics), Trump (due to his unstable temperament and lack of understanding of any and all things Presidential), Johnson (due to his libertarianism, which I oppose--although Bill Weld seems like a sensible guy), or Stein (too, too, too liberal for a down-home conservative like me). So, I am now throwing my support behind a guy who seems to me like a genuine straight-shooter and a real conservative (but a compassionate one): Evan McMullin.
You no doubt have heard little or nothing about him. So, let me share with you a brief email I received from his campaign. I hope you will have a look at their credentials and see if you don't find McMullin and his running mate Mindy Finn to be the most appealing pair in the race:
Friend,
Americans want candidates they can vote for: principled, patriotic, with a positive vision for the future.
Those candidates are Evan McMullin and Mindy Finn.
Evan's entire career — from CIA operative, to investment banker, to chief policy director of the House GOP — has been in service to this nation and the institutions that drive it.
Mindy is the founder and president of Empowered Women, a bi-partisan organization that gives voice to a bold, new generation of American women in civic life. She has served as an advisor to the Republican National Committee, President George W. Bush, and Governor Mitt Romney; and developed business partnerships for Twitter. She has spent her career in service to the conservative movement and expanding it so it works for every American.
When Americans were faced with two of the least qualified presidential candidates in modern history, Evan and Mindy knew they couldn't stand on the sidelines anymore. They stepped up and decided to pursue the cause of American renewal and to give Americans leaders who will put country over power, selflessness over worship of self, and principle over popularity.
But they can't do it alone — your support is what powers this campaign.
There is a better path, a better ticket, and a better future for America — and it starts with you. Elections are won by those who stand up. You can help us win by organizing your community.
Thank you for stepping up!
Joel Searby
Chief Strategist
McMullin for President
Monday, October 31, 2016
Monday, October 24, 2016
In wake of election, it's up to sensible Americans to repair our nation's fabric
Now that it looks fairly certain that our next president will be Hillary, it is time to rise above all the political hostilities and silliness and get to work making American even greater. Some of you are bound to keep right on spewing hatred and anger and indulging in childish name-calling and disregard for civility. And, much as we love you, you are not helping. You are part of the problem, not the solution.
As I see it, this is the perfect time for sensible, rational moderates (including both moderate progressives and moderate conservatives), the ones with cool heads, wisdom and understanding, to take back our country. If we don't like what the new president stands for, let's mount a reasonable effort against those policies; but let's do it peaceably, methodically and with smiles on our faces. Our attitude adjustment goes like this:
(1) We must concede that neither the current president nor the newly elected one is a crook, or evil, or a liar...but rather a decent, patriotic American who may have blatant character flaws (as we all do) and lots of ideas we disagree with, but is nonetheless bent on doing what they earnestly believe is best for the country--and, if we truly believe in our nation, we will be respectful of the president, our democratic process, and the office of POTUS;
(2) We must kick to the curb and shut off the mic on any extremist or big-mouth who continues to talk hatred, bigotry, hubris, or unproven, unsubstantiated nonsense--whether on the airwaves, in Washington DC, on social media, or in our own communities--and remind them that badmouthing our system or our leaders is badmouthng the USA and helping our enemies;
(3) We must hold the news media's feet to the fire, make them understand that the times we live in are too complicated to have everything reduced to the level of a reaility show, and force them to get back to honest, unbiased, professional journalism; and
(4) We must fix the two-party system, even if it means abandoning the old dysfunctional Republican and Democrat parties and forming some new ones that are more in tune with the needs of ordinary disgruntled working-class people.
I am eager to join with anyone who agrees with me on this...and I will fight back against anyone who plans to keep right on being obstructive and dragging our country down with obnoxious bs. Just sayin'...
[---Join me each week for a 15-minute audio podcast with music & light-hearted commentary---]
As I see it, this is the perfect time for sensible, rational moderates (including both moderate progressives and moderate conservatives), the ones with cool heads, wisdom and understanding, to take back our country. If we don't like what the new president stands for, let's mount a reasonable effort against those policies; but let's do it peaceably, methodically and with smiles on our faces. Our attitude adjustment goes like this:
(1) We must concede that neither the current president nor the newly elected one is a crook, or evil, or a liar...but rather a decent, patriotic American who may have blatant character flaws (as we all do) and lots of ideas we disagree with, but is nonetheless bent on doing what they earnestly believe is best for the country--and, if we truly believe in our nation, we will be respectful of the president, our democratic process, and the office of POTUS;
(2) We must kick to the curb and shut off the mic on any extremist or big-mouth who continues to talk hatred, bigotry, hubris, or unproven, unsubstantiated nonsense--whether on the airwaves, in Washington DC, on social media, or in our own communities--and remind them that badmouthing our system or our leaders is badmouthng the USA and helping our enemies;
(3) We must hold the news media's feet to the fire, make them understand that the times we live in are too complicated to have everything reduced to the level of a reaility show, and force them to get back to honest, unbiased, professional journalism; and
(4) We must fix the two-party system, even if it means abandoning the old dysfunctional Republican and Democrat parties and forming some new ones that are more in tune with the needs of ordinary disgruntled working-class people.
I am eager to join with anyone who agrees with me on this...and I will fight back against anyone who plans to keep right on being obstructive and dragging our country down with obnoxious bs. Just sayin'...
[---Join me each week for a 15-minute audio podcast with music & light-hearted commentary---]
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
..and by the way: Enough about Bill Clinton's past already. Not relevant!
I'm a little tired of hearing Bill Clinton being portrayed by the right as a predator and rapist (i.e. one guilty of sexual assault). I was around back then and paying attention to the impeachment stuff. And I came away with the idea that what was going on with Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Monika Lewinski and others was sexual hanky panky between consenting adults...and nothing more. Evidence, as I remember it, suggested that these women eagerly pursued a relationship with Clinton. If there was proof to the contrary, I don't remember it. Moreover, Hillary Clinton was a victim of spousal infidelity; so who could blame her for lashing out against the women who played hanky panky with her husband? She was NOT an enabler. So give it a rest, Trump. Enough of trying to play the Bill Clinton card in this election. Won't work! Just saying...
Monday, October 10, 2016
Did the manly Donald just admit in the townhall that he was lying about being manly?
Are we Trumped out yet? Thank God there are only a little over three weeks left of this charade.
DT is a braggard and a bully, and he fits that profile to a T: Braggards and bullies invariably have been plagued throughout life with an inferior complex and a need to build themselves up into something bigger than life. I don't know what brought on this psychology in Trump, but it is clear that he struggles constantly to "be a man". That's why, in last night's debate, he was really caught up in a very painful conundrum when Anderson Cooper forced him to answer the question, "Have you actually done those things to women that you talked about in the video?" Trump tried to evade it, but Cooper asked it twice more, and Trump eventually had to mumble an answer ("No, I have not").
DT is a braggard and a bully, and he fits that profile to a T: Braggards and bullies invariably have been plagued throughout life with an inferior complex and a need to build themselves up into something bigger than life. I don't know what brought on this psychology in Trump, but it is clear that he struggles constantly to "be a man". That's why, in last night's debate, he was really caught up in a very painful conundrum when Anderson Cooper forced him to answer the question, "Have you actually done those things to women that you talked about in the video?" Trump tried to evade it, but Cooper asked it twice more, and Trump eventually had to mumble an answer ("No, I have not").
So look at the dilemma he faced. Remember, he is a guy who absolutely has to build himself up into "being a man". So, how was he to answer? I'm sure this was as tough as they get for him. Politically, he knew he almost had to deny doing those things in order to make his "it was just locker room talk" argument hold up...and keep himself from being further outed as a proud card-carrying creeper. But he was also, simultaneously, admitting that, in the tape, he was just blowing hot air--essentially lying--.AND (even worse) he was admitting that he actually had NOT ever kissed and groped and romanced all those beautiful women. And there goes his image, his cherished manliness, the most important part of his persona, right out the window. If he didn't do those things, he comes off looking like an inadequate wimp to his tough-guy locker room fans and supporters.
Anyway, that was one of the things I took away from that townhall meeting. Who won? I agree with the pundits; it was a tie on substance. But on style and temperment, Trump did little more than prove to his base that he is still the Trump they love and is still in this race. That may not be good enough to win in November, however.
I get into a lot of these matters on my new weekly podcast called "Reedo in the Meadow". Happens on Sunday night about 11:00 or so. Look for the link on my audio-video page: https://vimeo.com/reedw
Anyway, that was one of the things I took away from that townhall meeting. Who won? I agree with the pundits; it was a tie on substance. But on style and temperment, Trump did little more than prove to his base that he is still the Trump they love and is still in this race. That may not be good enough to win in November, however.
I get into a lot of these matters on my new weekly podcast called "Reedo in the Meadow". Happens on Sunday night about 11:00 or so. Look for the link on my audio-video page: https://vimeo.com/reedw
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Stopping gun violence: It begins with profiling the shooters. Who are they?
So, NOW...finally...is everyone onboard and ready to actually do something about these horrific mass shootings and acts of terrorism? Good. Let's get started. And the place to start is by identifying the nature of the problem and who the perpetrators are.
First, let's define the basic issue. Is this, or is it not, a matter of "gun violence"? My answer is "Yes...mostly". Close enough for discussion purposes anyway. Sure, there are bombings and stabbings and other kinds of weapon misuse. But, in our country at least, most mass murders are done with guns. So, yes, let's start by addressing the main problem: gun violence.
Next, let's devote this particular discussion to trying to get some sort of handle on who these shooters are. My observation is that they fall into three groups. Before dividing them into those groups, however, let us take a look at what these people have in common (besides being gun owners with a desire to shoot people).
These are citizens who fall into a particular subset of gun enthusiasts who see their right to bear arms as the freedom that protects all their other freedoms. They view the Second Amendment as a logical companion to the First Amendment. To these individuals, the ownership of guns is a direct extension of their right of free expression. They see no distinction between their right to verbalize their anger against their enemies and their right to defend themselves from the actions of those enemies.
These citizens own guns, often many of them, and for what they see as very good reasons. And they comprise the following three general groups:
Group 1: Middle-aged, white working class men who see themselves as tough guys and true red-blooded Americans, but whose lives and livelihoods are being turned upside down by globalization, ethnic diversity, and the technological tsunami. They are easily swayed by anyone who speaks their language and inspires them to fight back--a Donald Trump, for example.
Group 2: Young African-Americans and Hispanics who are natives of the inner cities and who see themselves as imprisoned in a hopeless cycle of poverty and lack of opportunity. They see no way out. The American Dream is a myth to them. Consequently, they are susceptible to the excitement and opportunity promised by the turf-war gangsters that control the streets and alleys of their neighborhoods
Group 3: Millennials whose parents are Muslim transplants from the Middle East; young Americans who are struggling to come to grips with their own identity and to 'be someone' in a world that is foreign, and often hostile, to them. They are easily influenced by radical groups that play to their anger and frustration and are quick to invite them to join in fighting an idealized war against that oppressive mainstream society.
The members of these groups, of course, are invariably gun-owners, are predominately male and are angry about their situation in life and determined to fight back. And, although they reside in completely different areas of the country and are completely unrelated to one another, the three groups do share a kinship, certain traits that tend to fit them into a common profile, one that makes them prone to engaging in gun violence:
1. Each group is insular. That is, the members associate almost exclusively with their own kind and communicate with one another in a language they all understand. They harbor a huge distrust of outsiders.
2. Each group shares among its members a well-defined enemies list, laying out in no uncertain terms the people and things they hate the most. And they see themselves as warriors against those mortal enemies.
3. In the case of each group, members, when in the private company of their own peers, are not at all hesitant to speak openly about their feelings and to vent their anger and hostility vociferously, without regard to political correctness or what might be socially acceptable to so-called 'outsiders'. 'Strength in numbers' bolsters each guy's bravado and bold rhetoric, often to a point of being incendiary and promoting violent solutions.
4. For the members of each of these three groups, the next level of action is to prepare for that inevitable day when they will have said all they can say and gone as far as mere barroom expletives, barbs and bigoted epithets can take them. Thus, they spend considerable time and resources arming themselves against all of these enemy forces which, they are convinced, will be coming after them and their way of life sooner rather than later. They call it self-defense. And rightfully so, even if the threat is somewhat exaggerated or even imagined.
So, for all three groups---the middle-aged working stiffs, the inner city minority kids, and the second generation Muslim-Americans--a fascination with guns and other weaponry not only evolves into an all-consuming hobby but, even more than that, it becomes a natural extension of their need to express their anger and hostility toward their lot in life and the ones who made it that way.
Thus, for them, the right to keep and bear arms goes hand in hand with their right to free speech and expression. The former is merely the tools and weaponry they need to keep 'the enemy' from taking away the latter.
Certainly, not every gun owner is an angry man, rebelling against society. Many are sportsmen, many are collectors, and many, of course, are not even men. Guns appeal to women, as well, especially when it comes to protecting themselves and their families. But, there is a distinction: Those are not the ones committing mass murder against innocent people.
There are many other issues that will need to be addressed along the road to ending these senseless killings. Mental illness, societal pressures, availability of weapons, and so on. But first we have to recognize the perpetrators and identify them for who they are. That's not to say they comprise one monolithic group of individuals with one shared motive; but they do appear to have a shared psychology.
Perhaps we should start there.
First, let's define the basic issue. Is this, or is it not, a matter of "gun violence"? My answer is "Yes...mostly". Close enough for discussion purposes anyway. Sure, there are bombings and stabbings and other kinds of weapon misuse. But, in our country at least, most mass murders are done with guns. So, yes, let's start by addressing the main problem: gun violence.
Next, let's devote this particular discussion to trying to get some sort of handle on who these shooters are. My observation is that they fall into three groups. Before dividing them into those groups, however, let us take a look at what these people have in common (besides being gun owners with a desire to shoot people).
These are citizens who fall into a particular subset of gun enthusiasts who see their right to bear arms as the freedom that protects all their other freedoms. They view the Second Amendment as a logical companion to the First Amendment. To these individuals, the ownership of guns is a direct extension of their right of free expression. They see no distinction between their right to verbalize their anger against their enemies and their right to defend themselves from the actions of those enemies.
These citizens own guns, often many of them, and for what they see as very good reasons. And they comprise the following three general groups:
Group 1: Middle-aged, white working class men who see themselves as tough guys and true red-blooded Americans, but whose lives and livelihoods are being turned upside down by globalization, ethnic diversity, and the technological tsunami. They are easily swayed by anyone who speaks their language and inspires them to fight back--a Donald Trump, for example.
Group 2: Young African-Americans and Hispanics who are natives of the inner cities and who see themselves as imprisoned in a hopeless cycle of poverty and lack of opportunity. They see no way out. The American Dream is a myth to them. Consequently, they are susceptible to the excitement and opportunity promised by the turf-war gangsters that control the streets and alleys of their neighborhoods
Group 3: Millennials whose parents are Muslim transplants from the Middle East; young Americans who are struggling to come to grips with their own identity and to 'be someone' in a world that is foreign, and often hostile, to them. They are easily influenced by radical groups that play to their anger and frustration and are quick to invite them to join in fighting an idealized war against that oppressive mainstream society.
The members of these groups, of course, are invariably gun-owners, are predominately male and are angry about their situation in life and determined to fight back. And, although they reside in completely different areas of the country and are completely unrelated to one another, the three groups do share a kinship, certain traits that tend to fit them into a common profile, one that makes them prone to engaging in gun violence:
1. Each group is insular. That is, the members associate almost exclusively with their own kind and communicate with one another in a language they all understand. They harbor a huge distrust of outsiders.
2. Each group shares among its members a well-defined enemies list, laying out in no uncertain terms the people and things they hate the most. And they see themselves as warriors against those mortal enemies.
3. In the case of each group, members, when in the private company of their own peers, are not at all hesitant to speak openly about their feelings and to vent their anger and hostility vociferously, without regard to political correctness or what might be socially acceptable to so-called 'outsiders'. 'Strength in numbers' bolsters each guy's bravado and bold rhetoric, often to a point of being incendiary and promoting violent solutions.
4. For the members of each of these three groups, the next level of action is to prepare for that inevitable day when they will have said all they can say and gone as far as mere barroom expletives, barbs and bigoted epithets can take them. Thus, they spend considerable time and resources arming themselves against all of these enemy forces which, they are convinced, will be coming after them and their way of life sooner rather than later. They call it self-defense. And rightfully so, even if the threat is somewhat exaggerated or even imagined.
So, for all three groups---the middle-aged working stiffs, the inner city minority kids, and the second generation Muslim-Americans--a fascination with guns and other weaponry not only evolves into an all-consuming hobby but, even more than that, it becomes a natural extension of their need to express their anger and hostility toward their lot in life and the ones who made it that way.
Thus, for them, the right to keep and bear arms goes hand in hand with their right to free speech and expression. The former is merely the tools and weaponry they need to keep 'the enemy' from taking away the latter.
Certainly, not every gun owner is an angry man, rebelling against society. Many are sportsmen, many are collectors, and many, of course, are not even men. Guns appeal to women, as well, especially when it comes to protecting themselves and their families. But, there is a distinction: Those are not the ones committing mass murder against innocent people.
There are many other issues that will need to be addressed along the road to ending these senseless killings. Mental illness, societal pressures, availability of weapons, and so on. But first we have to recognize the perpetrators and identify them for who they are. That's not to say they comprise one monolithic group of individuals with one shared motive; but they do appear to have a shared psychology.
Perhaps we should start there.
Friday, June 3, 2016
Issues can wait. Right now, we must vet for tone, temperament & character.
Kudos to Hillary for her speech yesterday. She laid it on the line, all the reasons why Trump would suck as President. Hope she keeps up that line of attack. And I hope Bernie does the same.
I agree that Hillary has flaws, arguably in both in her character and her track record. So, I am not a HC supporter. I am like a lot of Americans who feel that our country would be best served by more traditional conservative values and less of the progressive and libertarian agendas. But, at the same time, I absolutely don't want someone as reckless and offensive as Trump as President. That puts voters like me in a quandry to say the least, and we are still trying to figure out which way to jump in this crazy election. Do we vote for the lesser of the evils? Or do we hope a better choice comes along to vote for? Or do we stay home and not vote at all?
We reasonable folks would like this election to be about issues and policy; but it's not. it is all about temperament and character--and which is more entertaining--acting Presidential, or acting like a goon.
The people who are driving the dialog and making all the noise are not interested in engaging in sensible discussion in a calm, measured way (that, to them, is just more elitist, establishment mumbo-jumbo). No, they want to curse and yell and spew their pent-up hatred and prejudices. Trump, by eagerly sharing with them his laundry list of enemies to pick on (foreign governments, immigrants, minorities, the media, liberals, etc.) and then throwing away the rule book, has taken away the obstacles, like political correctness and good manners, and given all those angry provincial nativists carte-blanche to finally cut loose and be as rude and crude as they want, without worrying about who they might hurt or offend.
I shudder to imagine that all of this might be resetting our culture and painting over everything we traditional conservatives have always loved and cherished about the United States of America. The 21st century may be ushering in a New World (dis)Order that many of us will live to regret.
As dismayed by it all as I am, however, I still plan to stick to my standards. Before I even look at the issues, I want the tone, temperament and character to be there. So, would-be candidates, hear this. My vote is only one; but, if you want it, earn it. Be Presidential:
If you cuss in public, I will never vote for you. If you express your anger by name-calling and bashing, I will never vote for you. If you use name-calling and bashing as a way to be cute and popular, I will never vote for you. If you brag constantly about how great and smart and talented you are, I will never vote for you. If you incite intolerant people to hate, I will never vote for you. If you say things that are untrue (incl. passing off lies, exaggeration, hyperbol...e, and propaganda as truth), I will never vote for you. If you brow-beat people to get your way, I will never vote for you. If you believe that all is fair as long as you close the deal and win, I will never vote for you.I agree that Hillary has flaws, arguably in both in her character and her track record. So, I am not a HC supporter. I am like a lot of Americans who feel that our country would be best served by more traditional conservative values and less of the progressive and libertarian agendas. But, at the same time, I absolutely don't want someone as reckless and offensive as Trump as President. That puts voters like me in a quandry to say the least, and we are still trying to figure out which way to jump in this crazy election. Do we vote for the lesser of the evils? Or do we hope a better choice comes along to vote for? Or do we stay home and not vote at all?
We reasonable folks would like this election to be about issues and policy; but it's not. it is all about temperament and character--and which is more entertaining--acting Presidential, or acting like a goon.
The people who are driving the dialog and making all the noise are not interested in engaging in sensible discussion in a calm, measured way (that, to them, is just more elitist, establishment mumbo-jumbo). No, they want to curse and yell and spew their pent-up hatred and prejudices. Trump, by eagerly sharing with them his laundry list of enemies to pick on (foreign governments, immigrants, minorities, the media, liberals, etc.) and then throwing away the rule book, has taken away the obstacles, like political correctness and good manners, and given all those angry provincial nativists carte-blanche to finally cut loose and be as rude and crude as they want, without worrying about who they might hurt or offend.
I shudder to imagine that all of this might be resetting our culture and painting over everything we traditional conservatives have always loved and cherished about the United States of America. The 21st century may be ushering in a New World (dis)Order that many of us will live to regret.
As dismayed by it all as I am, however, I still plan to stick to my standards. Before I even look at the issues, I want the tone, temperament and character to be there. So, would-be candidates, hear this. My vote is only one; but, if you want it, earn it. Be Presidential:
Now that we have that straight, let's see if, come November, there is a candidate in the race for Leader of the Free World who strikes me as being enough like the Pope, Jesus, Gandhi, or the Dalai Lama to deserve my vote.
Monday, May 23, 2016
Advanced Christology: The next level in following (and understanding) Jesus
Even the twelve didn't get what he was trying to teach them; indeed, in the end, most simply abandoned him, confused, and returned to their ordinary lives. So, what was he really about? Paul wrote in I Corinthians that he and his followers worshipped Christ crucified. But, maybe he was just like all the many thousands of the 'other' disciples who lacked the wisdom to truly grasp the message. According to legends and lore, there might have been a lot more to the historical Jesus than even practicing Christians know. In the meadow, we seek to get past the parables and get to know Jesus as he really was and to follow his teachings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)