Maggie's Farm

This is more inquiry than commentary.  Interested to see what people think.

The idea of human rights as myth, in my estimation, is really about using them in a myth-making manner.  They are ideals to strive for, and protect.  Basic moral goods that apply universally, and from which other 'rights' (perhaps better defined as legal rights) or duties may grow from. 

I'd had a conversation about universal human rights with a Progressive who considers them to be a myth or social construct.  Only useful or meaningful if they are enforced.  I took a different view.  I feel they are real things, existing as useful concepts whether they are enforced or not.  In fact, I pointed out, enforcing them is the incorrect term.  Protecting them, or efficiently allowing their application, is more to the point.  But even if they are not protected or applied, they are real nonetheless.  Which is why so many people have fought for them over the years, and why nations which do apply them efficiently see so many wonderful benefits to their society.

His next question was "what makes them real? How can you justify a right to a free attorney but not a right to free medical care?"  I replied that was a logical fallacy.  There is no right to a free attorney, that's just a SCOTUS ruling.  That has no bearing on this discussion (though I'm open to other ideas that you may have in comments).

So what are basic human rights?  To me, they are real things.  Things you are endowed with at no cost, upon birth.  The right to free speech, for example.  The right to associate with whomever you like.  The right to believe what you want.  The right to worship as you see fit.  These cost nothing.  They do not impact others' rights, or other people (physically or directly) in any limiting fashion.  What are typically known as "Natural Rights" - a thing Progressives don't believe in because, to them, everything is a social construct and open to manipulation.

While I feel bad for Joe and his touchy-feely problem being under attack (not really, I figure he's getting what he deserves for promoting and supporting bad ideas - these idiots all eat their own children and/or parents), he's finding that having a long, storied history is probably going to be harder to overcome than being a creepy uncle.

After all, he was a plagiarist.  That cost him a run for the presidency years ago.  But now, his racist colors are starting to come out.  Yes, it seems Joe was a racist, and even looked to team up with other racists. To stop busing which would help integrate schools.  Let's not forget this doozy:

Most Democrats are closet racists.  Yeah, they say nice things, and 'feel' the right things.  But their practical application of ideas is designed to create, support, and extend servitude of groups they can buy votes from.  Which is a practical application of racism. 

This guy's leading the polls?  It's early.  Joe is the gift that keeps on giving.  Nothing was better than The Onion series on "Diamond Joe".  All satire - but completely believable.

As I mentioned in an earlier post today, Chris Christie spoke at my conference.  He was part of a panel talking about news, and of course everyone wanted to know about 'Russia'.  

Christie was my governor for 8 years.  I never felt he was a good governor, but he was better than his predecessor, Jon Corzine, by a long shot.  He did a few good things in his first few years, then got a little full of himself.  I never believed he would work on the national stage, and he didn't.

However, he fills in on sports talk on WFAN and I listen to him there.  He's a good commentator.  Lots to say, good insight.  He's never afraid to talk.  As he spoke to us, he was on a panel with 3 others, and he spoke for 90% of the session.  All of it was good.

The one takeaway I really liked was his view on Trump.  Most of you know I am not a Trump fan, but I'm in absolutely no way a hater of Trump.  I just don't agree with some of his policies and I can't stand his attitude or behavior. 

That said, I've never felt there's anything 'there' on 'Russia'.  Guess what?  Christie didn't either, and as he said, it's more likely to turn out that the Mueller investigation shows that the Trump campaign was dysfunctional, that portions were a mess, that some people were engaging in questionable behaviors, but nobody knew what anyone else was doing.  He said that's how he felt while he worked on it.  It was clear to him Trump loves a chaotic atmosphere because it produces disruption.  Christie pointed out that at no point, so far, has Trump 'failed' in any meaningful way.  Every time people count him out, he comes through with a victory.  Christie believes this, in part, is related to Trump's management style.

This style, he says, is drawn from the Mike Tyson school of boxing.  Don't have a strategy.  People with strategies tend to overwhelmingly lean on them even as they fail.  As you may or may not know, Mike Tyson made his statement, "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."  Tyson later explained this saying, "How much can you endure, buddy?"  Trump pushes everything and everyone to their limit.  Christie said he loves to see how much they can take, because invariably he can outlast them and that's how he wins most of the time, when he wins.

Christie pointed out that Trump loses quite a bit, too, but he's also good at turning that around, or portraying it in a way to make people see him as a winner regardless of his failure.

That said, his final point is that Trump does face some strong headwinds with the Cohen situation.  It's becoming clear he engaged in very questionable behavior.  Christie, however, does not feel the Democrats have the will, the capability, or the desire, to impeach Trump.  It's his view, if they do, they will create a platform for Trump to ride to victory easily in 2020.  He said it's better PR and better theater to talk about it and drive emotion, but actually doing anything will certainly work against them heavily.

I'll be heading out to Iceland this evening. 

Looking forward to getting away from the madness of the last few months.  Huffpo is now assuring me that the Dem's minor victory was a massive rebuke of Trump.  I still don't see how outspending the Republicans by about 15% and only gaining a slim House margin while losing seats in the Senate is a massive rebuke.  Democrats seem to live in a dream world.  I know they felt a lot of pain on Wednesday and now they are just trying to rearrange chairs on the deck of the Titanic.  Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Occasional Cortex are the new face of their party, and it's sure to cause them problems nationwide.  I don't expect much to change for the Democrats.  

In NYC, the self-righteous and self-assured were absolutely certain the 'blue wave' was coming.  The only blue wave I'm looking for is in a thermal pool in the next few days.  I'll simply take in some fjords, the Aurora Borealis, see Glacier Bay, lava fields, etc.  

It was supposed to be a relaxing trip with me and the Mrs.  Once we'd booked (cheap - $320 per seat R/T all in) flights and our AirBnb, we added our sons.  Sticker shock upon arrival with food and drink, I've heard.  The boys follow "Game of Thrones", filmed in Iceland, so that will be an enjoyable portion of the trip for them.

Maybe I'll even learn to pronounce some of their words.   

Just voted.  Took me 45 minutes.  Longest it's ever taken, midterm or otherwise.  Lots of older people, but it's midday so younger people may vote later.  Still, given the rain, I was shocked at so many people who were there.  It's pouring, and typically that keeps older people at home.  Not this year.

The time it took was due to several factors.  New machines were confusing.  More people than expected showed up.  Rain meant some poll workers were cleaning up rather than assisting people.  Too much going on.  My son came home to vote, and he took over an hour.

I don't care who he votes for, as long as he doesn't vote for Menendez.  I've never liked that corrupt jerk.  I told my son this, then told him the letter-writing battles I had with that fool back in the 90s when he was my Representative.  Back then, he was a Gephardt-style protectionist.  Today, he pretends to be a free-trader.  He's not.  He just wants money shoveled into his pocket for his support down in DC.  Corrupt as can be.  Hopefully my son will not vote for him.

It's my view the high turnout is better for Republicans than Democrats.  While some will say that's counter-intuitive, due to new registrations and younger people not being apathetic as they usually are, I have a different view.  National elections with high voter turnouts usually indicate a desire for change.

Midterms, which typically go against the sitting President's party, have higher turnouts when people want to protect what they have.  These elections are national in nature only in aggregate, people usually think their representative is 'safe' and are complacent.  Showing up to vote, rather than being complacent, means you're concerned about something, and it's usually that you'll lose some constant that you're familiar with.

Either way, one party is going to have some soul-searching to do.  If the Republicans suffer a "Blue Wave", there will need to be some work done on what they stand for and represent.  I don't believe this outcome is likely at all.

I do think that the Dems will get a small House majority. Very slim.  But this will force them to re-think what they stand for, because they are looking for a referendum.  I do not think they will get one.

If the Republicans (which I don't think will happen) manage to hold or extend both the houses, that will be a very clear message to the Dems that they need to be retooled in a major way.  Frankly, I'd prefer this because it's the best chance to extend the addition of Constitutionalists into the Supreme Court.  With Breyer and Ginsburg nearing the end of their useful tenures, it will be important to maintain this position.

2 of the 3 outcomes, and the one I believe is most likely, don't really favor the Democrats in the long run.  But anything can happen, and polling has been notoriously awful.  From the extremely small sample size I've seen, though, I don't think the Democrats are going to have their 'blue wave'.  

We shall see. 

Today in a meeting, which for the sake of clarity is 50% male and 95% white in its make up, someone mentioned a trade article.  The article stipulated that "watching XYZ practice occur among companies is like watching a middle-aged white man try to dance."  Obviously, the idea is that middle-aged white men can't dance, it's awkward, and funny to see them try.  These companies clearly are not doing something well, I get it.  That's not an issue.

The issue became the humor of the statement, as our leader stood up and pretended to do a 'dad dance' and soon everyone (except me) was howling.  The jokes about middle-aged white men dancing flew for about 2-3 minutes.  I've got a sense of humor, so I wasn't offended, and I even think the joke was on the mark.  But I started thinking what if the joke had been "like watching an obese woman climb the stairs"?  Add in any racial qualifier just to salt it a bit.  What might have happened?  Would someone have been fired or, at the very least, brought into HR for a stern talking-to and some sensitivity training?  Absolutely.

The other night, Hillary Clinton stated that Political Correctness is about "politeness".  Boy, that's pretty telling.  As far as I can tell, PC behavior is about not having a sense of humor about yourself and your background.  It's about taking yourself too seriously.  What was even more amazing, to me, was that she followed that up with a joke about Eric Holder and Cory Booker being black and "they all look the same."  Well, she's a female, a Democrat, and wife of the first 'black' president (remember that gem?).  So she gets a pass.  She's fundamentally diverse and I, as a middle-aged white male, most certainly have no diversity in me.

Diversity is not a goal.  Diversity is barely a thing.  If it's something you want, great.  Diversity is important.  Maybe it isn't.  That's up to you, it's up to the companies that want to pretend it's something more than virtue signaling.  But if it is real, then the behavior I saw today has to stop.  Nobody has a claim on the right to champion 'diversity' if they think this kind of thing is 'funny' but changing the gender or race makes it 'not funny'. 

For some reason, New York is upset that it pays 30% more, per capita, in taxes than the average state.  Well, I'm from New Jersey and we pay slightly more than New York.  New York is upset that it gets back much less than it pays out.  Again, I'm from New Jersey and we get even less back.

New York is a big state, and a relatively wealthy one.  New Jersey is wealthier.  I figure we have more to be upset about.

I stumbled on an article about how people tend to disagree regarding facts.  It was clear from the start the author was seeking to explain the hyperpartisan nature of our political divide.  I wasn't too impressed with the outcome.  The closing paragraph stipulates our liberal democratic institutions are designed for disagreement, but these disagreements hinge on agreeing upon facts, a process which seems straightforward, but which he implies is broken and liberal democracy cannot fix.  I'm not sure I agree that the process of agreement is straightforward, and I do believe liberal democracy can fix the issue.

I, however, disagree with the closing paragraph.  The problem, as stated, is incorrect. People tend to agree about facts, so the adjudication process remains adequate.  The issue seems to be that few people want to agree, even when they know they are wrong and the facts have presented themselves. If you play poker, as I do frequently, you've probably seen exchanges like this.  You have 2 Queens in the hole and one on the board.  But there are 3 spades on the flop, and betting action convinces you that a flush is in play.  You convince yourself the 3 Queens will hold, and shove all your chips in. When you lose, you blame the person with the flush for not folding to the clearly superior bet, rather than analyzing your decision to shove as a mistake in the face of the facts as they'd presented themselves.

Mao began his Cultural Revolution after the failure of the Great Leap Forward.  The Democrats are now enforcing their version of Cultural Revolution now that their economic policies have failed to yield their Utopian Vision.

We've seen the revolution begin at leading digital firms, which release people like James Damore, who provide well-written and well-documented critique of hiring practices, while offering better alternatives which don't happen to fit the political agenda.  It's called a "gender memo" and he is a pariah.  The claim is he 'got the science wrong', but while it's not 100% spot-on, some scientists said it's pretty good and certainly not a rant or screed.  Nevermind.  It doesn't meet the level of agenda-setting which Silicon Valley is pursuing.  Fire him.  More importantly, find ways to limit the speech of employees and online users.

Now, with Kavanaugh, you can keep your job if you commit slander, but try to provide some semblance of balance and you're going to have to go.

For now, the Cultural Revolution will seek to take away reputations and livelihoods.  I worry that it's on the verge of getting violent and taking lives.  As the anger and outrage of the Left continues to grow - and if the much-ballyhooed "Blue Wave" does not appear in November (I, for one, do not think it will) - you can be sure it will get increasingly more violent.  Reputations and jobs won't be enough.