My Life

Simply connected

2025-10-29T14:50:00.002-04:00

I believe that one of the major problems afflicting our society is division. I see liberals and conservatives attacking each other vehemently, with no apparent desire to connect with people across the aisle in any way. I see us getting more entrenched in echo chambers, further isolated from people with differing views. I believe that is a bad thing.

My family used to be much closer than it is now. While I was growing up, we'd visit my dad's parents almost every Sunday after dinner. Many of his siblings would be there, so it was a time for the adults to chat and the kids to play. I enjoyed it. As my siblings grew up and started their own families, we'd regularly get together for dinners or parties. Now it seems like we only get together a few times per year, and a lot of times siblings will show up with only parts of their families--perhaps not with their spouse or with their children. It seems like we're all growing further apart. Personally I prefer smaller gatherings to bigger ones because you have more time to talk one-on-one with individual people. So during the last 3 years or so I have reached out to many of my siblings and started spending more time with them. I enjoy feeling closer to them and understanding them better. I think we need to do this in more areas of society.

I have one sister who didn't vote for Trump in 2016 but did in 2020 and 2024. We have spent a lot of time together over the last few years. We'll go on a walk and chat. Sometimes we talk about just everyday things, what's going on in our lives and in our marriages. Sometimes we talk about personal things. Sometimes we talk about politics. I value the space we've created for each other to openly share our political views without judgement. I appreciate her sharing her thoughts with me. I know that she receives hateful messages from liberal people because she is a conservative, and supports Trump. I see the hateful things that liberals say about Trump supporters. In getting to learn more about her views, I can see her concerns and I can see how compassion shapes her own beliefs. I respect her and value our friendship. She is the primary reason I believe that liberals and conservatives can be mutually respectful and friendly toward one another.

Along the lines of seeing liberals say hateful things to conservatives, a very comical thing happened to me the other day. This was just before the most recent No Kings protest, which I attended and took many photos of which I posted to my social media accounts. I saw a post about the protest and out of curiosity started reading the comments. I saw one which was clearly opposed to the protest but was written on a rainbow background. So of course I posted my reply to his comment "I love the Pride background." I admit I am often facetious. So that put me in a silly mood and I started posting similar comments to other people that seemed to be opposed to the notion of the protest. I'm going to share screenshots of one of those that turned into a bit of a thread. The original comment and my reply seen here on the right. The guy says "Just call it what it is: No Trump Protest" to which I reply, sarcastically, "I love that name! Thanks for coming up with it!" with a heart emoji. I know it's impossible to detect sarcasm on the Internet so I am unsurprised it was interpreted literally.

So anyway, he says "it would make more sense, just use that instead." I feel like my next comment made clear exactly which side I was on, since I knew that it was likely the case my sarcasm would go undetected by some. I reply with "no more trumps! It just feels so good to say." I assumed my position was then clear. It's what happened next that really made me laugh, because the guy who made the original comment checked out of the conversation at this point but someone else decided to join in. He comes in pretty hard with "Another ball-less mouth breather." Now I'm going to be honest, from that message alone it's really quite impossible for me to know if he's a liberal or a conservative. He never made his position clear. He only made clear that he felt the need to insult me. Since my most recent message was to express joy at the thought of no more trumps, it seems perfectly reasonable to expect that he's a conservative mocking me for being liberal. In the past I've let my anger get the best of me and replied to such things in kind. I still do, sometimes, but I think I'm better at controlling my temper and in this case I just replied with more silliness, because at least for me personally it diffuses tension better than replying with anger. So I just offer to send him photographic evidence to refute the claim that I'm ball-less.

Then he posted a message which he later deleted. I suppose in all fairness this message would make it clear that he is a liberal and thinks that I'm a conservative. I'm still unsure why he thought that, but it is clear that it was the impression he had. He implies that I enjoy licking Trump's balls. I type a response, indicating I think it's gross to imagine that and add in some teasing to imply that he's gay because he likes to think about other men's balls so much. However, as I post this reply I get an error because he had deleted his comment in the meantime, so he never saw this message. (It's too bad, I think it was really funny.)

At any rate, at this point I've got a fairly good hint that he's a liberal but I'm just having so much fun with him, and my point now is that he's just a rude hateful person more than whether he leans left or right. He replaces his deleted message with one saying that he thinks the original commenter and I should get married. (It's hard to say if I perceive this as gay bashing. It may just be the case that in the minds of some liberals, the thought of gay marriage is one of the scariest things to a conservative so maybe that's what he's going for?) So of course I reply with "Do you think we'd make a cute couple? I haven't met him and my husband may not approve, but I'm a really open-minded guy!" He says "You're both as stupid as you look so it should be smooth sailing." I mention that he's such a sweet person which, in the context of his barrage of insults, I thought was quite clearly sarcastic.

It's hard to say if he picked up on the comment, based on his reply, where he asserts "I am sweet and most often right on point." Maybe he was being sarcastic there? All I know is he's clearly wrong on both points because he's clearly anything but sweet and he has been treating me this whole time as if I am a Trump supporter. I think pretty much anyone who knows me would know precisely how I feel about the orange bag of hatred. So of course, I double down on the sarcasm and point out that he's just made snap judgments about me before even realizing which side of the aisle I'm on.

So finally he states his actual beliefs, instead of just hurling insults. He makes it perfectly clear that he supports the protest and that all along he has had the quite incorrect belief that I was there to make fun of it. He calls me intolerant and short-sighted. This is quite laughable coming from someone who just made an assumption about me and started calling me names because of that assumption. He accuses me of having no love for the country--that accusation might be partially true. I know the country's history and I feel no pride in it. Slavery, misogyny, Jim Crow, a long history of the rich and powerful oppressing the vulnerable and minorities. I don't feel proud to be an American--particularly with a racist in the White House.

So I let him know I'm attending the protest, which I did. I also point out that he misjudged me and that he was very rude about it. Clearly he can't face his own mistakes because rather than owning up to what he did, he just called me a poser and said that liberals would be better off without me. I have to admit, while it may hurt my feeling when people misjudge me, I find some weird satisfaction at seeing how they meltdown and react when they're faced with their own folly.

Anyway, the reason I shared this experience here was not (purely) to gain some sense of vindication in doing so, but to show precisely what I'm talking about. The vitriol is shown on both sides. Liberals say horrible things to conservatives. Conservatives say horrible things to liberals. The example I chose to highlight was one where the vitriol was coming from a liberal because I want to come across as fair in pointing out this problem--it's not just conservatives being hateful and I get that. It's all nonsense, and it's all distraction. The ruling class sure is happy when the common folk fight amongst themselves because when we're fighting each other we're not fighting them. They like to stir the pot, to get people angry. It distracts us from the real issue, which is that a handful of really wealthy people and special interest groups are dictating all the policy in the country and what the majority of people want is just ignored.

My perspective is this. We have more in common than we care to admit. And I feel like the only way forward--the only way to achieve real progress--is to acknowledge that common ground and build upon it. In talking to my sister I see that we have a lot in common. We both want employment to go to the most qualified people regardless of what color their skin is or what's hidden under their underwear, etc. We both want to protect liberty and human life. We both want to see fewer people killed or raped or victims of any other violent crime. We do differ in how that plays out--what it looks like to enact policy to those ends. But the fact that we share so many common concerns is evidence enough to me that we might be able to address those concerns in a mutually agreeable way. I want to do what I can to make that happen. I want the country to simmer down, not boil over. I want to see people working together to understand each other and respect the fears and concerns that we have--particularly when we share those concerns.

I don't know what this will look like for me personally. But one thing I know is that doing what I have been doing for the last few years has been very satisfying and I mean to continue it. I want to build any bridges I can. I want open channels of communication. I want mutual respect and understanding. I want to foster relationships in which both parties feel comfortable sharing their thoughts without judgment. I think that's the only way to heal from all the hurt that exists, the only way to unite people and have a better society. I definitely don't want to be part of the problem. I don't want to be that DK guy that just hurls insults at anyone I perceive as thinking differently from me. That's a perfect example of what not to do. I believe in love and compassion, not cruelty and condescension.

Two Minutes' Hate

2025-10-16T12:08:00.002-04:00

While listening to Orwell's 1984 on Audible during my commute last week, one of the things that I noticed was the use of hatred by the Party to control people. It seems to be a common authoritarian tactic. Nazis used hatred of Jews, queer people, and immigrants. I'd been taught the word "scapegoat" when I was in elementary school. It's a tactic that authoritarians use to rally support. They say such-and-such minority group is why things are so bad in our country, so give me power to exterminate/deport them. And it seems to be quite effective.

I have no background in behavioral psychology. My knowledge about it is that of a layperson. So I was curious about how the emotion of hatred is at acting as a unifying force. I found this article on the matter which discusses why hope is more effective than hate. I also found a scholarly article explaining why hope is better than hate.What I understand about it from reading those is that hatred burns out quickly. It isn't sustainable. It's great at mobilizing a movement in the early stages, but it's impossible to maintain long term. Orwell showed hatred being sustained by a daily "two minutes hate" at lunchtime, where all the Party members would gather and watch a video about Goldstein, the fictional leader of the resistance, talking about destroying the Party. All the audience would shout how much they hate him. From my own personal experience, I believe it's not easy to maintain that level of hatred long-term. And I can understand why love and hope would be more sustainable and even more unifying.

This topic has come into my mind because I see so much hate going around. I see conservatives who delight in ICE rounding people up and deporting them to other countries, even when it's not their country of origin. I see people gleeful at others receiving harsh sentences when convicted of crimes. I see people so easily calling for the death sentence or assassination of people they dislike or disagree with. The more I see the actions of the current authoritarian regime in the White House the more I feel hatred welling up inside me. I don't want to end up bitter, jaded, and hateful. I just don't want to be that kind of person.

The reason I hold nearly every one of my political beliefs is out of the desire to make life better--for myself and for other people. I believe in mass amnesty and a loosening of regulations and requirements for becoming a US citizen. I believe in redistributing wealth from the richest to the poorest in our country. I believe that healthcare shouldn't be something that people have to fear--that the diagnosis of an illness shouldn't mean impending bankruptcy or simply going without treatment for the average American. I believe in love and acceptance and letting people make their own decisions for their own lives. I believe people deserve basic human rights regardless of citizenship status.

I hope that people will see the horrible and inhumane things that ICE is doing and they will oppose it rather than support it. I worry because I see Trump and his cabinet pushing the narrative that liberals are violent terrorists and enemies of the state. He has declared antifa to be a terrorist organization even thought it isn't even an organization. I am antifa. It is a contraction of anti-fascist. I am opposed to fascism and therefore am anti-fascist. Declaring anti-fascist people an enemy of the state is effectively asserting that the state is fascist. I don't want a fascist government. I want a government that serves the people, not one that controls people.

I've heard the saying that history repeats itself because no one was listening the first time. Sadly, that seems to be the case as we're currently watching the events leading up to WW2 play out right before our eyes here in the US. I named this post after the event described in 1984, but also for the double meaning. My hope is that, as the psychology article asserts, the hatred of this movement will eventually die out. We'll see the two minutes' worth of hatred for immigrants, autistic people, and trans people play out and burn out. My hope is that eventually enough people will see it for what it is and it will end. I mean to do my part to contribute to hope more than to contribute to escalation of violence and more hate. I want to help build a society which is better for all, not better for some. I want to see all people lifted by a rising tide. I don't want to see people oppressed and put down and shoved further into humiliation and poverty. I want to see dignity restored. I want to see compassion valued.

Thinking Double

2025-10-09T19:58:00.002-04:00

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

These iconic words from George Orwell's 1984 explain the effects of propaganda on the people. In a book about Adolf Hitler, Walter C Langer said this about Hitler's strategy.

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

I remember reading 1984 when I was younger and being exposed to the concept of doublethink he introduced in the book--the state of accepting two contradictory statements as simultaneously true and experiencing no cognitive dissonance from it. I observed how multiple times throughout the book, the masses are told clearly false things and are expected to believe them. Winston Smith, the protagonist, seems to be virtually the only person who doesn't just immediately swallow the lies. At the time I rejected this as implausible--surely people can't be that gullible. And yet, here I find myself in 2025 and I observe a huge chunk of the population doing just that.

Trump says that Portland is war-torn with fires everywhere, it's like living in hell. And yet I've seen footage of what's happening in Portland. People walk and jog down the street, seemingly enjoying a normal peaceful life. I see protestors taunting ICE agents by holding up donuts tied to the end of a stick. I see people holding dancing concerts outside ICE buildings, dressed in street clothes or in animal costumes and just having a good time. The truth couldn't be farther from the words coming out of Trump's mouth. And yet his supporters believe him.

He told the same lies about the ICE protests in LA. He used his lies to justify sending the National Guard and marines to the city despite the Mayor of LA and governor of California urging him not to because they knew it would only escalate the situation. I wrote at greater length about this in a previous post. I sent that post to all my siblings and my parents. Most of my siblings didn't respond. My parents called. My dad has been radicalized since I was young, and I knew he believed Trump's lies during Trump's first term in office, so it was no surprise at all to me to learn that he believes Trump's lies now as well. What did surprise me is that my mom also sided with Trump, defending his actions and justifying them. I was shocked to see her taking his side because she's always been the more reasoned and moderate of the two. I don't recall ever hearing her defend Trump before, so I suppose it hurt to hear her defending him now. She talked to me as if I was crazy for suggesting that Trump's actions amount to authoritarianism. I will never accept that I am crazy for seeing and acknowledging the truth in the face of the lies told by the government.

The point is, I personally know and love many people who have bought into the lies. They are committing doublethink. They are rejecting the evidence of their eyes and ears because Dear Leader is telling them to. Trump said that Haitian immigrants were eating cats and dogs. This was not true. He said that he would bring down the price of eggs on day one of his second term. They have only increased since he took office. His supporters still believe he's magically making the economy better even though he's failed to live up to his campaign promises and he has only devastated the economy and ruined relations with other countries due to his childish and outlandish tariffs.

He has declared Antifa to be a terrorist organization. Antifa isn't even an organization at all. There's no leader, there's no board of directors, there's no centralized agenda or meetings or membership or anything of the sort. It simply doesn't exist. And yet his supporters believe that it is a terrorist organization because Trump has declared it to be. In 1984, the Party made up the fake organization called The Brotherhood which was allegedly a rebellious organization which was intent on bringing down the Party. They'd display fake messages from Goldstein, the alleged leader of this fake organization, during Hate presentations. It worked as a unifying force among the people, to increase their loyalty to the Party and increase their hatred of anyone who opposed the Party in any way. Trump is doing precisely that same thing here with Antifa and it's glaringly obvious, almost as if he took the idea straight out of Orwell's book and decided to implement it as-is. The frustrating thing is that it's working. People believe that Antifa is an organization. They believe it's a real thing and it is a terrorist group.

Meanwhile, ICE officers are committing actual acts of terrorism all over. They tear families out of their apartments in the middle of the night and leave them out in the cold for hours. They zip-tie children's hands together. They separate parents from children. They kidnap people off the streets wearing unmarked clothing and face coverings and haul them off in unmarked vehicles. The lack of paperwork indicating where people have ended up to me is a clear sign that they are actually a human trafficking organization. And yet Trump's supporters support what ICE is doing because they believe Trump's lies that ICE is getting rid of only the most violent criminals. In reality, ICE is arresting, detaining, and deporting US citizens, peaceful immigrants, and people who are here legally in addition to people who are here undocumented. They may be arresting some criminals, but that is not who they are targeting. They are targeting people who look different. They're racially profiling people by their skin color.

I have to admit younger me was wrong when I dismissed the possibility of doublethink working. It works all too well. People are all too willing to deny the evidence of their eyes and ears and blindly follow the words of the leader they worship and admire all while that leader is oppressing them and controlling them with an ever tightening fist. Trump has even grown so bold that just the other day he openly admitted during a press release that he is ending freedom of speech. In his exact words "We took the freedom of speech away." And I have witnessed his supporters defending this statement. They love him for making that declaration. It is absolute insanity. It is doublethink. It is denying the evidence of your eyes and ears because the Party told you to.

All the King's men

2025-10-05T19:35:00.000-04:00

It's been over a decade, about 14 years, since I last attended church (at least regularly, I've gone for special events for family members who invited me). So I've forgotten a lot of the things I learned, the stories that we'd discuss, aside from the most common or popular ones. One story I do remember takes place in the book of Alma, the largest book within the Book of Mormon. I share this story not because I believe it actually happened but because I see a parallel with what's currently happening now in our society and the events laid out in the Book of Mormon.

There were two main peoples, the Nephites and the Lamanites. At this point in time the Nephites were ruled by judges rather than kings. My best understanding of the government is that it was some sort of republic. The book continually refers to popular votes ("the voice of the people"). And apparently there are judges. I imagine it might be similar to the way we have tiered judges in our federal government. There's one person who is the chief judge, which I suppose might equate to the Supreme Court.

At any rate, in the later parts of the book of Alma, there are a group of people--mostly wealthy people--who want to overthrow the government and replace the system of judges with a king. Those elites and the people who support them call themselves king-men. The government put the question to the people for a vote and the majority vote was to reject the king-men. Those who opposed the king-men were called freemen. This is explained in Alma 51.

Now, I have my own suspicions on what conservatives would view as the side of the king-men and the side of the freemen in today's society. So I'm going to lay out why I believe the way I do. First, I don't necessarily believe that the Republican party (prior to Trump) was necessarily "king-men". However, let us examine the description of the king-men from Alma and compare that with facts in the real world.

Now those who were in favor of kings were those of high birth, and they sought to be kings; and they were supported by those who sought power and authority over the people. (Alma 51:8)

Let's talk about high birth. Donald Trump was the son of a rich man. According to Wikipedia, Trump's net worth is $9 billion. The second richest president after him was George Washington, whose wealth would be worth half a billion in 2022. He is by far the wealthiest president we've ever elected. I don't see how anyone could objectively argue that he is not of high birth.

To address the matter of seeking to be a king, I cite an address that Trump gave in 2024 at an event organized by Turning Point Action. During the address he made the following remark.

"in four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good, you're not gonna have to vote."

The full video of his address is available on YouTube here. The way I see it, there are only two ways you can promise people that they'll never have to vote again. One way to interpret that is as a death threat--that they won't live to see the next election. The other is that elections will have ended by then. Since I do not believe that Trump was threatening to massacre the Christians he was addressing at this event, I think the latter interpretation is more likely. Effectively, he made a promise to the group of Christians he was addressing that elections would be obsolete within 4 years. How would he do that? By establishing his family as a dynasty in an authoritarian regime. He definitely seeks to be a king.

To get back to the story of the Nephites in the Book of Alma, in chapter 60 a military leader by the name of Captain Moroni writes a letter to Pahoran, the chief judge of the government. In this letter, he does not hold back his scathing judgment of the neglect that his army has seen. He writes of wanting for provisions and men that are not being sent. He threatens to march on the capital of Zarahemla, stirring up insurrection among the people as he goes and rallying all freedom-loving citizens to his cause as he marches to the capital to root out the corruption. At the time of writing the letter, he doesn't know that the kerfuffle with the king-men is the reason that he's not been getting the supplies he needs to fuel the war.

In Alma chapter 61, Pahoran immediate writes back to Moroni, explaining the situation. The king-men have overthrown Pahoran and have taken control of the city. Pahoran has sent out a rallying cry and freemen from all over have flocked to Gideon, where he is, to support him in the name of freedom. He states that he is relieved at seeing Moroni's resolve to march against the capital because he was unsure of whether it would be right to do so. He's glad to hear from Moroni that it's what their god wants them to do, and is fully supportive and invites Moroni to perform the march he threatened to do in his letter.

Now, what parallel do I see here? Let me take on particular passage that I wish to highlight from Alma 61:4.

And it is those who have sought to take away the judgment-seat from me that have been the cause of this great iniquity; for they have used great flattery, and they have led away the hearts of many people, which will be the cause of sore affliction among us; they have withheld our provisions, and have daunted our freemen that they have not come unto you.

Those who sought to take away the judgment seat from the duly elected judge. On January 6, 2021, there was a group of Trump supporters who attacked the US Capitol. They injured many people and destroyed property. The intent of the invasion was to murder Mike Pence and prevent him from certifying the 2020 election in which Biden was declared victor. In other words, they were people who sought to take away power from someone who was duly elected by the people. And why did they do this? Because of great flattery. They were told again and again by people including Trump and Charlie Kirk that the 2020 election result were fraudulent and couldn't be trusted, that Trump actually won. Their hearts were led away and cause sore affliction among us.

And what has Trump done since taking office in 2025? He has withheld provisions from us, withholding funds for our colleges and universities, our medical programs, our foreign aid programs around the world.

The reason I decided to write this post is because when I was LDS I believed that Moroni was awesome for behaving the way he did--for marching straight to the corruption and fighting it head on. And I know that a lot of Mormons share that view about the matter. I know that they support Captain Moroni in his decision to literally attack the government. And yet I see them saying that we shouldn't resort to violence and that peaceful solutions are always better whenever they talk about protests--particularly when the protestors are liberals. They carry guns and believe the Second Amendment is there so that the people can protect themselves against a tyrannical government and yet now that the government is tyrannical, rather than fighting them they are on the side of the tyranny. And when people stand up against the tyranny, even when they are just being peaceful, conservatives say that it's bad to protest and criticize the president and they untruthfully call the protestors rioters and accuse them of violence, even though they themselves believe that violence against the government is justified in some circumstances.

ICE

2025-10-03T19:05:00.001-04:00

ICE is an agency I have long had a problem with. I do not see why we demonize immigrants and feel some strange need to expel them from our country. However, under the current administration the organization has gone from being distasteful to being downright pure, unadulterated evil.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/03/us/chicago-apartment-ice-raid

ICE raided an apartment building in Chicago yesterday. They detained every single resident of the building. This includes US citizens. They say they're going after the most violent. They say they're going after the criminals and the undocumented immigrants. That is a lie, pure and simple. They are not targeting criminals. They are not targeting undocumented immigrants. They're not even targeting immigrants. They're arresting and detaining citizens. They're indiscriminately arresting people, detaining them in facilities that they're not even admitting are detainment centers--to deny access to members of Congress, who do have the right to visit ICE detainment centers to inspect the conditions there.

I want my opinion to be crystal clear on the matter. ICE is evil. To think that there are so many people who are willing to perform such evil acts of inhumanity truly wounds me to my core. That we have so many agents going around zip-tying children's hands together, separating children from their parents, and keeping them in inhumane conditions.

The playbook of the authoritarian is quite simple. They want violence because that's how they gain and maintain power. They want chaos. They stir the pot, create contention, instigate violence, and then step in as the solution to the very problem they created. ICE is the agency to cause this chaos. They're creating widespread panic and fear in many communities, and this fear is very well justified. Families are torn apart, people are disappeared from their workplaces and from the streets and from their homes. In many cases, sufficient records are not kept and it's impossible to track who's been arrested and where they are now, or where they were from originally. With all of the outrageous things that ICE is doing, when members of the community are brave enough to protest, the protest is labeled as a riot and the national guard is brought in. This is rule by military might. It is not democracy. It is not the way a republic should function. It is chaotic, it is violent, and it is evil.

Authoritarianism

2025-08-29T16:20:00.001-04:00

I want to make my position very clear. I am anti-fascist. I am anti-authoritarianism. I am opposed to dictatorships. I am opposed to military coups. I am opposed to consolidation of power, particularly in the executive branch. I want to be clear so there is no question on my position.

In June of 2025, Trump sent national guard troops and marines to occupy the city of Los Angeles. This was against the wishes of both the governor and the mayor. During peace time, the national guard should be under the control of the governor. The president should not have power to control them. Yet, he was allowed to. The fact remains clear. This was a military invasion. It was occupying military forces sent to a US city. Trump declared war on his own people. The troops remain there still.

This month, Trump took control of the DC police and deployed the national guard in DC. They are occupying the city, armed while walking the streets. He is pressing this war on his own people. He is occupying the nation's capital. He cited rampant crime as his justification for this invasion yet crime in DC was at a 30-year low prior to Trump taking office so this reason is clearly just propaganda.

He has threatened to deploy troops to other liberal cities, at the moment focusing his attention on Chicago. Governor Pritzker of Illinois has fortunately stood up to these threats and issued a clear response that such an act is nothing more than a blatant power grab and an attempt to intimidate political opponents. The full transcript can be found here. One particular fact that stood out to me that Pritzker pointed out is that eight of the top ten states in homicide rate are led by Republicans, and Illinois is not in the top ten--it's number 13. If Trump really wanted to reduce crime, he'd focus on where the crime is worst, not where it's on a decline or areas where it's not at the top of the list. Wikipedia has a list of states by homicide rate corroborating Pritzker's assertion, data released by the FBI.

These are not the actions of a democratic leader. They are not rational actions. They are the actions of a despot, a would-be dictator. He is invading our cities and attacking our people. ICE is kidnapping people off the streets in plain-clothes outfits and with face coverings. I have to admit, I am quite astonished to see so many conservatives willing to wear face masks all day as they work for ICE when only a few years ago they were complaining that they couldn't breathe when "forced" to wear masks for COVID. Yet, we have troops by the thousands on our streets taking our people and hauling them off to unknown locations to be held without cause for indeterminate amounts of time, without any guarantee of due process--in clear violation of the Constitution. We know that ICE is not targeting only undocumented immigrants. They are targeting people who are here on work visas, they have even detained and arrested US citizens. They ambush people in courthouses when they are required to be there to follow the legal process that Trump continues to tell us that he wants immigrants to follow.

I am speaking out. I don't know what else I can do. I feel helpless, honestly. But I cannot remain silent while I watch our president continue to bully Congress and the Judicial branch, deploy troops in our cities, kidnap our people, ship them off to prisons in foreign countries, and try to grab and retain as much power as he can in every way that he can. He is clearly power hungry. He is clearly trying to be a dictator. He's following the playbook of all dictators which have come before. He is openly and brazenly befriending Putin--a dictator who I remember not long ago conservatives condemned as such. he is siding with Putin in Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Just the other day he said that people would prefer a dictator if the dictator reduces crime.

His actions are leading to a more authoritarian police state, where violence is power. I don't want to live in such a world. I want to live in a free society where people are allowed to say and do what they want without the fear of being shot by military troops or federal agents, or being kidnapped and hauled off in a van and sent to a concentration camp. But that's exactly where we're headed. Conservatives are applauding the construction of a concentration camp in Florida, and calling it "alligator Alcatraz".

I remember when I was younger, at one time dad made a comment about countries where you were required to carry around papers that you had to show all the time "papers please". The takeaway I had from that is that in a free society you shouldn't be required to carry documentation with you all the time to prove you had a right to be there. Yet that's exactly where we're headed now. ICE is allowed to require documentation when they detain someone to prove that they are allowed to be here. I feel that this approach is far too punitive and draconian. We should have a more civil way of maintaining order in our society. We shouldn't have to rely on troops occupying our cities. We shouldn't have to rely on intimidation by physical violence or other means.

In case my point hasn't yet been made clear enough, this behavior is unacceptable. It needs to stop. Trump needs to be stopped. We can't allow him to take over our cities and invade our own country with his marines and national guard troops, to steal our people off the streets with his ICE agents. It is simply madness.

Declaring Independence

2025-07-04T19:07:00.003-04:00

I believe that it is crucial to remember what it is that we celebrate here in the USA on July 4th and why. July 4, 1776 is the date the Continental Congress formally adopted the resolution on independence from Great Britain. The draft written by Thomas Jefferson can be found here and the revised text as adopted by the Continental Congress can be found here. For the purposes of this post, I will be pulling quotes from both versions of the document. Unless specified otherwise, all quotes in this post are taken from the Declaration of Independence.

In the Declaration, a list of grievances is given detailing why the colonies decided that it was necessary to declare themselves a new nation and separate from the British Empire. I highlight some of those grievances here in order to portray why I believe we should neither take freedom for granted nor think of July 4 as a day to celebrate independence, but rather as a day to remind ourselves of how precious and fragile freedom is. History has shown us that time and again authoritarians will rise up and seek to destroy freedom in pursuit of self-aggrandizement.

In introducing this list of grievances Jefferson originally wrote these words

the history of his present majesty, is a history of unremitting injuries and usurpations, among which no one fact stands single or solitary to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest, all of which have in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. to prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world, for the truth of which we pledge a faith yet unsullied by falsehood.

and those words in the revised document, as passed by the Continental Congress, read thus

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

The assertion is that King George III was a tyrant, an authoritarian who refused to rule in a way which was fair to the people of the American colonies. In order to demonstrate how history repeats itself, I wish to list some of these grievances and indicate how they have recurred.

he has refused to pass other laws for the accomodation of large districts of people unless those people would relinquish the right of representation, a right inestimable to them, formidable to tyrants alone:

Since 2012, Puerto Rico has voted 4 times to become a state in the USA, statehood getting 97% of the vote in 2017. This desire has been denied them, in essence denying those citizens the right to representation in Congress.

he has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither; & raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands:

The current administration has made it its primary goal since inauguration to not only make it more difficult for foreigners to be naturalized here but also to deport them en masse regardless of their legal status. They have expired visas for people who were here on visa. They have deported documented immigrants and US citizens.

he has erected a multitude of new offices by a self-assumed power, & sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people & eat out their substance:

This administration established the Department of Government Efficiency, sent swarms of officers to harass various federal agencies, and even take control of government records. They had the self-assumed power of firing employees en masse and without notice. The purpose of this new department was clearly to make these government agencies incapable of completing their purposes.

he has kept among us in times of peace standing armies & ships of war:

In June of this year, 4000 national guard troops and 700 marines were sent to LA. Our own military was deployed to combat our own citizens--during a time of peace--in order to bully and harass citizens who were exercising their First Amendment rights to protest peacefully.

for imposing taxes on us without our consent;

Tariffs are taxes. They have been imposed on various goods being imported in the United States without any consent from Congress or from the People.

for depriving us of the benefits of trial by jury;

for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:

We have been told by the current administration that some people do not deserve to have Due Process--that they deserve to be shipped off to an El Salvadorian prison without trial. He has invented claims of people belonging to gangs without any evidence that such is the case--making up pretended offenses.

I believe it would benefit all people to actually read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States--in particular the Bill of Rights. I do not believe that those people who cry most loudly that they love these documents have read them or understand their meaning. If so, they would not be cheering for a government which is arguably at least as tyrannical as the British government was at the time of the American Revolution. I do not wish to have my rights curtailed, nor the rights of any person who is living within our borders. Furthermore, I believe that a violation of anyone's rights is a violation of all our rights--the moment they are violated they cease to become rights and instead become privileges afforded to some but not all. I cannot remain silent while I watch the erosion of freedom and individual rights.

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." It does not state "no citizen". It does not state "No person that you aren't claiming is a member of MS-13." It says quite clearly "no person". It is literally unconstitutional to imprison someone (or deport them) without due process. It is a horrific and disgusting offense against human rights to do so, and this administration (as well as previous ones) is all too willing to commit these heinous acts and even has the gall to complain openly about it on television, moaning about how awful it is they're being told they need to follow the clear guidelines of the Constitution.

We have had an increasingly brutal police force, which seems all too happy to pull the trigger on people they are trying to detain or arrest. Every year, at least 1,000 people are killed by police officers in the United States. We are not a free society. We haven't been for a long time. We are a police state--an increasingly brutal one. We need law officers who are trained in de-escalating situations rather than escalating them, and ones who are not looking for reasons to kill people.

Our country has a notion of a "free speech zone", where protestors are allowed to protest. This is obviously a restriction on the right to protest since it requires protestors to remain within the designated area. In 2012, Obama signed a law which expanded the power of the secret service to enforce free speech zones and make arrests. The freedoms we claim to support are being actively trodden on by the government.

So, when I wish someone well on this holiday, I no longer say "Happy Independence Day" or anything that may lead to the assumption that I believe our country is free. I may say "Happy 4th", since I do generally wish people to be happy on the day. But I do not believe that we are free. I do not believe that our Constitution is upheld and protected. I believe it is violated with increasing frequency as time goes on, particularly with the current administration which seems to hold it in utter contempt.

Integrity

2025-06-23T02:56:00.002-04:00

This post is to serve as an expository on my feelings about the virtue of integrity. I personally value integrity very highly. It is something that I strive for in my daily life. It is something that I value and respect in other people. When I see a person who clearly does not have integrity, my respect for that person invariably plummets a noticeable amount to the point that it is virtually impossible for me to look positively at someone who lacks integrity.

What does integrity mean to me? First and foremost, I would say that integrity means being consistent with your words, thoughts, and actions. To state something which is contrary to what you believe is to be intentionally deceptive and is therefore a symptom of a lack of integrity. A person with integrity will be honest. They will disclose information the way they understand it to be. They will act in accord with the words that they speak. If they tell you that you should behave a certain way, they will also themselves behave in that same way to show they practice what they preach.

I think that one step further in the direction of just plain honesty is that a person with integrity will verify the truth of a claim prior to passing it on. When the veracity of the claim cannot be determined, and definitely when it is shown to be blatantly false, a person with integrity would refrain from disseminating the false information. That is to say, while it may be considered "honest" for a person to state a thing that he or she believes, to show true integrity the person would first at least attempt to determine whether that belief is true or false before voicing it and sharing it with other people. This is particularly important when rumors about people are shared. Personally I am averse to gossip. While I admittedly do it, I try to refrain from passing along rumors I hear about people which are intended to tarnish their reputation.

Why is integrity something that is important to me? I believe every person has a differing level of implicit trust when it comes to believing what other people say. I view myself as an implicitly trusting person--when I meet someone I tend to trust them implicitly until I am given a reason not to. I adopt this policy because in my mind it is the most practical and simplistic model. It saves me the time of trying to second-guess everyone I meet and every statement I come across. If I'm implicitly trusting, how do I determine when that trust is betrayed? I follow a similar pattern to what I believe all humans do--I consider the new information against the backdrop of all the previous information I have available to me. I consult sources that I have in the past found to be reliable. I attempt to corroborate a piece of information across different sources where possible/applicable. As an example, I know very little of physics. If someone were to tell me that there is a type of matter which can exist in a solid and liquid state at the same time I would have little reason to doubt it. If they told me that water boils at 10 degrees I would have little reason to believe them--or rather, I'd need to know the pressure under which it was said to boil at that temperature since I know boiling points are not fixed values.

But more than just the sharing of true facts and eschewing of false ones, I believe it includes consistency in thought, word, and deed. If I see someone who says that they believe abortions should be banned but then pays for the abortion of a mistress they have impregnated, I do not believe the person has integrity. If I see someone claim that a certain set of rights should exist for one class of people (say, for example, US citizens) and that those rights should not exist for a different class of people (say, non-US citizens) then I do not believe the person has integrity. If something is a right it should not depend on whom it is applied to--it should be universally applicable. Rights are rights. If one rule applies to one group and a different rule to a different group neither is a right--one or the other (or both) may be a privilege. but neither is a right.

One further aspect that I believe is a quality of integrity is that someone will stick to their moral values. Back when I taught at Morehouse College, I often started discussions with students who were early to class prior to the time of class actually starting. This was typically a political or social topic, as I find those to be most interesting and I often appreciated hearing different perspectives from my students. I recall during one such discussion, students kept asking me hypothetical questions about "well what if..." to the end of testing certain moral principles. I eventually responded with the following statement, which I still believe and I think exhibits my thoughts on how it relates to integrity. "If you look for reasons to break your personal code of ethics, you will find them. If you look for reasons to follow your personal code of ethics, you will find them." In my mind, a person with integrity is the latter--the person who will in any situation look for ways to remain consistent with their own ethical beliefs. I see plenty of people in society among the first group--they may profess to hold certain ethical values and even attempt to impose them (by law or social pressure) on other people but when push comes to shove, they themselves do not follow those guidelines or they are constantly looking for excuses to avoid following them.

When I was a full-time professor, I invariably had students cheat on quizzes and tests I gave. What bothered me more than the actual cheating was that students would lie about it. They'd tell me right to my face that they didn't copy off another student even when I presented them with the evidence. One student one time turned in two quizzes--with different names written at the top but identical handwriting. I was so angered by his gall in doing so that I tore up both quizzes into several pieces right in front of the entire class and confronted him about it right there. He insisted that he was simply turning in a quiz for another student--one of his friends--who had come in to class early and taken the quiz but forgot to turn it in. It bothered me that he cheated, but I was absolutely irate that he lied about it when confronted.

I understand that so many people are turned off of politics altogether because it seems so commonplace for politicians to have any integrity. Our jokes all indicate that whether we're blue or red we all agree that politicians lie and they can't be trusted. I am dismayed at the abysmal level of integrity among our elected officials, and even among the candidates who run for office. When I see a candidate who I do believe has integrity it is so refreshing and exciting. Two examples that come immediately to mind are Bernie Sanders and Jon Ossoff. I had the privilege of voting for both of them and I'm glad I did. I would do it again anytime I can. Bernie has been in politics for decades and if you go back and watch old video clips of him, he was saying the same things back then as he says now. He's been incredibly consistent. Jon Ossoff always tries to be as candid and truthful as he can. I think the world needs more people like that. More politicians that we can genuinely look up to, respect, and admire. I would happily vote for someone who is truthful, honest, and has integrity.

Good vs Evil

2025-04-18T11:20:00.000-04:00

My single biggest criticism of the works of Tolkien is just that it is so obvious all throughout the story which entities are good and which are evil (I suppose with the single exception of Saruman, whose treachery is unknown toward the beginning). But everything is black and white. In Peter Jackson's portrayal, all the good guys are handsome or beautiful and all the bad guys are ugly and disfigured. This is a common problem in many TV shows and movies, particularly older ones or ones targeted to children. Real life is not that way. In real life we have people who seem good from one angle or another and might actually be doing something bad in secret, or perhaps the same actions seen as good by one party may be seen as evil by another.

I was arguing with a stranger on Facebook yesterday and during that argument he stated "If you enter this country illegally, your freedom is irrelevant to us." Honestly, I was shocked by this declaration. Rights which apply to some people but not others are not rights, they are privileges. Freedom isn't freedom unless it applies universally. But I can see that the sentiment this person is communicating here is a common one and the purpose of this post is to denounce it universally.

I know that this "America first" mentality, this mentality that citizens are better than other people on the planet, is seen as a good thing by many people. There are people who see the value in devaluing the humanity of those born outside our borders. And I am writing this post to state in no uncertain terms that I believe this world view to be truly evil.

I am reminded of an episode of Black Mirror I saw years ago. The main character was a member of the military. He believed himself to be fighting in a war against some scary-looking beasts. At one point, one of them flashed a light at him and apparently that glitched the software that was running his eyes. The effect was that he saw things as they really were instead of what his optic feed had been showing him. He saw the enemy he was fighting and they just looked like people. They had hardware and software in their eyes to make them see things other than what is really there. As he expressed his concerns to his superior officer, he was given the explanation that this approach makes it easier for them to fight the enemy, since seeing something scary is easier to kill than something that looks like you.

This is precisely why I assert, vociferously, that to dehumanize people is evil. The moment your world view allows you to say that a given person or a given group of people do not deserve rights, the moment you start to think of another human being as less than human, you are now capable of any number of horrific acts against that person (or simply excusing or justifying those acts when you see others commit them).

People talk about Hitler as though he single-handedly killed 6 million Jews. He didn't. His soldiers did.
His secret police did. The people who looked up to him and admired the words he spoke committed all those horrors. It takes cooperation to carry out atrocities on that scale. A lot of cooperation. They were complicit. They carried out the orders. They did the unspeakable things. And I am certain none of them saw themselves as evil while they were doing it. In fact, I am certain they saw themselves as good and their victims as evil. Just as we are seeing now with all of the people being oppressed by the current administration and the agents who are carrying out similar evil acts.

Without popular opinion, a leader cannot maintain control (at least not long-term). The power that Trump has would evaporate very quickly if he was unsuccessful at convincing a decent portion of the population that he's doing the right thing. And that is precisely what he's done, as can be seen by the screenshot I've shared and on virtually any discussion on the internet with a MAGA Republican. They will say the same thing--that it's a good thing we're deporting all the "illegals", that they're criminals and MS-13 gang members, or any other similar justification.

I have seen people asserting that they know what Trump's doing is great because it's causing liberals to lose their minds. I just can't understand that mentality at all. But it's obviously a similar type of dehumanization--taking satisfaction in angering other people.

When I was arguing via email with my brother about Trump, he asserted "Trump isn't Hitler". I am willing to agree that he has not yet committed all the atrocities that Hitler did. But he is headed in that direction. He has established concentration camps. One company has made over $4 billion off of setting up concentration camps for Trump. Just as Hitler scapegoated the Jews, homosexuals, and others, Trump is scapegoating immigrants, trans people, and others. The logic is simple--if the people have somewhere to direct all their anger then they're more easily manipulated. "It's the ____ people who are the cause of all your problems. Vote for me and I'll fix it all by getting rid of them."

Immigrants are not cause of all of the societal problems we have in the USA. They commit fewer crimes than citizens do. They usually come here seeking work, wanting to make a better life for themselves. The problems that we face are complex and may have many different causes, but throwing out all the immigrants isn't going to solve those problems, it's just going to make life more difficult for those immigrants.

Another reason this dehumanization is evil is that once people excuse the behavior, it's now the norm and can be committed freely. Deporting immigrants to El-Salvador prisons under the guise of "they're dangerous MS-13 gang members" makes it acceptable to expand that list of undesirables. Trump has asserted that he wants to deport US citizens to foreign prisons. He's made it clear that he's not going to stop with undocumented immigrants because he has now deported, and tried to deport, many people who were here legally. He's terminated visas for people who were here on visa. He's used deportation to get rid of people who criticize him and disagree with his policies or beliefs.

It is wrong to view someone as undeserving of human rights. It is wrong to dehumanize people and use any excuse to strip away rights and to assert that "freedom is irrelevant". It is evil. And it deeply saddens me that I need to say that. It's sad how easily people can be manipulated. It's sad how easily freedom can be revoked. It's truly depressing to see so many people support such policy.

I remember when I read 1984 thinking how ridiculous it was to think of people retracting actual newspapers and replacing the original wording with new wording. But now that we have the internet and electronic communications, that is not only very possible but we're seeing it happen. This administration is whitewashing history. They're removing references that contain certain keywords (such as "diversity", "equity", "inclusion", "gay", etc). They're retelling Black history in a light that makes white people look good.

It truly scares me to see how fast we're advancing along the trail to authoritarianism. We already have concentration camps, deportations, and disappearances. The propaganda machine is going strong. I can't bring myself to watch right-wing news outlets, but I know they are spouting lies. I know they're parroting the assertion that Kilmar Abrego Garcia is an MS-13 gang member. He has no criminal history. He's not a criminal. Yet the lies are being spread that he is. In the propaganda machine, he's guilty and deserves to be punished. I believe in the due process of law, I believe that we should treat people as innocent until they are proven guilty. I believe that people deserve the right to a fair trial, not to be condemned in the news or by the sitting president on a whim.

Mango Menace

2025-03-14T18:47:00.000-04:00

Anyone who knows me surely is aware of the fact that I bear no good feelings towards Donald Trump. The purpose of this post is to enumerate many (definitely not all) of the reasons why the emotions I harbor toward him are so negative. I want to make it clear that while I disagree with conservatives on points of policy, I am angry that they have three times chosen that man in particular to represent their party. Yes, I'll always be happier seeing a liberal in the White House than a conservative. But most conservatives I could just live with, tolerate, roll my eyes at. This one is different. It's not because he's conservative (which I don't even believe that he is, to be honest--I think he has no scruples or morals or values). It's because he's a wretched excuse for a human being.

I am aware that it is common for Trump supporters to believe that some, many, or all media outlets lie and cannot be trusted. In this post, I share links to many differing media outlets. Before dismissing any individual article as false, I encourage you to search the topic and see what other sources are saying. In most cases, the evidence is the words and deeds of the man himself.

In 2005, on the Howard Sterne show, he openly bragged about walking in on teenage girls while they were changing for a pageant he was running. One of the girls shared her recollection of that experience. The Rolling Stones article gives a timeline of his creepy history with beauty pageants. It is clear to me that he thinks of women not as equals, not as thinking humans with rights, but as eye candy. Clearly he believes that women exist expressly for the pleasure of men (particularly himself).

“He just came strolling right in,” Dixon said. “There was no second to put a robe on or any sort of clothing or anything. Some girls were topless. Others girls were naked. Our first introduction to him was when we were at the dress rehearsal and half-naked changing into our bikinis.”

He has been married 3 times and has been unfaithful to his wives. At one point, he tried to get Playboy to do a piece called "The Girls of Trump", where they would feature some of his attractive female employees as being wooed by him. Whether he actually had an affair with any or all of those women, the fact that he wanted to be seen as someone who would says a lot about his character. If it is true, it shows that he does not believe in the sanctity of marriage--which most conservatives claim to hold sacred. If it is false, it shows that he is willing to tell even very big lies about himself in order to achieve the reputation he wants. Image is everything to him--he's very superficial. Conservatives claim to value truth yet they have selected a man as dishonest as Trump to represent their party. It doesn't make sense.

He has filed for bankruptcy for six of the business that he has owned. This shows that he is so inept at being a businessman that he must take advantage of government programs in order to subsidize his losses--two things that conservatives very frequently speak out against quite loudly. Most conservatives claim that they hate government assistance and they respect people with good business sense. Trump has shown six times that he is perfect happy to have the government bail him out when he fails.

In one of the first speeches he gave after first announcing his candidacy, he asserted that Mexico is intentionally sending criminals, including rapists, to the United States. In this clip, he's being asked to clarify his meaning on that. He does clarify that he doesn't believe they're all rapists. But he doubles down on the statement, asserting that rapists and murderers and drug dealers are coming in from all over the world. He even reiterates that he believes "Mexico" (I can only assume he means the government) is intentionally sending the worst of their populace to the US. It is clear from his response in this clip that he is expressing intense xenophobia. He wants to drum up fear of immigrants among the American electorate. In reality, undocumented immigrants are less likely than natural born citizens and immigrants who, in Trump's words, "came here legally". So again he's lying and he's doing it to stoke fear of immigrants. There are two reasons this is distressing to me. First, I know that any authoritarian relies on scapegoating and stoking fear of "the other" in order to gain power. It has been done by every dictator in history. The second reason is because I truly believe that all people are created equal and should be treated equal, so it bothers me when people believe bigoted things, such as that immigrants are more likely to commit crimes just because they were born somewhere else.

During a presidential primary debate, he literally argued about penis size with Marco Rubio. To me this says many things about him. First, he has very thin skin. He can't handle someone insulting him. He's in his seventies and he's never learned how to brush off an insult. He can't let it go, drop it, move on, rise above it, or any other tactic that most adults learn before they've turned 30. He feels the need to assert that the insult is false, that he's a "real man". It tells me that he's very sensitive about the size of both his hands and his penis--that he defines his own self-worth by something which is beyond his control (at least without surgical intervention). For some reason, he needs people to think his hands and his penis are big. Honestly, before the size of his hands was discussed back in 2015 I had no idea any man ever cared about the size of his hands--or how big people perceived them to be. I've never cared about the size of my own hands, much less what size anyone perceives them to be. And I only care what people think about my penis if I'm intending to have sex with them.

During his first term, he (unsuccessfully) tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act--a milestone in making healthcare more affordable for the average American and in making insurance companies cover conditions which existed prior to attaining coverage. The ACA was widely embraced and was a big win for Americans. Yet Trump attacked it and tried to undo it. Again, trying to attack medical care for the average American, he sought funding cuts to Medicare and Medicaid--potentially putting millions of Americans' lives at risk.

He appointed Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. As far as the law is concerned, I do believe in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", so I do not assert that he is guilty of rape just because he was accused of it. However, I watched the hearing where he was questioned about it and from the body language he exhibited, it is certainly my opinion that he believed at the very least that he was guilty of the things she was accusing him of, even if he had no memory of that particular evening or of her at all. From the way he reacted, from the way he dodged the questions he was asked, and even started questioning the committee himself, it was clear he was uncomfortable and he knew that he was a wild guy when he was younger and it was entirely likely a scenario like the one spelled out by Christine Blasey Ford actually happened, perhaps on multiple occasions, around that time. At the very least, I know that he committed perjury while under oath because in that hearing he asserted that he was of legal drinking age at the time. He was born in 1965 and the time in question was 1982, so he would have been 17 and drinking has never been legal in Maryland or DC at 17.

At any rate, the topic is Trump not Kavanaugh. I bring up Kavanaugh to point out how Trump reacted to the accusation that Ford brought against Kavanaugh. He started mocking her for her accusation at his rallies. Trump is very much a performer, and loves having an audience to perform for (which is why he continued to hold rallies even after taking office the first time). So when he noticed the crowd enjoying what he's saying, he continues and does more. He decides that mocking a rape victim is the best approach to handling it. I believe rape victims deserve better than to be mocked for coming forward. It is clear that the reason so many women don't come forward when they're raped is specifically because of how men like Trump act when they do--openly mocking them, rejecting their claims outright, insisting she asked for it in some way or another or that she deserved it. Any and all of those reactions are utterly detestable.

During one of his rallies, he mocked a disabled reporter. I'm sure he did this because he knew he'd get a positive reaction from the crowd. He clearly has no qualms making fun of disabilities. To me this shows that he lacks maturity, and common decency.

In summary, the point is that there are no redeeming qualities about this man. He is so despicable, nothing is beneath him. He'll lie about anything to get what he wants--usually to get approval from other people. He mocks people who are different, mocks people for speaking out about their past traumas. He is incredibly sensitive about his own feelings and wholly insensitive to anyone else's. He is cruel and cowardly, unkind and selfish. I truly believe that the only person he cares about is himself. I don't believe he's capable of truly respecting anyone, and he has proven time and time again that he doesn't care about respecting people's rights or the Constitution. I find everything about him to be despicable and disgusting.

My view: controlled substances

2025-03-11T18:14:00.000-04:00

As with most of my positions, my view on controlled substances is that we should allow for the broadest application of liberty that is reasonable. My opinion on the legalization of recreational drugs is informed by the outcome of the Prohibition era in the US. During the 13 years wherein alcohol was banned via Constitutional amendment, we saw an increase in organized crime and the sale of alcohol on the black market. It didn't stop the consumption of alcohol, it merely increased the danger in doing so. And we can see now how the use of illegal recreational drugs has added danger due to the illegality. For the purpose of simplicity, I will use the term "drugs" in this post to refer to recreational substances (which are typically illegal or restricted).

The United States has 3500 people per 100k which use drugs--far more than any other country. By comparison, Canada has 1920 and Mexico has 496. One reason I quote these statistics is to show just how very racist it is to assert that Mexican immigrants are drug users, when Mexicans are far less likely than US citizens to use drugs. From what I have read on the subject, it seems that drug addiction is correlated with a sense of loneliness or depression--that when people feel more connected with other people their reliance on drugs decreases. So personally I feel the best solution to reducing drug use is building stronger communities where people are more involved, rather than stricter laws and more severe sentences.

In the US we have seen how the war on drugs has only resulted in massive prison populations. We have more imprisoned people within the US than any other country in the world--at 1.8 million prisoners, the second place being China (which has more than 4 times higher population) at 1.7 million prisoners. We rank number 5 in incarceration rate, at 541 prisoners per 100k people. And the vast majority of the prisoners we have are direct result of the war on drugs--strict laws against even the possession of controlled substances. Clearly what we are doing is not working. We have some of the strictest laws, the most incarcerated people, and also the highest drug use. We must find another way to address the problem since locking people up doesn't help--if anything it only makes matters worse.

I don't want to see a more violent, more aggressive, more drug-addicted country. I want to see a happier, healthier country which finds a reasonable, rational approach to drug addiction. I believe recreational drugs should not only be legalized but mass-produced by drug manufacturers who can do so safely, to produce drugs which aren't laced with unknown substances or tainted by an imperfect manufacturing process. If they are legal, we can tax them and we can use that tax money to fund social programs to help people with drug addictions. Shaming them and locking them has proven time and time again to be ineffective at curtailing future use and relapse into addiction. Showing them love and helping them to feel included in a community where they can feel cared for and care about other people is one great way we can address the problem.

Certainly, it must be conceded that the most ridiculous ban is that of marijuana. It's literally a natural substance. It's not even made in labs or anything. It's just a plant. We have criminalized the husbandry, possession, and sale of plants. That is laughably ridiculous. Surely we shouldn't be in the business of dictating which plants people should be allowed to grow, harvest, and benefit from. But my opinion is that even the substances which are manufactured should also be legalized. Not just decriminalized but actually legalized. Allow pharmacies to carry them, just like we do with tobacco products. That will make it safer for people who are getting drugs from sometimes sketchy sources, which may be made imperfectly or intentionally laced with other substances unbeknownst to the buyer. When the 21st Amendment was passed, organized crime lost the financial benefits from bootlegging. In exactly the same way, we'd be taking money from the crime industry by legalizing drugs, the sale of which funds many crime organizations.oooi

Suffering love

2025-03-10T22:55:00.003-04:00

I'm not educated in psychological matters, or matters relating to mental health or human relationships. All I know, and all I mean to convey here in this post, is from my own personal experiences and the little bit of googling on the matter that I have done. It's baffled me how such a large portion of the electorate in the USA has not only voted for Trump in three consecutive elections but they also seem to be supportive of his messaging and his actions while in office. I'm struggling, trying to comprehend the phenomenon, to little avail. I found this particular web page discussing narcissistic manipulative inconsistency. I recommend reading it and getting an idea for how narcissists behave toward their victims. That article is specifically talking about parents abusing their children, but I believe it can be applied to any number of relationships.

So what caused me to eventually find that article, and consider this topic of manipulative inconsistency, is the way Trump has been oddly behaving concerning the tariffs that he is continually flip-flopping on. I'm vaguely aware of this tactic that abusers use to control their victims. It keeps the victim confused or afraid, perhaps it gets them to engage in a desired behavior that the manipulator wants them to do. Again, I'm not trying to speak as an expert here, just as a citizen trying to make sense of what's going on and why so many people are on board with it.

The event that sparked my immediate interest in this matter was Doug Ford announcing that he would be imposing a 25% tariff on all electricity exported by Ontario to the United States. As I understand it, there are over 1 million US homes and businesses who use, at least in part, electricity from Ontario, primarily in New York, Michigan, and Minnesota. Doing rough calculations in my head, I estimate that the average consumer would pay roughly $10 more per month on their electric bill as a result of this tariff (unless they decrease usage or the grid finds alternative sources for the power). So it isn't necessarily life-changing, but it could be a nontrivial cost to families who are already living paycheck to paycheck. When Ford announced this tariff (I'm paraphrasing here), he basically said "I'm not going to deal with this constant back and forth on the threat of tariffs. I'm imposing this tariff until all talk of tariffs is completely off the table for good." To me, that is signaling that he is unwilling to put up with the (admittedly rather childish) behavior of Trump and refuses to be kept in the emotional state of fear of potential trade war.

Again, not being an expert on economics and foreign trade, I simply offer my layman's opinion that I do not believe starting a trade war with long-term trade allies is a good idea or sound foreign policy. The people who will be hurt by tariffs on imports and exports is the consumer. We trade lots of goods with Canada and Mexico and if tariffs were imposed on all of those goods every time they crossed the border, the retail price of many everyday goods (and significant infrequent purchases, such as vehicles) would increase significantly. Particularly, those living below or near the poverty line would be hurt the most because they rely on relatively stable prices since they are living paycheck to paycheck (or not even making it to their next paycheck and simply leaving some bills unpaid out of necessity). My heart goes out to all the families in those situations, and I hope that they are not made to suffer by the infantile trade war.

Back to the topic at hand, as I was reading the article I linked above, I had a sort of epiphany. Let me quote two particular passages from that article.

This behavior can be extremely confusing and frustrating for the recipient, who is constantly shamed and guilt tricked into believing in a false reality where the manipulator imposes their own false perception of themselves as caring and good, especially when it suits them, yet behaves completely in the opposite manner when things get difficult or when they feel like their authority is challenged in some way.

The scapegoat may develop a skewed understanding of what constitutes healthy relationships and interactions. The manipulator’s contradictory behavior teaches them that expressions of love and concern are merely tools for manipulation, leading to skepticism and mistrust in future relationships.

I recognized that behavior when I was reading it. And it feels like so many things clicked in my head as I was thinking about it. I grew up in a religious household. I was raised Mormon. I am familiar with the teachings of Christianity. I know the general feel of what being in a religion feels like, particularly a large centrally-organized religion. I know that many sects of Christianity have slightly different views on what God is like, and how they interpret his feelings and personality. One thing that seems to be invariant across Christian religions is the belief that God loves us. God wants what is best for us, he wants us to be happy and joyful. He wants us to join him in Heaven after we die. Things of that nature. At the same time, most of those sects also believe some contradictory (at least from an objective outside-the-religion perspective) statements about God's behavior. They may (or may not) believe that he uses natural phenomena to punish us for wrongdoing. They may believe that he intentionally puts obstacles and difficulties in our lives to test us, to try our faith and our belief in him. I present the example of Job in the Bible as an example of this. God took away his family, his property, his livelihood, and still Job praised God.

That is the connection I see. Religious people are often taught that love is suffering. They are taught that God's love can be felt in the way he sends us difficult things to overcome. Imagine a parent putting plywood on top of a child's mattress to make the bed more uncomfortable while the child is trying to sleep. That is effectively what religious people are taught that God does to them--and that doing so is an expression of his love for us. Being out of the religion of my youth for so long now, I see it quite differently than I did while I was a believing member of it. If I had read this blog post back when I was a believing Mormon I would feel cognitive dissonance at these words. It would be uncomfortable. I would dismiss it as patently false. At the time I knew that God wanted what was best for me and if he put a trial in my life then he had a reason to do it and I would come out of it a better person if only I kept my faith and endeavored to the end, giving praise and thanks to God for allowing me to grow through that trial. And now I see how that whole narrative is nothing more than narcissistic manipulation tactics. If a parent made their child sleep on plywood instead of a mattress--not out of necessity because they couldn't afford a mattress or any other possibly excusable reason, but because they simply wanted the child to suffer in order to become stronger--hopefully that parent would be judged by society and the department of child services would intervene to rescue the abused children. I would hope that no reasonable person would think that's a good thing for a parent to do.

So how does this tie back in to Trump? Well, the way I see it he's basically doing the same thing. He says that he cares about the little guy--he loves the working class. (Of course he has to say this in order to get elected because he needs blue collar workers to vote for him if he wants to have a chance of winning.) He calls himself a "blue-collar billionaire". What that's supposed to mean is beyond me, as he's surely never done a day of manual labor in his life. I do know that many working-class Americans believe that if they work hard enough they can become a millionaire or a billionaire, so my guess is he uses that self-appellation in order to appeal to that notion and to give them hope that one day they'll be rich like him, if only they can just keep suffering through the shitty life they have and hold true to their faith in him.

He makes great promises about improving the lives of everyday Americans. But when I look at his actions, all I can see is that he is serving himself and other rich people. He gave a huge tax break to rich people during his first term in office. Yes, middle and lower class Americans did get a teeny tiny tax cut as well, but the lion's share of it went to rich people. He's not helping the working class. He's only making them suffer more, and they're happy to do it because they have been conditioned by whichever religion they belong to (or were raised in) that suffering is love. Suffering through the hard economic times they're going through is how they prove their loyalty to him, to show him that they have faith in him that he'll do everything he promised. In reality, his trade war will only serve to weaken ties with allies and hurt the working class and those in poverty with increased cost of goods.

The social programs that are currently being gutted by DOGE are mainly those which help poor families--people who can't afford their own medical bills or their own food and shelter. He's slashed funding for scientific research, which will have future impacts as the advances we make in pharmaceutical research or medical research grinds to a halt. Other nations will lead in scientific advances. High-tech jobs will move to other countries. We'll have a poorer, less-educated, and far unhealthier populace due to many of these cuts. He's gutting funding to our national parks. That one doesn't even make sense from the "we should treat government as a business" perspective because they generate more revenue than they cost--in other words they turn a profit. Do we want our preserved lands to no longer be preserved? Are we going to sell them to developers to build more subdivisions or apartment complexes? I don't know, but I don't see how cutting funding to the parks helps anyone and it directly hurts people who enjoy visiting the parks.

On the whole suffering thing, my perspective is that life is difficult enough already. We don't need a "benevolent" God or government intentionally making life harder just so we can learn and grow from difficult things in our lives. We need social programs in place to help out people who can't afford a place to live on the meager income their employer provides, or those who are incapable of being gainfully employed due to circumstances out of their control. I believe in helping people who are in need, feeding those who are hungry, sheltering those who are homeless, paying medical bills for those who can't afford the care they need. I believe society will be better if we take care of our weakest and most vulnerable members. The current administration (and the Republican party in general) seems to believe the opposite--that we will have a better society if we neglect and ignore those who are in need, and simply yell at them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I never want to be that cold-hearted, myself.

Musk said "The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy". I believe he truly believes that. And it would seem that Trump believes it as well. Personally, I believe that empathy is a strength. I believe it is cowardly to turn a blind eye to those in need, to bully people who are too weak to defend themselves, and to marginalize those who are in the minority. I believe we are stronger together. I believe we have a better, happier society when we help each other out and bear one another's burdens. I am taxed on the property I own and some of that tax money goes to fund nearby schools. I will never benefit from this, since I have no children and have no plan to ever have any children. I will not be educated personally from these schools. I simply believe that the money which I pay to my county will go toward educating my neighbors' children and I am happy to be helping them out in that way. The same is true for any of my federal tax money which is used to fund food stamps, WIC, Medicare/Medicaid, and any other programs designed to help those in need. Yes, I want to see actual fraud and waste reduced. But what is happening now with DOGE is anything but that.

My vision for America is a growing, thriving middle class where it's easier to work your way out of poverty to the middle class. I recently saw statistics on that and was appalled. In Japan, it only takes working 14 hours a week to get out of poverty. They're clearly doing something right. In most countries, the number is 40 or fewer. In the US it is 80 hours. You need to work two full-time jobs in order to get out of poverty. The American dream is dead. We need to do better by the working class. We need to actually help people get out of poverty and live a comfortable life. We have the means to do it, we just need to make it happen. While Trump may say he wants that, and I'm sure that most of his supporters believe that's what he's doing, I am not seeing him do anything which actually benefits the average American--only things which benefit Putin and rich people, including (and especially) himself. How does Japan do so much better than we do? They have several social programs in place, including free/cheap meals for children and a place for them to spend time with other children their age while their parents are working. But what are we doing? We're doing the opposite. We have politicians who suggest that kids getting free lunch at school should get a job at McDonald's instead. That is so heartless. In my mind, that is not love and it isn't true leadership. I believe that love is kind.

Lighting the gas

2025-03-08T13:01:00.003-05:00

I think by now the term "gaslighting" is ubiquitous enough most people know it. It's a tactic that abusers use to manipulate their victims. And I see it often employed in the political sphere. At Trump's inauguration, Elon gave the Nazi salute. It's obvious. It's clear. There's no mistaking it. His arm, straight out, at the most commonly used angle for that salute. That's what it was. And he and his fans are denying it. They're even trying to compare it with actual Nazis doing the salute to prove the difference. It's gaslighting. We know what we saw. That's the gesture he did. There's no doubt. There's no confusion. There's no point trying to deny it, and people who recognize it for what it is are not crazy. He did the Nazi salute and he is a Nazi by his beliefs and the agenda he's pushing.

The current administration is pushing to end diversity, equity, and inclusion. They are terrified of diversity and people who are different. They fear Black people, gay people, trans people, anyone who doesn't fit their cookie cutter view of what an "American" is. The Nazis did the same thing. They oppressed Jews, gays, trans people, immigrants--basically all the same groups that we're seeing oppressed now by the current administration. It's not an accident. It's because they're small groups and they're easy to oppress when you have the support of the majority. Why oppress them? Because when you think life sucks, you need someone to blame--somewhere to turn to focus your anger and your rage. So why not blame a small group of people for all your problems? It's easier than trying to find out the root cause. And if you're the one in charge it's much better for you to have angry mobs following you--if they see you as the solution to their problems, they'll channel that anger at anyone you tell them is ruining their lives.

White men have been complaining for ages that they have it so difficult because of regulations which give opportunities to historically oppressed groups. And that's the narrative that's being continued here. They want to do away with any law which would protect someone from being discriminated against based on their race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other factor. They want to make it easier for white men to have power and harder for anyone else. The policies they are enacting are Nazi policies. They are discriminatory and they are based on ignorance.

This time around there's a fun twist. Because anti-Nazi sentiment is so common, because bigotry is seen as a bad thing in polite company, they need to disguise it. In other words, they need to gaslight us about doing it. It's not racism, they claim, because they just want everyone to have an equal opportunity and have hiring based solely on merit. It's not bigoted to be transphobic because trans people are just mentally ill. That's the reasoning that is used, and people believe it. The reason we know it is false is because all of the DEI policies and regulations which exist solely have the purpose of engendering an environment where merit-based hiring is the norm. Historically, white men have a much easier time getting a job than anyone else with the same qualifications. The entire purpose of DEI is to ensure that people from different backgrounds are also considered and given a fair chance to be hired. It follows, then, that the only reason someone could have for wanting to get rid of it is to reinstate the bigotry that preceded. Of course they can't sell it that way. They can't campaign on "we're the party of bigotry now" because that's unpopular. So they have to repackage it as "we're the ones who really want fairness." And their strategy is working. I see people who support Trump repeating that lie. They are buying into it. They see the backpedaling of diversity programs as equality--as fair and equal treatment. It is anything but.

Honestly, conservatives defending Elon's Nazi salute (by denying it as such) is evidence of how well the gaslighting is working. They saw a man literally give the Nazi salute and deny that he did so. When I was a practicing Mormon, anytime we talked about "the unforgivable sin" in church it was explained as "you would have to be looking at the sun in the sky and assert that it is not there." At the time I remember thinking it would be impossible to make that assertion and truly believe it. And yet, I am seeing people do the equivalent here. We all saw the gesture. And there are millions of people who are asserting that it was something else. In exactly the same vein, there are millions of Americans who believe the lie that removing diversity, equity, and inclusion is actually necessary in order to promote fairness. They believe that banning trans athletes from competing is good, not bigotry.

Gaslighting is often used by abusers to test their control over their victims. If they believe this lie little lie then I have a little control. If they believe this bigger lie, then I have more control. So that's what they do. They lie bigger and bigger and see what they can get away with. And these tests are always done on things that don't matter that much. If they're caught in the lie, it's easily dismissed as unimportant. I guarantee Trump doesn't care who thinks he's racist and who doesn't. He doesn't care which of his followers are racist and which aren't. Musk doesn't care who thinks he's a Nazi and who doesn't--who thinks his Nazi salute was a Nazi salute and who thinks it was just "my heart goes out to you". What they care about is what level of control they have--to test how loyal their followers are.

The massive slashing of jobs being done by Musk and his DOGE team will largely impact older workers and Black workers. It isn't about government efficiency. It's about branding his ageism and racism as government efficiency. Overturning, bypassing, or rewriting laws which promote equal treatment of people regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc is not about building a merit-based system. It is about branding bigotry as a merit-based system. Elon wants to maintain the power for white men. He's not interested in fairness. He's selling it as fairness because he needs to in order to gain popular support for it. It is oppression. It is bigotry. He is showing us who he is. He's a Nazi. He believes white people are better. He believes men are better. He believes cisgender people are better. He is wrong on all counts. We are all the same. We all deserve an equal chance. Those of us who are commonly discriminated against need policies and regulations in place to protect us from people like Trump and Musk in order to have a seat at the table.

To highlight the point of Trump trying to push the envelope to see what he can get away with, he has issued many executive orders which are unconstitutional and violate not just the Constitution but basic human rights. On Jan 20 he signed an order to end birthright citizenship, a right defended by the Constitution. On Jan 27 he signed a ban on trans people serving in the military. On Jan 20 and Jan 27 he signed two different executive orders to end programs for diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. On Jan 29 he signed an order banning gender ideology in schools. Make no mistake he's not banning gender ideology, just ideology he disagrees with. He's okay with toxic masculinity and maintaining the patriarchy and strict gender roles entrenched in society, he's just targeting transgender people here. On Feb 4 he signed an order to withdraw the US from the UN Human Rights Council. Honestly, I can think of no clearer sign that he wishes to violate human rights than this one act. On Mar 1 he signed an order making English the official language of the USA. To me it is clear that the intent here is to reduce accessibility of government programs to people who do not speak English (undoubtedly targeting the Spanish-speaking population). He has signed many other orders, some which may actually benefit us and many which will curtail human rights and oppress marginalized groups of people. He is truly pushing the Nazi agenda, and Musk is running with that flag.

My view: Immigration

2025-03-07T11:11:00.000-05:00

I believe that the Declaration of Independence is a great document which contains many good ideas about what society should look like, and examples of what should be avoided. The passage I wish to focus on for this particular post is found in the second paragraph.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Now, I admit the text does say "men", and it is clear from the time that the prevailing thought was that only men should be allowed to do things (such as vote and own property). But I believe the statement with the clarification that "men" should be changed to "people" to make the point that it should cover all humans, not just male ones and not just adults.

With that caveat made, I agree with the sentiment. I believe that all people should be treated equally. I do not believe that people should be treated differently based on which country they were born in. I do not believe that being born within a certain geographical region entitles someone to rights that anyone born outside that region should not have. To me, that is a blatant contradiction of the statement in the Declaration.

How does this relate with immigration? I believe that much is obvious. Any right which is afforded to people born within the United States should be universally afforded to all people regardless of place of birth. I reject the notion of citizen and non-citizen. I reject the assertion that we should treat people differently because of the circumstances of their birth. I believe in equality. I believe in treating people equally, whether they were born here or in any other country. I do believe in treating people differently based on the actions they take in their lives (particularly as adults), but no one decided where they would be born--that decision was made for them. Being born in a different country is no crime and should not be treated as one.

I am aware that our country, like most, has laws regulating immigration. I will not go so far as to say I see no logic in having regulations on immigration, only that I do not believe the laws we currently have are logical nor are they beneficial to the country. From the arguments I have participated in, it seems to be a common theme for conservatives to call undocumented immigrants criminals for breaking immigration law and being here against those regulations. To that I will assert that in our legal code we have definitions for what a criminal offense is and what a civil offense is. We have criminal law and civil law. Immigration law is civil law, and therefore violation of it does not make one a criminal--it is not a criminal offense. It is a civil offense. To assert that anyone who breaks any law is a criminal is to assert that basically everyone who drives is a criminal, since it is illegal to drive above the posted speed limit and nearly everyone on the highway does so regardless of the law. Speeding is a civil offense and is treated that way. Getting a speeding ticket does not mark your criminal record. Civil offenses are recorded separately. So to anyone who wishes to call undocumented immigrants criminals, I will respond with the assertion that by that reasoning everyone who speeds is a criminal, and this effectively renders the appellation meaningless.

I have a sister-in-law who was born in a different country. She has been married to my brother for nearly three decades now and as I understand it she only recently obtained citizenship status with the US. In my opinion, this is (anecdotal) evidence which indicates that our immigration law makes it far too difficult for people to "come here legally", as conservatives are wont to word it. I believe that any rational immigration law will streamline and simplify the process so it can be done within a matter of months rather than a matter of years or decades. I also believe there should be basically zero friction for both temporary and permanent legal residence status. I see no valid reason to try to keep people out of our country. I see no reason to lock our doors, so to speak, and not allow new people in when we have no restrictions whatsoever on childbirth within the country (which is simply a different way for people to enter the country).

To kick people out, to assert that their residence here within our borders, is to be unallowed is precisely to assert that not all people are created equally. It is to assert that somehow people born in one place are better or more deserving than people born in a different place.

I see people who assert that the US is the best country on the planet and also assert that immigrants should "go back to where they came from". The only logical conclusion I can draw from someone simultaneously believing both these statements is that they are selfish and wish to keep what they value for themselves rather than share it, since the alternative is that they simply believe two contradictory statements (which is not logical). From my perspective, if I have something wonderful I want to share it with other people so they might also enjoy it. If I see a movie or TV show that I like, I want to tell other people about it and let them know so they can enjoy it as well. If they've already seen it, I like to talk with them about it and gather their thoughts as I share my own. If I eat at a restaurant with tasty food, I tell other people in the area about it so they might also experience the good food. Most people do things of this nature. So it baffles me when I see someone doing precisely the opposite--effectively hoarding the thing they believe to be good for themselves and not wanting other people to experience the good they see in it. If you believe the USA is the best country, why wouldn't you want to allow people to come here and share in the greatness?

Trump has regularly attacked immigrants all throughout his career as a politician, ever since he first announced his candidacy back in 2015. His argument has always been "they should come here legally". That sentiment is determined to be false as he is now revoking the legal status of nearly a quarter of a million Ukrainian refugees. They were granted temporary legal residency upon fleeing here from their war-torn country. So clearly his vendetta is not against people coming here illegally, it is against people coming here. He is on a crusade to demonize anyone who was not born in this country. It is truly frightening to see. It is a common tactic used by authoritarian leaders to rally the people to his cause--to scapegoat a minority group (or several minority groups) and to dehumanize them. If someone can convince people to think of "others" as not human, but evil monsters, then he can convince them to commit great atrocities in the name of his cause. We have seen this multiple countries throughout history. When a group of people is demonized and treated as less than human, the result has never been a positive outcome. This is why I believe it is important to take the words of the Declaration to heart--to actually treat all people as equal, instead of treating some people as better than others.

I have seen people point to crimes committed by undocumented immigrants as a reason to deport them. My response is simply that we have criminals who were born here. Criminals can be from any background. It is no reason for us to keep an entire group of people out of our country, or to deport them. If we were to deport all members of an ethic group due to some of those members committing crimes while here, we would be left with no people at all. Also, I present statistics about crime. Undocumented immigrants commit far fewer crimes (in sheer numbers as well as per capita) than both documented immigrants and natural-born citizens. We cannot logically use crime as a reason to keep people out of the country.

One more reason why I do not accept the assertion that this is "our" country and we have to keep it for ourselves rather than sharing it with other people is simply that it isn't our country. We stole it from people who were already living here when European settlers arrived. The colonists immigrated here illegally and proceeded to slaughter the residents who were here at the time. There were an estimated 10 million people living here when Europeans arrived. By 1900, that population was below 300,000. It was a slaughter of millions of people. Perhaps the fear that people have towards immigrants is nothing more than projection--the fear that people coming here now would do what we did centuries ago when we immigrated here.

In summary, it is my belief that people should be allowed to live together in harmony irrespective of differences such as place of birth, ethnicity, or even religion. We should welcome immigrants to our shores. We should especially welcome those who are fleeing less desirable environments. If someone wants to live here, I see no logical reason to deny them that right. Our immigration law is far too restrictive, far too unforgiving and cruel. It needs to be more lenient, more accepting. We should treat all people equally. People should be granted the rights asserted in the Declaration--the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

My view: Gender issues

2025-03-04T19:23:00.001-05:00

So the fact that transgender people are a controversial topic truly baffles me--the same as gay people being a controversial issue. I have to admit I'm rather confused to see people who not only care about it but seem so vehemently upset by the existence of transgender people it really makes me wonder what is causing all that unnecessary angst.

As I understand it, transgender people (like gay people) seem to feel that they were simply assigned the wrong gender at the time of their birth--that a transgender woman, for example, feels like she is a woman and by mistake of birth or whatever reason was falsely assigned as a male. As a gay man, I don't believe there was anything in my life which caused me to become homosexual at any point (certainly not in my adult life, and nothing I can recall from my childhood). So it is certainly easy for me to believe the same is true for people who identify as a gender other than the one stated on their birth certificate. To me it doesn't matter whether they simply choose to be transgender or there are biological/chemical/hormonal reasons why they are. In any of those cases, clearly they should be allowed to express themselves as they best see fit and they harm no one by seeking any treatment or procedure they wish in order to affirm the gender they identify as.

One thing that is very baffling to me about this matter is that so many people in society feel such deep emotion about strict gender roles. Men are supposed to be strong, women are supposed to clean the house and raise the children, etc. Some men clean, some cook, some women are the breadwinners for their families. Some women bear and raise children, some do not. Some men are loyal husbands and good fathers to their children, others are not. It seems wholly illogical to me to try to fit everyone in the world into two cookie cutter ideals of "male" and "female". If you want to wear the skinny jeans, wear them. If you want to wear the baggy pants, wear them. If you like how you look in a dress, wear it. If you prefer a t-shirt and gym shorts, go for it. Why do we have this strange notion that all clothing must be gender-specific, that men are only allowed to shop from certain sections of the store and women must shop from other sections?

I do want to clarify that I am aware the issues of gender identity and gender expression are different. I also wish to point out that in my mind they're equally harmless and should clearly be equally permissible in society. A cis man wearing a dress is just as valid as a trans man wearing a tank top and shorts to show off his biceps and thighs. A cis woman wearing a ball cap, jersey, and jeans is just as valid as a trans woman wearing a skirt and blouse. There's no inherent logical reason I can find which would point to the fact that we as a society must insist certain groups of people stick to certain activities which are only suitable for the gender we believe they should be, or only wear clothing that comes from the section of the store that we think they should be shopping in.

To me, it is a simple matter of basic respect. If a person wishes to be treated as a woman then I see no reason to refuse to comply with her wish. I also see no reason why I should demand to see her birth certificate to prove she was assigned as female at birth nor to see her genitalia to prove that she has the ones I believe women should possess. If she says she's a woman and she wishes to be referred to with feminine pronouns, it causes me no grief nor costs me anything to comply with her expressed desire. Why I should feel upset at the existence of such a person is wholly beyond my capability to comprehend.

I see people who complain about trans people engaging in sports--particularly trans women. They claim the person has an unfair advantage because the testosterone levels in her body are higher than what would be expected in the average woman, and perhaps even higher than the average man. I admit my interest in sports is very lacking, so I have very little at stake in this argument. But what makes the most sense to me is to have leagues where people of similar skill are allowed to compete regardless of gender. It's very confusing to me why we have so many systems in place which require only people of one gender to participate in a given thing (we have segregated bathrooms and segregated sports, just to name two things).

Serena Williams is an amazing tennis player. I could never hope to beat her in a tennis game. If I trained really hard for years, and learned the rules of the sport, I may possibly be able to score a point in a game against her. That's probably the best I could hope for. I feel in no way emasculated by this observation. She's really good at what she does. I would be fairly confident in asserting that there is a significant portion of the male population (most likely a large majority of it) for which the same is true--she would easily beat them in a game of tennis. Why do we insist that women only play against other women and men only play against other men? Why not group athletes by their performance levels?

It would be rather easy to implement. Have a round of tryouts or trial games at the beginning of a season and place athletes into different leagues based on their performance. Some leagues might end up being all male or all female. Some leagues would surely end up being a mix of genders. But it would be objectively known that they belong in the same league and competing against each other would be fair. I can think of no logical reason to oppose such a system.

If it is the case that a cis man is posing as a trans woman in order to be able to easily defeat any opponent in a given sport, to me that says far more about the man's self-confidence than anything else. It is a clear sign that he believes he would not be able to compete with other men and the only way he'll be able to compete is by facing off against women. It is certainly not a logical reason to prohibit people from transitioning.

I've heard many bizarre arguments in opposition to trans people existing. A sister-in-law of mine said that she was afraid people would, in her words, "use it as a loophole" in order to prey on young girls. The context here was use of bathrooms. I've heard similar arguments from many people. So to be clear, the fear is that a cis man would pretend to be a trans woman in order to enter a women's restroom or a women's locker room and molest or rape girls or young women he finds in there. My very first thought in response to that is, what is to stop him from doing that right now? Most bathrooms do not have security guards at the entrance. It's entirely possible for men to do that right now. Why would allowing trans people to use the bathroom of their choice change anything in that regard?

I also want to be clear that arguments of this nature--of cis men posing as trans women to compete against women in sports or to prey on girls and women in restrooms--is not an argument against trans people at all, nor against trans rights. It is an argument against cis men. The fear expressed is that a cis man will do something despicable, untasteful, or criminal. It has absolutely nothing to do with trans people and what rights they should have. I also feel like I need to point out we already have laws against molestation, harassment, and rape. It is entirely illogical to me to deny rights to trans people because rapists exist. It would be equally absurd to deny the right to vote to white people because there are people who try to cheat the system in one way or another.

I met a gentleman at work today. He was wearing a nametag that said "Kendall" on it. As he introduced himself he said "my nametag says Kendall but I go by Morgan". It was not difficult for me to refer to him as the name he specified he prefers. In my experience, this is a regular occurrence in everyone's life. Some people go by their middle name or a nickname from their youth or some other chosen name they've selected. Actors frequently choose a stage name when they enter the profession. Musical performers often choose a stage name when they begin their careers. It is unheard of for someone to insist that the person known for songs such as Born This Way must be called Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta instead of Lady Gaga. Just so with trans people. If they wish to be called Joanne instead of John, why insist on calling them the name they don't wish to be known? Why not simply call them by the name they have chosen? To me there is no difference between trans people choosing a new name and actors or singers or anyone else choosing one.

Honestly, I just can't get over how terribly confusing it is to me that some people act like they simply cannot continue to live their own lives knowing that there are trans people out in the world. They act as though the very existence of someone not conforming to their ideas of gender is a threat to their existence. They get so passionate about it, too. They sign executive orders which prohibit federal employees from using pronouns in their email signatures or from receiving gender-affirming care. I just don't see why anyone thinks it's a big deal. There are actual problems in the world that deserve to be addressed and people get so hung up on this small thing which has no negative impact on their lives.

Someone once argued with me that he was terrified for the safety of his daughters because there was a cis man who claimed to be a trans women to be admitted in a women's prison and once there proceeded to rape the female inmates in the prison. My very first thought was, how much prison time do you anticipate your daughters serving during their lives? Of course I see the need to take measures to protect vulnerable people, which includes victims and potential victims of rape. But I do not believe that a crusade against trans people is the correct solution to any of those problems. Once again, this is a concern about cis men, not about trans people of any gender. Maybe we should make changes to have better conditions in our prisons to reduce the rate of assault, or maybe we should completely rethink our criminal justice system (that could be an entire post itself, since it's basically just a way to generate more violent and aggressive citizens).

To summarize, my view is simply that people deserve to be respected. They deserve to be called by the name they wish to go by, they deserve to be referred to with the pronouns of their choice, and they deserve to be treated the way they wish to be treated. There's no cost for being kind and considerate of other people, including people who are different from you. Just be kind and respectful.

My view: Abortion

2025-03-03T20:43:00.001-05:00

I want this to be the first in a series of posts where I go into detail about my views. The purpose of doing this is to give exposition into my own musings on a given topic with the hope that both people who agree with me and those who do not will be able to better understand my position.

The topic for this post will be abortion. I can very quickly summarize my view on abortion, and that is that I don't believe there is any reason or anything which gives me the right to dictate to any woman whether or not she should be able to get an abortion or whether she should or should not do regardless of legality. I have no children, I do not plan on having any children--even through adoption--and I am currently not sexually active with any women nor do I wish to be. There is nothing inherent about myself as a human or through my interaction with any of them which would cause me to feel any sense of entitlement to control which medical procedures she does or does not undergo. I may offer my advice, but only if it is sought. I equally see no reason which would grant me the privilege of offering unsolicited advice on the matter.

That being said, what follows now is merely what I believe to be logical exposition which supports my view that abortion should be legal as broadly as is reasonable (that is to say, I do not believe that third-trimester abortions should be wholly banned).

I know there are many reasons people give for wanting to ban abortion--or at least restrict it. I will address only the argument among those which I find most compelling. Some of the arguments I have seen opposing abortion have been downright laughable or wholly despicable. But the one position I have respect for is those who claim that the embryo or fetus [in this post I will use the word "fetus" to mean either embryo or fetus, and only use "embryo" when I feel the distinction between the two is relevant to the discussion, but I do not wish to conflate the two with each other or either with a baby which has been born] is a human and deserves to have its rights protected. Since they are clearly incapable of defending themselves or their own rights, the government needs to step in and protect them. This is the only position I can see in the anti-abortion camp which I can conclude is borne from compassion or kindness. I do believe that the government should be in the business of protecting people who are incapable of, or have limited ability, to protect themselves. For example, I believe the government has the right to protect marginalized minorities against the discrimination they face on a regular basis.

Addressing this particular point--that the fetus should be considered a human and granted the protection of human rights, I have three main points I would like to make. The first is that I do not observe that the government treats fetuses as humans. When a baby is born, it is issued a certificate of birth. This is when the baby first becomes recognized as a legal entity by the government. If I wish to prove my citizenship status, my birth certificate (or a government-issued document such as a passport, for which a birth certificate is necessary) will be required to do so. The government does not issue conception certificates nor certificates at any point during the gestational period prior to being born. It issues birth certificates and all legal considerations are based on the time of the birth. If I wish to vote, I need to wait until eighteen years after I am born before I am eligible. If I wish to (legally) drink alcohol, I need to wait until 21 years after the day I was born. Age is based off time from birth, not time from conception. Indeed, if we did base age off time of conception it would be nearly impossible to know the exact age (to the day) of any individual with the technology we now routinely use. Also, many people who are considered to be the same age would become a few months different in age due to being born late or early. So my first point is that the government does not treat a fetus the same as humans which have been born.

The next point I would like to make is that a fetus (and especially an embryo) does not behave the same way a human being does. Human beings exist independently. They may be dependent on the care of others, if they are invalid or if they are young infants. But that care can be provided by any individual. It does not require the constant nurturing that the umbilical cord and uterus provide to a gestating fetus. An embryo may split, turning one embryo into two. Humans do not do this. Even infants are not capable of turning into twins after they have been born. An infant is capable of living and growing without requiring nutrients to be infused from another human being. (Yes, I acknowledge that many women breastfeed and I'm certainly not opposed to those who do so, but it must be acknowledged that after the child has been born this is purely optional and any lactating woman--not just the mother herself--may provide the milk to feed the baby.) The fetus is physically attached to the body of the mother. It seems quite rational to me to conclude, then, that it is part of the mother's body and not yet a body of its own. To that point, I would concede were someone to argue that once the fetus was viable (to be born and survive), it would then qualify as a human being. Still, for other reasons, I do not believe it is my place to deny women the right to abort after the fetus has been deemed to be viable by a medical expert.

The third point I would like to make to address the argument that a fetus should be afforded the rights of a human is simply that no human has the right to coerce another human, against their will, to provide for them life-saving procedures. For example, if I have a relative who needs a bone marrow transplant for cancer treatment--to save their life--I cannot be forced against my will to provide my bone marrow to them. I have the right to refuse to undergo the procedure, refuse to donate my bone marrow, and if no other matching donor can be found, the result may be the relative's death. The law that we have allows that. If I do not wish to participate, I cannot be compelled to do so. Therefore, asserting that banning abortion is the equivalent of granting to fetuses the same rights which (postnatal) humans have is false since no (postnatal) human has the right to force someone against their will to provide life-giving care. A pregnant woman clearly is providing life-giving care to a gestating fetus, and up until the point when the fetus becomes viable it is necessary care without which the fetus would die. If she is willing to provide that care, she is free to do so. I do not believe that she should be compelled against her will to do so, just as I am not compelled against my will to donate bone marrow. To ban abortion on the grounds that the fetus deserves the right to life against the mother's will is to declare that the fetus deserves a right to which no (postnatal) human is entitled.

I know that there are many reasons women seek abortions. I know that some women simply do not wish to carry the fetus to term, and have no other reason for seeking an abortion. I believe even these women should be allowed to abort their fetus. And the reason I believe that is that it simply is none of my business what her reason is for seeking an abortion. No woman owes me or any other person an explanation for her abortion. She should not need to prove that she's doing it for a reason that I believe to be ethical or admirable or justified. My opinion on whether she should get an abortion or not is irrelevant because it is not my body which is providing nutrients to the fetus gestating within. This is the way with many things in life.

I believe that many organized religions are unethical. They prey on vulnerable individuals, they use manipulative tactics, they instill fear in their members. I do not believe religion should be illegal. I do not believe that an individual who wishes to participate in one of these religions owes me or anyone else an explanation in order to do so. They should be free to engage in any religion of their choice. They should be allowed to worship however they wish, and donate their time and material goods to the religion if they wish to do so. I give this example merely to illustrate that there are things I believe people should be free to do (or not) as they desire regardless of whether other people believe it to be moral or immoral. Some people wish to seek a path which they feel helps them experience their own spirituality, and they should be allowed to do so regardless of approval from the government or their other acquaintances, friends, or family. Just so with abortion. I don't need to approve of every woman's reason for seeking an abortion. It is hers and hers alone. If her reason is sufficient for her, that is all that matters.

That being said, of course I believe we should not allow women to be forced into getting an abortion. It is wrong to pressure or coerce a woman into getting an abortion which she does not want. She may be forced to do so in order to save her own life in some cases, and that may be a very difficult decision for many women to make. But she should not be coerced by the father of the fetus or by any other individual to abort when she does not wish to do so. To me, that is just as abhorrent as denying her the right to choose to abort if she does wish to do so.

I have seen many people arguing against third-trimester abortions. When I see that, I really have to stop and wonder to myself what is going through the mind of someone who believes that early abortions should be allowed but not late ones. I've known many pregnant women in my life. Not a single one of them enjoyed being pregnant. (I have been told that some women do enjoy it, and without having seen data on it, I'm afraid this leg of my argument is based purely on anecdotal data and what I believe to be the norm.) Most women have no reason to carry a fetus for eight months simply to abort it at the end of eight months. What I mean to say is, I am very skeptical that there are any women out there who think "You know, I really just want to get pregnant and experience the bloating, cramping, back pain, morning sickness, and all the unpleasantness that comes with pregnancy but I don't actually want a child so I'll abort just before it's born." Therefore, I must conclude that if a woman seeks an abortion during her third trimester there is a reason for it and more likely than not, she did not intentionally postpone the abortion during her first and second trimesters with the pre-conceived desire to abort during the third. Again, the reason itself doesn't matter. I simply am asking the question, what is going through the mind of someone who supports abortion during the first trimester but argues women should not be allowed to abort after a given fixed point during the gestational period.

I am also aware that many places which do allow abortions require a woman to first receive "counseling" of some sort and typically this "counseling" consists of being exposed to anti-abortion propaganda with the intent to scare her out of her decision. To me this is clearly unethical and is a practice which should not be engaged in in any professional medical setting. Medical professionals should be available to provide the medical care needed. The advice they give should be restricted to what they believe is in the best medical interest of the woman herself. In other words, I do think a doctor would be within their rights to indicate to a patient that in their professional opinion an abortion is not necessary in order to preserve the mother's health, but their advice should go no further than that and should stop short of discouraging the woman from proceeding. People seek medical procedures regularly which are not necessary. They may do it for vanity or from a place of paranoia or any number of other reasons. A woman may regret getting an abortion. I still think she should be allowed to do it. We all have done things in the past that we regret. We must learn to live with our past decisions--but it should be her decision to make and that regret can live with her because it was a decision she made not because she was forced one way or the other into the decision.

So I suppose in summary, I would say that the people who assert abortion should be banned on the basis that fetuses are humans and deserve the rights of one, our differing opinions are the same on the fact that we both want to promote freedom. We simply differ on where that freedom applies. I believe it is clear that adult women deserve freedom--they deserve human rights. Opponents of abortion would assert that the woman does not deserve the right to abortion because it conflicts with the fetus' right to life. But at the end of the day, we both want to maximize freedom. I think it's good to find common ground with people whose opinions differ because it is only from common ground that any mutual understanding or dialogue is possible.

The last thing I will say on the matter has little to do with abortion itself and more to do with the types of people I often see arguing vehemently against abortion, and that is the fact that the anti-abortion movement calls itself pro-life. For those who in other matters are truly pro-life, I have no issue with the appellation. However, it has been my experience that many of the individuals who oppose abortion also oppose programs like free lunch for school children, WIC, food stamps, and gun control laws. If you want to claim to be pro-life, go all-in on it. Support programs and laws which will promote life and discourage the unnecessary end to it. Feed hungry children. Protect children from would-be mass murderers. Pass meaningful gun reform in the effort to prevent disturbed individuals from obtaining firearms and using them to shoot up our schools. Allow mothers in poverty to get the formula and baby supplies that they need to care for their infants and children. Actually be pro-life.

Selective merit

2025-03-01T12:42:00.001-05:00

The rhetoric spewed by the Right concerning DEI is not new. It's the same rhetoric we've seen throughout history. It's the rhetoric used to count Black people as 3/5 of a person in the original Constitution. It's rhetoric that allowed Jim Crow laws and segregated buses and water fountains. It's not new. It's just been reworded.

It sounds like a reasonable argument--"the best person for the job should get it" (of course they say "the best man for the job" and it's no accident that they use that word instead of "person"). It sounds like the right policy to have--and on paper it is. But I know what it means. I know how it's used. I've seen it myself, I've heard the stories from enough people and while I'm not a huge fan of the subject I know enough history to recognize the pattern. The trouble is that it doesn't actually mean that the best person for the job will end up with it. Because people don't work like that. People have biases towards those who are similar to themselves. They have biases based on what society has taught them are good or bad. Most of this is subconscious and we don't even think about it or realize it's happening. Sometimes it's intentional.

One of the biases that people have is that they will see their own group as individuals but other groups as all being the same--that is, if a white person steals, it's just a thief and it doesn't mean that all white people steal. But if a Black person steals, it means that all Black people are not to be trusted since they are thieves. How does this show up here? It means that in order for Black people to make white people think better of them as a group, they all need to be on their best behavior all the time because if any one of them acts poorly, they will all be judged for it.

So what does all this have to do with DEI and the so-called "merit-based" approach to counter it? Let's consider Joe, the average conservative. He has several white co-workers who slack off. Joe thinks of them as just lazy people--they don't represent all white people because Joe is white and Joe is a hard worker. Joe also has one Black co-worker who is lazy like his lazy white co-workers. Joe sees the Black co-worker and concludes that they only got the job because DEI has quotas to fill and the company needed to hire a Black worker. (The quotas assumption is false since nearly all companies with a DEI policy do not specify quotas that must be filled.) Joe won't question whether the white co-workers deserve to have the job or not because they are white--they don't represent all white people. So because Joe has a lazy Black co-worker, he can now conclude that Black people are lazy and any company which hires Black people is doing so most likely because they have a DEI policy and they "need" to hire Black people simply to satisfy the policy and not because it's possible for Black people to be qualified for the job.

At the end of the day, the merit-based approach is just a reframing of the same old racism. It is not an argument to actually hire the most qualified for the job because, in fact, part of DEI is specifically hiring the person who is the most qualified for the job. The assumption that a person belonging to a minority group could only get a job if they had an unfair advantage over a white man is a bigoted thought, it is the result of the bias I'm talking about here. The truth of the matter is there will be people of all races, religions, sexual orientations, genders, and ideologies who are qualified and other members of each of those groups who are not qualified.

This is Costco's DEI publication, entitled "Inclusion" or read more about their policies on their People & Community page. They don't have quotas that they're required to fill. They simply acknowledge that talent can be found from all sources and that the company does better when people from all backgrounds are included and no one is excluded on the basis of things such as skin color, religion, orientation, gender, etc.

If it were the case that the "merit-based" argument that Trump and his supporters are spouting was really about hiring the best person for the job, then they would complain about white people who are unqualified for the jobs they've been hired to do. But I don't hear that, I only hear them complaining about people getting hired for belonging to some minority. They aren't interested in hiring the most qualified person, they're interested in having a less diverse, whiter workplace.

I think one of the main reasons why the argument is insidious is that well-meaning people fall for it. People who aren't as overtly racist as Trump and Elon will hear the statement "the best person should get the job" and will acknowledge that sounds like a good argument, so they'll agree with it. As I said earlier, the logic itself makes sense. It is merely the application of the logic with which I disagree. If people were unbiased, I wouldn't have any issue with the argument at all. I only have an issue with it when a white person looks at an unqualified white person and sees one unqualified person but looks at an unqualified gay person and sees all gay people as unqualified--or sees a qualified Black person and comes to the conclusion that they are actually unqualified simply because they are Black.

Valuable values

2025-02-16T18:33:00.000-05:00

I'm a fairly simple man. I just want to live in peace with other people. There are a handful of people that I like and the rest I either tolerate or avoid if I can. But I am a pacifist. I believe that grown ups should be able to resolve their differences with words rather than with physical violence. The only people I've ever exchanged blows with (physically) are siblings and even then I haven't done that in my adult life, only as a child and adolescent. I don't see the benefit in it, just as I don't see the benefit in war.

I suppose I can be idealistic, and perhaps I too often give people the benefit of the doubt (mostly because it is the simplest way for me to live my life). So I suppose it was naiveté that led to my belief that most people hold similar values to me--that is, that they eschew violence and embrace harmony. I had hope that people would see Trump for what he is--a bully. But that clearly didn't happen. Even after 4 years of him being a bully president there were still enough registered voters in the USA to elect him for a second term. As an educator, I would hope that people would see that behaving in that way would lead to no good. However, not only has it worked for Trump but others are seeing that it works for him and they're hopping on the bandwagon.

I've seen video clips of Elon Musk talking/being interviewed years ago and the things that he said at the time seemed fairly reasonable. He seemed like a more or less reasonable person with maybe a different perspective on things. Then something happened. He got red-pilled? Whatever you want to call it, it seemed quite drastic. He tweeted about buying Twitter and then tried to say it was a joke. Then he was basically forced to buy Twitter, so he went all-in. He fired tons of people right away, changed the name of the company, drastically changed the way the platform worked. The part that I thought was absolutely hilarious was that he seemed genuinely surprised that when he made the blue checkmark a subscription that anyone could buy, all of a sudden people were buying blue check marks to pose as people and organizations they had no connection with. His surprise made me laugh because that's just how the Internet works, and it seemed like he didn't anticipate it at all.

Anyway, the point is that he basically started acting like Trump. And at the time I didn't see what his long game was, I assumed he was just being a child. But since Trump has taken office for his second term, it is clear to me that at least part of the reason he started being the horrible bag of human garbage that he is now is so he could be in the position of power he now has. And conservatives are not critical of him or of Trump. They are happy about the things the two of them are doing. They're rejoicing. So it's apparent to me that a significant portion of the population holds values that are entirely and wholly incompatible with my own.

I know one of the reasons conservatives like Trump and Musk is that they see them as strong men. (And since both of these men have changed so much over the years, I'm just talking about since Trump ran the first time and since roughly the time Musk bought Twitter.) These men don't apologize for anything ever. They don't admit guilt. They don't admit wrongdoing. They deny and deflect. They vociferously attack their accusers anytime they're accused of anything and play the victim card, acting like the whole world is against them instead of taking one shred of responsibility for their own words and actions. They impose their will on everyone else, and that's seen as a very strong position to take.

To me, all of those things are signs of weakness. Trump can't bear the thought of being inferior to anyone, and admitting guilt would be admitting inferiority (in his mind), so he can't bring himself to do it even if in his head he honestly knows that he is guilty. He's acting out of fear. And that goes a long way to explain most of the actions of people like him. A person who is truly strong will apologize when it's necessary, will admit guilt when they are guilty, and will seek to correct mistakes they've made when they realize they've made them, rather than dig themselves into a deeper hole by doubling down on their mistake.

I've seen conservatives defend Trump. My own brother asserted that he thinks Trump is a good example of a kind, compassionate man. I honestly couldn't believe I'd read his email correctly when he said that to me. I read it multiple times to make sure I'd read it correctly. I could draw no conclusion from the assertion other than that he and I are living in differing realities. I can't fathom someone looking at the actions that man has taken and arriving at the conclusion he even knows what compassion is, or that he's even remotely capable of kindness. After conversing with my brother further, it became clear to me that it is due to the fact that he and I have a very different definition of what compassion is. In my mind, being compassionate means trying to understand where another person is coming from, giving them the benefit of the doubt, allowing them mercy where you might not otherwise do, forgiving them for their past actions. In my brother's mind, compassion means convincing someone that they are wrong to be afraid of something rather than trying to understand that fear and seek to comfort them.

And so it is with a heavy heart I've finally concluded that it must be the case that there is a significant portion of the electorate--significant enough to elect whom they will to the White House--which has a set of values which lies in complete opposition to my own. They do not value kindness or compassion. They do not value forgiveness. They don't value maturity and responsibility. They value cruelty and iron-willed thinking, a leader who seeks to impose his own views on all people. They are not horrified by the cruel things that Trump has done and will continue to do. They glory in it. They are rallied by the awful, terrible things that he does while he's in office. They rejoice in him stripping away the rights of women and oppressed minorities. They cheer as he defunds programs which benefit disabled people, poor people, and people with chronic serious illnesses. They don't value diversity, equity, or inclusion. They fear people who are different from them and want to shame them for being different. They want trans people to remain in hiding. They want gay people to go back in the closet. They want people with different skin color to move to a different country. They have no place in their hearts for anyone who doesn't fit into their cookie-cutter life. They want a homogenous white America. Nothing less will satisfy them, and they're elated that Trump and Musk clearly want those things as well.

People are finding out that misbehaving in the way that Trump does--throwing temper tantrums on social media, making sweeping and reductive generalizations about groups of people, and being intolerant are values that get people ahead in life. I have to accept the fact that these are not qualities which will cause people to dislike you, because empirical data suggests otherwise. Twice he's been elected to office and the entire time, during all three of his campaigns, during his first time, and during the entirety of Biden's term, Trump has been a childish nightmare and yet people still like him and vote for him and defend his horrendous behavior.

I refuse to adopt any of the qualities that these conservatives have whole-heartedly embraced. I refuse to reduce myself to that level of ignorance. I refuse to revere people who got ahead by lying, cheating, and being cruel. I will not change my values just because I have come to the realization that millions of Americans hold opposing values. I will remain steadfast in the belief that true maturity is more respectable. I value those who are honest, those who admit their mistakes, those who choose to include people who are different and celebrate diversity. I value diversity, equity, and inclusion and I will align myself with other people and organizations that do the same.

Where are we?

2024-11-19T02:24:00.000-05:00

I'm no history buff. I took European history in high school and got really bad grades. I haven't really studied history since I graduated high school. So take this as a layperson's understanding of European history. I know that history repeats. I know what we're seeing now in the USA has happened before in other countries, many times throughout history--both recorded history and lost history.

I see the way people talk about Hitler and Nazis and I feel that it is problematic specifically for the reason that Hitler specifically and by extension the Nazi party are often set up on a pedestal of pure, unadulterated evil. The reason I see this as problematic is because it then becomes illogical to compare any contemporary person with them, because it is extremely rare to find an individual (and rarer still to find a group of people) who embody pure evil. So as strange as it may seem, I believe it is more helpful to humanize them--to the end of understanding how such horrors can repeat later in history (such as now in the USA), so I want this post to be a series of thought experiments.

I wonder at what point in time people started to realize what was happening in Germany as Hitler rose to power. When was it that each individual saw him for the authoritarian demagogue that he was? Surely a percentage of the German populace saw it almost immediately--perhaps they felt uncomfortable hearing him speak. Surely there was a significant portion of the population who believed he was a strong, powerful leader who was meant to lead Germany to a brighter future. There were clearly those who found hope in his words, and were excited by his message. I'm confident that many people who supported him (particularly in early days) thought he would be great for the German economy, or that he would be a powerful military leader. They truly believed that he would make life better for them.

In 1934 the German head of state referendum, which merged the office of President and Chancellor to Führer and bestowed this power on Hitler passed with 90% approval, and that's with 95% voter participation--that is over 85% of registered German voters voted for Hitler to become Führer at that time. Clearly his message resonated strongly with the German electorate. It is wholly illogical to think that all these people foresaw the horror that was to follow, and surely even fewer still would have approved of it had they foreseen it. So I wonder, what was going through their heads at the time? What did they like about his message? And at what point in time did each of those people who voted for him re-evaluate their decisions? Perhaps there were many who died before they ever changed their minds--going to their graves believing they'd made the right choice and that Hitler was indeed a good leader. Perhaps some noticed early on, perhaps some didn't notice until they were at war with the rest of Europe and then eventually also the United States.

I know there were many people within the nation who opposed some of the more drastic actions of the Nazi party. There were people who would offer refuge to persecuted people, hiding them in their houses to keep them safe. I know there were also people who diligently went out to search for these scapegoated peoples, rounding them up and shipping them off to be slaughtered or tortured in concentration camps. What was going through the minds of the people who supported the horrific acts? What was going through the minds of the people who released the toxic gases into the gas chambers? The people who drove the trains full of Jews? What was their motivation? What was their justification? How did they rationalize what they were doing? Were they doing it just because it was their duty and didn't consider the morality of their actions? Surely, at least some of them thought that they truly were doing the work of the God they worshipped. Sure some of them believed what they were doing was in the best interest of the nation. Perhaps some did it merely to be obedient to their superiors--perhaps they feared punishment that would surely come following disobedience.

I wonder these questions because it is my opinion that if history has taught us anything it is that freedom is a fragile thing and can so easily be disrupted by demagoguery and authoritarian rule. Republics and Democracies have fallen time and again. It is a struggle to keep in place a system which purports to establish equality or freedom. Biologically, humans are predisposed to be tribal. We trust people we identify with more than those who we see as different. We fear those from different tribes and implicitly trust those from our own tribe. It's how evolution has made us, since it is the approach which led to greatest survival among our ancestors in ages long past.

And so it is that I am left wondering at what point we are currently. Perhaps Trump is America's Hitler. Perhaps his followers are our Nazi party. Maybe not. I can certainly see why some people are convinced that they are. I remain unconvinced that they are not (particularly when they march on Washington chanting "Jews will not replace us" or they march around wearing black and waving flags bearing the Swastika). Why does this matter? I see many liberals post on social media that this is the basis whereby they desire to cut ties with any who support Trump. I believe that ostracism is an effective tool to discourage unwanted behavior. It works. I don't know that it's the best approach all the time, but I do know that it has worked in the past and will work in the future as well. Surely it is better to simply cut ties with someone than to kill them, or to round them up and place them in concentration camps.

I remember learning about the Holocaust at a young age--learning what concentration camps were and the terrible things that were done at them. It wasn't until I was a full-grown adult that I first learned that the USA also had concentration camps during WWII. We don't like to call them that--we like to call them internment camps, thinking that that name is more palatable. We may not have killed millions of Japanese Americans, as the Nazis did with Jews. But we did round them up, we did keep them under armed guard, we did displace them from their homes, and all for no reason other than the fact of their lineage. When I hear talk from people in the USA that we should have concentration camps again, I see it as no different from what the USA did with Japanese people in WWII, or what the Nazis did with Jews. I would hope that no significant portion of the population would think that to bring back such horror is in any way a good idea. However, I do see support for such actions. I hear voices who agree with these terrible ideas.

I've seen people online who express their intent to cut off contact with their family or acquaintances who are racist. In counter to that, I have seen some Black people implore them to maintain contact--the reasoning being that with maintained contact there may be hope for reaching them but with no contact they will be left in their racist echo chamber, where their racism will only intensify. I don't feel qualified to tell people which path they should take in this context. I feel that people are justified in cutting out people they no longer wish to associate with. I feel that people are equally justified in maintaining contact, whether they intend to try to change the person's mind or not. I will say, that for the sake of one's own mental health, I believe it is helpful to cease interaction with toxic individuals. I will never judge someone for choosing their own mental well-being over the codependence of another.

I have no intention of going along with authority figures who I believe to be oppressing freedom, or who grossly overstep their authority. As I mentioned in my previous post, I do intend to stand for what I believe to be right. I will not stand for bigotry, and I will call it out as often as I am witness to it. I will do my best to be vigilant in watching for demagoguery and standing fast against it. I do not wish to see any group of people--especially not an under-represented group or a minority group--oppressed and marginalized. I believe there is still much room for progress before we truly see equal rights for all. I intend to remain an advocate for equality, an advocate for freedom.

I suppose this has been a meandering piece, which I intended it to be. It reflects my own inner turmoil. I hope that we are not on the precipice of initiating the Fourth Reich. I hope that the Constitution itself may yet stay the hand of authoritarianism from taking root. I'm not convinced that the Constitution is sufficient to prevent totalitarianism from happening in the USA, but I do hope that it will be a significant obstacle. I will end with an enumeration of my beliefs, values that I choose to fight for.

I believe in peace. I believe that rational, reasonable adults are capable of settling their differences with words rather than with blood.

I believe in the right of each woman to decide what to do with her own body. It is her business alone, and no one else's. Laws should not prevent her from getting the medical care that she needs or wants.

I believe that people should be treated equally regardless of their ancestry, place of birth, skin color, or any other fact of birth. I see no logical reason to treat people differently because of who their parents were or where their parents were born.

I believe that people should be treated equally regardless of gender identity. Just as it is respectful to call a person by the name they wish to be called, it is respectful to treat a person the way they wish to be treated. Should a person wish to present as female, she deserves to be treated as such. Should a person wish to present as male, he deserves to be treated as such. Should a person wish to reject the binary of male/female that our society seems so obsessed with, they deserve the freedom to depart from the false dichotomy.

I believe that people should be treated equally regardless of orientation. There is more than enough hatred in the world and I believe the world will be better off with more love in it. People should be encouraged to find love, not discouraged from it because the target of their love is deemed to be the wrong person.

I believe in individual liberty, but more importantly I believe in community liberty. After all, we humans are not biologically predisposed to be lonely--we are meant to be social. We are stronger together. Let us grow together, and lift each other up. Let us liberate one another and be a free society, not just free individuals.

Stand for what is right

2024-11-07T02:47:00.001-05:00

I was raised religious. In my religion, it is customary for young people (roughly teenage years) to receive a special blessing which is given by a patriarch in the community and typed up and presented as a letter for the recipient to keep. In the one I received as a teenager, one of the lines it included was "stand for what is right even if it means standing alone". This is a message which I have taken to heart since that time. I am a relatively stubborn person and I have a strong sense of what I believe to be right and what I believe to be wrong. And I feel very strongly about standing up for what I believe to be right and denouncing the things that I believe to be wrong.

I understand that there are many reasons people had in '16, '20, and just this year to vote for Trump. I know some people reveled in the way he insults certain groups of people--the bullying he openly and unashamedly engages in. I know that many people are largely unaware of the bullying he does, or they choose to overlook it. I know some people decided to vote for him based on the policies he runs on despite the fact that they know he is a bully. I do not see the benefit of painting all voters who voted for Trump (in one or all of the three elections he ran in) as the first category, since it is obvious to me that is not the case.

That being said, I need to speak up on this matter. The thing that sparked my desire to write this post was a thread I saw on Facebook (found here). The text of the post says

DAY -74. Ask your kids what happened at school today. Post it below.

I will quote just a few of the response that people gave in the comments section there. I encourage anyone reading this post to go read more of them. They broke my heart.

My friend’s daughter went to jr high today and boys were shouting at the girls “your body, my choice.”
"My teen was told that all gays should jump off a cliff or be murdered if they don’t. How is this ok?"
"My elementary aged daughter came home crying the other day. She said there were a bunch of kids at recess chanting Trump’s name, and talking about “when he becomes president we can finally get rid of all of the black and brown children out of the school.”

This is not ok. But children are a reflection of what they see in their parents, in society, in the role models around them--and that includes the President. If they hear their parents making racial slurs, they think it's acceptable to repeat them. If they see the President (or a candidate for President) bullying people for being different, then they think it's okay and they mimic that behavior. Electing Trump, knowing all of the horrible things he stands for, emboldens bullies--children and adults alike--to bully more, to be crueler and more hurtful, to say hateful and bigoted things. This is not okay. This is unacceptable. I won't stand for it. I won't remain silent while I see it happen. I need to speak up.

Another teaching I was taught in the religion of my upbringing is that all humans are spiritual brothers and sisters--that we lived as spirits before we came to this Earth and we were all children of God. While I no longer believe in the dogmas of that religion, I do believe that it is good to treat people as though this teaching is true. I believe that all humans deserve a baseline level of respect and kindness, and that the more we treat other people this way the better society will be. I believe that kindness is a virtue. I believe that treating other people the way we would like to be treated is a good rule of thumb to follow (with obvious exceptions such as criminal justice). I believe that regardless of things such as skin color, sexual orientation, body appearance, gender identity, and so many other factors commonly used to marginalize people, people deserve to be treated equally and compassionately.

It is disappointing to me to see so many adults who chose bigotry and hatred over kindness. Again, I know this does not apply to all Trump supporters but I know that some of his supporters wear shirts that say "f--- your feelings", and other hateful things of that nature. I know that the attitudes exist that certain groups of people are not as deserving as other groups of people. And these are evil attitudes. They should be discouraged, not encouraged. They should be silenced, not given the highest seat of power in the world.

I have no issues coexisting with people who have different political views than I do. I do not wish to make this article about policy. Whether you believe abortion should be banned or legalized, or any other belief on any controversial or political topic, I hope you will agree with me on this particular matter. People deserve to be treated with respect and kindness. Children deserve to be able to go to school without the fear of being bullied for being different. People should not be told to kill themselves or face being killed for any reason--and especially not because of some factor which is out of their control to change.

I believe that kindness is better than hate because we can create a more efficient, more productive, and happier society when people are kind to one another than when people are cruel to one another. I work at a company which sells employee recognition software. I see firsthand through the work my company does the positive impact that kindness has on productivity. It is clear to me that when people feel appreciated and valued they work harder, they get more accomplished, and they are much more cooperative than when they feel marginalized or unappreciated. Kindness goes a long way toward building stronger and healthier communities. As the old proverb goes, you get more flies with honey than with vinegar.

I do not believe that the path toward a better future is through dividing people up into groups and shaming them for belonging to a different group. I do not believe society benefits in any way from treating people differently because of where they were born or what they look like or who they're attracted to. I believe that the best path forward is to accept people for who they are, to appreciate them for what they contribute, and to show them the kindness that we ourselves would wish to receive from others. Reach out, be someone's friend. Show kindness. Be polite.

Watching the news Tuesday night was very difficult for me, as it was in '16. My sister texted me just to ask if I was okay. That simple act meant a lot to me. I know that she and I do not agree on policy and we love each other despite that fact. We know we can share our opinions with each other without it damaging our relationship and I believe that makes our relationship stronger. I was very touched that she did that. That small act of kindness made a big impact on me. I know that these types of acts are much more beneficial than the base, crude, unkind acts and words that are encouraged by the acts and words of Trump and others of his ilk.

I fear that over the next four years--and likely much longer than that--people will grow more hateful and more bitter toward others. I see no value in perpetuating this behavior or in accepting, tolerating, or encouraging it. I see no benefit for society to be cruel to others in this way. Let us all rise above this base and hateful speech and treat each other as though we are brothers and sisters--as though each of us has value and is capable of contributing positively to society. Because I believe we do--I believe each of us does have something to contribute and we will be stronger, happier, and more productive if we each have space to contribute and belong.

If you have children, please speak with them and share your thoughts on this matter. Set a good example for them, show them the benefits that can come with kindness. Teach them that hateful words and actions are not beneficial and should be discouraged and avoided. Find positive role models that you admire and aspire to be more like, share these role models with your children. Be a force for good in the world. Stand for what is right.

Snap Decisions

2024-07-13T17:25:00.001-04:00

Two weeks ago I made the decision to leave my current job and take an offer for a new job. Yesterday was my last day at Snap Finance. The week after next I'll start my new job at Awardco.

It was far from an easy decision to make. I labored over it even before I got the job offer, but was anticipating it since they'd asked for references. I knew that my boss would try to keep me at Snap since that's the impression he's given the 5 years I've been there. He's a great boss and he's been very open about how much he appreciates my work.

I have to say, I have learned a lot at Snap. When I started all I knew about machine learning was from the statistics class I took as an undergrad in college and the skills I had learned through the Internet. My first year at Snap I lacked any kind of confidence. I was very unsure of myself and I had very few skills to draw upon. Since then I've learned a lot about Python, SQL, Kubernetes, cloud computing, and a host of related skills. It's been a great opportunity for me. I am grateful for the time I spent at Snap.

In trying to make the decision, I wanted to consult with as many people as possible to get their perspective. I spoke with my brother, who's been in programming since high school and is 8 years my senior. I spoke with the friend who initially referred me to Snap back when he was still working there. I spoke with my therapist and my financial advisor. I talked Conrad's ear off about it. I weighed the pros and cons in my mind. I wrote a journal entry about it, to sort through all of my thoughts.

Ultimately I decided that it was for the best for me to move on. The entire time I've been at Snap it hasn't sat well in my conscience that I'm making money from lending at high interest rates to poor people--people who are most likely living paycheck to paycheck. I think for me that was one of the strongest motivating factors in my decision to leave the finance sector. There were some things I didn't like about working at Snap but I have reason to believe that at least some of those will likely be factors in any workplace that I find, so I tried not to let them influence my decision too much.

I do feel uncertain about the new job, and honestly the more time has passed since I gave my boss my two-week notice the more I've felt a pit in my stomach grow in intensity. I am much more confident in my skills now than I was when I started at Snap. At Awardco I'll be the first machine learning engineer in the company. I wouldn't have been able to face a challenge of that nature before my job at Snap since it was my first time being in machine learning. But now I feel confident in the skills I've gained and believe I'll do a decent job building the machine learning at Awardco as their pioneer MLE.

I am nervous. I don't know what to expect. It may well be the case that I'll dislike my new position more than my old one. At the very least, I was assured many times from my boss and even from the HR rep who conducted my exit interview that I would be welcome back at Snap if I change my mind. It is nice to have a fall-back option. I admit that calms my nerves somewhat. I don't know exactly what to expect in this new position, but I've got a good idea and I feel hopeful that it will be another good opportunity for me to grow personally and professionally.

One thing that made me hesitate about the new position is that it is a long commute--nearly an hour in good traffic--and they do expect me to be in the office every day (with allowances for extenuating circumstances). It will be an adjustment for me to be in-office every day, since I've grown accustomed to being able to work from home most days. But I've done the 5-day in-office thing before and I'm sure I'll be able to do it again. It may even add more structure back into my life that I've lost since the Covid lockdown happened.

I do appreciate all the advice people gave when I asked and I do still feel like I made the right decision for me. It was difficult, and I do keenly feel the uncertainty even now. My hope is that within a few months of my new job my mind will have settled a bit and I'll be comfortable with the decision.

I think the advice that moved me the most was from my brother. His point was that if you're making enough money to save for retirement and to live the lifestyle you want than anything extra is just a bonus but not enough to fret over--that it is better to base the decision off where you'll be happier. That is I think the main reason I made the choice. It is my hope that in my new position I'll have better mental health than I had in my previous position. So here's to the next chapter of my life.

Co-efficiently Co-related

2023-05-03T19:40:00.000-04:00

I'm a fairly reserved person. I don't open up easily to people. I tend to hold my hand close to my chest, hesitant to lay cards on the table. However there have been a few times in my life where I have had a heart-to-heart talk with someone and I find them to be very rewarding.

I've been seeing a therapist for over a year now. One thing that I have decided over all the chats I've had with him is that the people I want to spend the most time with are the ones that I feel the closest to. I have many friends (I use the term "friends" more loosely than some, since to me the term "acquaintance" feels very odd) who are fun to interact with, but our interactions are sparse or superficial. I think it's perfectly fine to have these kinds of friendships--in fact, I think they can be very beneficial. But I have decided that for my own well-being, I will not be putting any measurable amount of emotional effort into such a friendship. I want to reserve that energy for deeper friendships.

I believe that the more you confide in me, the more you trust me and respect me, and therefore the more meaningful the emotions you feel toward me. And the same for the amount that I trust and confide in you. Being a fairly reserved person, I will not open up and discuss any deep personal feelings or concerns with you unless I feel a great deal of trust and respect for you.

Not long after my wife died, while I was attending the single's Mormon church unit in Knoxville, one friend at one point remarked at how deeply I was able to care about other people--he made it sound like it was an unusual trait and that he admired me for that ability. I don't know how much I had thought about it prior to him pointing it out to me. But I know I have thought a lot about it since then.

I have been hurt by many people whom I used to trust, respect, admire, and love. I want to interject that I do not believe that on its own is universally a reason to cut someone out of your life. From this pain I have learned that I need to mete out the amount of emotional energy I invest in my relationships with other people.

I want to have deep, meaningful, personal relationships with people. In my mind, these are the relationships that are the most valuable--the most worth pursuing. I don't have many close friends. I can't put my finger on exactly when that happened, but I know that it is the case at this time. In my therapy sessions one thing I have come to learn about myself is that one thing I am missing is connection--I feel that I am missing deep connections with other people, and I would like to have more in my life.

As a teacher, when students would ask me about bringing their grade up, I would invariably instruct them that I would match their effort--if they were willing to try harder, I would be willing to put in extra effort to help them understand the material of the course. I found that very few students took me up on that because what they wanted was to get an easy A, not to actually learn the material. I have decided to take the same approach in life. If someone wants to be close to me, I will match their efforts. If they spend time with me, talk with me, open up to me, trust me, I will do the same with them.

This isn't a test, and it's not a demand that someone meet a list of my criteria before I let them into my inner circle. It is a graduated system. Hence the name of this post--correlation. The correlation coefficient of two variables is an indication of the strength of the linear relationship between them. I want to keep that coefficient as close to 1 as possible. In other words, if you trust me X% and I can feel that, I will do my best to trust you X% as well. These kinds of relationships develop organically. I don't just immediately open up to someone I just met, and I don't expect them to either. I expect that as we spend more time together we will grow closer together.

And that is the crux of the matter there. As I said before, I am perfectly happy investing a small portion of my time with people who wish to only have a superficial relationship with me--lets hang out, play a game that we both like, like each other's Facebook posts, etc. Fun stuff that doesn't involve any lovey-dovey touchy-feely stuff. What that means is that our interactions will be few and far between. I won't invest a great deal of emotion or time in that relationship because I can't afford to. I only have so much to go around and I want to save it for people who want something deeper.

If you want to be close to me, be honest with me. Be open with me. Trust me, respect me, love. Tell me why I'm wrong. Criticize me. Fight with me. Get angry at me. I will do the same with you. In fact, I will tell you this--if I have never been mad at you ever in my life, then that means you have never been a close friend because I just didn't care enough about you to get angry at you. (The converse is not true--the fact that I got mad at you doesn't mean that I do feel close to you, since I have a bad habit of arguing with trolls online and getting mad at them.)

So the decision I have made is to limit the amount of time and emotional energy I invest in someone by the level of depth of our friendship. This doesn't mean cutting anyone out of my life. It means I just might spend less time with you if it feels like you aren't emotionally invested in me. I want more close friends. I want people that I can talk to about my personal shit. Someone I can cry with, celebrate with, fight with, make up with.

And, yes, to me fighting is important--not looking for things to fight about, but the act of not avoiding fights. People don't always agree perfectly on everything, and it's important for each person to say how they feel. Fighting means you care. It means you're passionate about what you believe, and you're emotionally invested in trying to get the other person to see your perspective. If we're close, I want to see your perspective. Show me what you see, let me feel what you feel. I want that. I need more of that in my life. I need people who care--people who care about me and people whom I can care about.

Physical closeness helps but certainly is not necessary. People who live thousands of miles apart can be really close. I lived a couple thousand miles from my family for a dozen years. I visited every Christmas for the first half of those, and other visits as well. With the exception of my parents, no one in my family came to visit me the whole time I lived far away. That is what I mean to address here. I can't do one-sided relationships any longer. I want close relationships, and to be close that means both parties need to be invested in the other. If I feel that I'm investing a great deal more emotional energy in a relationship than the other person, I will curtail that investment. I need to save my reserves for places where the return on the investment will be greater. Yes, this may sound selfish or self-serving, but I believe that everyone needs to exercise at least some degree of selfishness if they wish to remain mentally healthy long-term.

Statement of Values

2022-05-23T19:07:00.000-04:00

In 1842, Mormon founder Joseph Smith wrote a letter to editor John Wentworth of the newspaper The Chicago Democrat. In that letter, he included a list of the tenets of the Mormon faith which he called the Articles of Faith. Growing up in the LDS church, I memorized these articles as a child. Since I no longer believe in deities, I often find myself musing about what my beliefs are. The purpose of this post is to enumerate some of those beliefs. Perhaps I'll think of more and add them at a later time. But these are some of my musings on what I personally value.

1. I value the pursuit of knowledge, using the tools of critical thinking, skepticism, and empirical evidence.

I know from my time as a Mormon that one of the misconceptions about the scientific method and empirical learning is the straw man of saying that people who do not believe in gods do not believe in anything they cannot see. In fact, I recall a talk from a general authority of the church who pointed out that atomic and subatomic particles cannot be seen by the human eye but they clearly exist. However, that is not one of the tenets of the scientific method. There are many things that we cannot observe with our eyeballs for which we can gather empirical evidence.

This is probably the most core of my beliefs because it is the foundation on which all that I accept as true is based. We are in the information age and therefore it has never been easier than it is now to find and propagate information. Along with that is the simple fact that not all information is true. Some people share information with the explicit intent to mislead, some do it unintentionally, some genuinely believe the thing even though it is demonstrably false, and so on. So it is important to be able to weed through all the information to determine what is right, what is wrong, and what is meant simply for entertainment purposes and not as statement of fact.

The question then arises of in what way is it best to determine what is right and what is wrong? If I had the answer to that, I'd be much more famous than I am. But there are a few guidelines I have learned over the years to help me make that determination. The first is the source of the information. I believe it is best to put the most trust in the people with the most expertise in the field of the matter at hand. That is to say, on the subject of marine life I would trust the words of a marine biologist over the words of a topologist, and on the subject of topology I would trust the topologist over the marine biologist. This seems like a fairly simple thing, but I feel it needs to be said because I know people who trust what someone says about (for example) the COVID vaccines because it is a medical doctor who is saying the things. But it is important to remember that there are several specializations within medicine, and what a cardiologist says about vaccines is not as meaningful as what a vaccine scientist says about them.

Another guideline is to cross-check sources. If only one source is making the claim, I would have more reason to doubt it than if multiple sources were making the same claim. Of course, the credentials of each source would be important as well. If ten tabloids agreed on something that a mainstream source contradicted, the ten tabloids would probably not be enough to convince me.

2. It is better to be kind than to be cruel.

Depending on the definitions used, I would not assert that it is good to always be kind and never be cruel. I believe there are times when a firm hand is needed. I believe there are times when the people and circumstances around us require a cold response. But in my own life, I mean to make efforts to find excuses to be kind to other people and to overlook opportunities to be cruel to them. Generally speaking, I believe the former is better than the latter.

One area in my life where I have been particularly conscious of this over the last few years of my life is that of persons in service positions. Cashiers at the grocery store, customer service representatives, waitstaff at restaurants, etc. I am keenly aware that many people are unkind and vulgar toward persons in these positions. I make a conscious effort to be polite, to clearly and frequently express gratitude to them for their service, and to be generous when tipping is expected. I have found that in some cases this is a welcome change to what they experience on a normal basis--and that realization breaks my heart. It is sad to think that so many people are impolite and rude because they have an unrealistic expectation of what should happen and that expectation is not met. I admit it is difficult when I do not get my way or when I feel that the service representative is not being cooperative, but there have been times when I have thanked them even in these cases, acknowledging to them out loud that I am aware that it is something over which they have no control (and therefore it would do me no good to take out my frustration on them).

Again, this is a rule of thumb. I do not believe it to be absolute. I believe there are times when I need to stand up for someone who is being oppressed (including when that oppressed person is myself). Being kind is not an excuse to let other people use you as a doormat.

3. People require room to grow.

This is true of everyone. I need to allow myself room to grow, and I need to allow other people that same luxury. It is not something that comes naturally to me. It is something that I need to continually make an effort to do. When I first came out of the closet 11 years ago, there was a lot of friction between myself and many people that I knew. Now, nearly all of that friction is gone. It can be difficult to move past the hard feelings and allow people to mature.

It is easy to place people in a box and say "that's just how they are". While that may be true, and in many ways people do not change even over decades, it still is possible for people to change and I believe it is important to allow them to do so. To continue treating someone the same way long after they have changed can create unnecessary friction--it can lead to them behaving the same as they did before (because they know you expect it of them), being ashamed of how they have changed, or making them distance themselves from you in the effort to avoid the pain of the constant reminder of who they used to be.

I have found that when I listen, people will tell me who they want to be. That gives me the opportunity to be supportive to allow them to become that person, to give encouragement for them to do so, and continue to love them as they take steps in that direction. I have also found that when people are not willing to offer that support to me it causes me to resent them and possibly even resent myself.

4. Forgiveness has a place.

I do not believe that forgiveness is always best. I do not believe that someone who chooses to forgive in a certain situation is necessarily better than another person who chooses not to forgive in a similar situation. I am disappointed in what I call forgiveness culture. For example, a high-profile case of a person murdering another person, then the breaking news that the victim's mother/spouse/child/etc forgives the murderer. I think that this kind of expectation is toxic. It is completely reasonable for a person in that situation to never forgive the perpetrator for what they have done. After all, murder is one of the crimes that cannot be undone. No amount of remorse felt by the murderer is sufficient to bring the victim back to life.

There are times when forgiveness is appropriate. There are times when it is the best path forward. That is not all the time, but those times exist. I think it is important to recognize those times and to forgive. I think this is related with the previous point about allowing people to change. Sometimes people will not change, sometimes they will. Sometimes forgiveness is not the best path forward, sometimes it is. Sometimes forgiveness is necessary to allow the other person room to grow.

One related point I would like to make is that even in cases where forgiveness is not given, healing is still possible. It is not always necessary to forgive in order to heal from a traumatic experience. You can avoid a person who has harmed you in a significant way and still personally heal from the experience and move on. Sometimes forgiveness is part of that process, and it can in some cases be very helpful in healing. But other times it is fine to continue to hold that action against that person while moving on with your own life. Letting go of the anger, hatred, betrayal can be healing and does not require forgiveness/absolution. It only requires building your own best life moving forward without that anger being a road block in your own personal progress.

5. Perfection isn't a thing.

I believe in bettering myself. I believe in being authentic. I don't think these are contradictory. I want to be the best me I can be. But I have no delusion of achieving perfection. Perhaps in some cases, perfection is possible--such as a bowling score of 300. Many people have achieved that, and it is not possible to get a better score. But life is far more complicated than bowling. Personality, human interaction, etc, all these things are complicated and we need to allow ourselves room to be imperfect. Maybe we could have done things differently, maybe we could have said something a different way. But I have found that beating myself up about it for 20 years is not the best path forward. It's okay to make mistakes. Everyone does things that they wish they hadn't. And it will happen again in the future. Don't be so afraid of being imperfect that you don't live life.

It's okay to be angry. It's okay to speak angrily toward other people. It's okay to not be kind and polite all the time. It's okay to get irritated. It's okay to stand up for yourself and for other people. Lots of things are okay which we are often told are not. I believe it is useful to evaluate myself and look for opportunities to improve. I have also found that worrying too much about any given thing, blowing it out of proportion, or becoming depressed by it are not conducive to the goal of self-improvement. Pick your battles in improving yourself.

6. Hierarchy has a place.

I believe in equality. I believe all people should be granted the same rights and protections under the law as all other people. But hierarchy doesn't need to be about inequality or inequity. It has a place in an ordered society. A team lead, supervisor, executive, etc--all can be useful roles in making a corporation run smoothly and efficiently. Parents leading and guiding their children is good. A government with officials who have the ability to make and enforce laws is useful.

I do not value blind obedience to authority. It is clear that injustices happen, that some people abuse their authority. Leaders can and should be challenged. They should not be above the scrutiny of job evaluations. If a person who has authority over me exercises it in a way that I feel is inappropriate, I believe I have the right to inform them of that. But I do value deference to authority. It can be difficult to know when to simply accept what you're told and when to fight back against it. Again, I believe it is important to pick your battles. Know when to go along with what's expected/demanded and when to speak out against perceived injustices.

7. Life should be enjoyed.

Perhaps in a perfect world, everyone would be employed in a position that they loved doing. From what I have witnessed of the world, that is not practical. There are jobs that need to be done that very few people actually enjoy doing. So, I do not believe that everyone needs to find a job that they love. But I do believe that, generally speaking, people should find joy in life. Make time to do the things that you enjoy doing. Spending all of your time and energy doing only things that you perceive as chores is not a good way to live. Take time off from work, go on a vacation or spend time doing hobbies or interests that you have.

I don't think it's reasonable or healthy to expect people to be happy all the time. I actually think that's toxic. It's okay to be sad. It's okay to feel grief, anxiety, depression, fear, anger, etc. I think it's important to allow yourself to experience to broad range of human emotions. But overall, I think people should be happy to be alive. I think it is important to search for joy, to create happiness. It doesn't have to be anything grand. It can be a trip to see the Eiffel Tower, but it doesn't have to be. It can be a trip to the back yard to plant seeds and watch them grow. Everyone has different interests and it's fine to find joy in different ways than other people do.

Judge not that ye be not Justice

2018-10-04T12:51:00.001-04:00

I just called both of my Senators' DC offices and left a message asking them to vote no on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. I have also emailed both of them with the same message. I am sure my messages will ultimately make no difference in their vote on the matter. However, it is with some small degree of hope that if enough people call with a similar message they might change their minds. However, ultimately it is so that I can in good conscience say that I have made a concerted effort to make my voice heard that I do not believe Brett Kavanaugh is fit to sit on the High Court.

But the real issue that I would like to blog about is the matter of empathy. The ability to put oneself in another's position has been something I have always heard my whole life as a good thing. I often heard the adage that you shouldn't judge someone until you've walked a mile in his shoes. It seems to me that some people are better at feeling empathy and others, while they may pay lip service to it, are not very capable of doing so. I would like to give two examples which I feel are related in this way.

I am gay. I have been attracted to men as long as I can remember. This shouldn't surprise any of my readers by this point, since I came out of the closet about 7 years ago. But one thing I was always told growing up is that being gay is a lifestyle choice, and an evil one at that. I was told that being attracted to people of the same sex was simply a temptation of the devil and that yielding to those enticings amounted to sin. I believed that. I internalized the message. What really confused me (especially in the months preceding my coming out, when I had discussions with people who may or may not have guessed I was gay) were all of the people who seemed to be incapable of understanding what it is like to be gay.

I believe there are a few different types of people in this regard. First, there are the people who are gay. These people obviously know what it's like to be gay. They may or may not fully understand their feelings (as I didn't when I was a teenager), and they may or may not be made uncomfortable by feeling or admitting their feelings. But at least in some level, they know what it is like. There are those who are bisexual. I believe it is many of these people (and some of the gay ones) who believe most strongly that being gay is a choice. The reason I believe this is that a bisexual person will feel sexual attraction to men and to women. It would be no stretch of the imagination to conclude that everyone was this way--that everyone had feelings for men and women. If that were the case, then certainly it would be a "choice" in the sense that anyone could find someone of the opposite sex or someone of the same sex, and which they found was simply their own choice.

Then there are people who, I believe, truly cannot fathom what it is like to be gay. They're probably confused that anyone would even want to be. I know I've heard many men talk about all their feelings for women (in varying degrees of detail), and those same men express how they couldn't fathom finding another man attractive or even conceive of the idea of having sex with a man (indeed, not even how one would go about doing such an act).

Then there are people (whether straight or bi) who may not understand exactly how it is to be gay but they are capable of empathy--they believe gay people who say that they were "born this way." They don't need to experience it firsthand to know that their family members and friends are being sincere when they relate their own experience. These are what we might call "allies." They stand by us as we are pushing for equality. They believe us. They have made an effort to put themselves in our shoes and walk around in them. They feel our pain.

So let me give the other example of this phenomenon, which will tie back into my original point about Judge Kavanaugh. That is the matter of sexual assault. As I write this, I can think of three women who have confided in me that they have been the victim of sexual assault. And that's only the ones I am thinking of right now--who have told me privately. That doesn't include all the women (and men) that I know who have been a victim who have not confided in me, the ones who have quietly suffered or who have chosen others to confide in. I cannot claim that I have ever been raped. There may have been times when some physical attention was given me which was not wanted, but to a much lesser degree--perhaps an unwanted kiss, for example.

I don't know what it's like to be raped because I have never been raped. But I don't need to be raped in order to listen to a victim of rape and hear them express how it felt, to understand their situation. I can listen to them and believe them.

Just as with being gay, there are different types of people when reacting to someone who asserts having been the victim of sexual assault. There are those who have experienced it, and can relate. There are those who have not experienced it and cannot relate. I assume some people just can't understand how an otherwise nice-seeming man could be capable of forcing himself sexually on a woman. Perhaps it is easier to believe that anyone who does such things is visibly "sleazy"--that it would be obvious to anyone who saw him that he's a rapist.

In the case of Brett Kavanaugh, there are people who believe him when he says that while Dr Ford may have been assaulted by someone at some point in her past, he knows for sure he was not the perpetrator of the act she described. I suppose these people are the kind who will admit rape happens, but willfully turn a blind eye when any particular person is accused of having done it (or, at least, any person with whom they share a world view).

At any rate, it seems to me that just as in the case with homosexuality, there are a large number of people who are seemingly incapable of feeling empathy for victims of sexual assault. I can relate to the reluctance victims feel to share their stories because it is similar to the reluctance a gay person feels to come out of the closet. Will people believe me? Will they judge me for it? Will I be looked down on? Does this make me a sinner? Will my friends and family still like me after they know?

It is sad that people who declare with words that they value empathy are so incapable of feeling or expressing it. Instead of walking a mile in the other person's shoes first, they feel the need to instantly judge them. "She was drinking, she deserved it." "She wore revealing clothing, she invited it." "She's a whore." etc. I've heard all of that in regards to Dr Ford (and worse), as well as other people who have publicly accused someone of sexual assault.

The need to turn it around and blame the victim rather than the perpetrator is such a cruel thing. To blame a gay man for just being gay, to blame a woman for being raped. It seems wholly unfeeling and dismissive.

Back to the topic of Brett Kavanaugh, I see so many people defending him. I admit there is not much evidence to go on in this case, and I would feel uncomfortable convicting him if I were a juror and he were on trial. But I do know I have seen many examples of men who put on a good show--they do well in their jobs or at school, they have friends, they're charismatic and fun to be around--and then have what you might call a darker side. I've seen firsthand a man be friendly and fun one day and very intimidating and violent another. I have seen enough men like Brett Kavanaugh to give me pause in regarding his character. With the accusations surrounding him, the entry in his high school yearbook, and the calendars that he himself presented in his own defense, I would not hire him for any job. I would not want my name to be associated with his. I would not vouch for him. I certainly would not put him on the highest court in the land.

It may very well be that he is confirmed to the Supreme Court tomorrow. It will be a sad day for the history of our country if he does. One more testament against us, showing that we are not a perfect nation--rather that we are far from it.

A Tale of Two Egos

2018-09-12T16:53:00.000-04:00

I would like to discuss a stark contrast that I've just been presented with. On my Facebook news feed, I have seen several posts about Donald Trump's statements on 9/11. To me, I think the most repugnant one is that on the day that it happened, he said that his building was the tallest in NYC before the World Trade Center was built and now that they had fallen it was the tallest again. Set aside whether that statement was true, because in my mind that's irrelevant. Just consider that this man had just witnessed the same tragedy we all witnessed. Thousands of people had just died. And he doesn't give a thought to any of them. His only thought is to brag about how tall his building is.

A student of mine had missed several days of class. As I usually do in such situations, I emailed him to inform him that he is expected to attend class. His response was that he was having difficulty attending class because he was homeless and sometimes it was difficult to find a place to sleep. My first thought on the matter was to try to find a way to help him out. To me, the thought of having a student in my class who didn't have a place to sleep was disturbing--sobering. I asked the department chair and he gave me a name which I passed on to the student. I hope that he'll be able to give some kind of assistance.

These two events are unrelated. These are unrelated thoughts. But they have both occurred to me today, and I couldn't help but think about them in contrast with one another. It made me realize while I feel like I generally understand many people in many of their interactions with me, there are some things I simply cannot fathom and the mindset of Donald Trump is one of those unfathomable things. I cannot imagine being so self-centered that in the immediate wake of a tragedy, I would think to brag about now having the tallest building in the city where the tragedy just happened. I cannot imagine being so callused to the welfare of others that I would spew hateful things about people just because they believe in a different religion, have a different skin color, or were born in a different country. And yet, Trump constantly says hateful things about all of those groups of people.

My student has had a rough semester. I often have students confide in me about the rough things they have had to deal with throughout the semester. Sometimes I am sure these are just stories and the student wants my sympathy so they can be granted lenience. However, I know that many times their stories are true and they really have faced great hardship while trying to perform well in my courses. I feel sympathy for such students. It pains me to hear about their suffering. So here was this student, suffering in silence. He told me, when he came into my office, that he wasn't going to bring the matter up but since I did he replied. So if I hadn't sent the email I wouldn't have ever known. For that reason, I am glad I emailed him. While it hurt me to hear about his situation, I was glad that he had told me.

Here is where I see the stark contrast--in the egos of these two men. One man with an ego so fragile that he feels the need to call people "losers and haters" in a statement which should have been one of condolence. One man with the determination to face his problems without bothering other people about them. While it may not have been the smartest move for my student to avoid talking to me proactively about his situation, I certainly understand why he would do so. On the other hand, I simply cannot understand what would lead Trump to lie about having seen thousands of Arabs cheering on the day the Twin Towers fell.

I think to myself what would have happened if Trump had been in my place. He very likely would have ridiculed the student upon hearing that he was homeless. Calling him a loser and pointing out that he didn't deserve to be in college or some other asinine comment. Surely, his response would do nothing to instill confidence in the student that he still had a chance to pass the class. And what would have happened if Trump were in my student's place instead? He would definitely have looked around everywhere to place blame on everyone but himself. He would likely have blamed me for being a bad teacher to explain why he was doing poorly in the class.

I believe that the simplest way to measure the worth of a person is to examine how they treat other people. And that is why I cannot for the life of me understand why so many people support Trump. He is insulting, he is derisive, he is dismissive, he is arrogant and unking and selfish. In all of his words and his deeds he proves that he only cares about himself or people who are in the position to do something for himself. He doesn't mind being a burden to other people--he does so without second thought and without any remorse. My student didn't wish to bother me with his problems, so he chose not to inform me of them. When I did reach out to him, he apologized for his behavior and came to see me so we could make a plan for him to improve his performance in my course. He showed me that he's willing to take on his own problems and try to overcome them.

I see myself sometimes exhibiting Trump-like traits and it scares me when I make the realization. I like to be right. I like to be the smartest. It feels good. And I know that's what drives Trump. He likes being the biggest, best, brightest, smartest, tallest, etc. He needs to have the biggest building in NYC. He needs to have the "best words" and the "biggest brain". He needs to be superlative in everything. It's hard for me to admit someone else is right. I've done it a few times recently and it feels physically painful. But it's good for me to do. The other day, I said to a friend "you would know better than I would" and the only reason I didn't choke on the words as I was saying them was because I was typing them rather than speaking them. I don't want to be like that. I don't want to be the one everyone's afraid of contradicting. In many ways I'm not. I don't mind people being faster runners. I don't mind people being better at swimming or biology or physics. I don't mind people reading faster than I do. I don't mind people being taller or thinner or stronger than I am. In many ways I'm okay with being less than the best. And I hope to make progress in the direction of becoming more humble and less self-centered.