Five Stages Of Progressive Grief

Sometimes it’s enjoyable to sit and think. Today, not least because it’s the last snowy day of the year and it’s comfortable to sit, safe and warm inside, and enjoy the precipitation outside.

While sitting my mind wandered around to the subject of grief and so before it wandered off again it seemed reasonable to jot a few thoughts down.

What started it was thinking about how quickly progressives have turned from believing that the Mueller report would finally provide them with the evidence needed to impeach Donald Trump and remove him from office in favor of Vice President Mike Pence and must be accepted as gospel, to claiming that the investigation was a sham and demanding that they not only receive the work product of the Special Counsel, but also all of the materials that went into its making. From demanding that republicans accept the conclusions of the report to loudly proclaiming that the conclusions of the report announced in the Attorney General’s four page letter stating the report’s principle conclusions can’t be trusted and that the public must have all of the materials in order that the matter be tried in the court of public opinion. Of course, the latter isn’t what they say, but that’s clearly their intention.

It got me to thinking about the five stages of grief. As promulgated by Ms. Kubler Ross those stages are Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance. There is a modified version of the grouping that includes Shock at the beginning of the series and Testing between Depression and Acceptance that implies some rational thought in the later stages of the process, so that might not be applicable in this situation. But it seems to apply easily not only to the progressive reaction to the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, but also to the release of the Mueller report even though that report hasn’t been seen as yet. And anyway, it hardly matters what the report does say, as everyone already knows what it doesn’t say and that’s what’s causing all of the emotional distress. So the devoted are now transitioning from Anger into Bargaining. Chairman Nadler is trying to Bargain for some snippet of information he can use to fulfill his publicly stated promise to impeach the President made just after the 2018 elections. But the courts will leave them unsatisfied, and at some point it seems logical to think that they will have to move on to Depression and then Testing a way forward into Acceptance. But if the past is prologue this will not be the case, partly because of the progressive mindset, and partly because of our perpetual election cycle.

A more applicable version of the grief progression series is that every stage is Anger, and given the election year shocks of the Trump election and the Mueller Report, one can possibly have some sympathy.

Anyway, it’s interesting to see them twisting. The anticipation heightened by the soon to be released Department of Justice Inspector General reports regarding conduct of DoJ personnel in the run-up to the 2016 election.

But that’s just what an average guy thinks

The Bill Of Rights For Your Pleasure

The Bill Of Rights For Your Pleasure

1. The right to freedom of speech, religion and press.
2. The right to keep and bear arms.
3. The right to refuse quarters to soldiers.
4. Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
5. The right to due process under the law Freedom from self-incrimination, and double jeopardy.
6. The right to a speedy trial.
7. The right to a jury trial in civil cases.
8. Freedom from excessive bail, and cruel and unusual punishment.
9. Other rights of the government enumerated in the Constitution, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people.
10. All powers not explicitly given the federal government revert to the states.

These are, of course, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, often referred to as the Bill Of Rights of The United States Of America. Some of the framers of the Constitution believed that the document itself spelled these things out clearly enough in the seven Articles of the body, but there were others, more skeptical suspicious of a creeping power hungry bureaucracy, who insisted on an explicit addition of the things they thought fundamental to insure liberty to its citizens, and prosperity to the nation.

Look down through them again. It’s an admirable list of just about everything a free person could ask for when coupled with the body of the document. Most state Constitutions are similar. These are the rights that each of us has just for being alive and resident in the United States of America and none of them costs anyone a single dime. My right to speak freely costs you nothing, just as yours costs me nothing. That is not to say that freedom is free. There are times when these rights must be defended, sometimes by the force of arms, but this is something we do together, a gift that we give to one another and to our children.

But now there is talk of adding to the list, of making “healthcare” for every single resident of the nation a “right”. Of course this is just the compassionate bleat du jour. We also hear of free college as a right. A right to a job. A right to “affordable” housing. A right to a dignified minimum level of income. But today the call is for a right to healthcare because people are particularly tuned into it at the moment and easily misled. The details of the system are easily concealed from an ill-informed public by a left leaning media establishment. But I digress.

The point that I had meant to make was that none of the original “Rights” costs anyone anything. It doesn’t cost the government and/or my fellow citizens a penny to supply me with my freedom to speak or any other of the freedoms listed. But if healthcare, or college, or housing, or good tasting water, or income are considered to be my right which must be guaranteed by the government then the government is obligated to forcefully take the money from my fellow citizens to provide it to me.

Look away from the cost of Medicare for all as a right for just a moment and think about the implication. Is it the government’s responsibility to provide for a person’s birth, sustenance, education, employment, and retirement? And will the cost and tax structure be so high and restrictive that it disincentivizes achievement? Can we afford to discourage accomplishment?

And how will these things become Rights? In the recent past, and in a present that nearly became reality, it may have been possible for proponents to have argued in front of a sympathetic Supreme Court that this was the essence of America and they may have gotten a ruling that “yes, this comports with the Commerce Clause”. They may have made it the law of the land out of thin air with no heed to the language of the Constitution as they have other things, but this scenario seems unlikely at present, and for a few decades into the future. Now, the matters will require Constitutional amendments that will not be forthcoming, or they will have to be legislated, and they simply will not be. Experienced legislators know this. There just isn’t the money, even if the rich are butchered as the Kulaks were in the Soviet Union and their possessions and "wealth" confiscated.

So what you see today in the call for new Rights isn’t about new rights, it’s about expanding the size and scope of government.

But that’s just what an average guy thinks.

American Totalitarians

Google is the face of totalitarianism in the United States. They are collaborating with the Chinese government on the implementation of their “social credit” system that collects data on what people read, what web sites they visit, who they talk too, what programs they watch and listen too, what products they use, where they go, deduces what they think and doles out social rewards in the form of privileges and punishments in the form of housing, travel, product purchasing, and other social restrictions.

It has been written that Google is being coerced into this arrangement so that they can get a share of the market in China, but this strikes me as piffle. This is Googles MO. They need a practice field on which to develop the expertise necessary to control a large population without the force of arms. As it is now, they only control what you see on line. Soon enough the controls will be more sinsiter.

Google claims to be the champion of diversity, but this a cruel hoax. If they did value diversity they wouldn’t have shunned and then fired James Damore, who shared their desire for gender diversity, but only suggested that they take another look at how to go about achieving the goal. Instead of welcoming the diversity represented by his input, they called him science denier, accused him of hate speech, and gave him the old heave ho.

As Google learns more about you, and gains more hungry and corrupt friends in government, don’t be surprised when like Harrison Bergeron you start to hear loud noises in your head every time you come near having a coherent thought.

But that’s just what an average guy thinks.

Obama’s Economy

Recently former president Barack 0bama has been on the campaign trail trying to take credit for the current economy claiming most of the credit for the currently booming economy. I would point out that improving the economy never seemed to be Barack 0bama’s goal. In support of that claim I would point out 0bama’s 2008 pre-election brag that his carbon plan would cause utility rates to skyrocket. Who would that benefit? Would it benefit the lower and middle classes? No. Would it benefit utilities? No, all of the money would be passed to the government as tax. In the same interview he bragged that his policies would bankrupt any utility that wanted to take advantage of new clean burning coal technologies that the federal government has been financing research on for decades. His Energy Secretary mused publicly that he wished we could have $8/gallon gasoline like they do in Europe. Who would that benefit? Would it benefit the lower and middle classes? No. Would it benefit oil companies? No, all of the money would be passed to the government as tax where it could be redistributed to favored industries unable to find traction in a free market.

In the attempt to hold oil and gas exploration and thus development and production down in order to limit consumption he limited exploration on federal lands.

His “Cash for Clunkers” program was said to get old cars off the road, but further examination revealed that the production of a new car uses more energy than is saved by taking an older car off the road. In addition to the fuel inefficiency of the program it lured over a half million people into increased consumer debt. Who benefited from that? Did the lower and middle classes who now had increased financial obligations for years benefit? No. Did taxpayers who financed the program benefit? No. Did the big auto lenders? Yes. Did the automakers and the United Automakers Union benefit? By $3 Billion.

The single best indicator of a nations standard of living is it’s per capita energy consumption and Barack 0bama did everything he possible could for eight years to reduce America’s standard of living. It was only the advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing that prevented it.

And now Barack 0bama is claiming that his policies resulted it economy that we feel, and see today. All I can say about that is that the man has a lot of damned nerve.

But that’s just what an average guy thinks.