The Death of Ashli Babbitt: Martyr, Traitor, or Victim

 

            Let me open this with the first stanza of the 1988 song “Cult of Personality” by the band Living Colour:

 

Look in my eyes, what do you see?
The cult of personality
I know your anger, I know your dreams
I've been everything you want to be
I'm the cult of personality
Like Mussolini and Kennedy
I'm the cult of personality
The cult of personality
The cult of personality

 

            On January 6^th, 2021, Ashli Babbitt was shot and killed by Lt Michael Byrd of the capital police, trying to storm the Capital building to overturn the election of President Joe Biden. Mrs. Babbitt was a supporter of former President Donald Trump, who likely now hold the title of the most controversial President ever elected to that office. The question now rages, was she a Martyr, Traitor, or Victim?

 

The election of Trump in 2016 was no ordinary election, nor were the four years that followed an ordinary Presidency; with lightning speed, Democrats and frustrated Republicans sought to do everything in their power to remove him, resulting in two failed impeachments, and the media moved with lightspeed, first to spew doom saying and then to eviscerate him, a bombing campaign that would make Sir Arthur “Bomber” Harris blush.

 

            To quote the father of physics, Sir Isaac Newton, “Everybody continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.”

 

            Amid the chaos and ensuing political and media war that followed, the average American became the victim in his moronic conflict. Some picked sides, while others picked apathy. Ashli Babbitt chose a side, an unwavering support for the cult of personality woven around Trump. A cult built through years by him as a TV personality, and conservative frustration brought on by an increasing partisan dupoloy. A cult pushed to the brink over 4 years by media political attacks (recall that Newton quote?).

 

            To simplify, the old physics adage “every action has an opposite but equal reaction”. And not that I am justifying the actions of the mod of idiots that attempted to sack the Capital Building, but it was a reaction to 4 years of fire and anger.

 

Mrs. Babbitt is neither a traitor nor a martyr, but a victim of a political state redesigned to put everyone at each other’ throats, rather than find common ground. A state where people’s political affiliations is seemingly more important than our identity as American, even if the parties frame loyalty to them as “patriotic”. And that framing has led to leaders on the left praising her death as justice, then tragedy it is, while trying to elevate Biden as a new cult to follow; as the song says, “Like Mussolini and Kennedy”.

 

Finally, as they raise Lt Michael Byrd, the officer who shot Ashli Babbit, to status of a hero of the Republic, even though he was doing the duty he was paid and sworn to do; remember, the people he was protecting, Republican and Democrat, are the one who caused they’re fateful meeting that January. They are the cult leaders who push us and watch us tear at each other for their amusement.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xxgRUyzgs0

 

 

Quick Thought: Online Brawls

Despite Trump’s efforts to overturn the results, the election is essentially over, however what is not over is the bile spewed upon the online forums of Facebook and Twitter. While the hellish and senseless arguments have subsided somewhat since November 2nd, we’ve only entered a new phase of keyboard warriors, politicians, and scholars arguing their points. It will be just as vicious, and just as moronic, and I should know, I’m one of those bringing their voice to the ravenous online forum.

The main reason I write this article to reflect on two incidents, two arguments, that I recently got myself into. One criticizing the media sensationalizing Biden’s character, and the other criticizing his cabinet choices, both of which initiated in heated frustration with the adulation of Bidens reported victory. I’m no Trump supporter, just to clarify, but I find it necessary to criticize Biden as his record is far from stellar (more on that in a later article).

While both conversations started kindly enough, they eventually fell into heated attacks that pushed my agitation level to a breaking point. The first wound up with me idiotically bashing local political groups. The last one triggering me to finally make a post that got me suspended from Twitter for better part of a day; though I later apologized and was able to end the discussion on a friendly note.

The point I’m trying to make here, and not discouraging anyone from engaging into keyboard sparring, we should never stop discussing the political issues of our time, not matter who you are, it’s how our Republic will remain a vibrant place of discussion. What I want people to take away from this is to not let the bile overwhelm you. Despite your desire to last out viciously at someone who attacks your character or misconstrues your words to validate their point; take a lesson from President Lincoln, write your angry letter, then throw it away.

 

A Re-Introduction for 2020

We’re about half through 2020 and it still feels as if the joy and hope of a new year was only few weeks ago. In that time, we nearly saw the start of WW3, an impeachment, massive fires in Australia, a global pandemic, “murder hornets” coming to America, and massive civil over the death of George Floyd. Yellowstone exploding or an alien invasion would just seem par for the course in this year’s chaos. Also, forgot to mention, an election between Donald Trump, one of the most controversial and narcissistic Presidents in American history, and former Vice-President Joe Biden, an aging political insider with an odd fetish for sniffing hair.

In all this chaos, I have neglected my duty to this blog, it’s all just been extremely overwhelming. So once again, welcome to the Mental Rambler, where I post articles on a wide variety of topics, including politics, entertainment, history, technology, ect… My posts may be sporadic, but I will do best to keep them coming as frequently as I can, I encourage you to come back, check for new posts, and freely look through the archive of older articles.

Also, feel free to debate, I highly encourage discussion and political discourse, they are part of the foundation of a free society. However, insults of any kind will not be tolerated, keep your comments civil or they will be deleted. No one should feel alienated for their political or personal beliefs, and our inability to have such tolerance is part of the issue that is tearing this country apart. Though if your political and personal beliefs encourage the alienation of another group, that also will not be tolerated.

Again, I welcome to the Mental Ramber!

Quick Thought: We never look inward

Last week we were face with two shootings, one in Dayton, Ohio and one in El Paso, Texas with a combined total of roughly 30 dead. The tragedy of this event is hard to put into words, two shootings back to back in the same weekend. The question I always ask myself after these is "why?" Unfortunately, this often the question that often gets thrown aside in favor of the knee-jerk reactions that sprout after these disasters.

The last few mass shootings across the world have targeted minorities, spurring the cause of these tragedies as "white supremacy". It's a start in the right direction, now we need to start asking ourselves why there is a rise in this kind of racism and prejudice. It may lead us to asking questions about current society and culture, hard questions we need to address; however, these questions that are almost universally avoided.

We hate to look inward as a society because we might like what we see, an ugly face looking back at us, push those demons as far away as we can. Instead we blame gun, and now for some reason, video games; and media (music, movies, games, books, ect...) has always been one of the easiest targets, despite being around for centuries. Ban or restrict one of those items, pat yourself on the back with a job well done, you might even get a statistical decrease in violence; but does it really solve the problem?

Rand Paul's Blunder?

            A few weeks ago, on the floor of Congress, the bill extending healthcare to 9/11 First Responders was to be voted on. The Senator from New York asked for a unanimous vote, however, Senator Rand Paul (Kentucky) asked for an amendment to offset costs. Considering this would be a fund that would continue for nearly a century, discussing what can be done to offset it seems like a logical idea; and it would be if politics weren’t completely dominated by emotional uproar.

            Senator Paul’s suggestion for an amendment to offset the costs quickly exploded into a fire storm of anger and disgust. Though one would agree that perhaps now wasn’t the time to bring up this subject, considering the controversial nature that surrounds it, especially after Jon Stewart’s fiery rant in front of Congress and the death of the 9/11 first responder who joined; but that doesn’t make it anti-American or hate filled idea. Well not according to twitter where the tag “#RandPaulHatesAmerica” is trending, being roasted by throngs of reactionary people.

            This goes into issues with Politics in the age of Social Media, instead of a more thoughtful process of reviewing what happened, it is easier to simply react than to think and especially to join the crowd that has already grabbed their pitch forks. A sheepish mentality wrapped in the white cloak of moral self-righteousness with a pat on the back from the elites.  It is an age-old model in the history of political discourse, and so easily used to galvanize people against the other side.

            Rand Paul’s record isn’t perfect, the controversial Tax Cuts he voted for in 2017 and the increase in military spending in 2016 are a few blemishes on his record. Though the Tax Cut Bill, he voted in favor while a provision known as “Pay-Go” (info linked below) was in the bill, and later removed in a subsequent bill. This little detail is often left out, skewing his image and pushing a narrative of him as a servant of billionaires; recent Twitter trends have even tried to push the idea that he is a Russian asset in our modern version of “McCarthyism”.

Most of his record, however, shows him as a defender of Constitutional Rights, ant-war and interventionalism, and a fiscal conservative who has given numerous rants on the wasteful spending by Congress. When Jon Stewart says Sen. Paul is hated by other members Congress, this is the reason why, he is one who actively stands against waste, and stands for our rights.

            On a final note, the central part of this narrative is that Senator Paul “Blocked” the bill, he didn’t, and this where I have to discuss how language is best weapon of them all. Headlines after this story broke should have read “Rand Paul seeks to add spending Amendment to 9/11 bill”; however, that’s not sexy enough, it’s sensational. Using the word “Block” is enough to stir up controversy and increase click count. And while the press has the right to use such language, it’s dishonest and clouds the truth that they say they so profoundly defend.

Links

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/453647-jon-stewart-rips-into-rand-paul-after-he-blocks-9-11-victim-compensation-fund

https://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanellis/2017/10/04/rand-pauls-giant-tax-cut-misunderstanding/#79fa70a44219

https://reason.com/2019/07/18/rand-paul-was-right-to-delay-vote-on-funding-bill-for-9-11-first-responders/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl0QlU99bik&feature=youtu.be

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO

Historical Definition

The easiest comeback in our current political lingo is to call someone or a group, Nazis, I don’t think I need to much more detail. Recently, Senator Ocasio-Cortez referred to the Customs and Border Patrol camps at the U.S. – Mexican border as Concentration Camps. While the dictionary definition may simply be a place where a large amount of people are concentrated in a single area, it’s the historical definition that matters here, that these camps are being equated to the Nazi death camps operated by the SS during World War 2.

Not only is calling your opponent a “Nazi” an easy insult, it’s also the easiest way to widen the political divide. In order to solve these issues, we need to be willing to come together and access the problem with clear minds. Taking self-righteous stands does nothing but perpetuate the “us vs them” mentality and listening becomes ancient history. Very little will be accomplished with this, political rhetoric gets harsher and Congress will suffer nothing but gridlock as the blame game becomes the norm over debates.

The statement from the Holocaust Memorial Museum (linked below) provides an exceptionally good reason why these analogies are not healthy for our already polarized society. And while I do respect Sen. Ocasio-Cortez’s efforts to rectify the horrible situation at the border, she might find herself with more enemies than allies. Rhetoric that is self-righteous and tries to shame the other side does little more than harden their resolve.

The situation with our southern goes back as far as I can remember, and I started following politics under Pres. George W. Bush’s administration. The continuous banter has resulted with little to no change at all. How a subject so simple as policing our own border had become such divisive and even a racially driven topic is beyond me. If we could affirm that illegal immigration is “illegal” and that immigration is the life blood of the United States, we could move on to streamlining of immigration system. Instead it remains an underfunded bureaucratic nightmare simply remain a political talking point that will never be fixed.

I’ll conclude here with a quick explanation on the concept of his “Historical Perspective”. It is this method in which we study history without imposing the views of our time on events and people of the past, it helps create context. And it is with that context we can take lessons from, so that we understand people and events within their own timeframe and hopefully not repeat the same mistakes. This is a concept that is often ignored, often producing revisionist history (a subject for another time) and creating erroneous comparisons.

https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/why-holocaust-analogies-are-dangerous

https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/statement-regarding-the-museums-position-on-holocaust-analogies

Quick Thought: The Democratic Debate, Part 2

How can I describe the second Democratic debate? I could call it a debate, but I would call it more of a brawl then a debate, which at least led to some variation. That variation can divided in three ways, Bernie and socialism, Biden and the legacy of Obama, and Democratic rhetoric for the rest. There were a couple times I even our right laughed during this debate, so let us delve into a few highlights.

Probably the most amusing part was Senator Kamala Harris not wanting this debate to become a "food fight". A noble sentiment, we all want a debate thats civil and remains on topic, a debate that is clear an concise, but obviously that is not going to happen and its more soundbite material to make her look more moderate and appealing. Of course, that's not hard standing next to Senator Bernie Sanders who pushes a socialistic agenda.

Speaking Sen. Sanders, I agree with him on his stance on ending the continuous and endless wars we've been in for close to two decades, reigning in the President's war powers, and making the President go to Congress to authorize military force. However, when it comes to Health Care, not only do I disagree with his position, he comes out with completely no plan on how to implement his single-payer, government run system. The other candidates suggested plans phasing private health insurance or allowing for both, Bernie meanwhile would rely on people turning against their private health insurance in some form of revolution, basically a hallow plan that relies on an honor system.

Former Vice-President Joe Biden, despite being the front runner and likely their best bet to beat Trump, came off looking like a tried politician with little to nothing other than "I was Obama's VP". Standing on someone else's record is not a good strategy, it doesn't build confidence that you can do a good job without that other person being there. If he can focus on his record in Congress and ability to work across the aisle (as well as trying to gracefully confront some of the "racial" aspects of it), perhaps that can help him, along with his more charming personality.

Also, lets not forget the most bizare points of this debate, Andrew Yang's plan to given everyone a $1000 a month, a plan that has no basis in reality and will never make it past Congress. And Marianne Williamson, who will defeat Trump with love and will call New Zealand to tell them... their cool...

Aside from those point, most of the debate was the same echos we heard in the first debate, calls for gun control, we need to fight climate change, ect... They're all playing it safe, while some like Sanders stand out with his more radical views, they'll play to the base and not go so far that they jeopardize there candidacy. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says that appeasing the "dude in the diner" is sacrificing the electorate, what fails to understand is that Trump won appealing to that "dude", because he or she is the electorate.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287166468