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

Quick Thought: The Democratic Debate, Part 1

As King Theodoen said as the Battle of Helms Deep kicked off "So it begins." Last night was the first of the Democratic Party primary debates, and as far as debates go, it was rather mild. Much of it was the same emotionally filled rhetoric we hear throughout the elections, a tug on the heart strings with domestic policy that are really the prevue of Congress. However, to step aside from my usual cynicism, lets looks a few highlights of this debate.

One of the few brights for me, surprisingly, was Senator Cory Booker, who when asked about the guns & shootings in this country, took an approach more that was more trying to get to the root of the issue, rather than than simply banning. There honestly needs to be a more pragmatic approach that analyzes the issue, just as we try to solve any problem.

Another highlight was Representative Tulsi Gabbard and her anti-war position, an opinion that seems to be more often heard coming from libertarians and far leftists like Senator Bernie Sanders. Americans need to come to grips with the fact that we've been at war since 2001, that's nearly Two decades of war in multiple Middle-Eastern and North African countries. It should also be noted that we haven't "Declared War" since 1942 against Hungry (a member of the Axis powers during WWII), and yet the Korean War, Vietnam War, Iraq War, ect. have all happened since then, something to think about.

One last highlight to glance upon is the healthcare debate, which focused on the slipt between a single-payer government run system, or allowing for people to keep their private insurance as well. I personally prefer the latter, giving people the option is fundamentally better as it allows for more freedom on health issues. Plus, with a government system in place, it could force private insurance companies to be more competitive and offer more customizable plans, as well as insure that people get the care they need.

So that's my take away from last nights debate, and now we move on to the second debate, the real heavy hitters, Bernie, Biden, and Harris going to face to face. This will be a far more interesting debate as go across the Democratic Party spectrum, from moderate and centrist, too the extreme far left, grab your popcorn as the real show is about to begin.

Quick Thought: Star Trek Off the Rails

In the second season of Star Trek Discovery is becoming more and more of a strain to watch with each passing episode. I could write page after page discussing each canonical issue, with the most glaring being the "Klingons" and "Section 31", but there's more to this than a lack of adherence to canon (which as always been somewhat dubious). The issue is that the show is feeling more like high budget Fan Fiction than an actual true continuation of the franchise.

One item I would like to point out is that one can criticize a piece of media without out right hating it. I don't hate Discovery, however it's flaws are far more glaring than pervious incarnations of the franchise. Liking a show, game, movie, ect.. simply for it being part of a series you like, is not a good way of thinking, nor is attacking those who criticize said media.

While the second season started out stronger than the opening to the first, slowly this series has turned into a disjointed mess. The focus of the season was be on an entity called "The Red Angel" and it's connection to Spock, and some possible doom the galaxy is facing. However, this plot thread has been usurped a half an episode "Klingon" arch, a "Section 31" arch, a story about a giant sphere with a lot of knowledge, a haphazardly quick arch about Saru's species, and a bizarre arch involving Tilly, the fungal network, and the resurrection of Dr. Hugh Culber.

I'm not going to in to massive levels detail, but when I say "disjointed" and "haphazard" it feels like the writers are chopping semi-fleshed out stories and ramming them into an episode. The one arch involving Tilly, the Network, and Dr. Culber, is the worst culprit, it barely even makes sense, a series of disconnected events, each triggering the next, without any more of explanation. It also makes the Fungal Network a mcguffin that can resurrect any character, regardless if their death isn't connected to it.

These are reasons why I said earlier that this season feels like high budget fan fiction, instead of drama there is conviencence. There are no rules, and while I might be a bit hypocritical for saying that, the previous series skirted the rules at times when the writers needed ways to resolve the plot, this show just doesn't care. This feeling of fan fiction isn't helped by the over dramatics every time "Starfleet" principles are mentioned and the dramatic music plays, people stand, and the scene goes into slow motion.

Again, I don't hate Discovery, but is it a disappointment; indeed it is. This not a show for the fans of the Rondenberry & Berman eras, this is a Star Trek for the masses, this is a Star Trek for the sake of Star Trek. The themes and ideas of Star Trek are there, but without the depth that gave them meaning and purpose. The series Rodenberry envisioned was not a perfect picture of the future, but one that was hopeful, we'll stumble and make mistakes, and humanity will face it's own demons and overcome them. In conclusion, take my opinions here as see fit, go watch the show and decide for self and decide if it's worthy of the name "Star Trek".