As I listen to and observe various news stories (that I assume are accurate) lately, I wonder whether I have gone mad. My misfortune seems to be that I am rational, reasoning, reflective, and as much as possible intellectually honest, which seems to pass as a mental disorder—or, at least, a rare anomaly—these days.
I read that Jussie Smollett’s fairy godmother, Cook County state’s attorney Kim Foxx, has declared that her office will not prosecute as a felony shoplifting valued at less than $1,000 in goods. Doesn’t that mean that shoplifters can just make multiple trips and wink at the store security staff on the way out? Since when did shoplifting become a lucrative job with minimal risk?
Where is the outrage? What am I missing?
Then I try to follow the entire impeachment exercise and really scratch my head. The only actual facts seem to be that lethal military aid to Ukraine, which was withheld completely during the Obama years, was delayed by a few weeks this summer; that President Trump mentioned a desire to see Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, investigated to determine if corruption was involved in Hunter’s inexplicable (other than influence peddling) job at Burisma; and that the aid flowed and the investigation never happened. Records of all the actual communications with Ukraine seem to be available.
Instead, all I get is debate about internal discussions which may or may not show any actionable nexus between the minimal delay and the non-investigation, and endless speculation and opinions about who intended what. No Democrat seems willing even to acknowledge that Hunter Biden obviously profited from his name and may well have delivered favorable treatment to his employers, and not just in Ukraine. Corruption is corruption, regardless of whether a political rival is involved in it or whether it falls within the bounds of the law.
Then there is the totally absurd allegation that using one’s office for one’s own political (as opposed to financial) benefit is somehow shocking. Find me a politician who doesn’t do that, whether to influence an appropriation, a policy, or to virtue-signal.
Call me crazy, but whether President Trump was impolitic to mention Biden verbally just doesn’t mean much, because no material amount of leverage was ever employed, and the purpose on his part was purely political in any case. And the Democrats just ignore actual meddling with an opponent in 2016 through the Steele dossier they funded.
What am I missing?
Or why was everybody in power willing to look the other way when it came to the Clinton Foundation? It raised hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign interests and channeled only about 10 percent of it to real charities. And some of those causes, like relief in Haiti, were routed to benefit friends of the Clintons. Clearly, nobody wanted to really make a stink because Hillary Clinton was supposed to be elected president. But notice how donations have virtually disappeared since the election.
Why wasn’t that the very definition of corruption? Why is it not pursued now that the threat of retaliation for investigation has diminished. What am I missing?
Then comes a Sunday article in the New York Times that points out suggestively that although there are many black NFL players, there are a smaller number of black quarterbacks, an even smaller number of black coaches, and no black owners. The implication is that the players are being used. Seems to me plenty of these players make a real bundle of cash and that has no pattern of racial bias.
But no black owners? It takes well over $1 billion in equity to buy a team (you can’t borrow more than 20 percent, which logically preserves the stability of franchises). It may not even be a good investment these days because there just aren’t that many people who will pay the $2-3 billion necessary to make the investment appreciation upon sale attractive. Cash flow is not great, a few percent on the cost.
Is it somehow the NFL’s responsibility to create black billionaires and compel them to make such an investment? Why should anybody feel even the most minimal outrage? What am I missing?
Oh, and then there are the climate apocalypse prophets like Greta Thunberg and the Green New Deal crowd. There is a big difference between denying climate change (I don’t) and disbelieving dire models that have never been accurate and impact assessments that make no sense whatsoever. The models simply cannot take into account all the confounding factors that fatally compromise them.
Why am I beset with completely unrealistic and misdirected proposals for programs that wouldn’t matter even if they could be put in place? The hype for silly pipe dreams just deflects attention from the mix of feasible mitigation strategies (e.g. planting massive numbers of trees) coupled with innovative coping mechanisms (e.g. sea walls). What am I missing?
Then I am bombarded with the dangers of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the virtues of organic products. I know the reality is the exact opposite. GMOs hold enormous opportunities for productivity, nutrition, and ecological benefits, including a reduction in pesticides and water use. Organics are wasteful of water and arable land, have no nutritional advantages, do not reduce the use of carcinogenic substances (contrary to the propaganda), and cost more. What am I missing?
Bottom line: far too many of us are dismissed, or even disdained, for having logical minds, rejecting junk science, and having a semblance of intellectual honesty because those things do not fit the dogma of the progressives and the pecuniary interests of their boosters. This mob dominates both social media and mainstream media. They seek to impose their ideology and version of reality and destroy dissent. And numerous self-interested companies and groups jump on the bandwagon, failing to see that their limited benefits are sowing the seeds of the tyranny of the Left.
Well, I am not buying. I’m not the crazy one. The people who dispense with reason and truth are the problem, and I won’t stop calling them out.