Russian "Oligarchs"

Am I the only one questioning why it is that any Russian person with any degree of wealth is continually referred to as an "oligarch"? American mainstream media wasn't doing this constantly prior to Trump's election, so why the change? Also, am I the only one more than tired of this practice?

Russia isn't a new country. Putin isn't new on the scene of Russia politics. Wealthy Russians aren't new. So, again, why does our media spontaneously decide to refer to, apparently, every single wealthy Russian as an "oligarch"?

I submit that the reason is our media knows full well probably over half of American citizens don't know what the word means and won't bother looking it up. I believe that their goal is solely to make Russia look archaic and thus suspicious.

Here's what I mean. According to Merriam-Webster, an oligarch is defined simply as "a member or supporter of an oligarchy." An oligarchy is defined as:

1) government by the few
2) a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes
3) an organization under oligarchic control

Now, if that is the definition of an oligarchy, could it not be argued America is also an oligarchy? We willfully place an incredibly small handful of people to represent us, yes? There are under 500 people in Congress and the White House ruling over 350+ million people? Is that not a government by a few? Is that not a government in which a small group exercises control? Oh, sure, we elect them, but that doesn't change the fact that a small number rule a larger number. There is nothing in the definition of an oligarchy stating the rulers gained or maintained power through coercion. It may well be implied, but it's not explicit. And, let's be honest, it is essentially common knowledge money controls our government and, with that, that control is leveraged for "corrupt and selfish purposes." Sure, sure we don't generally feel it as oppression (mostly), but it's still rule by a few is it not?

And yet... there is our beloved media continually referring to only wealthy Russians as oligarchs. This isn't mere coincidence, guys.

Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imagination

Here's an article about the recent Metropolitan Museum of Art's theme for its fund-raiser. I didn't read the article because I'd already read more than enough of them about the event. The one I posted just happened to be near the top of my search for articles about the event and I decided to share it.

It seems The Met has annual themed fund-raisers and for 2018 they opted for a "Catholic" theme. This, of course, is where it gets stupid. Here's Rhianna's idea for a costume:

As you can surely tell, her getup is "...a mitre and gown inspired by Papal opulence..." See? Right there. "Papal opulence." Now, either I'm crazy or very misinformed, but I simply don't see much regarding Christianity here. Sure, clearly there's something along the lines of Catholicism going on here, but little regarding anything resembling Christianity (of course, I've said that about Catholicism in general for a long, long time).

Had it been up to me, I would've made the fund-raiser a Christian (not, specifically, Catholic) themed event and asked all the attendees to wear anything off-the-rack and, rather than purchasing new, pricey outfits, donate the money they would've spent on an outfit to a charity for the homeless, abused women, an orphanage, etc. Basically, I would've said "Don't make this about you." But who cares about the homeless or orphans when there's a photo-op to be had?

Wah Wah Wah or Bureaucracy for Bureaucracy's Sake?

I stumbled upon this article from MSN. The headline reads: "Nearly all members of National Park Service advisory panel resign in frustration." I, of course, noting the article was from a leftist source and had something to do with Trump and his surely dastardly administration, assumed it was going to be a typical fear-mongering, Trump-hating, SJW "We're all gonna die!" tripe.

Being the pessimistic optimist I am and with the recent news Trump's Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke had recently reversed some of his decisions about off-shore drilling (which I was rather glad he did), I decided I'd best read the article.

I am also aware of the reality that in many cases, bureaucracy exists for the sake of bureaucracy. Consider, for instance, how likely it is any employee would ever make an argument to their employer that the employee is unnecessary. If it ever happens, it won't be on a large scale. Few people intentionally talk themselves out of a job.

The article begins with the plight of the National Park Service advisory panel. The details are stunning. Why, the certainly soulless Zinke "refused to meet with them or convene a single meeting last year." It gets worse... Then we learn "[t]he resignation of nine out of 12 National Park System Advisory Board members leaves the federal government without a functioning body to designate national historic or natural landmarks"! Alright, that's a thing, but... people, we are far from talking about lives on the line. I mean only that perspective matters.

We are then graciously informed by MSN such behavior "...underscores the extent to which federal advisory bodies have become marginalized under the Trump administration." Well... maybe, but isn't that all of one example? That's like saying your kid is definitely going to become the worst of criminals because he was okay with stealing a candy bar at age five.

Oh... but there is more. And the details are juicy to say the least. It seems Zinke once "suspended all outside committees "! Is this guy outta control or what?!? Revolt! Rebel! The possible designation of national or historic or natural landmarks is in peril! Hold on, what's this? He suspended them "while his staff reviewed their composition and work." Well, that actually could be useful. I would think if you're going to run an organization, it would help to fully know what they're about and do.

We learn also former governor of Alaska Tony Knowles, the board chairman who decided to bounce in, I guess, outrage, wrote a stinging letter to Zinke stating: "...our requests to engage have been ignored and the matters on which we wanted to brief the new Department team are clearly not part of its agenda." The letter was signed by eight other frustrated board members all of which were conceivably on their way out anyway (their terms were set to expire in May).

It seems a little late to say this, but to make a long story short, to the discerning reader, what the article basically does is give you the leftist (MSN's target audience) angle but by reporting simply the truth (the Trump/Zinke angle), causes them to produce, as Rush Limbaugh says, "random acts of journalism". For practically every intended shocking nugget, there follows a rather reasonable explanation for why. Reasonable if one is willing to be informed and critical as opposed to simply outraged.

I say that last bit because I believe it to be true a certain side of the current dominant political ideologies in America is far less interested in truth than emotion but also because of the title of this writing. I stopped reading article when I reached this line: "Two of the Bureau of Land Management's 38 resource advisory councils..." Two of only the BLM's thirty-freaking-eight advisory councils!! A single agency has thirty-eight advisory councils?!? To be a "council" you obviously need more than one person. Who even knows how many people are on these councils. Maybe some of the people on some of these councils works for free, but I doubt it's many.

So, yes, one government agency feels it cannot possibly be effective without thirty-eight councils to advise it. That's not encouraging to me. Then I consider that if that one agency has such an insanely high number of advisory councils, what about the other hundreds of government agencies? Why would not they also have as many advisory councils as possible? What incentive do they have to not expand their size and income? Yes, I am italicizing these words for emphasis. On the one hand, there is the sheer number of "advisers". On the other there is the fact these people simply advise. Are they not also the workers on the ground? Not to say they aren't necessary, but shouldn't it be at least desirable to determine they are?

My point is this: It may be true Zinke isn't doing everything completely right or desirable, but it is also true no one is going to talk themselves out of a job (especially not a cushy one). Instead, that person is going to droll on about how necessary their work and thus they are. So, when I hear that a bunch of dudes quit because they feel they aren't being heard and then learn the guy not doing the listening may just be deciding if they need to keep getting paid, I'm not so quick to feel tremendous sympathy for them and automatically demonize their boss.

UPDATE! One day after making this post, I happened to catch former governor of Alaska and former board chairman of the National Park Service advisory panel, Tony Knowles, on NPR discussing the dire situation with Trump. When asked essentially why his team is important his response was that they have made a lot of progress in (let the suspense build for the totally shocking and not at all predictable answer...) "climate change" and "education". Remember, now, the purpose of the National Park Service advisory panel (according to the very article which brings us here) is to ..."designate national historic or natural landmarks". Sure. I can see how "climate change" and some unspecified claim of  "education" might have a bearing on designating stuff.

Like I said: "bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy." From what I can tell, these jackasses just want to keep the money flowing to them for a cake job.

Somali Police Lady Arrested

Here is a very brief summary of the episode.

It is true all of the reporting on this I'm aware of has given simply the charges; the location of the arrest; the venue; and the sex, nationality, and occupation of the offender. It is also true none of the reporting I have heard or seen on this has made any overt implications. No, no trace of "Aha! And therefore... something about immigration generally or immigration for or against certain countries."

None of that anywhere. However, when I realized that my mind had made that connection, I began wondering why, then, this arrest had received even the attention it had.

While always unwelcome and justifiably upsetting, it's hardly unheard of that some cops some times don't act the way a citizen expects them to. Those instances are often reported. Depending on the press-value, they may become national headlines.

Nearly every account of this story I'm aware of begins by mentioning that this is Maine's first Somali police officer. Why? Sure, yes, I can see it in the way that the first black whatever tends to make headlines simply for being the first black whatever. The link I gave to an article about the arrest is from The San Antonio Express-News, a paper based in Texas. Here's one from The Seattle Times in Seattle, Washington.

The arrest was made in Massachusetts. The officer, from Kenya, lived in Maine. Both of those states are in the northeast of the U.S. Why in the world does a relatively minor story like this (no one was killed, right?) make its way to the headlines of papers literally on the other side of the country and parts in-between?

I cannot help but feel that reason is for the purpose of shaping opinion on immigration.

Make no mistake, I support not only true immigration reform because the policy we've been "acting" under for too long has proven grossly ineffective. I'm even a fan of a merit-based system as opposed to a lottery system. I'm cool with all of that.

I'm also well aware of the fact that Somalia has a bad reputation for a reason. And I'm fine enough with that.

What I'm not so cool with is what occurs to me as the implied message that this one officer may very well be evidence that Somalis are or could be problematic. Of course I can't prove that this is the intent of any of the reporting including even the initial local report. Yet, as I mentioned, why would Seattle care what a lone officer of any background does in Massachusetts?

Yeah, yeah, the "information age" and all that, but still. Is it necessary to publish something simply because its available to you? I doubt it. If that were true, we'd be even more inundated with all sorts of drivel and minutia from across the globe.

My thinking on this may be wrong, but until I'm offered a more plausible reason for the reporting, I'm trusting my gut. And for now, that trust leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

God and Science

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. 

- Genesis 2: 19 & 20.

Growing up, I attended several churches though only one with any real degree of regularity. These were generally Baptist and Methodist but, for my point, likely could easily have been practically any Christian denomination. This practice is called church shopping. The purpose is to find a denomination and church where one feels most at home. I would later learn this also served the purpose of having seeds sown in regards to spiritual matters.

At the time, I didn't think much about God or the possibility of such a being nor did I much care. I was a kid and had other things to think about. The idea didn't sound completely horrible and, indeed, sounded better than some others I'd heard for explanations of why and how the earth existed. I essentially just accepted it and went about my business.

Later, in public schools, I would learn about the argument for evolution and the science which supported it. I was fine with the idea but had a bit of difficulty understanding why so many people would subscribe to the thinking that something came from nothing (the one idea which no current science explained). Regardless, I accepted everything after that single event as plausible enough and found myself somewhat on the fence about the origin of the universe.

Later still, I had a conversation with a buddy who was far more knowledgeable about all-things-science than I, and he laid out what was to be the most effective argument against creation I'd heard. His position was simple: How could Noah have gathered all the animals up given they lived in such remote parts of the world and transportation during Noah's time was so primitive? That was all it took. I decided I would be agnostic if not strictly atheistic.

Several experiences and years later, I would become a true Christian. This came, in no small part, thanks to apologists like Ravi Zacharias who would introduce me to the science supporting creation. I would learn about the shape of the universe which eliminates the possibility if our universe expanding and contracting repeatedly providing an endless number of Big Bangs (though this does allow for a single Big Bang). Still, there are some who argue this does not exclude the possibility of "creation" being cyclical because our universe was "created" because two universes collided or a black hole hit what would be ours and, in either scenario, there was an explosion, here we are, and it will all happen again endlessly.

While these ideas are novel enough, they do nothing to explain how or why anything ever happened in the first place. In fact, it makes less sense a universe like ours would exist than if it didn't. Stefan Countryman, a physics PhD student at Columbia University, offers:

"Think of it this way: Imagine a bomb full of sand exploding onto an empty surface—that’s the Big Bang. You would expect a pretty uniform heap of sand after the explosion, but instead, our universe immediately arranged into lots of sand castles seemingly for no reason and with no help, and we don’t really know why. The Big Bang could have (and maybe should have) resulted in a high-entropy mass of uniformly distributed, disorganized stuff. Instead, we’ve got star systems, galaxies, and galactic clusters all linked together with dark voids between them. We have order." 

Was I to believe not only did something come from nothing (which defied science), but also that that something simply happened to organize itself in a sustainable way (which also defies science)?

For all the theories for pre-Big Bang, the one which seems most plausible to me and, I believe, is supported by scripture suggests prior to creation was not a bunch of nothing but was instead a "liquid" state. This theory proposes the liquid prior to the Big Bang crystallized into the "three spatial and one time dimension that we see today." I think it quite possible God's command for light could have been the catalyst causing the crystallization. 

Yet, only recently (due to my poor inconsistent reading of scripture), I read the verse above. This verse could readily explain how Noah, also, was able to see and gather so many animals. And this article about the original shape of our lands provides scientific support for Noah's animal gathering ability. From what I know of scripture and science, I can imagine Continental Drift occurring after the flood.

I'd like to re-visit that conversation with my friend so many years ago. Maybe one day I'll have the chance.

Liberalism

Original post here. All posts here.

I’m a liberal because I don’t think that the status quo can be defended on the merits of its own existence. It needs to be challenged on the grounds of its effectiveness.

I’m a liberal because I also believe that one needs to make ones’ case for change and I don’t believe in change for changes’ sake.

I’m a liberal because I believe that wealth creation via capitalism is fantastic but that doesn’t always translate to wealth distribution.

I’m a liberal because I believe that since we do have a State, it’s function should be for the public good.

I’m a liberal because I believe that State does have a role to play in the creation of public goods.

I’m a liberal because I believe the State should protect the weakest among us and work to raise them up and while I really don’t like paying taxes, I’m willing to fund those efforts.

I’m a liberal because I believe in politics that are informed and transformed with the arrival of information.

I’m a liberal because I believe religious liberty and secular Liberty should not stand against one another.

I’m a liberal because I believe in consequentialist arguments and not deontological ones.

I’m a liberal because sometimes the rules need to be challenged.

I’m a liberal because I reject State Socialism and Communism.

I’m a liberal because I reject the idea that the State is a church or anti-Church.

I’m a liberal because I’m willing to admit when I’m wrong and revise my policy prescriptions with new information.

I’m a liberal because I’m willing to change my mind.

I’m a liberal because I will change my mind.

I’m a liberal because I think leftist and right wingers have serious issues of logic and they need to be fleshed out fully.

I’m a liberal because sometimes there is more than one correct answer.

I’m a liberal because I strive to be free of dogma.

I’m a liberal because I seek to understand.

I’m a liberal because I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I know I don’t have all the answers. None of us do.

I’m a liberal because I recognize that the world is full of shades of gray.

I’m a liberal because I think it’s necessary.

I’m a liberal because choice isn’t always freedom.

I’m a liberal because I will learn from the past but I will not be held hostage by the ideas of dead men.

From these things comes an philosophy and from that comes a political philosophy and ideology.

24

Originally posted by Kevin Minus here.

My co-admin said this:  “In order for libertarians to gain a foothold in congress, we’d have to do two things libertarians generally hate doing. That is learn to play the political game and the art of compromise.”  

I think what he said was right but it needs to be expanded. 

First and foremost, we need to define what we mean by “libertarians”. LP members and ideologically libertarians are not always the same group. In fact, the latter outnumbers the former several times over. 

Let’s assume that we are talking about the LP members for a moment. In order for Libertarians to gain a foothold in congress, Libertarians needs to start with State and Local government positions and build upon those successes. Right now there are currently 143 LP members in office and 39 of those positions are partisan. For some perspective, consider this:  

There are almost 520,000 elected offices in the US. 0.000075% of those positions are claimed by Libertarian Party….. For the LP members, just getting elected to any position would be a victory. Dog catcher, State rep, city council, anything that they can get their hands on. The idea is to get exposure for the party and shift the numbers a big. This will probably take generations of work so I hope they are in it for the long haul…  

So let’s shift for a moment to the “ideological” libertarians. I think sisyphean task is best shown when you had a person like Rand Paul (who wasn’t even libertarian but close) polling at 2-3% throughout his entire time running for POTUS. I said once that Paul wasn’t running for Pastor of the libertarian unification church, I should have been more precise: Paul couldn’t run under the platform of L/libertarian unification even if he wanted to. No one wanted what he was selling.  

This is where my co-admins comments ring true. We do need to play ball with Liberals and Conservatives because they hold almost all of the power. I think our best bet politically is to get elected and start to influence both parties. Outside of the political process, we need more youth outright in order to raise a generation of people who are more likely to vote along *our* ideas (more on this later). If we are trying to win scores of people during POTUS elections, we have already lost. The Party nor the ideologically aligned will never win in this way. The numbers just aren’t on our side.  

The average voter does care about liberty but many do care about safety, who will build the roads, who will feed the poor and who will do xyz. If we approach them with our “The market will provide it” platitude, we will lose many people simply because of entrenchment. Even in places where the “market” is already providing it in some places such as water suppliers (more on this later as well).  

Put a different way, the average voter cares about liberty on their terms, defined by their ideology, their faith their community etc. This is not captured well in Individualism, especially in the Black Community. Liberty is safety and collective safety in the minds of many people. This is not an entirely bad position nor is it something L/libertarians should reject IMO. The critique L/libertarians should have is along the lines of who gets to draw the lines of community. A sort of libertarian communitarianism is what I think, *will* draw many people towards this way of thinking. In other words, we care about you and the people in your community. We want to empower you and your neighbors.  

I think this is the major issue is the LP members and the ideologically aligned libertarians do not want the same thing. I think there are similar goals, and the methods to get towards those goals are similar but there is significant conflict. Assuming he was still running, Rand Paul as a fully actualized libertarian aligned Republicans would be antithetical to the goals of the LP (because the LP and the GOP are competitors). The same goes for any libertarian aligned member of the “Liberty” caucus or any similarly aligned members of the Democratic Party. I think this is important to keep in mind, although not entirely necessary because of the low impact of the LP in politics. Ultimately I believe that the LP should resign attempting to get into federal positions and focus for the next decade on getting elected in State and local positions. I think ideologically aligned libertarians should focus on building coalitions in the existing major parties and inject as much libertarianism as possible into the mix. When those two goals are in conflict, the LP members should defer to the ideologically aligned libertarian in the major party. If there is none, proceed with the campaign process.

Black Conservatives and Black Libertarianism

By Kevin Minus and originally posted here.

First, I think that it is entirely possible to be a Black Conservative without any conflict, if and only if certain precautions are taken and certain mindsets are avoided.  However, there is a certain brand of Black Conservatism that is damaging to the former institution in order to support the latter. Reactionary Black Conservatives (RBC) are people that I dislike the most and people I believe, have the least to offer regarding moving the Black Community forward outside of more outright racist. In my personal experience, anyone who makes an attempt to live the mindset of a Liberal Democrat has the potential of becoming a RBC. I think this happens for several reasons but the main reason is that it takes a level of energy to overcome to Inertia of Liberalism. I think that while intellectualism and its pursuits are a preferred force to overcome inertia, they are far less accessible than what can what powers many over the cliff: hate and anger. While it may be perfectly rational to hate certain things and be angry about other things, left unchecked it can fester then metastasize and become your dominant ideology, without you realizing it. This happened to me in the past when I abandoned the left. I became conservative, latched onto the plentiful hate and eventually became a RBC for a time. It was only after I settled into myself, actually studied a little philosophy and did a self-examination did I realize what had happened and what I needed to change about myself and what I was consuming.

I see RBCs on my Facebook timeline who went down a much darker and deeper path than I, where hate of the left and self-hate commingled in a witches’ brew of ideology, dogma and contrarian fiction.  I see what I was and what I could have become.  I see famous ones, with their gaggles of non-black supporters, who use them as a source of validation, a security blanket and a tool to prevent discussion and analysis.  They are swords and shields. “So and So said this and he is black, therefore” should be prepended to someone of the videos that are shared from certain actors. In future post, I plan this will be elucidated but I think there is an easy test to see what sort of Black Conservative you are dealing with: Look at who makes up their support. The RBCs will almost always be more popular because of the role they play. The more principled Black Conservatives will be called traitors and race baiters and eventually be cast aside as something less Conservative.

One of my goals is to make sure that Black Libertarianism does not have the same relationship to Conservatism has to RBCs. I’ve seen some of the evidence of a similar movement in some of my interactions but I mostly think this is due to the great shadow that Conservatism casts across L/libertarians. It’s important for me personally that Liberty and Libertarianism be something that supports my Blackness and ethnic identity and not something that would cause a false choice.  A multifaceted and modular framework is what I believe the movement must be in order for it to survive in any usable form. I believe that is what Black Libertarians (and all Libertarians) must work towards. That is purpose of this blog. I hope in whatever small way I can, I help make New Liberty.

Thoughts on Jesse Williams

By Kevin Minus and originally posted here.

Maybe this makes me less woke than most but I wasn’t impressed by the Jesse Williams speech. It didn’t move me, I wasn’t inspired and ultimately, I didn’t think too much of it.  

Why? Well that’s twofold:  

0: A speech like that, while provocative, was done in the “safest” possible way possible. It’s the *BET* awards, not the Emmy’s. Racial commentary is almost a requirement whenever we gather for any reason in a post Black Lives Matters world.  

1: The content itself wasn’t fresh to me at all. In fact, I believe I could tag no less than 20 people on my Facebook feed and produce a speech that is similar in message or even more radical. It was measured, it was almost paint by the numbers “woke” commentary.  

The speech wasn’t that interesting but the responses where. White (and black) conservative commentators responded to an apparent attack with vapid retorts. Black commentators responding about how much they love it, while others bringing up colorism and its impact on the situation. This was not just limited to Facebook comments and memes either. It was a real Willie Lynch death spiral, predictable and depressing. Other commentators calling for “unity” and that we should accept “the message” from any source. 
Race is political and skin tone matters in this context.  

What about that message? What *exactly* is the point? Has Black Intelligensia really changed since the 60s or 70s? Where are the market oriented solutions? Even when talking about the market, race lathers, always in the foreground.  

I wish Jesse had said, look, go move your money to this bank or buy X product from this seller because they support the community. That, would have been evolutionary to me, but it also may have pissed off the advertisers.  

Stacey Dash called Jesse Williams a “Hollywood Plantation slave.” She wasn’t entirely wrong in one sense. Of course, since she is a right wing Conservative plantation slave, she has no room to talk. The free are those who absolutely control their own destiny or have relinquished the need to control said destiny. I doubt either of them meet either requirement. 

The next time a famous black person gets a platform and wants to talk about revolution, I want to hear about some stock tips or investment advise at scale. Give me some information to reduce my debt. Tell me how I can be healthier or how I can reduce stress in my life. Tell me how to start a sustainable business or double my income. I need help with my real problems, I don’t need a rallying cry to fight for progressive values. At some point, the (r)evolution must be commodified and turned into a usable product. I look forward to that day.