Build that wall?

Every week or so the pundits in the media find something else to shriek about.  Over the last couple of months it's been the North Korea summit, the NATO meeting, the meeting with Vladimir Putin and now the threat to shut down the government if there is no funding for the wall.  It's like watching Groundhog Day.  You would think the hosts and pundits were reliving every controversy as if it was their first.  There is no acknowledgement that they have seen how this plays out.     

Look, here's how it works.  President Trump goes in hard and says things that shock the DC establishment.  Recently,  there was a hue and cry over the threat to shut the government down if an immigration deal doesn't come to pass.  This is an interesting example because a majority of Americans public believe that illegal immigration is an issue that should be fixed.  80% of Americans want a secure border and 54% want some kind of physical barrier based on a recent Harvard Harris poll.  Building a wall is a commonsense answer.  Just ask Mark Zuckerberg or President Obama. They have nice walls around their homes.   The elites are well aware that walls are an effective way to keep people out and provide needed security.  

Interestingly,  the very people who live behind the security that walls provide are loath to provide the same security to the the cititzens of the United States.  It's anathema to both the Republicans who want the cheap labor and the Democrats who want the future voters.  However, the will of the people is clear as the polls show.  Americans want better controls on immigration. Donald Trump was elected on a few specific issues.  The biggest was the promise to build a wall.  The odd part of the immigration debate is that an illegal act: crossing into another country without proper authorization is treated as an act of heroism.  

We hear from the Democrats that these are refugees fleeing horrible conditions in their own countries.  And that is true in some cases.  The highest murder rates in the world are in Central America.  It's a mess and has been a for a long time.  The countries have suffered from poor leadership and a tiny group of people who have profited from the political situation.  It's not a problem that is easily solvable.  There are nearly 43 million people in Central America.  Mexico has roughly 128 million people. Simply migrating the entire population of the region to the United States isn't in the cards.

Think of our policy in the middle east.  We have spent TRILLIONS on destroying and then rebuilding countries like Afghanistan and Iraq.  The goal was to remove a dictator who fell afoul of US foreign policy in Iraq or to stamp out radical Islamist forces in Afghanistan.  These countries are thousands of miles away.  Afghanistan isn't a country that will be redeveloped to western standards in my lifetime. Iraq is a sectarian disaster currently with the Shia, Sunnis and the Kurds fighting it out. Yet, countries that are close enough for people to literally walk to the United States are seemingly forgotten. 

Perhaps instead of focusing on far away places we should focus closer to home.  Mexico is one of our biggest trading partners and has enormous potential.  Yet, it is a country beset by crime on a scale that we simple can't imagine.  The journalists brave enough to report on the cartel violence have been killed and the others who value their life have been paid off.  The same goes for their politicians. If you are presented with the option of truth telling and being assassinated the safe bet is to opt for safety.  Most of us would.   

Most of those who emigrate from Central America would prefer to stay in their home country.  Generally, there are a few individuals who are bold enough to move to a country with a different culture and language.  Because of the nature of this type of move it's anomalous.  It takes a brave and hearty person to upend their entire life and go someplace new and different.  The simple fact that so many people are willing to make this tremendous transition indicates extremely troubling times in their home countries.  The question is what can we do to help or can we help at all?

Americans are a giving people.  We have a generous spirit and are accepting of peoples from all across the globe who want to participate in the American experiment.  We are also believers in fairness and equality under the law.  The main problem Americans have with illegal immigration is the fact that it is illegal.  It's much less about the ethnicity that the open borders folks would have you believe.   Most of the people on the Trump side are FOR immigration.  What we do want is a systematized, orderly process for bringing in the people that we need.  As a country it should be our needs that hold priority.  There are billions of people who are impoverished and millions who live in war torn areas across the globe.  We simply can't accept them all.  There is such a thing as the accident of your birth place.  It's a shame, but a reality that won't change.

That the elites are fighting the will of the American people is interesting.  We see all of our supposed betters lecturing us on why we are morally deficient.  But we live in a republic.  The will of the people is expressed through our elected representatives.  Ultimately, the question is whose will are they going to represent?  Will it be the multinational corporations and the chamber of commerce who donate heavily to the Republican party?  Will it be the elites of the Democrat party who believe that their path to power is based on the explosive growth demographics of the new immigrants?  Or will it be the American people who love all people, but who know that OUR benefit should be the first consideration.  Time will tell. 

 

 

 

Fake news fact checking

Recently, we've seen the controversy with Facebook and Twitter in their quest to eliminate  "fake news".   These big platforms are currently working to separate out the "legitimate" news from the supposed fake. But what does that really mean?   What is fake news?  Certainly, the world of news is different than it used to be.  Anyone over the age of 40 remembers three network channels and prominent national newspapers and magazines.  Think of Time and Newsweek and the The New York Times and ABC.  In the past these few media arms controlled the majority of what people learned about.  The presentation was tightly controlled to project certain narratives.  You were told what to pay attention to and how to feel about it.  There was very little balance in the presentation of certain topics. 

Abortion and gun control are the easiest examples. When was the last time you recall a major media source presenting the pro-gun or pro-life side of those debates?  Those sides are never presented and if they are it's a few lines buried deep in the article to ostensibly provide balance to the piece.   There is a mainstream/democrat view of both gun control and abortion that is the ONE TRUE NARRATIVE. Contrary thought is rejected as either a sop to religion in the case of abortion or a sop to historical anachronism in the case of the 2nd amendment.  Both are rejected out of hand, yet roughly half of the country in the case of abortion or higher in the case of gun control Americans hold the opposite view.  Their voices had rarely been given a platform until recently.

Today we have YouTube, Twitter, and thousands of websites and blogs.  The narrative has been irrevocably changed.  Today no matter what the issue you can find similar thoughts and minds.  The news calls this a bubble.   What they fail to realize is that we were living in their bubble before.  Today we get to choose our own.  Journalism is supposed to be a presentation of fact.  Who, what, when, where, why.   It's purpose is to inform on issues or events that are generally of interest to the public.  With the facts laid out the public should have a clearer understanding of why decisions were made or how certain events transpired.   Mainstream journalism today is the same as it's always been: presenting opinion as fact based on a selective use of narratives.  The difference is that control has been lost by the former arbiters of thought.  

Facebook is hiring 20,000 people to provide fact checking as well as security against foreign interests with ill intent. They are targeting fake news and propaganda.  But what is fake news.  If I believe in national sovereignty and the value of borders does that make me fake?  If I can see reason to believe in a world that doesn't revolve around war and only fighting for a legitimate national interest does that make me fake?  No, those are my opinions.  They just conflict with the mainstream media narrative.  Neither are fake, but they are certainly divergent.

Fake news is something like "I had Michael Jacksons' alien baby".  Differing thoughts on economics or politics isn't fake.  It's just a difference of opinion.  What the mainstream media hates about today's environment is that YOUR voice matters as much as theirs.  You have platforms to express your ideas and can challenge their narrative.  It is an age where citizens control their own narrative.  This is what the outrage of the media reveals.  They hate the fact that you may find alternate sources of news that completely bypass them. 

The success of people on YouTube and Twitter to form their own narratives has given heartburn to those who manage those platforms.  They again see divergent opinions as a threat to the narrative that THEY want to be magnified.  Deplatforming, shadowbanning as well as outright banning for relatively innocuous but conservative views is common.  The fake news they complain so loudly about is simply an alternative view of the world which runs counter to their beliefs.   With the fervent belief that Russia hacked the election in 2016 there is enormous pressure to protect us from nefarious interlopers.  It also provides the perfect cover for trying to eliminate views that are contrary to the narrative they espouse.  

The battle over fake news is less about the news and much more about whose version of reality will prevail.  In the marketplace of ideas it's always better to have more rather than fewer.  One look at the success of Jordan Peterson's current world wide tour shows that people are hungry for complicated thought provoking ideas.  Joe Rogan and his 1,000,000 subscribers has also shown the desire for long form interviews that provide a much deeper conversation and allows for greater context to be developed. 

The new media is a powerful new way to express ideas.  The fake news witch hunt is a direct response to the influence that these new platforms offer. Yet, it's vitally important that all ideas have the ability to be expressed.   The essence of our republic is an informed public and healthy debate.  There is fake news out there.  However, most of what is labeled that today doesn't fit the definition.  The debate over fake news is really about free speech and should be treated as such. The 1st amendment prevents the govenrnment from suppressing ideas they find distasteful.  Companies with billions of users should abide by the same principles.

Suckers no more

With the Helsinki summit behind us and our US/Russia relations back on a normal track political life in America has finally settled down.   Er, wait...I meant in the aftermath of the firestorm that was the Helsinki summit political life in America has never been so inflamed.  Pundit after pundit expressed their HORROR after watching President Trump express skepticism about the entire Russian hacking/collusion affair.  

I have to say, I agree with the president.  I don't believe for a second that the outrage that has been filling websites and airwaves is genuine.  It seems to have come on so fast and so strong that I suspect it had been lying in wait for the right time to pounce.  All they needed was a weak or ineffective statement by President Trump.  If it involves the Russians more the better.  I highly suspect no matter what he would have said at the post summit press conference the result would have been similar.

Remember, one of the reasons that people voted for President Trump was a highly tuned skepticism of the neocon and neo liberal push towards unnecessary conflicts and wars.  The heat had been turned up on Syria during the primaries by both the right and the left with the stated goal of combating the Russian influence there.  For some reason a country with the economic output of New York state was still directly in the crosshairs of both republicans and democrats.   The Soviet empire was a definite and certifiable threat.  Russia today is not in the same universe.  Were it not for their nuclear arms they would barely get a mention.  Yet somehow they eclipse all other countries when it comes to the oppobrium of the political pundits in DC.

Trump voters were skeptical and rightly so.  We had been sold on pointless conflicts since the horror of 9/11.  Intelligence agencies were the sacrosanct bodies that provided information that lead to many of these mistakes.  In retrospect, it seems silly that we were all so easily duped, but we were.  We were duped about Iraq and their weapons of mass destruction.  Colin Powell regrets his part in that to this day.  We were duped into believing you could nation build Afghanistan.  A country with a 1000 year history of repelling invaders and one that more recently left the Soviets bloodied and battered.  We were duped after Benghazi where the blame for that horrible attack fell on a YouTuber in California.  We were duped into believing that removing Gaddafi from Libya would stabilize that country and the region more generally.  We have been sold a false bill of goods again and again.  Most of us are tired of it and rightly skeptical of the foreign policy experts who got us into these messes again and again.

Russia is a competitor.  A relatively minor one.  China poses a much greater threat and one that has ACTUALLY hacked into important government databases.  If you haven't heard of the OPM hack here is  quick summary from Wikipedia.  

On June 2015, the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) announced that it had been the target of a data breach targeting the records of as many as four million people.[1] The final estimate of the number of stolen records is approximately 21.5 million. This includes records of people who had undergone background checks, but who were not necessarily current or former government employees.[2]It has been described by federal officials as among the largest breaches of government data in the history of the United States.[1] Information targeted in the breach included such as Social Security numbers,[3] as well as names, dates and places of birth, and addresses.[4]

The data breach consisted of two separate, but linked, attacks.[5] It is unclear when the first attack occurred but the second attack happened on May 7, 2014 when attackers posed as an employee of KeyPoint Government Solutions, a subcontracting company. The first attack was discovered March 20, 2014, but the second attack was not discovered until April 15, 2015.[5]

In the aftermath of the event, Katherine Archuleta, the director of OPM, and the CIO, Donna Seymour, resigned.[6]

On August 27, 2017, the FBI arrested a Chinese national suspected of helping to create the malware used in the breach.

The Chinese hack was a real and certifiable threat to our national security.  Do you remember threats of war?  Do you remember much of anything?  it was almost like it never happened if you listened to the mainstream media and DC politicians.  Since they hadn't encrypted the database which made the information easily accessible after the hack I can believe they wanted it go away quickly lest Americans realize how inept the security was.

There is a contingent in government and in the media that seems to desire conflict over peace no matter what the cost.  In most cases they are also the same people who were opposed to Donald Trump from the start.  Trump supporters are realistic doves.  We believe in peace through strength.  We believe in discussion over conflict.  We believe that you can't remake the world in the image of the United States.  We believe in the value of different viewpoints.  Believing that Russia isn't our greatest threat isn't treasonous, but sensible and rational.  Those pushing for conflict with Russia are the same people who destabilized the middle east and most of Europe with the migrant flows.  They are either truly inept or are insane.  Either way, it's up to us to end the madness and apply some rationality to our discussions.  Because they won't.