The Fascination Of Virtue Signaling

The virtue signaling dynamic is beyond fascinating.

Just a few weeks ago we had the Charlottesville episode where those who define their moral superiority via virtue signaling unanimously sided with Antifa. Major politicians and the major media sided with Antifa. President Trump caught absolute hell for saying the Nazi’s and Antifa were equally responsible and implying equally as evil. People resigned from the administration due to Trump saying that.

The press, the Washington establishment, the virtue signalers of all stripes went absolutely nuts.

Now just a little while later the WashPo and other outlets explicitly say that Antifa is every bit as evil as the Nazi’s and the virtue signalers are now signaling how evil Antifa is! In other words – they now agree with Trump while they continue to castigate him for saying what they also say.

Yes, the virtue signalers are that shallow and easily manipulated.

It is becoming ever more obvious that virtue signaling is identical to shouting “I have no core values, I have no principles, I simply do anything I think will let me remain a part of the group! Let me stay in the group, please please!” Virtue signalers are no different than a leaf that falls in the river and they will go whereever that river takes them. They have apparently forsaken their volition in exchange for being popular with all of these others who have also forsaken their volition to remain popular – wash rinse repeat.

It is truly fascinating. In the wake of Charlottesville the virtue signalers were all apparently compelled to tweet and post that they ‘Opposed the White Supremacist and stood with those who opposed them’ along with the required ‘I am not a racist’ posts. We all saw them – endlessly and meaninglessly. It was simply a requirement to remain in the group – it had zero meaning beyond that and no positive effect what so ever in fighting racism.

What passes for ‘news’ organizations in this country have been nothing but virtue signalers for a long time now – the New York Times and Washington Post and CNN and MSNBC and on and on and on. They do not actually provide news and information but rather tell people what they believe is virtuous and what is not while providing just enough information to substantiate the signal while omitting everything that would destroy their position – and the bleating sheep follow mindlessly and proudly.

The flip side of virtue signaling is the shaming. When people depart from the program, engage their own brain, decide that they indeed own and are accountable for their own morals – the virtue signalers endlessly publicly shame them. It truly is a cult. People are so tremendously insecure and unwilling to think – anyone who does decide to think must be made to pay!


Bracing for Ignorant Stormenfreude

Bracing myself for the onslaught of dumb, unscientific Stormenfreude and dufuses saying: “See? Global warming!”
So, let me remind alarmists that weather is not climate. An event is not a trend. A hot day in winter does not prove catastrophic global warming. A cold day in summer does not refute it. Two storms are data points, not a long term pattern. And, the world has had a years-long spell of unusually few strong tropical storms. By any natural cycle, we were due for an increase.
Oh, by the way, they had big, damaging hurricanes way back before Al Gore invented the Internet and produced a propaganda movie that failed in every dire prediction.

On the Rogue Cop and the Reasonable Nurse, Salt Lake City is Making the Bleeding Worse

So far, Salt Lake City’s response to the rogue cop, Jeff Payne, who manhandled Alex Wubbles, the professional and respectful nurse who refused him access to take the blood of an unconscious accident victim raises more questions than it answers.The questions are serious and go to the competence and integrity of the Police Department.
Salt Lake Mayor Jackie Biskupski and Police Chief Mike Brown gave puzzling and unsatisfactory explanations at their Friday press conference. Biskuski said she did not want  “an entire police department to be painted in a bad light due to the actions of one individual. Clearly we believe the actions of this individual were not justified.” But, in fact this episode does paint the entire department in a bad light, starting with the explanation offered by Chief Brown, who stated:
To date, we have suspended the officer from the blood draw program. We have already replaced our blood draw policy with a new policy. All remaining officers on the blood draw program have reviewed, and are operating under the new policy and protocol.
.The Chief’s statement raises at least the following questions:
Whether the arrest was lawful or not, the nurse was calm and professional. The cop escalated the situation with a sudden outburst of temper and force in a hospital ER room. Why was that not grounds for immediate suspension? What possible justification could any “investigation” uncover for his brutish behavior?
Removing Detective Payne from the blood-draw program seems like the merest of administrative wrist slaps. What assurance do Salt Lake residents have that Payne will not be in a position to abuse his authority in other ways? (Under mounting public pressure, Salt Lake City Police Department later announced that Payne has been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation).
Payne spoke by phone or radio with his commanding officer, a lieutenant at the station who instructed Payne to arrest Wubbels if she did not allow him to draw blood. If Payne’s action was improper, so was the lieutenant’s direction. What accountability does he have? What consequences might he face?
Nurse Wubbels was on the phone with a hospital official who advised Payne “he was making a big mistake.” Wubbels further rehearsed to Payne the terms of an “agreement” between the hospital and the Department: Blood may only be withdrawn with a warrant, or with the person’s consent, or if the person is under arrest. Why were these communications not a very serious check on Payne and the lieutenant to make further inquiry before slapping cuffs on an on-duty nurse?
Is there a Memorandum of Understanding between the hospital and the Department on this issue? Did Wubbels accurately summarize its terms, demonstrating knowledge of the blood draw rules superior to the Department’s trained phlebotomist?
Announcing that the blood draw policy was immediately changed is problematic and raises further questions. Did the lieutenant’s orders, and Payne’s arrest comply with the policy, or did they violate it? If they complied, then the policy itself was seriously flawed. Is it reasonable to single out Payne for disapproval and sanction for obeying a direct order consistent with Department policy? What about the Department’s responsibility to have sound materials and training?
If they violated the policy, then what problems or errors it required amending? What changes were made? Will the department publicly release the former and revised versions of the policy? Will there be review or accountability for the authors of the policy? Or for the officials or City legal staff who approved the policy?
What training programs and review protocols does the Department have in place to ensure that officer knowledge and written policies and manuals reflect current legal and Constitutional standards?
Before public outrage forced Payne’s suspension, who made the decision to leave him on active duty, with removal from on-the-job phlebotomy as the only current consequence? This incident obviously touched a sensitive nerve for the viewing public, but appears initially to have triggered a lesser reaction with the brass. How can the public be confident that the Salt Lake City Police Department is mindful of and protective of the rights of all citizens?

The Great Monument Purge of 2017. What’s the Endgame?

As activists gain momentum in their drive to remove monuments related to the Confederacy from public places, people from the President to pundits to interested citizens are wondering where the movement leads, and whether there is a logical end point. Keith the other day observed that if the intent is to repudiate defenders of slavery as well as historic figures with offensive ideas about race, then it unavoidably swallows all of the American founding. The United States was tainted in the beginning. Many of the framers owned slaves Those who didn’t entered into a compact that acknowledged and maintained slavery. The logic is inexorable.
If, in the 21st century, society means to purge and remove from honor all who condoned slavery, we will inevitably pull up by the roots the men and texts of the American founding, sparing not even Jefferson the author of the Declaration and Washington the preeminent founder. The United States would, in this view, be disqualified as a viable, worthy political entity. You might start with the Confederacy, but the reasoning doesn’t stop until Philadelphia.
Is that, Keith wonders, where the Left wants to go?
I thought the question was puzzling, because I believe it has been evident for some time that many on the Left are in fact eager to erase and rewrite our founding precepts. They have no use for a limited federal government, for cumbersome checks and balances, for an expansive First Amendment that protects speech and associational choices they disapprove. It would serve their purposes well to disqualify the United States as a legitimate political entity, the better to usher in their desired revolution.
Still, I believe the slope, perhaps more of a whirling vortex, that Keith identifies should give the Left pause if they consider its implications that reach beyond the United States. Slavery has been a part of the heritage of almost every nation. Moreover, the United States and England were global leaders in the fight to eradicate slavery, which exists to this day, especially in some of the nations the left likes to champion as oppressed by the west.
So, if the presence of slavery in history or even more so in the present day, is a disqualifier from legitimacy, then the Left has to denounce and repudiate a large chunk of the world: Most societies in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and elsewhere. In other words, to sincerely reject the roots of slavery in any nation, the Left has to reject the human condition, denounce all of history, and hope for some nuclear or biological cleansing event that can wipe earth clean until some Leftist Noah can pick up the pieces and start over.

Peak Absurdity Yet?

It has been quite the last few days in terms of peak absurdity – I have repeatedly been ask “Are we there yet?’

No not yet – we are obviously on the climb again though!

Check out the ascent:

Howard Dean said, “Today, in the 2018 elections, if you vote for a Republican, you’re supporting Donald Trump. This has now become a referendum. If you want to vote for a racist in the White House, then you better vote for Republicans.”

No, he really said that. If this is the argument that the Democrats will be offering for the 2018 election – expect a GOP blow out victory.

‘Michael the Black Man’, also known by his given name Maurice Symonette, in an interview with Big John & Ramblin’ Ray allegedly laid out this gem: “The Cherokee Indians had money and they were the only ones able to even really afford slaves, and almost all of them were the ones that had slaves, and all the slave states were states where reservations were located.” He also claimed that John McCain is a ’full blooded Cherokee’, the KuKlux Klan was founded by the Cherokee, and that the hoods that Klansman historically wear are “like tents because they were indicating that those are tepees and that they were hiding under it.”

The good new is that Mr. Symonette has a vivid imagination, the bad news is that he may not be able to differentiate his imagination from reality.

Last but not least – ESPN removed an announcer from an upcoming college football game because his name is Robert Lee. Not even words to describe the absurdity involved in this.

There you go – still ascending Mount Absurdity but not yet near the peak!

How To End The Chaos

For several decades now, in growing preponderance, education at all levels has taught that one narrative is as good as another. There is no such thing as truth, just what ever the truth is to you, which is identical to the truth being whatever you wish it to be. The closest the post-Modernist line of thinking can admit to being truth is consensus. The result of this philosophy is self-evident: who ever can form consensus can define truth.

Mussolini would be so proud.

We no longer debate how to solve problems in this country, we no longer even debate what the problem may be or attempt to root cause that problem and address it. We now attempt to gather sycophants into a consensus in order to define truth in a manner that is to our advantage and to the disadvantage of those who are not part of our consensus. It is irrational and intentionally so – selfishness, egoism, greed and hate must always resort to the irrational to get its’ way. That truth always and inevitably defeats selfishness, egoism, greed and hate is why the purveyors of selfishness, egoism, greed and hate were required to redefine truth as consensus rather than as objective, definable and meaningful.

We win this battle with truth – objective, definable and meaningful. Truth is the enemy of these people who wish to destroy. Not the truth that we find convenient and create as a result of consensus but truth that conforms to fact and actuality.

As Goebbels and Lenin long ago recognized – the most efficient way to lie is to omit the facts that would lead people to an entirely different conclusion than the conclusion they would arrive at with those facts. Our entire education system, our entire social system, our entire political system has been reconstructed on the foundation of the omission of facts in order to lead people to entirely different conclusions than they would arrive at if they possessed those facts. Ironic in the age of the internet is it not?

This omitting of facts is effective because we have so divided ourselves into social and political tribes that have as a component of their consensus truth that the people in the other tribes are not to be listened to – essentially they are dehumanized for believing a consensus is bogus. We have become such a weak and absurd people that we no longer particularly care if our consensus truth actually is bogus – all we care about is silencing those who might point out that our consensus truth is bogus.

Somehow the post-modernist have convinced a significant number of people that through the process of never questioning if your consensus truth is bogus, never objectively measuring your consensus truth against any standard other than your own selfishness, while attacking those who do question your consensus truth – it is somehow the path to peace, prosperity and happiness.

At this point in history it is fair to say that this nation is primarily composed of packs of idiots – often well educated idiots – at each others throats over who is threatening their consensus truth and hence their selfishness and ego.

Never mind real truth, never mind objectively measuring if what you believe to be true – you know –  is actually true or not. Measuring and evaluating our beliefs against objective standards to determine if they are actually true is so Cro-Magnon.

The only solution is humility and seeking objective truth – even if we do not agree on objective truth the change of direction in seeking truth will bring an end to the chaos.

What do you think the odds are of that happening in the near future?