Dear AOC: Virginia has Spoken

Update: In what appears to be a press release sent out by AOC (11.19.2021), the young member of the House implies that her help and that of other Progressive would have tipped the scales in favor of former Governor Terry McAuliffe.  While that level of confidence in a young women is admirable, I must disagree with her assessment of the 2021 Virginia state election. From the beginning, McAuliffe was a flawed candidate, a problem that the Democratic party seems unable to understand.  A transplant to the state, McAuliffe skated into the office of Governor when voters reacted to the corruption charges of the previous governor and the good impression of then President Barrack Obama.  McAuliffe would also disappoint voters with mismanagement of funds and an FBI investigation into campaign finances. His temper and quick tongue also contributed to his demise.  The race was always Youngkin's to lose and a young, know-it-all Democrat would have only made Youngkin more attractive to moderate voters.  The party was right to distance itself from you and your policies. 

 

To House Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and those known as "The Squad",

Virginia has spoken and the message is for you. 

Even before the election results are official (mail-in ballots will be accepted through Friday), nationally based columnists and main stream journalists are telling the world that Virginia voting has nothing to do with extreme mindsets and everything to do with a population that seems incapable of knowing what is good for them.  While both parties, Republicans and Democrats have taken the stand that "it's not us, it's them!" in recent years, these election results are a clear indication that the informed, moderate minority has the power to keep both parties in check. 

For far too long, elections in the United States have been playing to loyal followers who can predictably be taken for granted.  Both Democrats and Republicans see this as winning an annual game in which each side gets to change the rules without regard for the integrity or fairness of the competition.  The message to those, like "The Squad", who swing to extreme viewpoints is plain. Virginians on both sides of the aisle have no tolerance for elected officials who show favoritism, fail to compromise for the good of all and disrespect differing viewpoints that are labeled ignorant, prejudicial and stubborn.  Are you not just as ignorant and prejudicial about life in Virginia and haven't you stubbornly held on to your viewpoints while demanding all citizens welcome your viewpoints regardless of their validity?

The closeness of this race and the one in New Jersey mirrors the standoff with Biden's spending plan and infrastructure bill. While others see the President as weak and mindless, my instincts tell me this is the beginning of his presidency, not the end.  What better way to curtail the radical position of younger Democrats then to lump their ideas into a pot of political stew and see how well it is received.  There is no faster and better learning experience than total rejection of one's efforts. Now President Biden has the freedom to silence those who speak from a personal perspective when their job is to consider a wider audience.  Too many in Congress have forgotten they are responsible for the country, not just their party.  

For two years, Virginia's leadership, particularly young and inexperienced lawmakers, took media coverage and polls based in other states as a fair representation of where Virginia should go. They passed special interest legislation in record amounts telling themselves it was a better life for everyone.  The 2021 vote loudly speaks to the missteps of the last two years and should be a lesson to the Federal lawmakers.  Regardless of party affiliation, voters are tired of grandstanding politicians who pass laws that benefit a few and marginalize the many. It is not Virginia that is divided by the need to vote for leaders (state and national) who divide communities rather than bring them together.  Had Virginia Democrats been patient and stayed true to Virginia values, they might have remained in power.  Instead they put party before the Commonwealth and lost big. 

So, to "Squad" members, have you learned anything about being a leader today?  Have extreme Republicans realized it isn't enough to win the top spot if Congress and state houses are evenly divided.  Leadership is not just winning the race but being trained, coached and supported by others so that winning the race has something more than personal satisfaction.  

With November 2022 just one year away, it will be interesting to see if either party learns the lesson of moderation. In Virginia, it is always an election year and until there are elected officials who stand for something more than political affiliation and an electorate that votes without party preference, moderates will continue to cast the deciding vote in every election. 

Virginia Resident

Sarah Schrumpf-Deacon

Climate Change: Knowledge vs. Wisdom vs Philosophy

 

**Please consider supporting this blog and its information. Like Wikipedia, the pressure to turn information into revenue is ever present for a writer with limited resources. Your support of this blog would be greatly appreciated in any amount. 

Recently, I was tagged in a post by a fellow FCS (Family and Consumer Science) teacher (see picture).  I remember the common struggle of my students to understand the difference between knowledge, wisdom and philosophy or opinion. As you might imagine from the photographic post, when the three were used interchangeably, it led to all sorts of interesting outcomes in the kitchen.

As climate change becomes the focus of the news cycle for the next two weeks, there is no doubt that experts and World leaders will come armed with huge volumes of data to support their positions. In this global difference of opinion about who, what, when, how and why climate change happened, will leaders use knowledge, wisdom or philosophy to make their decisions and if they choose poorly, what further difficulties might the World see in the near future?

Personally, I am tired of being chastised by billionaire celebrities, child advocates without a high school education and extremist politicians with an economic agenda. I was thankful for the comments of the UK's Prince William highlighting America's split priorities (We need some of the world’s greatest brains and minds fixed on trying to repair this planet, not trying to find the next place to go and live.)  In like fashion, Queen Elizabeth II has expressed similar frustration about how people talk about climate change but do nothing. With all due respect to these Royals, as leaders converge on Glasgow, Scotland for the United Nations Conference on Climate Change (Cop26), the World must also acknowledge that scientific minds must not be shackled by a political philosophy that often runs counter to actual science. 

 What is Known About Climate Change?

The sad but all too human reality is that today's scientific knowledge is largely based on mathematical speculation rather than actual physical conditions. Talking points focus on extremes which do not fairly represent real world conditions. Is a day the hottest because the temperaure peaks for a few minutes then drops rapidly to a much cooler temperature or is the hottest day one that has the highest per minute average temperature for 24 hours. The quick and easy "high temp" version misrepresents environmental conditions and should not be labeled "scientific knowledge". Real knowledge is consistent and predictable without excuses or questions.  It is easily seen and can be replicated by anyone time and time again. The tomato is scientifically classified as a fruit only because it meets the same physcial criteria as an apple or grape. How it is used is not a factor--only the sum of its visible and verifiable characteristics count.

Even though this planet has survived thousands of years using fossil fuels and without global intervention, mankind continues to blame the environment for "changing".  Modern society looks for an easy and quick explanation that absolves it of wrongdoing. In greenhouse gas theory, it found a principle so obscure that even fellow scientists would not understand it, industrialized countries found the "facts" they needed to create a philosophy that was both plausible and impossible at the same time.  Rather than look for wisdom in the hundreds of reputable and detailed scientific studies and historical events that speak to the climate change phenomenon, society chose to adopt philosophy as knowledge while squandering any chance to gain wisdom.

Is Climate Change Wisdom Possible?

Achieving wisdom is not just about learning from mistakes but being mature enough to think critically about information. Real science follows its own rules.  It cannot be made into what people want and does not occur without cause.  Blaming fossil fuels, commercial farming, large families, or immoral living serves no purpose except to divert study from what could be a simple answer.  At the same time, dismissing that which is uncomfortable to admit only keeps this planet in a state of upheavel. 

Until leaders put economics and reputations aside for the good of the planet, this cycle of disinformation and arbitrary regulations will only serve to compound climate change.  Wisdom requires an understanding that being right and doing right are two fundamentally different action. Needing to BE right comes from a place of immature thought while doing what is RIGHT comes from a place of knowledge and wisdom. 

Is Solving Climate Change Possible?

It is certainly possible to solve climate change but only with a shift away from philosophy and toward knowledge and wisdom To put it simply, environmentalists need see nature as a tomato and not as an ingredient in a Bloody Mary.  These well-meaning individuals have encouraged leaders to take drastic and unproven steps to 'clean up' the environment when the environment was working efficiently on its own.  Clean air and clean water might be beautiful to look at but they rob wildlife of essential minerals which are otherwise unavailable in the real world.

Sadly, environmentalists tend to come from wealthy countries. They do not experience the consequences of their beliefs because healthcare and agriculture have monetized environmental dysfunction. The very fossil fuels which are declared harmful to the environment are turned into fertilizers that produce health foods and medicines which keep populations healthy.  Poorer countries must suffer without such improvements and wildlife is left to die out because those who want to protect it do not understand basic chemistry well enough to realize they have caused this heartbreaking situation.  

Its time for environmentalist to see nature for what it is, an imperfect tomato that does not taste good in a fruit salad and stop trying to make it into a Bloody Mary that only people can enjoy.

Infrastructure 2021: Why Politicians Should Never Be Lawyers

On Friday afternoon (9/17), with less than two weeks before a potential government shutdown, the White House (per Bloomberg) quietly began to pressure state and local governments to support the the $3.5 trillion dollar spending bill and debt increase. The all-too-familiar process (used multiple times by both parties over the last two decades) threatened funding for Medicaid, school lunches, and Social Security recipients. After all, who better to disenfranchise than those who are so poorly and unequally represented in Congress. It is a typical and standard part of the budget process and because it is so common, it is even more disgraceful by its use in a time of apparent crisis.

One isn't sure who is crafting the messages that come out of the White House these days, but as the wording is straightforward and well-written, it is also harsh and lacking any semblance that those who make the decisions recognize that people's lives are at stake. Perhaps, this is why politicians should not be lawyers and why lawyers fail to make good leaders. 

The Law and the study of it is fascinating in its intricacy. Its special language, a combination of Old English and new phrasing, would impress any good con artist with its lack of transparency.  Then, there is the process that must be followed--a set of rules that, like poker, carries a certain amount of swagger and bluff to be successful. Cards are laid on the table only when one has the already won the hand.  

Portrayed as blind and balanced to be fair and equal to all, justice is not the goal of lawyers, nor politician, but a negotiating tool to gain support for personal and political agendas.  Sadly, the farther this country gets from the writing of its Constitution, the more there is an understanding that the law only serves to divide by elevating one group over another. 

By the early 1800s, just 25 years after the Constitution was ratified, the land owners, scholars, inventors and businessmen that sought to design a "more perfect Union" knew they had failed. Largely replaced by elected officials schooled and shaped by military service, wealth or legal education, there was little room for someone with a real world perspective on how daily problems should be remediated. Those, like Daniel Boone, and then Lincoln, who spoke for the common man, were a minority and still are. 

How did a country founded on working class values lose its edge? In the same way it happens today, those with education and wealth easily took control of a fledgling country with an uneducated and easily manipulated populace.

Many with educated and noble family backgrounds (Kamala Harris) had emigrated from countries which experienced political upheaval.  Some. like the Kennedy and Trump families, knew that government office could profitably steer business in a desired direction. Others with social connections and wealth saw it as an appropriate calling for the younger generation as a way to ensure the family legacy or to recover from financial ruin (Joe Biden).  Only in exceedingly rare cases did someone achieve political success with a background of hard work and relationships with ordinary people.

What makes law such a poor background for a leader?  Simple, the act of being a lawyer is about defending one narrow position according to the rules of law. It is not about right or wrong or even justice, but about persuading people to think in a particular manner.  Some examples  might help it be much clearer.  

• Lawyers defend a concept not a person. They are not required to know, talk to or even believe their clients. Once elected, no official is required to consider anything more than his own values and ambitions. Persons who cast their vote in support of a one-sided philosophy encourage inequality for us all.
  
• Evidence is the basis of decisions even if that evidence is manipulated or false. Have we not seen the Biden administration choose which evidence is to be used in regard to vaccine use?  Do the words "alternative facts" (per Kellyanne Conway) come to mind?  
• Lawyers are not accountable for poor outcomes.  Congress, as well as the President, are exempt from general liability and therefore have no interest in "doing their best". While a doctor can be sued for malpractice, elected officials are cloaked with protection that an average citizen cannot hope to ever obtain. A good publicist can erase every mistake from the public record.
  
• Lawyers frequently blame the system when it does not work in their favor and appeal the decision until it is one that is more to their liking. However, they readily claim success when they win the fight. Recently, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi chastised the Supreme Court for taking a more moderate stand on several provisions of on her own political agenda. 
  

Could it be that our government is not broken but a congregation of 536 (Congress plus the President) homogeneous career-oriented people whose focus is no less narrow-minded than a radical dictatorship or religious cult. Isn't the Law a kind of Bible behind which government stands when criticized?  Does government not seek to bend 330 million people to a single way of life that is much like the caste-system in India and religious extremists in Afghanistan.  Is a system based on wealth and lopsided protection under the law any less unjust for Americans? Doesn't the Law allow all three of these systems to exist openly?

Historically speaking, the American system was set up with three branches for the purpose of bringing different perspectives to the governing process.  Only the Court system was intended to be run by those familiar with the Law.  Unlike the nations that grew out of the British Empire, the US neglected to protect the "commoner" and provide equal representation so that poor and lower-income people could attain elected office as easily as the educated and well-of. 

Over the next few weeks, the country will be witness to the failing of a political system led by those who understand the law but not human nature. Wouldn't it be interesting to see how leadership changed if lawyers were banned from holding elected office. 

Who knows, it might bring us full circle to how the Constitution is supposed to work--of the people, by the people and for the people.  An interesting thought, isn't it? 

Kamala Harris Background Link  

Kennedy Family History in Politics

Trump Family Background

Joe Biden's Family Legacy