Weather or Not

Severe Outflow by R. Edwards

Critical Thinking as Applied to an Overseas News Item

by Leave a Comment

This should go without saying, but a reminder can’t hurt: Don’t take “news” stories on their face. Examine critically. It’s a good brain exercise, as well as a needed and healthy self-defense mechanism for the mind. Consider sourcing, context, possible agendas, motivations, angles, and as appropriate, what’s not said about a story. This includes unstated aspects regarding the subject(s) of a story, in context of who they are, how they live, and past statements and actions. It’s easier to do for stories promoting themes you don’t like, but should be done for those with which you agree as well.

I’ll offer one recent example among countless many possibilities. A few critical thoughts on Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro’s criticism of European response to Koran burning…

* As for the subject of Maduro’s ire: I personally don’t approve of Koran burning and won’t be doing so — not because I’m afraid of anyone or anything, but because I see no productive point in it. The thought of doing so really hasn’t occurred to me, much as I have condemned many aspects of radical Islamism taken straight from the Koran’s most hideous teachings and violent verses.

* Freedom of expression and religion are duly and rightly codified in the very first amendment to my nation’s Constitution. As a staunch proponent of liberty, I ardently support and agree with the First Amendment in its literal, black and white words. That includes the freedom to write everything I write here today. I personally don’t approve Koran burning, but I support the freedom of others to do so as a means of expression. Same goes for Bible burning (my own good book!), which I intensely oppose morally, but which is a protected means of expression for some. I personally don’t approve of much of the Koran itself, but I support the freedom of others to express and worship from it peacefully, whenever and wherever they wish. I personally don’t approve of much of what the Left endorses, nor statements of truly racist people on either end of the sociopolitical spectrum, but I support all their freedom to make awful statements. [As I often write: The First Amendment doesn’t say “except” or “unless”! Expressions of leftism or racism, much as I detest both, are, and should be, Constitutionally protected.] I also expect to exercise my freedom of expression without governmental restraint: to approve or disapprove of anything…to oppose parts of the Koran, to attack leftism and collectivism as I often do, and to discuss freely anyone’s statements or other behavior regarding any topic. Maduro’s endorsement of governmental restrictions on expression fly in the face of the ideals of liberty, so I oppose them. Were he a U.S. citizen, Maduro would be fully, legally entitled to his expressions, as I would be equally to rebuke them.

* This specific story is common in headlines from sources such as Sputnik, Tass, RT, and others known to be sympathetic to socialist and communist regimes. I won’t click on a TASS, RT or Sputnik link, or any other state-controlled media like Xinhua or People’s Daily, nor offer one to you, in case it delivers malware or trackers. I recommend you avoid them too if digging further into this specific story. But I have read of Maduro’s quotes elsewhere.

* Critical thought is…critical! It starts not with the story, but the source. One question I often ask is, “Why is this medium pushing this story?” From the outside looking in, it’s pretty easy to see (for example) TASS or Al Jazeera selectively publicizing this for propagandistic manipulation. Those or Xinhua aren’t alone, mind you; most modern media, including right here in the USA, have descended into this practice. I grew up in the inner city and learned to watch or shield my back habitually. Unfortunately, we now have to do so mentally with media stories.

* On the face, and taken alone in a rigidly impermeable silo with no context at all, he makes a compelling point. After all, what good comes from burning another religion’s good book, even if you don’t agree with it? However, as I often say, “Consider the source.” Maduro, like many famous populist leaders selectively wielding their stated faith for rhetorical leverage, acts purer than he is, in terms of living it out. [This reminds me of bible-holding Trump for one evening with his military accompaniment to the DC church, or Biden and Pelosi supporting mass abortion while claiming the mantle of Catholicism for the sake of public show. Using their good books as publicity devices without living by them!] The thoroughly devastating results of Maduro’s and his beloved mentor/predecessor’s programs in Venezuela bear it out. He ought to take the plank out of his own eye before dealing with the speck in another’s. That’s Biblical. Live it more than talk it.

* He criticized Koran burning by “racist sectors”. What didn’t he say? For one, that the public Koran burning was done by a native Iraqi, Salwan Momika, who immigrated to Sweden. Hardly “racism”! The burner has been labeled Christian but described himself on social media as “atheist and enlightened politician, thinker and author”.

* Maduro allied with Iran for economic reasons. He is pandering to extreme Muslims here. I doubt that’s coincidental. I wonder when Maduro will discuss the modern torture, summary executions and vigilante-style killings of hostages, “apostates” and “heretics” in Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, or throwing homosexuals off buildings in Iraq, Syria and Libya, or the gang rape, torture and murder of Christians in parts of North Africa. Considering his regime’s own brutalization of dissidents, I won’t hold my breath waiting.

* Maduro the “Christian”…his being one of the most notorious human-rights abusers around today, with his Helicoide political prison and “The Tomb” torture center, it’s an understatement to say his actions make me skeptical about his alleged “Christianity”. Still, only God can judge for sure. Nobody is perfect. All sin. All will have to answer for themselves at Judgment Day. “All” includes me. And yes, we’re all created different but equal in God’s eye. God loves Nicolas Maduro and wishes to grant him salvation and forgiveness, even as evil as his practices have been. The same can be said for each of us, and anyone engaging in behavior you or I (or even God Himself) don’t approve of. That’s Biblical.

* With those due caveats stated: Still, in a pragmatic sense, the errors and sins of people in positions of high power have greater consequences for society as a whole than those of the average guy waiting on the corner of Commerce and Akard for a bus home. Therefore, the powerful should be held to expectations commensurate with their positions and influence, and yes, that means higher performance standards than you or me. It’s their intrinsic duty to live up to a loftier standard for what they do and say than the downtown bus passenger, by virtue of far vaster consequences. With greater power comes greater responsibility.

* His results at home belie his preaching about yahoos burning Korans somewhere thousands of miles away, an item totally irrelevant to his duties. It strikes me as a purposeful distraction tactic as well as pandering. He’s misguided, but not stupid…kill two birds with one stone (or statement, in this case).

Other critical thoughts certainly are possible, but those are some immediate examples, arising from just one little story that the great majority of Americans will miss completely.

Position Statement on “Unite Norman” Recall Petition

by Leave a Comment

An ad-hoc group called Unite Norman has developed a recall petition for the Norman mayor, Breea Clark, and four city-council members, including Kate Bierman, the representative for my ward (1). [One of other the targeted representatives, in a rural ward that surrounds mine on three sides, already has resigned under pressure, in part to perform “advocacy” she can’t do in the city-council role.]

The link summarizes the organization’s reasons. I don’t agree with all of Unite Norman’s positions, and am not a member; however, after two weeks of careful thought and deliberation of the principles and issues at hand, Elke and I signed the recall petition. Yes, this is despite the fact that a new election shall be held early next year anyway. We are fully aware of this (see below). The city charter ensures citizens the right to petition for recall, and thousands of us are exercising that right.

Below, I reproduce a comment that I made on the Unite Norman Facebook page, elucidating why we signed the recall for our representative and the mayor.
======================================

I’m sorry to report that I voted for Kate, and now regret doing so.   [At least I didn’t vote for Breea Clark.] While campaigning, Kate came to my house and spent an hour with us, very friendly, asking for concerns and appearing to listen and take notes.  It seemed to be a good discussion.  Among several issues raised, she agreed that Norman should advance to the 1980s and synchronize stoplights citywide.   She promised to fight for that.  I see zero evidence she has done so, nor any results; and results are what matter.

Knowing she supported the storm-water utility issue, I tactfully expressed my opposition to the unnecessary and duplicative bureaucracy of a so-called “stormwater utility” and laid out a well-reasoned case that seemed to surprise and enlighten her.  This included a better solution involving (I’m summarizing lots of detail here) keeping storm water in water/sewer dept., with lower overhead, and more fairly assessing urban and rural Norman based on *percentage* of property that’s impermeable instead of absolute area.  She had never heard that argument before, called it “brilliant”, and seemed very interested.

She acted respectful and again took notes.  So far, so good.  Then she utterly ignored my input and pressed for the wasteful, rural-unfair, and unnecessary measure that unsurprisingly failed on the subsequent ballot, nevertheless.  When I pressed for why on the Facebook page, it was under the bogus straw-man rationale of not letting the perfect get in the way of the good.  It was neither perfect nor good.  That’s why we voted it to a resounding defeat!

Furthermore, in our meeting, she did an all-too-good job of reading the room, and gave no inclination of since-displayed radical leftism, and support for extremist left-wing causes.   Those include resolutions supporting and endorsing immoral sexual behavior and gender deviancy.  Those are not city matters, but personal ones.  The city council should represent all the citizens, not the radical Alinskyan fringe seeping out of university academia.

Every minute and tax dollar that she and these other radicals on the city council have spent on fringe extremist social causes, instead should have been of getting the nuts and bolts of the city’s infrastructural needs addressed.  

Finally, turning one’s back on citizens is a literal and figurative no-no.  All citizens deserve to be heard.  That was rude and uncivilized conduct unbecoming a public official.

Adding it all up, this was a monumental betrayal of my and my wife’s votes.  She’s not getting them again.  And even if it ultimately doesn’t matter, my wife and I signed that petition, with pride, no apologies.  Even though we agree with and practice wearing masks inside stores and other businesses to control disease spread.

A few of my co-workers have signed too (those who haven’t already moved out of Norman due to the creeping radicalism, inattention to tangible issues, and growing taxes).  

Sure, a recall so soon before the election may seem wasteful.  I get that.  But principle must matter. 

A message needs to be sent.  

Thank you for your efforts.

Silence is Not Complicity nor Agreement

by Leave a Comment

Before the blood dried in the El Paso mass murder by a white supremacist, and both before and after the left-wing mass killer’s evil deeds in Ohio, I saw several social-media posts to the effect that “good people must not be silent”, or that “silence is complicity”. Such rhetoric commonly appears on other hot-button, emotionally charged weekly issues du jour.

Rubbish! Absolute garbage. Do not fall for such psychologically manipulative tactics (through which I see clearly as glass), nor feel compelled to speak out if you’d rather be quiet. Your reasons are yours alone and nobody else’s business, whether you’re still gathering facts, you’ve already spoken on the topic and wish not to be redundant, need more time to think, are taking quiet action of your own, prefer not to virtue signal (as so many are!), or you just have other/better things to do.

I want to assure you silence is OK, and you are absolutely, positively NOT “complicit” in any of the world’s millions and millions of problems just because you aren’t speaking out on any or all of them. I say this as someone who is outspoken on many issues, and has been for decades, including on Second Amendment, racial-supremacy and mental-health issues. Your silence is your concern and yours only, and others should just mind their own damn business.

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to not talk. [“Miranda rights” affirm this inherently Constitutional truth.] It also includes the right to wait until later (as I’m choosing to do), instead of being a virtue-signaling insta-pundit for the sake of clicks, likes, retweets, fawning attention, and platitudes from like-minded sycophants. It’s OK to wait days, weeks or more to speak out, or to never do so at all.

In fact, I have more respect for those who do wait awhile, cool down, and respond in thought-out, measured, rational ways, using facts, logic, and reason instead of emotion. I want to empower you to think and act independently, on your terms and yours alone, not because peers or culture demand it. Stand strong outside the herd mentality!

It’s perfectly fine to stay silent, whether for a few days, weeks, months, or however long you want. Silence is NOT complicity, nor it is agreement. It’s simply…silence.