Two Concepts of Freedom (Version 2.0)

Roughly a week ago I published an essay titled "Two Concepts of Freedom". This is simply an edited less verbose version of that essay.  RGS

A few weeks back I wrote an essay looking at some of the cultural dynamics found in the Scorcese flick, "The Age Of Innocence". I contrasted some of the themes found in that movie with a picture of a transgendered mother and son, which was making the rounds on social media. Both mother and child had decided to transition. Mother was now father, and son was now daughter. I found that intriguing. Specifically, I saw in that picture that the act of transition for a transgender person is an act of pure will. To initiate and complete that process simply requires an amazing amount of will.

This individual will, this drive, which led a mother and son to transition to father and daughter, cannot be found in "The Age of Innocence".

The willful individual in The Age of Innocence, which takes place in 19th century New York, is controlled and dealt with through social convention. Such individuals are not welcome in this world. In this world, it is not the individual will, which drives decisions. In this world of the Age of Innocence, it is what is right, it is what is proper, that determines what one does, how one behaves. It is social norm, convention, and tradition that drives what is done.

What I drew out of these two scenes in the earlier essay were two theories of value, or meaning. In the case of the mother and son or father and daughter, meaning is determined by the individual. Both are compelled by something very much unique and inside them. It is something they must express. It is almost an artistic or creative act. In short, meaning is created through the expression of will, of self.

In the Age of Innocence and 19th century New York, that is not the case. Meaning is not created by the expression of self, nor will. In fact, the expression of self is controlled and largely negated. In this world the expression is perceived as a challenge or even a threat to that which is valuable, that which has meaning. Individual wants and needs are fitted into the social fabric or negated, or simply ignored. The expression of self is of value only if it can be applied or brought into or is applicable to the social norms of the time.

Value and meaning in 19th century New York, as per the Scorcese movie, is based on social norm, on tradition and custom. Here what is done is determined by one's place in society, one's family, one's business dealings, one's place in the church, within one's community. It is in this dynamic that meaning and value are derived. If there is a passion, it must be controlled and directed. Passion does not control or drive one. Further value is not created here, but preserved. The intent is to preserve community, its norms, and customs.

So from the Scorcese movie and from the image of father and daughter, we arrive at two very different theories of value and or meaning. One originating from the self or will, and the other from within the community. In my earlier essay I suggested that these can be applied loosely to the liberal and conservative traditions. Specifically, the focus on self or the will is to be tied to liberalism, and community is to be associated with conservatism. No doubt some explaining is required. At first blush the liberal is often seen as socialists or communists - communal. Is it not the liberal that value community?

Likewise, is it not the conservatives who typically values liberty, which is often associated with the individual? There is some work to be done here, but it is through this 'work' that we arrive at the two concepts of freedom referenced in the title of this essay.

So how does one begin with acts of will and arrive at liberalism? Typically, liberalism is associated with big government, the environment, Black Lives Matter and LGTB. How are these related to the expression of self, to the will? These things are largely products of the will. They are expressions of self. To come out and say I am gay or I am transgendered again is an expression of self. The political movements and groups listed above originate out of such acts. The environment or our interest in environment is again an expression of self. In the mid to late 20th century the US became conscious of the environment. And again, through that consciousness it became a social and political movement.

Another criticism is that I am conflating the liberalism of the enlightenment with the contemporary. That said, I want to suggest the two are still connected. The technocratic state based upon reason and science, is inspired by and propelled by its citizens and ultimately their citizen's passions and wills.  Much of our "big government" in all its varieties, begins with or points back to acts of will.

A bigger issue perhaps is my suggestion that only liberals act on their will. Surely, conservatives can offer up their own social movements, driven just as much by willful individuals. This is a valid point, however, I would argue that conservative social movements are driven not by inspiration but by preservation. Again, conservatives certainly have social and political movements, but their movements are responses to the social change, often the movements originated by liberals. The conservative's social movement is intent upon preserving the social structure, the world as they know it.

Regarding environmentalism, conservatives defend factories, plastics, and cars as our way of life. In response to feminism, they advocate the family. The NRA and those who advocate the 2nd Amendment want to protect and defend their right to bear arms. In each case they want to protect their commerce, their families, their way of life. There is a correspondence to the Age of Innocence in their focus on and a desire to preserve the existing social norms, traditions, and conventions.

This leads us to progress. Liberals are often referred to as progressives. The two terms in today's vernacular are largely equivalent and there has been a relation between the two for roughly the last one hundred years. Conservatives, however, do not embrace progress, certainly not the progress advocated by the various social movements of liberals. Likewise, they do not embrace the progress of science. Now conservatives will certainly contest this. I would argue however, that the anti-intellectualism often associated with the conservative movement is rooted in the desire to preserve their world. They want to preserve the norms, conventions they hold dear. Their skepticism regarding science is rooted in those norms, traditions, and conventions.

In short, the liberal state, "big government", and science both challenge the world as it is. Both were devised or inspired to some degree with that intent of progress, of overcoming what is. For conservatives however, progress offers a series of challenges. It offers things such as Roe vs Wade. With science and the state we have the EPA, which wants to dismantle our factories and markets. Transgender transitions would not be possible without advances in medicine. All are the result of liberalism and ultimately the will.

I know I paint with an extremely large brush here. Those around me have already pointed this out, but sometimes it behooves us to go to the satellite image, unless of course it is overcast.  The question I am left with here, is this: Does reason come from the will or from social convention and norms? For our purposes I offer up that reason for liberals is inspired, it is transcendent. It originates from the will, but it is also universal. All have will and all have reason. Once discovered, the products of the will can be seen by and embraced by others. Will and reason cut across culture, convention, and norm.

For the conservative reason is common sense. That which is reasonable is in fact reasonable among a particular group. Reason for the conservative is not universal. What one culture believes might overlap the beliefs of another culture. There might be a great deal of overlap of belief, but no two cultures are identical. Each has their own values and practises and likewise what is reasonable. And that is why we must protect our beliefs and consider how we engage the world. Such engagements with other cultures do put at risk who we are, and what we value. By engaging others, we risk who we are, we risk losing our traditions.

Finally, we arrive at our two concepts of freedom, derived from the story I tell above. Both liberalism and conservatism value freedom, but if the stories I offer of each have any validity, they will impact upon how each defines freedom. Now the basic definition of freedom is the ability to act. Accepting this, the question then becomes how does each of them, liberalism and conservatism, view the ability to act? What is it for each of these to be able to act?

For liberalism, freedom, the ability to act, is the ability of the individual to express their will. The goal is to enable the individual to express themselves. Whether it is the pursuit of a college degree, or gender reassignment surgery, each is an act of will and an act of freedom. The state and science become prosthetic devices enabling the individual's will to be expressed. And as was pointed out earlier, this is universal. To be human is to have a will, a voice and we must allow its expression. Not only allow it but nurture and facilitate it.

And for conservatism? Here, freedom is not the ability to express one's self. Freedom, for the conservative, is not the ability to create or express. The ability to act here is to be free from intrusion. Both conservatives and liberals will agree that freedom is the ability to live one's own life. The conservative, however, sees life not as will, but as communal, as social. They see life as defined by family, church, commerce, ultimately engagement with a community. In short, freedom is the ability to engage those closest to you, embracing the customs, norms and traditions that nurtured those relationships. To deny one freedom here is to deny one access to those vital relationships, and the customs, norms and traditions they are based upon.

Lastly, the state and likewise science are seen by conservatives not as prosthetic devices to facilitate the will but as intrusions into one's life. They prevent one from properly engaging others. They take away from and disrupt one's life as they not only prevent one from embracing custom and tradition, but destroy and uproot custom and tradition. They, like the will, destroy life.

Two Concepts of Freedom

A few weeks back I wrote an essay looking at some of the cultural dynamics found in the Scorcese flick, The Age Of Innocence. I contrasted some of the themes found in that movie with a picture of a transgendered mother and son, which was making the rounds on social media. Both mother and child had decided to transition. Mother was now father, and son was now daughter. I found that intriguing. Specifically, I saw it and still see it as an amazing act of will for both of them. The reality is that in their situation, with both of them deciding to transition, it might actually be easier as they can provide support to each other. Regardless, I imagine that typically, when a person decides to transition from one gender to the other, it is purely an act of individual will.

This individual will, this drive, which led a mother and son to transition to father and daughter, cannot be found in The Age of Innocence.

The willful individual in The Age of Innocence, which takes place in 19th century New York, is controlled and dealt with through social convention. Such individuals are not welcome in this world. In this world, it is not the individual will, which drives decisions. In this world found in the Age of Innocence, it is what is right, it is what is proper, that determines what one does, how one behaves. It is social norm, convention, tradition that drives what is done.

What I drew out of these two scenes in the earlier essay were two theories of value, or meaning. In the case of the mother and son or father and daughter, meaning is determined by the individuals. Both are compelled by something very much unique and inside them. It is something they must express. It is almost an artistic or creative act. In short, meaning is created through the expression of will, of self.

Going back to the Age of Innocence and 19th century New York, that is not the case. Meaning is not created by the expression of self, nor will. In fact, the expression of self is controlled and largely negated in this story. The will, or the expression of self, is perceived as a challenge or a threat to that which is valuable, that which has meaning. Specifically, individual wants and needs are fitted into the social fabric or negated, or simply ignored. The expression of self is of value only if it can be applied or brought into or is applicable to the social norms of the time.

Value and meaning in 19th century New York, as per the Scorcese movie, is based on social norm, on tradition and custom. Here what is done is determined by one's place in society, in one's family, one's business dealings, one's place in the church, within one's community. It is in this dynamic that meaning and value are derived. If there is a passion for something or someone, it is applied within this realm. It is directed. One's passion must controlled and directed. They do not control or drive one. The individual within the group, within one's family, or among one's neighbors, one's peers, determines what is acceptable to express and share within those groups, and likewise what is not by looking to those groups, their traditions, norms and customs.

Again, the value here is found in the norms and customs of these communities. And value is not created, but preserved in this world. Here, we look not for the creation of value, but rather the preservation of value. We desire to preserve the community, its norms, and customs. Anything new, anything different, is valued only if it preserves and supports what we have, who we are. If the new item challenges those things, if it harms the social fabric of our community and those within it, it is discarded. It is abandoned. Rarely is the new embraced, and if it is embraced it is over time.

So from the Scorcese movie and from the image of father and daughter, we arrive at two very different theories of value and or meaning. One originating from the self or will, and the other from within the community. In my earlier essay I suggested that these can be applied loosely to the liberal and conservative traditions. Specifically, the focus on self is to be tied to liberalism, and community is to be associated with conservatism. No doubt some explaining is required. At first blush the liberal is often seen as socialists or communists - communal. Is it not the liberal that value community? Is it not Hillary Clinton who with her book suggested that it takes a village?

Likewise, is it not the conservatives who typically values liberty, which is often associated with the individual? There is some work to be done here, but it is through this 'work' that we arrive at the two concepts of freedom referenced in the title.

First off, why do I suggest that liberalism is tied to pure will or the self? Typically liberalism is associated with big government, things such as tax and spend programs, the environment, and the support of feminists, various minority groups, and today movements such as Black Lives Matter and LGTB. How are these related to the expression of self, to the will?

My response is that these things flow from liberalism. They are largely products of the will. They are expressions of self. To come out and say I am gay or I am transgender are truly expressions of self, and the political movements I have listed here came out of such expressive acts.

The environment or our interest in environmental issues is again an expression of self. (This is truly a topic or essay unto itself!) For now though, let me point to a prima facie case. In a nutshell, Take the first line of America the Beautiful,

"O beautiful for spacious skies, For amber waves of grain,"

And then jump to the recent TV series Madmen, when Don and Betty Draper go on a picnic circa the early 1960s, and abandon their soda cans and all else right there where they had picnicked. The problem was right there. It just took us awhile to see it. When I watched it in 2012 I certainly saw it. The US in 1960 had to be shown it. Such practices had to be pointed to in 1960. We were not conscious of such issues in 1960, it required an act of will.

Of course the other perception of America the Beautiful and its environment are the tears of Iron Eyes Cody. Cody was the actor in that classic commercial with the native American looking up and down the roadway, cars whizzing by. The roadway littered with trash and in the end there is a tear in Cody's eye. That commercial, it could be said of course was not will, but marketing.

Regardless, at a certain point in our history, we became conscious of how our environment was being harmed. And with that, the defense of the environment became an act of will. It became a social movement. That movement though started with an individual perceiving what had become and sharing that with others. Some first person had to perceive and express that we were damaging the environment. Likewise, Rosa Parks on her bus, and the Montgomery Bus Boycott which followed. This is another example of an individual expressing their will and the consequences of such.

I know I am conflating the liberalism of the enlightenment with the contemporary. That said, I do want to suggest the two are still connected. The technocratic state based upon reason and science, is inspired by and propelled by its citizens and ultimately their citizen's passions and wills.  Much of our "big government" in all its varieties, I would argue begins with or points back to acts of will.

A bigger issue perhaps is my suggestion that only liberals act on their will. Surely, conservatives can offer up their own social movements, driven just as much by willful individuals. This is a valid point there, however, I would argue that typically conservative social movements are driven not by inspiration but by preservation. Let me restate that. Conservatives certainly have social and political movements, but their movements are responses to the social movements originated by liberals. The conservative's social movement is intent upon preserving the social structure, the world as they know it. The liberal movement wants to change the way in which we live and engage. they want to change the world. The conservative movement largely wants to preserve and conserve.

For example, to make claims that we are harming our environment is to challenge our industries, our factories, our capitalist system, our way of life. The conservative response to feminism is and was to advocate for the traditional family. Those who are Pro-Life are basically challenging the woman's right to choose. They want to eliminate abortion, which was not legally available until 1973. They want to return to what was. The NRA and those who are advocates of the 2nd Amendment want to protect and defend their right to bear arms. In each case they want to protect something they have. (Interestingly, it could be argued they did not originally have it the case of the 2nd Amendment. . .) Again, in the Age of Innocence it is a focus on and a preservation of the existing social norms, traditions, and conventions.

This leads us to another interesting space - Progress. Liberals are today often referred to as progressives. The two terms in today's vernacular are largely equivalent and there has been a relation between the two for roughly the last one hundred years. In the little comparison which I have sketched between that which is liberal and that which is conservative, we can see that conservatives are not going to have it. They do not embrace progress, certainly not the progress advocated by the various social movements of liberals.

Likewise, they are not going to have the progress of science. Now conservatives will certainly contest this, but I would argue that the anti-intellectualism often associated with the conservative movement is rooted in the desire to preserve what we have, the norms, conventions and traditions which make us who we are. Their skepticism regarding science is rooted in their norms, traditions, and conventions which facilitate and enable the relationships, and the world in which they live.

In short, the liberal state, "big government", and science all challenge the world as it is. Both were devised or inspired to some degree with that intent of progress, of overcoming what is. For conservatives however, progress offers challenges such as abortion and the Roe vs Wade decision of 1973. With science we environmentalism, less global warming, both of which attempt to dismantle our factories and our markets. Transgender transitions would not be possible without advances in medicine. Racial justice would not be feasible without a state to impose such. All are the result of liberalism and ultimately the will.

I know I paint with an extremely large brush here. Those around me have already pointed this out, but sometimes it behooves us to go to the satellite image, unless of course it is overcast.  The question I am left with here, and this is again another tangent, is this: Does reason come from the will or from social convention and norms? For our purposes I offer up that reason for liberals is inspired, it is transcendent. It originates from the will, but it is also universal. All have will and all have reason. Once discovered, the products of the will can be seen by and embraced by others. Will and reason cut across culture, convention, and norm.

For the conservative reason is common sense. That which is reasonable is in fact among a particular group. Reason for the conservative is not universal. What one culture believes might overlap what another culture might believe. There might be a great deal of overlap of belief, but no two cultures are not identical nor are the  logical propositions embraced by them. Each has their own values and practises and what is reasonable and logical are different in each. And that is why we must protect our beliefs and consider how we engage the world. Such engagements with other cultures do put at risk who we are, what we value, and what we believe.

Finally, we arrive at our two concepts of freedom, derived from the story I tell above. Both liberalism and conservatism value freedom, but if the stories I offer of each have any validity, they will impact upon how each defines freedom. Now the basic definition of freedom is the ability to act. Accepting this, the question then becomes how does each of them, liberalism and conservatism, view the ability to act? What is it for each of these to be able to act?

For liberalism, freedom, the ability to act, is the ability of the individual to express their will. The goal is to enable the individual to express themselves. This translates to various government initiatives allowing individuals to achieve various goals, whether those goals entail getting a mortgage, an education, The pursuit of a student loan, to gender reassignment surgery, to applying for Social Security at age 65 - each of these is an act of will and an act of freedom. Each of these  becomes a prosthetic device enabling the individual's will to be expressed. And as was pointed out earlier, this is universal. To be human is to have a will, a voice and we must allow its expression. Not only allow it but nurture and facilitate it.

And for conservatism? Here, freedom is not the ability to express one's self. Freedom, for the conservative, is not the ability to create or express. The ability to act here is to be free from intrusion. Both conservatives and liberals will agree that freedom is the ability to live one's own life. The conservative, however, sees life not as will, but as communal, as social. They see life as defined by family, church, commerce, ultimately engagement with a community. In short, freedom is the ability to engage those closest to you, embracing the customs, norms and traditions that nurtured those relationships. You are defined by these relationships. How you maintain these relations tells us what kind of person you are. Self is defined by those relationships. And to deny one freedom is to deny one access to those relationships along with the customs, norms and traditions they are based upon.

Lastly, one footnote of sorts, the state and likewise science are seen by conservatives not as prosthetic devices to facilitate the will but as intrusions into one's life. They prevent one from properly engaging others. They take away from and disrupt one's life as they not only prevent one from embracing custom and tradition, but destroy and uproot custom and tradition. They like the will, destroy life.

A Response to MRC TV's Reality Check - Some Thoughts on Charlottesville

MRC TV offered up a video that did go viral today on Facebook. I saw it several times make the rounds and I finally had to respond to it.

I do not know if she is ignorant but certainly annoying. The argument seems to be that not only are nazis and white supremacist to be condemned, but also Black Lives Matter and Antifa. You cannot be against the Nazis and the KKK, and not the BLM and Antifa. You must condemn them all. If you do not, it is an act of hypocrisy. 

"If you want to condemn hate, you must condemn all of it."

The problem is that she conflates hate with violence. And she makes these assertions so strongly, vehemently. Hate and violence, however, are not equivalent. What happened this past weekend was violence, but there is more to this then this weekend. 

The weekend began on Friday night with the tiki march, which really just involved a series hateful and at times comic (I loved those tiki torches!) symbols. It was Saturday morning that members of Antifa and others were allowed to get in the faces of the multiple white supremacist groups and they were off - the fuse was lit. The result, of course, was the death of Heather Heyer, and numerous others beaten and injured. Law enforcement probably at the end of the day underestimated the challenge here. Saturday was a violent day in Charlottesville VA. 

So all parties were in some way guilty in regard to what happened this weekend. In the eyes of the law, in this age of videos on every phone, arrests will hopefully be made and people will go to jail. One hopes that anyone who committed an act of violence, damaged property, harmed others, used a vehicle to kill a woman; one hopes that anyone who engaged in such things is prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

But the speaker in the video is asking us for more. She wants us to condemn not only what happened Saturday, she wants us to condemn these political movements. Is this right?

How is a political movement such as Black Lives Matter, which originated out of the fact that a black man is 2.5 times more likely than their white peers to be killed by a police officer. How is such a movement comparable to the Ku Klux Klan? It would appear that Black Lives Matter is challenging an injustice. Not only an injustice, but one which if they are right, is perpetrated by the police, the very people who we look to to protect us, enforce the law, and carry out justice. 

She list various cities and locales which she claims Black Lives Matters has come to and wreaked havoc on. If these claims were true, if they were substantial, would not the FBI and other authorities be investigating them, prosecuting case against them? I have heard of no such investigations or trials. Yes, we have Dallas where a lone gunman shot and killed five policemen, and wounded nine other policemen, but as a political movement, as a politically driven conspiracy, we have nothing. 

Sadly, the same is true of the other side. there was most likely no conspiracy for that young man to get into his car and drive into that crowd, and killing that woman. So the violence though at times there, is not main reason we condemn such movements. If it was just violence then they would just be a gang. We condemn them for their beliefs. We condemn them for their beliefs that whites are superior, for their beliefs about the very concept of race, for their belief in fascist politics. The list goes on. 

The point is that to condemn them for simple violence is to say they are criminals. If we are to truly challenge white supremacist and facists, we must condemn their beliefs, their political philosophy, which does not values liberty, justice, equality, ultimately human life. It is the violence, the danger of their beliefs, which must be condemned. 

I have said nothing about Antifa. I know little. I feel they are largely the anarchist, that they largely just enjoy a fight, but again I do not know. They claim they exist to challenge fascism, but their methods quickly become the question. Black Lives Matters has a similar challenge. There seems to be no Martin Luther King in either of these movements, but then in 1966 I would guess that Martin Luther King was not Martin Luther King. I have rambled, no doubt, but I hope I have at least challenged the idea that if we condemn the white supremacists, we must condemn all groups. And second, I hope I have pointed to why we really want to condemn these groups. It is not just their violence, but their beliefs that we challenge and condemn.

And it is there that Black Lives Matters is a different animal. Again, they are fighting an injustice. Now we can disagree about some of their rhetoric, we can question if they are in fact a criminal conspiracy, but their pointing to what certainly seems like an injustice makes me pause. It makes me think they might actually offer something of value and that we cannot condemn after a five minute video. 

The Age of Innocence, and a Transgendered Mother and Son

 Facebook continues to amaze me. Most of the time not, but on occasion, there is something there. In this case it was one of the usual suspects throwing out some red meat to see how folks responds. On this occasion it was a headline and image of a son and daughter. Both are now trans-gendered. The poster was intending to use the image and article to continue an earlier post involving the President's twitter comments on transgenders in the military.  I never got to the military topic. I got stuck at the image and the possibility of such events. 

This Mother and Son Are Becoming Father And Daughter, Both Will Transition

In short, such a headline could only happen today. It is indicative of today's world. That is not really saying anything in itself, unless one unpacks today's world. And this is where I thank Facebook. It allowed me to see something, at least from where I stood. It does happen now and again.

So we have this image of mother and son. the image on its own was more in line with father and daughter. That image did have an effect on me. In short, my response was that apparently whole families can go trans, all can pursue gender reassignment. That is actually not true here, as the mother in fact had five kids before deciding to pursue this. My conclusion though is that this is just another option among numerous options. Becoming trans-gendered is becoming normalized. And I am not arguing pro or con here, it is a fact that trans-gendered individuals are a part of American culture. 

Now the night before I saw this article I was watching Martin Scorsese's Age of Innocence on TCM. I still feel Scorsese wanted to prove with this movie that he needed no actual physical violence to make a violent flick. Goodfellas had preceded it. Regardless, the picture represents a different time, a different age. One in which such headlines as the above of parent and child would not occur. For better or worse this is conservatism, a clinging to traditional values, and the movie so clings to how things should be. It literally becomes a conspiracy to insure that Daniel Day Lewis' character complies with the standards of the day. Basically, it is a conspiracy to insure he stays loyal to his wife, played by Winona Ryder, versus running away with a lover, Michelle Pfeiffer. 

Quite the cast no doubt, but Scorsese illustrates through this cast this society's stress upon what is proper, what is accepted. It is a conservative culture. Everything is proper. They look to social mores, custom, to determine what is appropriate. Romantic involvement of youths might be tolerated. Adults are without passion in this world. To embrace such is to risk ostracism. Such freedoms, such passions, were not allowed. First and foremost was the preservation of the social fabric. 

Contrast Scorsese's movie with the image of mother and child both arriving at decisions to become trans-gendered. Such things would not happen in the world the movie explores. Obviously. Nor could it happen. The technology just was not available. The option of gender reassignment was neither available nor acceptable in nineteenth century New York. 

The Age of Innocence illustrates the amount of violence or harm initiated by such regimes. The consequence of forcing Daniel Day Lewis' character to stay in the marriage is that they do have a family, and he does in fact values that as time goes on. Yet he gave up the one that he did love. There was a cost for this man. Likewise, I imagine that for the mother in the article, there must also have been some violence, some psychological torment in her having five children before coming out as transgendered. 

That said, what of the violence of making such an announcement to one's family, as this mother and child did? There is an impact here on the family, and its members. Granted you are not forcing them to accept or comply with your decision, it still effects them. It still disrupts and intrudes upon what is. The mother here, however, has something that is not available in the nineteenth century. There is not only the technology to allow for transgender, there is today an acceptance of the individual. of the will of the individual. For one to embrace a transgender identity requires an act of  individual will. 

Just as the Age of Innocence can be seen as a traditional society, where social custom and norms are valued, so the trans-gendered mother and child can be seen as representing our culture's value for the individual and the right to express one's self, express one's will. The former, the traditional culture, and a reliance on social norm, for me is an instance of conservatism. The decision of both a mother and child to pursue gender reassignment is an instance of power of will, the power of individuals, and of liberalism. The latter, an act of two individuals, is a challenge to the family, to that which is the norm, to that which is traditional.

And the radical expression of the individual's will here has led to two things. Conservatives today are challenged by such demands. They refuse to embrace such things as transgender. They refuse to embrace such things as their social conventions, their customs, what they value has been shredded in the process. For them, value and meaning are found in the social norms and conventions. For them it is not the individual that creates value or meaning, but rather the individual within the culture. 

They do not value the passions of the individual, but rather see them as things to be mastered and overcome. Discipline over the passions is what is required here in the conservative tradition. 

Secondly, for the conservative, science and technology likewise are a threat to one's traditions and social norms, one's social conventions. If it were not for science and technology, gender reassignment would not be possible. Science, technology, and the radical expression of will go hand in hand. They all are destructive to the norms and social conventions of traditional society. Liberalism stresses the primacy of the individual and his or her will. Science and art are an expression of that will. 

Once in awhile, whether on Facebook, or not, you see something. That or perhaps, I just had too much coffee. Again. 

The President's Successes so far. . .

So while the Russia story churns on, while we watch the bizarre tactics and strategies of Mitch McConnell in the Senate, things are happening. the Presidents team is implementing their vision of a proper government. And I do not point to the circus in the White House. Rather, what I allude to are actual policies and government agencies that his cabinet members are responsible for. In short, some of his cabinet officials are doing what they came there to do.

The below is a short summary of such "successes", focusing here on the Department of Justice. I write this for two reasons:

• The first to just list in one place some of the actual "successes" the Trump White House could be boasting about. Notice that they do not. 
• And number two - though the investigation of the 2016 election, and all its ruminations, though an important story, is not the only story. 

Basically what follows are summations of various news articles from both major "fake news" outlets and others.

Let us start with the Justice Department:

1. "Adoptive Forfeiture,", the program gives police departments greater leeway to seize property of those suspected of a crime, even if they were never charged or convicted of a crime. This policy was previously in place and was dismantled by the Obama administration. It was basically a tool used in the war against drugs. It has in the past often been misused as it became a source of revenue for local police. The Justice Department interestingly would take a cut of any the property confiscated. Today they have put certain restrictions but its use, but basically it is back.
   
   "Jeff Sessions’s Justice Department turns a $65 million asset forfeiture spigot back on", the Washington Post, By Christopher Ingraham, July 19, 2017
   
2. On Wednesday, the Day the President tweeted that "The United States Government will not accept or allow ... Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military", Jeff Sessions' Justice Department filed court papers arguing that federal civil rights law does not protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
   
   In an unusual move the Justice Department offered a friend-of-the-court brief regarding a case happening in NY involving a dispute between a privately held firm and a former employee. In the brief, they assert, “The sole question here is whether, as a matter of law, Title VII reaches sexual orientation discrimination,”. They conclude that the law does not protect against such. “It does not, as has been settled for decades. Any efforts to amend Title VII’s scope should be directed to Congress rather than the courts.” In short, they are arguing that there is no federal protection against an employer firing someone over being being gay. lesbian or transgender.
   
   "Justice Department Says Rights Law Doesn’t Protect Gays", New York Times, Alan Feuer, July 27, 2017
   
3. The Justice Department on Tuesday again announced that it was implementing requirements for certain grants available to cities and towns. these new requirements would punish so-called "sanctuary cities". “This is what the American people should be able to expect from their cities and states,” Mr. Sessions said, adding: “These long overdue requirements will help us take down MS-13 and other violent transnational gangs, and make our country safer.”
   
   The response from sanctuary cities regarding such arguments is simply that the goals of the Justice Department do not correspond to the goals and responsibilities of local law enforcement. They suggest that immigrant populations, both legal and illegal, will no longer trust the local law enforcement, allowing crimes to go unreported and ultimately allowing their neighborhoods to be havens for criminals.
   
   Now the Justice Department did to impose a similar regime this earlier in the year, and were quickly closed down by a Federal Court in San Francisco. Sessions  and his team are again exploring other ways to force "sanctuary cities" into compliance.
   
   "Sessions Once Again Threatens Sanctuary Cities", The New York Times, Vivian Yee and Rebecca R. Ruiz, July 26, 2017
   
   Attorney General Sessions Announces Immigration Compliance Requirements for Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Programs, Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Tuesday, July 25, 2017
   
4. In the healthcare arena, one of the things one routinely hears, and this also goes to identity theft is in relation to Medicare fraud. This is two fold problem in that it an additional tax on an already challenged system and further it preys upon seniors who rely upon the system, either involving them in fraudulent services or simply stealing their identities.
   
   Yet, it was reported on July 30th by the National Law Review that he has trimmed the staff of one of the strike forces responsible for such investigations. Now interestingly this group was responsible for complex corporate health care fraud. this is opposed to fraud committed by individuals or practitioners. Insurance companies and larger corporate entities are safer or safer.
   
   "AG Sessions Sends Mixed Messages on Health Care Fraud", National Law Review, July 30, 2017
   
   "As Priorities Shift at DOJ, Health Care Corporate Fraud Strike Force Gutted", The National Law Journal, Sue Reisinger & Kristen Rasmussen, As Priorities Shift at DOJ, Health Care Corporate Fraud Strike Force Gutted, July 10, 2017
   
5. Then there are the voter ID laws, which have been in the news for the last several years. The Obama administration had asserted that such laws were not only discriminatory but being used by states to intentionally to limit access to polls by certain populations. In short, those who do not have driver licenses, do not have a US Passport, nor have served in the military, etc. Basically, older, poorer people typically black and latino.
   
   The Texas legislature had passed one of the most stringent of such laws, and it was found discriminatory. They went back to work and rewrote the law and the Obama Department of Justice took them to court again. The case continues on in 2017, however with a new President we have the Sessions Department of Justice. And with the new administration, they have flipped. The Department of Justice today supports the revised law. In a newly filed brief, they claim that the new law "eradicates any discriminatory effect or intent".
   
   "Changing Sides: Trump’s Justice Department switched sides in battle over Texas voting law", Vice News, Carter Sherman July 9, 2017
   
6. Lastly, there is pot - marijuana. There are several recent reports that the Justice Department's "Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety is expected to issue a report next week that advocates believe will link cannabis use to violent crime, and will call for tougher sentences for growers, sellers and users." (Chris Morris, Fortune Magazine, Jul 24, 2017).
   
   The article goes on to point out that Jeff Sessions has already gone before committees in Congress arguing to "rescind a Justice Department budget amendment that stops the agency from using federal funds to block states from implementing their own marijuana legalization bills, both medical and recreational. (Twenty-nine states allow medical marijuana usage, while eight, plus the District of Columbia, have legalized recreational use.)"(Chris Morris, Fortune Magazine, Jul 24, 2017)
   
   "The Justice Department May Be Planning a Marijuana Crackdown", Fortune, Chris Morris, Fortune Magazine, Jul 24, 2017

I stop here, but I am afraid I could go on. . .

Memes, Videos and other Bad Arguments - A tale of Facebook

In today's world you rarely see an argument. I am referring to logical, well stated arguments with logically sound and valid premises and conclusions. Let me restate that. You do not see such arguments in Facebook, a place where many today congregate, get their news, and form their opinions. Rarely on Facebook, does one see an argument. You do not encounter valid and sound premises and conclusions on Facebook. Yet, it is for many the closest they come to engaging in any type of political discourse. I myself find it addicting. I am intrigued with it, despite its issues. It is with that, with people's reliance upon it, and my own habit in mind that I inquire here.

A cat meme. . . in case you needed to know.

So on Facebook. regardless of whether you agree or disagree with someone, whether you feel strongly about a position or not, you typically assert what you believe in one of two ways. You assert the idea or belief with either a meme, or a video. Neither is particularly satisfying. They work wonderfully perhaps for cats and wildlife, but neither leads to a conversation or a discussion. Such props rarely lead to an analysis of premises and conclusions, of positions and the ideas behind them. Such things are not the intent of memes and videos in the first place.

A political meme. . . 

The meme is today's version of a bumper sticker. Unlike a bumper sticker, however, you only encounter a meme for some limited time. The bumper sticker is on the cars in front of you, which you see at the same traffic lights every day, perhaps over a period of weeks, months, even years on those same cars. You might react to a bumper sticker initially, but then you see it again and again and again. It fades over time. With the meme you do not have such time to digest and respond. You simply react to what is on your screen but luckily it is gone soon enough. Often you only see a meme once. If it is really good, really effective, it might linger for a little bit. The effective ones provoke. All are typically short one sentence rhetorical statements, usually with an image behind the text. Together, that image and statement grab your attention. The best of them might make you pause and think, but basically they cause a reaction. Either you will strongly agree or you will strongly disagree with a meme. And those that do not cause such a reaction are failures.

The classic "My child is an Honor Roll Student. . ."

The successful meme causes the viewer to respond either affirmatively or negatively to it. It causes one to react contingent to the beliefs and values the viewer holds. It is, if it works, a litmus test betraying one's positions, one's values. Again, the goal of a good meme is to provoke a strong reaction. What that reaction is. . . is contingent upon who the viewer is.

A sample of a piece of graffiti / gang identifier,
according to the link provided, this is the Latin Kings

It is hard to engage a meme. You are either for it or against it. The typical response is a "like" of some sort. It might make you laugh or you just give it a thumbs up. These are responses of those who are sympathetic to it. You do not, however, ask a question of a meme. No one asks,"What does this mean?" or "What are you talking about?" regarding a meme. It is not done. If you ask such things, you are not really asking anything, you are challenging the meme and those who posted it. And your 'question' is responded to with mockery. It is almost like a gang identifier, warning all that this space belongs to a certain group or gang, but like a gang identifier it dares you to challenge it. Remember, the meme causes a reaction, a response, positive or negative.

In short, such questions neither deserve nor need a response. The questioner is perceived as someone who does not get it, as perhaps clueless. The questioner is not seen as trying to understand the mime, but actually attempting to challenge it. He or she is in some small way a threat. Again, you are really not asking a question, you are challenging the meme, and those who posted it. It is as simple as that.

Following the cat meme is the animal and wildlife video!

Videos, which are also shared on Facebook, do offer more substantial opinions, perspectives. They can run for five, ten minutes. Nothing too long, but enough to sway a person's opinion. They do in a way offer arguments and one is perhaps better able to challenge them. Granted you cannot argue with the video, but it is easier to post a response challenging the points made in the video. How the poster responds may vary but it is easier to engage a video as opposed to a meme. Even with that, it is typically folks in agreement liking it, and with shared positions that you typically see in the comments. Whether it be cats or politics typically the comments found under such are largely in agreement. In most cases, the people posting share much more than just memes and videos.

In general though, videos are more accessible to dialogue. They can be a starting point for a conversation, unless they deceive. Unless they simply provoke. Ideally you want both, a set of facts presented coherently and effectively. The ideal is to sway both emotively and intellectually. On Facebook that ideal is rarely achieved. Rather what we have are videos that only push a position by causing a response. They, like memes, work by provocation.

And just as with memes there are various images and themes that will provoke responses. There can be an appearance of reasoned argument, but not. They can lay out an argument or they can appear to be such, but not. Videos can deceive and distract, just as a magician does, replacing the elephant with an empty box. Videos can have the appearance of reason but actually persuade with distraction and deception. And such videos lead no where. They misinform and actually do no service to those who believe them and take them as true, as valuable.

One of the worst offenders I have encountered regarding such videos is immigration author and journalist Roy Beck's colorful gumball immigration video, "Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs - NumbersUSA.com". I have encountered this making rounds routinely and it seems to have been made back in 1996.

The basic gist of this video is that the US is bringing in a million immigrants a year with the intent of eliminating poverty in the world. He points out that the US will never achieve its goal - there are just too many people in poverty in the world. Therefore we should abandon our policy of bringing in such immigrants. He presents some impressive numbers based upon United Nations / World Bank data. Further, he stands there on his stage with multiple jars of gumballs. Each gumball representing a million immigrants. You see before you in those gumballs the scale of the problem. Poverty truly is a global problem. Further, the US attempt to solve the problem a gumball at a time, considering all the jars and all the gumballs he has there, is absurd. It cannot be done. 

Not only does he point out the basic problem with such an approach, he points out that this is not good for the US, nor the countries and regions these people originate from. Such a policy, he points out stresses the US's infrastructure and and takes money that could be better spent on its own citizens. Likewise, he points out that this does not help the regions that are struggling with poverty. The US is in fact taking their best people, leaving these regions without the very talent and human capital that could help pull them out of such a dire reality. 

The last argument might actually have some merit to it. Maybe the US is stealing the best and brightest. That said, the basic argument being offered here is false. No one in the US is encouraging immigration as a way of eliminating world poverty. No one in or out of government is suggesting that bringing millions of immigrants to the US will help those who remain behind in their homelands, It will not help the hundreds of millions who continue to struggle with the challenges of poverty. 

In short, the eloquence of his stage and his presentation, the research done to substantiate his claims, are all there. Not only the preparation and the stage, but the gumballs, and the jars, and the bourbon sniffer that he stands there spinning that lone gumball in as he makes his points. All are all very impressive. That said, none of it takes away from the point that he is arguing against a position that no one has asserted. 

His argument against immigration is valid if and only if his first premise is true: That the US Government has adopted an immigration policy with the intent of eliminating world poverty. That premise is false, and with that the rest is worthless. The stage, the gumballs, the numbers, all are for nothing. 

It is a common fallacy, a type of invalid and unsound argument. The above is an example of a straw man argument. In short, the argument is false as the first premise, which is typically what is being challenged, does not accurately represent what is being argued against. Mr Beck and his team have created a "straw man", versus an actual position regarding immigration and why the US desires to bring in a certain number of immigrants each year.

Another video that caught my attention is one the NRA recently released. Originally on NRATV on July 1st, I found it too making the rounds on Facebook. Basically it is an agitated speaker, a commentator,  Grant Stinchfield responding to the "violent left’s meltdown" over Dana Loesch’s recent NRA advertisement, another video that recently made the rounds. 

 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgMRP4KOALw )

I will only comment on Grant's video, which I encountered last week. It was last Friday and it did effect me. When I listened to it, I was just taken aback. I had heard about earlier NRATV videos and all, but never listened to them. Here is this man against a black backdrop. It is just him. He is near hysterical. He is in a rage. And he makes all these bizarre claims. He is challenging the violent left. The shooting of Steven Scalise at that Republican Baseball practice is referenced. Kelly Griffin with her head is shown. After maybe a minute, maybe, I have had enough. He is too intense. It is his tone, his pace.

I went back to the post and asked who is this guy and what is he talking about? The poster of the video went back and forth with me for a while. Another person on the post took over after awhile and responded to my queries. This went on the rest of that afternoon and continued on into Saturday. We stopped Saturday afternoon. He got tired of me trying to make sense . I thank him for his patience with me but again, I was just trying to understand. What was the point of all this?

Friday night I arrived at the conclusion that this video was not really intended to communicate but to divide. I still believe this. I suggested that ultimately it is a way to justify ignoring half of America. It exaggerated the actions of a few and and then suggested that those who are Democrats, who are liberals, etc. were somehow responsible for these actions. He suggest that if they are not responsible for these actions then at the least they are complicit in them. Again, it seems like an argument for ignoring such a group. It would be appropriate if true. Interestingly. we are talking about more than 100 million people who would probably consider themselves liberals, Democrats, members of the left, or at least agree that they hold some those political views.

The violent acts we are talking about range from the recent shooting at the Republican baseball practice in VA, where Steve Scalise, the House whip, was shot, to Kelly Griffin with her gory head. We are talking of Snoop Dogg in a video of him shooting a clown which looks like the President. There are references to the violent protests in Berkeley and other similar incidents, which were occurring earlier this year. Again, these are unfortunate events, some tragic, others simply in bad taste. They really say little regarding the 100 million plus people who voted for Hillary Clinton and again who have certain beliefs regarding the government and its proper role in our country.

In writing this essay, I went back to the video on YouTube. I have to say YouTube is amazing. I did not really want to listen and re-listen to this video. YouTube provides a transcript as one of the options! If you read the transcript you quickly realize this is another straw-man argument of sorts. This video is not a challenge to liberals, it is a challenge to the violent left, whoever they are. This guy is in fact after them.

That said, he does provide some hints as to who the violent left is. He points to a "Cammalleri" who wrote a letter to the NRA protesting that prior video. I imagine it is not Michael Cammalleri of the LA Kings, despite the YouTube transcription. Probably Carmen Perez, one of the co-founders of the Women's March, which is also referenced by the speaker.

He goes on to reference Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom of CA, a prior mayor of San Francisco and according to his Wikipedia page exploring a run for the CA Governorship. He then points to DeRay Mckesson, a civil rights activist and member of the Black Lives Matter movement. He asserts that Mckesson is responsible for property damage to more than 850 businesses and injured more than one hundred law enforcement officers. This is an especially serious charge, which is quickly stated and then moved from. He goes on to mention Chris Murphy, junior Senator from Connecticut, and Michael Bloomberg.

So he is pointing to democrats and liberals. He is asserting that Michael Bloomberg, Gavin Newsom, DeRay Mckesson, and Carmen Perez are responsible for these violent shootings, riots and Cathy Griffin's video.  The left has indeed become the violent left. What we have here is an "ad hominem" argument. It is an argument, which is directed against the person or persons rather than the position they hold. None of the people he lists, Bloomberg, Newsom, or Mckesson are guilty of any of these crimes. None have been charged in relation to any of these events nor are such charges forthcoming. He is associating people he disagrees with politically with violent often tragic crimes. And with that association they do become irrelevant. They can now be ignored. That is the intent.

Two other points to be made here in relation to this video. The first regards the use of such events as the shooting of Steven Scalise to brand those on the left as violent. This involves not only flawed logic, it is disrespectful to those who were shot, the victims. It is to use them and these events cheaply. It is to disregard the real causes of that shooting, an apparently lone frustrated man who saw something of value in such a shooting. And the second point is that this video diminishes the tragedy or seriousness of such shootings as he list such events with the silliness of Cathy Griffin and Snoop Dogg.

Let me end this with this. The memes I started with, the two videos I explored; none want you to engage. They want to end conversation. In each, the conclusion they offer is that there is no need for conversation, the answers are obvious. The meme, the modern day bumper sticker, the internet's version of graffiti or street gang identifier, just demands your thumbs up. The videos have you believe that immigration is a failed impossible policy, and that we must defend ourselves and our liberties from the violent left. Both are patently false. All are typical of what can be found on Facebook. Each involves a certain thoughtlessness, a disregard for logic, an embrace of sentiment, and a nasty aftertaste.

Has Political Correctness Gone Too Far? . . . Afterthoughts

I was heading out of work this past Thursday (5/25/17) evening and in the elevator realized it was another big debate night. Motion Debates, a group trying to revive or simply bring formal debating into our lives has a debate on some provocative topic once a month in my building . The topic this month was whether Political Correctness has gone too far?

This night as they usually do, they had four debaters, two asserting that Political Correctness has gone too far, and two arguing not. They went back and forth and at the end of the night, through two polls, one at the beginning, and a second at the end of the night, concluded that those defending political correctness were more persuasive than those challenging the idea. The winner in these affairs is based upon who was more persuasive,

So with that those defending political correctness had persuaded more people to their side, than those arguing that political correctness has gone too far. I was not surprised. Aside from the fact that we were in the middle of NYC, or perhaps exactly because we were in that locale, those challenging the idea of political correctness just started from a weak and impoverished starting point.

Before I flesh that out, let us define political correctness. The four debaters pointed to several common examples of "political correctness". There was the idea that not all Muslims are terrorists. There was the tension between "Black Lives Matters" and "All" or "Blue Lives Matters". There was the idea that welfare and other government handouts largely go to minorities as opposed to those who are simply poor. 

In short, the discussion was focused on the tensions between various groups in a pluralistic society and how best to navigate such situations. Further, these groups have certain identities, and the question becomes who determines who these people are in these groups? Further, which of these groups has legitimate grievances and issues?

The two solutions embraced in the debate were to either embrace the labels and the associated identities, to be "politically correct", or ignore such labels and empathize with the actual people or individuals, and when necessary apply or appeal to the social science regarding their situations. Those were the two options offered here. That said, even though we can represent them as option A and option B, they are not equivalent, Like any decision, whether we are talking cars models, or homes versus condos, each offers unique benefits and consequences.

The consequences of the politically correct label is that you have a mix of groups ranging from radical and non-radical Muslims, black lives matters, versus those who are not black and those who are blue - the police. There are feminists, and non-feminists. Another is the transgender and gay communities. Each of these groups with their own unique set of beliefs, desires, behaviors, practices, and so forth. It seems like this is almost basic sociology or anthropology.

The alternative offered to this approach is that you do not embrace such labels, but rather simply empathize with the people you encounter. You empathize with individuals, not groups. And if there are tensions you embrace the social science. In short, you try to embrace and understand the individual. In this model you treat people as individuals - love your fellow man or woman. All individuals are equal, and when there is a problem that is when you appeal to culture, politics and economics. 

So we have one that celebrates the diversity of cultures and the various groups that make up those cultures. The other celebrates the individual and the basic respect and empathy each is entitled to, one and all. On those occasions when we cannot empathize, we explore why. And this is where it is interesting. Based on those explorations, we broaden our definition of who we empathize with. The science allows us to empathize with those with different beliefs, and behaviors, and perhaps even who are members of other groups. The two approaches here basically converge.

I would argue that what I describe corresponds with the conclusions of the polls taken. At the end of the night, empathy and social science allow for new subcultures, which are ultimately described in "politically correct" language. We abandon old ways of talking and by updating and enlarging our set of beliefs are now able to embrace others and perhaps even groups. 

So if this approach, that of empathizing and understanding others, is not adequate in arguing against the politically correct, what is?

Now let me again return to the idea of consequences. The consequent or the result of political correctness is to the protect the cultural identity of the other, of minorities. We have already seen that to embrace the individual and science is to largely arrive at the politically correct. Social science argues for the existence of cultural identity and that most individuals are born into groups with such. Therefore, embracing social science and empathy will not allow you to argue that political correctness has gone too far. Perhaps, the science and empathizing have gone too far?

Again, the consequences of being politically correct are to embrace others from different groups, which have different believes, practices, and traditions. They might interpret history and current events differently. They will have different agendas and likewise desire and resolve social issues and social problems differently. They will define these in their own terms, and in fact they may or may not see a problem where we did. In short, by acknowledging such politically correct positions, we are allowing others to fully engage socially, economically, and politically, despite their differences. That is the consequent of being politically correct.

Before I go farther, however, what could challenge such a position? What I describe seems almost the paradigm of liberalism. And please do not confuse my reference with how we today treat the term. What I refer to points to liberty, equality, and tolerance. It is a concept originating in the Enlightenment. Again I ask, if all this is true, how can those challenging political correctness achieve their goal. How can they persuade that political correctness has gone too far, or in fact is actually illiberal?

The response is that you need something of greater consequence. You need something that would justify denying a group access to our markets, to our social and political institutions. In short, political correctness becomes a problem, it has gone too far, when it challenges the very institutions, which allow for it.

Two obvious ones, which we have little tolerance for are the Ku Klux Klan and Nazis. Even then we allow these to have rallies within certain parameters. Even these are allowed to exercise their freedom of speech. The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is another group that we have little tolerance for, yet their website appears to be up and running. All of these run on ideas that are foreign to us. Regardless of how much empathy we have, how much social science we apply, we, or most of us at least, have little toleration for such groups or individuals.

It could be said that the Klan, Nazis, and NAMBLA, are easy ones. Everyone hates them. No one is really arguing for their inclusion into our system, our culture. Yet, there are people in the U.S. that support such movements and ideas. Those people are few and far between, but they are here or there. Those people, those individuals share the values and beliefs of Nazis and Klansmen, and NAMBLA. They just do not act on those beliefs today. So one can argue that they exist, but does that mean they are entitled to inclusion into our culture?

I think it is here that we find that political correctness, if it were to defend such groups, has gone too far. Why is it politically correct to embrace the feminist or the transgender individual, but not the Nazi? What is the difference between these these groups? For me it is the fact that the Nazi challenges our institutions, our traditions, our beliefs. Nazis and the Klansmen do not believe that all men are created equal. NAMBLA challenges the law, asserting that it is acceptable and appropriate for men to be sexually involved with boys. Not only do these groups challenge the law, they challenge our cultural norms and mores. In each case these groups offer up and embrace something that we consider taboo. No argument can be made for their inclusion. They threaten the very cultural traditions and values we hold dear.

This becomes the beginning of a test for the politically correct. Does the group in question, with its own beliefs, and behaviors, it's own norms and customs, challenge our institutions, our beliefs, our customs, and traditions? The Nazis and NAMBLA are easy here - they do challenge our norms. The problem is, however, that in every case, with almost every group, the answer will be yes. All groups in the end challenge our traditions, customs, and our norms.

The question becomes are we willing to tolerate that challenge. Can we tolerate a hijab in our public or private school? Can we accept that a transgender individual requires a public restroom just like the rest of us, and further, can we figure out how to accommodate such needs? Can we accept that the Muslim, or the Black Lives Matter advocate, or the gay or transgender individual will challenge our own faith, our own practices and traditions, our own cultural norms regarding church, state, and family. What are the American people willing to tolerate and not? With 320 million plus of us in the US today, answering that question might take awhile, but that is the line beyond which, political correctness goes too far.