Categories
Immigration Media Politics Uncategorized US Politics

The Economist and TDS

Dave 07An Open Letter to the Economist Magazine

June 26, 2018

Dear Sir or Mdm.

As a long-term subscriber to the Economist magazine, I feel compelled to write to you about my concerns regarding your magazine’s symptoms of extreme Trump Derangement Syndrome or TDS. Since 1843, your magazine has arguably been the premier English language source, worldwide, for hard news, delivered competently and dispassionately. Yet I fear that over the last number of years, and particularly since the candidacy and inauguration of Donald Trump, you have increasingly become an advocacy magazine rather than a news magazine.

Trump the Wrecker.jpgNo matter what the story, your take is overwhelmingly negative towards anything Donald Trump does. Let me make it clear; I don’t like Donald Trump. He is a bombastic egotist, although I must point out that his predecessor was simply a more refined egotist.

(Regarding this Economist cover: you forget that Trump was elected to shake up (wreck if you will), the failed modus operandi of the past.)

Presidents are not elected to be refined, but to provide leadership; in other words, to get things done. Elegant and articulate speeches that lead nowhere are not leadership. In that regard, Churchill was an articulate leader; Obama was an articulate failure.

12summit-handshake-jumbo-v4Just to give a couple of recent examples of your ever more absurd coverage of all things Trump; you called Trump’s meeting with Kim Jong Un in Singapore “a stunt.” So far, that stunt has brought American hostages home; suspended North Korea’s annual “hate America” festival; and apparently will result in repatriating the bodies of American soldiers killed in the Korean War.

Most importantly, it elicited a commitment from Kim to dismantle his nuclear arsenal. If he fails to do it, sanctions and military exercises can be resumed. That’s a better start than any of Obama’s stunts.

You call the US withdrawal from United Nations Human Rights Council, “an empty gesture.” If so, it’s a long overdue empty gesture. Fiddling around the edges of a hopelessly dysfunctional and discredited organization is a waste of time. The HRC needs to be disbanded, and sanely reconstituted.

Recent separation of illegal immigrant families under the Trump Administration are no different in kind than what happened under the Obama administration, yet under Trump you imply that it’s a far more serious moral issue. Is it?

The manifestations of your magazine’s advanced TDS would fill a book, and it distresses me to say that on things Trump, the Economist now has little more credibility than media organizations like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN; organizations that have made no secret of their intention to forgo objective news in their campaign to unseat Donald Trump.

Please do better.

Yours truly

Dave W Reesor

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Categories
Media Politics The left Uncategorized US Politics

Trump’s Win-Win Summit

Dave 07A Zero-Sum Game is a situation in which one person or group can win something only by causing another person or group to lose it. It’s a central tenet of the left -wing Progressivist worldview. If someone gets richer, then, in their view, someone else must get poorer.

A recent issue of The Economist magazine shows Trump astride a wrecking ball with the accompanying article bemoaning the way Trump is “wrecking” the norms of world trade, and diplomacy. (Which, by the way, is exactly what he was elected to do.)

Then in articles and newscasts, Progressivist media outlets like The Economist, CNN and their ilk, confidently predicted that Trump, because of his propensity to ignore the norms of diplomacy, was going to lose at his summit with North Korean dictator, Kim Jong Un. And in their worldview, they were proven right. The headline in the following week’s Economist was a play on Kim Jong Un’s name: “KIM JONG WON.”

12summit-handshake-jumbo-v4Well, yes he did. For a couple of days, one of the world’s worst characters was a leading figure on the world stage, and in the world’s media. He met face-to-face with the most powerful man in the world; the President of the United States. They stood side by side. Kim even won the concession that military exercises by the South Koreans and the United States would be suspended.

And in the Progressivist mind, since Kim won those victories, Trump must have lost. Because in the Progressivist mind, life is a zero-sum game.

Progressivists won’t acknowledge that in exchange for Trump suspending military exercises, Kim agreed to de-nuclearize the Korean Peninsula, and that if he fails to do that, the Americans and South Korean can simply resume military exercises and ratchet up the economic sanctions.

Progressivists like to point out that Trump has a big ego. Yes, and so does Kim Jong-Un. Incidentally, so does Barack Obama; otherwise how do you explain a singularly unaccomplished individual accepting a Nobel Peace Prize before he’d done anything?   Omama acceptance 2012An even moderately humble individual would’ve said: “How about we wait until after my first term and see how things have gone?” (But then, someone who began his run for the presidency by saying that he was going to end sea level rise would certainly not foresee any problem with bringing peace to the world, would he? How has that worked out?)

Anyway, Trump has a big ego. But as a New York real estate tycoon it’s inevitable that  he’s had to deal with lots of other big egos, and he understands that it’s inevitable that sometimes two big egos will meet. So they got along and Trump massaged Kim’s ego, (and he massaged his own), and in so doing, he moved the world an important first step away from nuclear war.

I’d call that a win-win-win. The South Koreans seem to think so and they certainly have more skin in the game than anyone else. But Progressivists, especially those afflicted with advanced Trump Derangement Syndrome have no concept of what win-win even means. Or else their animus towards Trump is so pathological that they’d rather leave South Korea under nuclear threat than see the US President have a win. That’s rather sick.

Isn’t it a fact that achieving a win-win is what the Art of the Deal is really all about?

I’m Dave Reesor

Categories
Gay Rights Public Education Social Issues The left Uncategorized

The Right to Discriminate

Dave 07To Discriminate means to recognize a distinction between things. I think that even the dimmest among us recognizes that red and green are two different colors and that some people have better voices than others and some people are better athletes than others. So we discriminate when we go to a concert, or an athletic event.

But discrimination also means to make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age. I think that most people recognize that that type of discrimination is seriously wrong, but should it be illegal? As a Christian with a distinctly libertarian bent, I don’t think so, unless it advocates, or acts out violence.

But then, at an even deeper level, discrimination finds itself at the intersect between choices, and rights, and that’s where a lot of seriously wrongheaded thinking takes place, particularly as regards sexuality.

I’m straight, and I had no choice in that matter; it’s just what I am. But nearly 52 years ago I made a choice to end my single existence, and to get married. However, my choice was not automatically granted; I had to ask Meritha, (it was on about the 5th date and at first she thought I was joking), and she had to accept, otherwise I might still be single.

My heterosexuality was not a choice; but to be married was, and it was contingent on the acceptance of my choice by someone else. And even then, after I had Meritha on side, we  had to choose when and where to be married; who to perform the ceremony; who to cater, and so on. And every one of our choices had to be agreed to by someone else, and every one of those individuals had every right to refuse our choice, on any grounds whatsoever.

Recently, the US Supreme Court upheld a Colorado baker’s right to refuse to bake a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage. It’s regarded as a victory for freedom of religion, but there are some questions as to how effective it will be in the long run. Because there is increasingly a lot of severely muddle-headed thinking around sexuality.

So again, here’s what I think. It’s not scientifically supported, but let’s allow that the same-sex couple in Colorado were both born gay and that they had no choice in their sexual attraction. But their “marriage” unequivocally represented a continuum of choices. First of all, who to marry. Once they were past that hurdle, who to perform the ceremony, where to hold the ceremony and the celebration afterwards. Then, who to cater the event, and who they chose to make the cake.

Every one of those was a choice, not a right, and for the marriage plans to go forward, those choices either had be accepted by the other parties involved, or a different choice made. I personally see no reason that those choices could not be refused on any grounds whatsoever, but for certain, a person should have been able to refuse them on the grounds of their freedom of association, or of conscience. Those are universally recognized human rights. Marriage is not an inherent human right, nor are the rituals surrounding marriage.

trans-man-having-babyWe need to start to think clearly about sexuality, because when you don’t you end up with situations like this.

Try to figure it out.

Then think of the child.

I’m Dave Reesor, and please let me know what you think.

** For more perspective, I wrote a blog about this issue a few years ago.