Having Fun, Better Debating and Why The American Ship of State Has Drifted Off Course. The Plight of Liberal Judaism. Goosing The Gander!

The above is what happens when you are having fun.

The posting below is smack on but I have several liberal friends and memo readers, including a relative, who would rather bring up FOX every time they want to win their argument.

I will now post my thoughts about why Americas's ship of state has drifted far from the route The Founding Father's must have imagined and then I will join some radicalized group and go out and protest everything Republicans stand for so I can feel good.(See 1, 1a and 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is the plight of Liberal Judaism broken? (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bret Stephens offers a back handed op ed why Democrats are dumb to oppose Trump's nominee, Kavanaugh..  He is correct but then Democrats, whom his op ed was written for, are uncontrollably angry at losing their power regarding their ability to direct The Supreme Court to turn everything into a social welfare decision.

Pendulums eventually swing and goose ganders and Trump cannot make "America Great Again" if the likes of Justice Ginsberg and Sen. Warren have their way.. (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.
1)

To Get Along Better, We Need Better Arguments

Our polarized politics keeps us from learning anything from our opponents. Here’s how to fix that.

By  Walter Sinnott-Armstrong

Both parties complain about the polarization of American politics, but what can individual citizens do about it? We can’t singlehandedly civilize the internet or force elected officials to do their jobs. What we can do is improve the quality of our interactions with people who disagree with us about contentious issues. We have to learn how to argue better.

The first step in improving the quality of our arguments is to stop thinking of them as fights or competitions. The goal of a good argument is not to attack enemies or to make opponents look silly. You can do that using terrible arguments or simply with jokes and name-calling. The point of engaging in argument is to improve our understanding of one another and of important issues. When you present a reasoned argument for your position, you help me to understand not only what you believe but also why you believe it.

Imagine that I support inheritance taxes and you oppose “death taxes.” I might assume that you’re rich and selfish, and you might assume that I’m jealous of rich people. These assumptions make our conversation frustrating and fruitless. But things are different if you argue that death taxes hurt family farms, and I counter that we need inheritance taxes to help poor and middle-class people who inherit little or nothing.

Once we begin to understand each other’s reasons, we’re more likely to stop yelling at each other. We’re able to work together to formulate a compromise that will serve both our purposes—helping the middle and lower classes without hurting family farms. We would not have known where to look for a compromise if we hadn’t clearly articulated our arguments.

Of course, arguments are not all we need. Not every audience is willing to listen to reason, and we should not expect even good arguments to convince everyone immediately. Nevertheless, good arguments can help a lot when they’re presented in the right way to the right audience. In order to achieve the goal of mutual understanding, people who engage in argument need three qualities
Be candid. If your goal in arguing is just to stir up people who already agree with you, you might be happy to use rhetorical tricks. But if you seek to improve your own understanding of a controversial issue, it’s better to state your premises clearly, admit your assumptions and spell out each step in your argument. For example, if you argue that we need a carbon tax to slow climate change, you should admit that you’re assuming that climate change is a serious and pressing problem, that higher carbon taxes will not cause too much harm to the economy and that there’s no better way to prevent the harm caused by climate change.

On the other side, if you argue that we should not have a carbon tax, you should admit that you’re assuming that climate change will not be as bad as the most dire predictions claim and that businesses will not be able to adjust to a carbon tax by developing other sources of energy. When such claims are brought out into the open, it becomes clear that both sides depend on assumptions that are far from certain. This openness about assumptions enables opponents to pinpoint precisely where they disagree and prevents allies from getting stuck in a rut when they take too much for granted.

Be respectful. It’s easy to get likes and applause on the internet by dismissing opponents as stupid, ignorant or crazy. But abuse is not argument. To argue well, you need to recognize that there are points to be made on both sides and to anticipate the strongest objections to your own position.

Be patient. Short, simple slogans are memorable, but good arguments take time. A tweet is never long enough to explain any controversial position. Just try to specify how we ought to deal with North Korea or Brexit or the opioid crisis in 280 characters. In order to make progress on such complex issues, we need to listen carefully and charitably to our opponents. We also need to learn how to argue at length and in detail for our own views.For example, if you argue that the U.S. should accept more Middle Eastern or Central American refugees, you need to face the objection that some of these refugees might be terrorists or criminals. And if you argue that the U.S. should build a wall on its border with Mexico, you need to respond to the objection that persistent immigrants will find ways to enter despite the wall. You can reply to these objections forcefully and remain fully committed to your position, but your convictions will be sharper and stronger for being tempered in the fire of worthy opposition.

In today’s political climate, we too often reward quick and catchy but bad arguments. Or else we avoid argument altogether, by interrupting each other or refusing to answer questions. Because these patterns are so common, we do not expect to be called out when we offer bad arguments, or no arguments. In order to improve our culture and to better understand our opponents as well as ourselves, we need to start demanding better arguments—from everyone.

—Mr. Sinnott-Armstrong is Chauncey Stillman Professor of Practical Ethics in the department of philosophy and the Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University. This essay is based on his new book, “Think Again: How to Reason and Argue,” just published by Oxford University Press.

1a) I believe the American ship of state has drifted off course for a variety of reasons and more than I can think of and/or post. Therefore, I will site a few and leave the reader to fill in  blanks. 

Some might feel we are right on course. If that is the case I urge them to read: "The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of The United States of America."

The copy I keep on my desk, is 58 pages long and was printed by The Cato Institute.  I doubt any current and/or reasonably former Congress could duplicate the wisdom in so short a space even if Hemingway was a member of Congress.

a) Though our nation's founders were passionate, mostly well read and idealistic and thrashed out the aforementioned documents in heated debates they were still human and could not forecast/contemplate  every subsequent event that might impact their thinking etc.

This is why we have 27 Amendments which take up 15 pages of my Cato Copy.

b) I believe technology has had a great deal to do with driving us off course because something as "simple" as the internet has undercut the way we used to receive our "fact based" news. A lot of people read my memos but I am not a certified, trained, educated reporter. My goal, however is to get you to think.

c) I believe corporate take overs of the media have turned journalism and investigate reporting into entertainment and that has undercut the critical importance of the valid role of The Fourth Estate. AT&T, in order to survive and compete , recently acquired  TIME WARNER which owns CNN.

d) The Founding Fathers knew America would have enemies and this is why the first responsibility of any government/leader is that of protecting the citizens of that country but how could they predict the unleashing of Atomic Power, airplanes, communication devices and their ramifications?

e) Our Constitution made many initial mistakes when it came to recognizing who was a citizen and therefore, how they too were to benefit from the intent of the document. Every generation has sought to modify and/or change the inclusiveness intended by our documents.  In some instances these changes (amendments) have been positive but in some they have allowed those in power, and weak in integrity, to steer the ship of state in a wrong direction.  I specifically believe this is the case with the 16th Amendment.

f)  I doubt The Framers and Founding Fathers intended for Congress to abdicate its responsibility and role of governance as it has and to allow our nation to be ruled by legislated agencies whose employees and heads  are not elected officials. Many of these agencies have assumed enormous power because they have tenure beyond those in Congress which has undercut the freedoms envisioned by our documents.

g) Because of our documents, our embrace of capitalism and the fact that we are a nation endowed with God like physical blessings when it comes to climate, geography, resources and  yes, even neighbors  etc. we have prospered beyond anyone's imagine and because of wars and our willingness to engage we have made sacrifices, assumed responsibilities that have cost us dearly and changed our nation's constitutional course.

h) Most importantly, we have allowed government to grow amoebic-ally and to intrude in ways never intended.  The dumbing down of our nation's education system and lack of  informed  citizenry participation, has weakened our "checks and balance system."

Serving in government was never intended to be a full time occupation not was it intended for the elected to avoid being subject to their own passed laws.

Nor was it contemplated powerful, monied  narrow self-interest lobbyists would gain the power they have.

i) Under the guise of  turning  benefits into entitlements we have radically altered the character of our nation. 

The third reason for government (the second is establishing courts to enforce contracts so commerce can occur) is the affirmative one which allows government to reach into the pockets of citizens for the benefit of those less fortunate. Compassion and wants should have limits when it comes to fulfillment. Not everything can be addressed, nor can everyone have their "bucket list" met from the coffers of government.

j) In the interest of space/time I will cite one more important determinant that I believe has taken us off course and that is our political parties which have become more interested in feathering their nests, supporting their own goals and philosophical interests over the broader needs of the nation as a whole.

I believe it was Madison who warned the greatest threat to our nation would be our political parties.

A recent example was the speech by Sen. Durbin, warning his fellow Democrat Senators, to throw themselves on the sword to defeat any SCOTUS nominee President Trump might name. Why?  Because Durbin placed acting for the good of his party's desire to maintain power through Jurists who become legislators above anything else.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2) Liberal Jews are destroying their own religion

By Jonathan Neumann

American Judaism is broken.

When two of the Jewish community’s most celebrated writers, Michael Chabon and his wife Ayelet Waldman, write an open letter stating that: “Any Jew, anywhere, who does not act to oppose President Donald Trump and his administration acts in favor of anti-Semitism; any Jew who does not condemn the president, directly and by name, for his racism, white supremacism, intolerance and Jew hatred, condones all of those things,” you don’t have to look far to see why.

American Judaism is broken because the Jewish left broke it.

A tiresome fixation on “tikkun olam,” which literally means “repair of the world,” has allowed Judaism to fall into disrepair.

The phrase “tikkun olam” was quietly lifted out of context from a Jewish prayer before the Second World War to mean social justice. It was popularized in the 1970s and 1980s by radicals like Michael Lerner, who founded the extreme left-wing magazine, Tikkun.

Since then, we have been led to believe that the purpose of the Jews in the world is to campaign for higher taxes, sexual permissiveness, reduced military spending, illegal immigration, opposition to fracking, the banishment of religion from the public square and every other liberal cause under the sun — all in the name of God.

But the truth is that tikkun olam and its leftist politics have no basis in Judaism. Tikkun olam is not Judaism at all but a distinct religion, whose adherents, it might be said, have culturally appropriated this ancient faith. This religion of tikkun olam commands the allegiance of most non-Orthodox Jews (and some Orthodox ones), who make up the overwhelming majority of the American Jewish community. The dogma of this religion is appealingly simple: Judaism is tikkun olam, which is social justice, which is liberalism. The Jews are called upon to do no less — and no more — than cultivate a liberal paradise in America.

In this, liberal Jews have often had the hypocritical backing of the celebrity corps — literati, Hollywood executives, academics, politicians and financiers — who say one thing in public while, in several cases, doing unspeakable things in private.

But above all, this liberalism — this tikkun olam — teaches that the Jewish People is an outdated and chauvinistic relic, with no need for a nation-state of its own in its ancient homeland. Consequently, Jewish social justice activists help to defame Israel and weaken America’s bond with the Jewish State.

“tikkun olam president” and (synonymously) as the “first Jewish president.” He repeatedly referenced the significance of tikkun olam to his own life, nurtured by his liberal Jewish mentors in Chicago, and it was because of this commitment to tikkun olam, not in spite of it, that he was the most hostile president toward Israel in history.

But now the tikkun olam movement is in disarray. Its activists have been evicted from the White House, together with their messiah, replaced by a coalition of religious Christians and traditionalist Jews. And natural as it comes to the political exiles to oppose the new administration, these activists are discovering that left-wing social justice marches have no place for Jewish warriors.

And so the Jews have to choose between social justice and being Jewish. Chabon and Waldman have made their choice.

But there is an alternative.

A new generation of traditionalist Jews, proud of their heritage and jealous to preserve it, is unimpressed with America’s broken Judaism. These Jews know that their ancestors did not live to worship a political party nor die for faddish causes.

They recognize that the American Jewish future depends on overcoming the superficial and ignorant equation of Judaism with leftist politics. What is needed is a real Jewish renewal — a community that stands for religious liberty, not against it; affirms the alliance between America and Israel, rather than undermines it; and above all believes it is a community that has a compelling reason to persist.

It’s time American Jewry repaired itself instead of the world.

Jonathan Neumann is the author of “To Heal the World? How the Jewish Left Corrupts Judaism and Endangers Israel” (All Points Books) out Tuesday.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Just Confirm Kavanaugh
By Bret Stephens

With apologies to “Animal House’s” Otter, Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court is not the time “a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part.”

Then again, Otter’s frat brother Bluto did go on to become a United States senator, so maybe it makes sense. I refer to the decision of Senate Democrats to wage a tooth-and-nail battle to oppose Kavanaugh, an effort that is likely doomed to fail and equally likely to hurt Democratic chances in the fall. Who knew Chuck Schumer was so content with his job as Senate minority leader?

Let’s count the ways in which the Democrats aren’t helping themselves.

Kavanaugh will almost certainly be confirmed. Democrats who had pinned their hopes on flipping Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski probably aren’t going to get their wish, since both Republican moderates voted to confirm Kavanaugh to his current judgeship in 2006 and have since spoken approvingly of his nomination. Rand Paul can also be counted on to feign political independence, but he usually falls into line.

Of course it’s possible Kavanaugh will make a bad public impression, like Robert Bork. Or maybe there will be a #MeToo revelation, like with Clarence Thomas. Or maybe Democrats will figure out a way to kick a vote past the midterms. In which case, Democrats can seize their chances. For now, however, the first question Democrats ought to ask themselves is whether they really have political capital to waste on a losing battle.

Fierce opposition to Kavanaugh hurts Democrats. This was already going to be a difficult year for Senate Democrats, who are defending 10 seats in states won by Trump. Everyone knows that North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp, West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and Indiana’s Joe Donnelly are vulnerable, which is why they voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch last year. Florida’s Bill Nelson is struggling, too, as is Missouri’s Claire McCaskill.

So please explain the logic of convincing Democratic voters in these states that the Kavanaugh nomination is the moral battle of our time — and then putting their senators to the choice of looking like political sellouts if they vote for Kavanaugh, or moral cowards if they don’t (and vice versa)?

Liberals always cry wolf. In 1987, the National Organization for Women declared that Anthony Kennedy would be a “disaster” for the rights of women and minorities. Yet the libertarian-minded Kennedy went on to defend abortion rights in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and cast the decisive vote for marriage equality in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). In 1990, Judith Lichtman of the Women’s Legal Defense Fund warned in a Times op-ed that “Judge Souter’s confirmation must be denied” based on his evasiveness during his confirmation hearings. Over time, Souter emerged as a reliably liberal vote on the court. Similar fury greeted John Roberts’s 2005 nomination — until his vote to preserve Obamacare remade him into a consensus-oriented pragmatist.

A plurality of Americans already want Kavanaugh confirmed, according to a Rasmussen poll. The numbers will likely improve once Americans get a closer look at this temperate, intelligent, decidedly non-scary nominee. And Democrats will again play to type as mindless obstructionists and one-note alarmists — the same overheated opposition that, as the Times’s Jeremy Peters reported last month, only hardens support for Trump.

What about rallying the base? Democrats should have learned in 2016 that what counts in American politics is location, not turnout. Virtue signaling in Park Slope isn’t going to win a Senate election in Nevada. Nor will it convince Alabama Democrat Doug Jones to vote against Kavanaugh.

As it is, how much more rallying does the base need? The Trump administration provides its opponents, and even its friends, with daily extravaganzas of legitimate outrage, moral and political: breaking up migrant families; escalating needless trade wars; alienating historic allies while kowtowing to pathological dictators — and that’s just the last few weeks. Instead of knee-jerk opposition to Kavanaugh, Democrats might focus on fighting battles that must be fought and which they can win.

Kavanaugh deserves confirmation. There was a time when Supreme Court nominees were confirmed on the basis of merit, not ideology. For Democrats, that ended in 1987 with the Borking of Bork. For Republicans, it ended with the mistreatment of Merrick Garland.

Yet there’s still such a thing as doing the right thing, even in politics. Justices such as Roberts and Gorsuch deserved their seats on the court for the same reason Ginsburg and Breyer did — they are competent, conscientious judges, irrespective of how they vote. They give the court its democratic legitimacy, and its leeway for meaningful independence, by representing a spectrum of views. Democrats would help themselves, and the country, by returning to the old standard and refusing to let Kavanaugh’s confirmation become the political event of the season.

Alternatively, Democrats can proffer another futile and stupid gesture as Trump champions his manifestly qualified nominee. If someone would like to explain the political wisdom in that, I’m all ears.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++