Brian Gongol Show on WHO Radio - February 4, 2017
Please note: These show notes may be in various stages of completion -- ranging from brainstormed notes through to well-polished monologues. Please excuse anything that may seem rough around the edges, as it may only be a first draft of a thought and not be fully representative of what was said on the air.
The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 4, 2017
The President has made a lot of promises about jobs, but I can tell you for sure: He's guaranteed full employment for people like me who share our opinions on the weekends.
Virtue-signaling isn't a philosophy
A list of things that you want? That's not a philosophy. A philosophy is what you believe. And now is the time to quit virtue-signaling and to get a clear idea of what you believe.
A friend of mine turned to Facebook this morning to share a story saying that Charles Koch was gearing up to spend a lot of money fighting some of the President's proposed abuses of the economic system.
She doesn't like Koch because she's a strident left-winger. Thus, to her, "Koch" is a four-letter word of a different sort. She can't really believe that she would have anything in common with him, and even in the act of sharing the story (from Time Magazine), she had to note that she still doesn't trust the Koch brothers.
The problem is, she wants to take part in virtue-signaling without embracing a philosophy. She wants to tell everyone what she wants from government, and to signal that she thinks capitalists are bad.
But the fact is that Trump is a mercantilist, at best. To the extent he has an economic philosophy, it's "take what you can from other people, and don't let them touch yours."
Charles Koch, on the other hand, is a serious market-oriented capitalist. He's written about it, talked about it, and "voted" with his pocketbook.
This isn't my love letter to Charles Koch. We don't agree on everything. But he *has* a philosophy.
My Facebook commentary on sharing politics
Clean up after yourself
Fortunate to live in a neighborhood with well-established trees
Walnuts and others 100' high
(Even have a tributary of Walnut Creek in my yard -- a micro- or nano-Walnut Creek)
Had elms and maples in my previous neighborhood
Chose them because they were easy and fast growers, and I knew I wouldn't live there long enough for them to mature
Even in the time I was there, the trees were damaged by weather -- not strong
The old-growth trees in this neighborhood are much sturdier, but they've had since the 50s or longer to grow
There are plenty of things that look like growth that are nothing but short-term gains, like planting elms or maples
People only plant oaks and walnuts if they expect to see them grow up -- and have enough confidence in the future that they aren't worried about short-term risks
It's possible to sacrifice too much today in the name of tomorrow -- that's the Japanese savings trap
But it's much too easy to bet on short-term superficial gains rather than to plant those oak trees
21st Century conservatism: Courts as a process, not an outcome
Comments from my friend Chris, who is a lawyer and probably just an inch or two to the right of me on the political spectrum:
Courts hold no inherent power. They can't force anyone to do anything. They put words on paper. That's it. They have power beyond mere words only because we all agree to it. We agree if the courts say something must be done, the executive branch will do it. If they say a law is unconstitutional, the legislative branch will respect it. All it takes for that system to fall apart is for one branch (or the people) to decide the courts don't have legitimacy. To decide to stop listening. That's all. And it is that system, and that system alone, that makes us what we are.
When a President calls a judge "so-called," that balance is directly threatened. It's unacceptable. It's the worst thing he's said yet, and I'm not sure it's close. Hate the immigration EO? Fine. The courts are there to figure it out. Worried about your rights? The courts are there to figure it out. You might disagree with how they do it, but you'll have a functioning system to seek change after, and if you make that change, courts there to enforce it, but only through words on paper.
I'm not one to tell people they have to believe x or y, or that one party is "American" while the other isn't. That kind of thing is undiluted [NONSENSE]. But you can't love this country and the system that defines us, and simultaneously tolerate calling a judge's legitimacy into question like that. So you're going to have to choose. It shouldn't be hard.
- Podcast of this episode - segment 1 (Are we planting elm trees or oak trees?)
- Podcast of this episode - segment 2 (The scourge of virtue signaling)
- Podcast of this episode - segment 3 (The President needs to show more self-control)
- Podcast of this episode - segment 4 (The President gets only one type of discretion)
- Podcast of this episode - segment 5 (Reason to like SCOTUS nominee Gorsuch)
- Podcast of this episode - segment 6 (Cut back on the executive orders)
- Podcast of this episode - segment 7 (When should we panic for democracy?)
- Podcast of this episode - segment 8 (A real distress flag for Nebraska)