Category Archives: Author

The “Identity Politics” Conundrum

Published February 12, 2019 / by Lee Kessler / 1 Comment on The “Identity Politics” Conundrum
1 Reply

Have you noticed that those who base their identity on  their race,  their gender, or their religion etc.,–and therefore base, almost robotically, their decisions on that one identity–often seem to be the most confused person in the discussion or debate?   Have you witnessed them become progressively more agitated when you try to solve a problem through a set of logics beyond simple “identity”?   Do they sometimes seem to be stuck or trapped in a limited or narrow alley, with their argument restrained and weakened by their “identity?”  I have.   And I watch smart, good, well-intentioned people be less effective  than they otherwise would be.

So, the question is:   How does that happen?

This is not a Blog on indoctrination.   That’s covered by other columnists.   What I want to do is illustrate that the dilemma comes when we see ourselves through one “identity.”   In fact, we are ourselves, and we are members of a family.   But we are also all members of groups.  As a group member, we want to help that group towards its goals.   Herein lies the confusion.

We are not just a member of one group.   We are a member of just one birth family, but we are a member of multiple groups, and the confusion comes from trying to decide who you want to be, if the groups you are part of are colliding.

Let’s take an example:   I am a woman.   My friend HM is a woman.  We share that group and the interest and goals of women.   But, I am also white.  She is black.   So, we do not share the same group related to race.   If the conflict is defined as black vs. white, which so much of politics has degraded to today, how do she and I decide?  One white woman and one black woman.   Do we act according to our race, and ignore the other group called women?  Do we engage in conflict with each other because of our identity as black and white? Or do we try to decide based upon what is best for all women, and not just the women of our color?

But suppose also I tell you that my friend and I share another group.   We are both Californians.  So, we are both members of that decidedly unique group defined by our state’s boundaries.   So, what race and what gender do we support politically in California?  Do we support our state if an issue conflicts with one of the other identities?  Do we support our state if women from another state have an issue with California? Which “identity” is premier.

And we are also both entrepreneurs.   Suppose a racial group, or ethnic group, or state decides that it is hostile to our business and wants to force us to act in ways that would be detrimental to our business.  To make matters even worse, suppose a white man from Kansas brings a solution for our business issues.   What does my friend do about the helper being white?   What do we both do about the fact he’s a male?   What do we do with the fact he comes from “flyover country?”

What do we do if he is attacked for his religion–especially if his religion is different from ours?   So, does a black female Buddhist Californian support a white, male, Christian from the Midwest?  Does a white female Californian support a white, male, Christian from Kansas?

Worse yet we are members of different parties.   Two are Republican.   One is Democrat.

We three–the Kansas hero, my friend, and I–are all Americans.   Boy, this is probably starting to make your head spin.   How do I choose?   From which “identity” do I speak?  Which group do I support singularly, at the expense of the others?  Who do I attack, at the expense of the others?

Well, if my friend and I are sane and rational we will ignore all the noise, and support the people and actions that do the greatest amount of good, for the greatest number.  If we are instead insistent on shrilly screaming from only the point of view of our race, our gender, or our party, then we have a terrible, almost pretzel-like confusion.   We are torn, and no matter what we espouse, we seem to be serving only one group, one identity.  We help the one, and potentially harm the others.

The reality is that though we are in fact a unique individual, we are all members of multiple groups, some of which conflict, but almost all of which overlap in some ways.   Ex. the white woman/black woman.   The Christian man/the Jewish man.  The male Republican/the male Democrat.   You can do endless examples for yourself based on careers, community involvement, parental status, income strata, gym memberships, charitable organizations, churches, schools…

But, In our hearts, I think we know that all of us are members of the largest group of all–Mankind.   These others are all sub-groups.   More importantly, we are not just one “identity.”   We are multiple “identities”– part of many groups–and we set the priorities.   Perhaps it is easier to assume just one, and ignore all the others.   That eliminates the need to understand anyone else, or any other point of view.  We might be smaller and less wise because of that choice, but surely we can take solace in hiding behind the “identity” talking points of our lone “identity.”

I doubt it.   And that’s my parting gift to you–that doubt!!

What Every Parent Knows: the Fallacy of Socialism

Published February 5, 2019 / by Lee Kessler / Leave a Comment
Leave a reply

If you are a parent, or if you remember what you did to your parents, you can understand basic economics, and sort out the fallacy of Socialism.   Apparently this “ism” is rearing its ugly head again, even in the halls of Congress.   Every generation wrangles this beast to the ground.   So, let’s go at it again–from a different perspective.

The reason Socialism has failed in every country it has ever been tried in, and has brought those countries to their knees economically, has to do with a fundamental truth that sometimes gets obscured in all the political rhetoric and ideology.

The truth is this:   What you reward, you get more of.   What you penalize you get less of.  That is a truth, and every parent and child knows it.  Parents, recall a time when your child pitched a fit in a restaurant or out in public.  One so intense and loud and enduring that you just “had to quiet them” to stem the embarrassment of disrupting others.   So, you gave them a candy, or stopped doing what you were doing and put all your attention on them.   You coddled and cooed them into being quiet.   And at that moment you rewarded a “down stat” or bad behavior.   And the moment you rewarded it with food, cuddles, kisses, or money, you set the stage and virtually guaranteed yourself that another temper tantrum would ensue the next time the child wanted something.   You rewarded a tantrum, so you get more tantrums.   Eventually you learned not to do that, and you endured an excruciating amount of shrill screams until the child eventually learned that you would not reward that behavior any more.

Likewise, if your child came home with money he had earned by selling “homemade widgets” in the neighborhood because he wanted to earn money to buy a bicycle, and you forced him to share his profit with his brother, who stayed home playing computer games, you just penalized his initiative and activity.  Now he has less interest in making things, selling things, earning things.  You get less of the behavior that would make him a functioning, contributing adult, and you get two kids lying on their beds playing computer games.   That is followed by years of you cajoling both of them, trying to get them to “show some ambition.”

It’s pretty simple.   If someone produces, you reward it some way, and you will get more production.   If someone fails to produce, you deny them somehow, and you will get less of the failure.   You “penalize” the bad behavior, and you get less of it.  (Now you know I am not talking about child abuse, and beatings.  You are smarter than that.)   That production can be job-related, as in someone producing more product, sales, or profit; it can be emotional stability; it can be getting great grades; it can be sanity; it can be health; it can be harmony; it can be truthfulness…. you can add in any that come to mind.   If it’s good, reward it.   If it’s bad, penalize it.

Now, for example, take news agencies whose anchors and reporters on an almost daily basis make huge and potentially catastrophic misstatements of facts.   Getting it wrong is not something that should be rewarded.   It should be penalized.   One would think you can make one or two honest mistakes, but when it seems to be your regular approach to journalism, you should be fired.   Instead, they are rewarded with higher pay, and celebrity status.   And you wonder why the next network, or newspaper, suddenly finds itself with false reporting.   What you reward you get more of.

Conversely, if a journalist tries to straighten out his colleagues and honestly report something he feels has been misrepresented, he is held up to public humiliation, demoted and/or fired.  Good behavior was penalized.   What does that teach everyone?

I remember once calling a business mentor of mine to discuss something I was very upset about.   When she came on the phone, I was crying, and speaking forcefully in heated emotion about the situation, and some people I wanted to complain about.   She calmly said, “Lee, call me back when you are in a better mood, and we will discuss it.”   And she hung up.

After getting over my pout session, I realized she was right.   My behavior was unprofessional, and guaranteed to produce more upset with her and others.   So, she did not reward it with sympathy, attention, or anything else.   She held me to a standard of professionalism.  I got my act together, called her back, and discussed the very real situation like the adult I was, and like the professional she was.   We worked out a solution, and went on our way.

And I never did that again.   She rewarded my good behavior as an executive with attention and insight.   She denied my bad behavior.   And, I became a wiser, better leader.

Now I challenge you to look at Socialism through that prism.   What does it reward?   If it penalizes production you will get less production–thus a declining economy and then the  declining wealth of every citizen ultimately.   By rewarding the non-producer with something he has not earned, you get more non-production.

Pretty simple, actually.   Now–call your Congressmen and women and educate them please.   And if they won’t listen to you, fire them.

Abortion–The Third Rail

Published January 30, 2019 / by Lee Kessler / 1 Comment on Abortion–The Third Rail
1 Reply

It’s taken me a while to write about this because of the highly sensitive, career-destroying nature of the topic.   Just the word brings about stimulus-response reactions on both sides of the issue.  The word alone engenders divisiveness.   But, before any of you hyperventilate, feel your blood pressure rise, or your stomach sink, relax.   This is not going to be what you think.

It is my hope to examine something from a different perspective, and in so doing, I hope to ease your spirit and mind, and open up a possibility not addressed.  This piece is not judgmental; it is not political; it is not incendiary.   It is to help you navigate past the “Third Rail.”

In an earlier Blog (Guidelines for Living) I spoke of a friend who expressed to me what he had taught his children regarding how to live:   Do as much good as you can.  Do as little harm as you can.  Those simple sentences hold, I believe, an answer for women and men who may be in anguish on this subject–torn, and suffering emotionally.

Let’s begin by using those rules as guidelines.   Abortion is legal in the US, and will remain so. Though one has that choice, It may not be the best option.   So, let’s calmly, and rationally, look at another option.

Do as little harm as you can.   If a woman is pregnant and does not want the child whether because of  money, being unmarried, fear, career, circumstances of conception, or health, she is often encouraged to abort the child.  So, she “harms” the child in order to “help” herself and her future.   There are, however, three things in play:   The mother, the child, and a couple who is childless somewhere in America who pray nightly for a child, and who would love to adopt.

Therefore, a decision to abort no doubt allows the woman to go on with her life without the child and all that comes with that baby.  But, harm is done to the baby.   It is not really debatable that the fetus is a separate entity, with separate DNA.   It is not a tumor.   It is a human being, with a DNA blueprint, growing in what is supposed to be the nurturing and protecting womb of the mother until birth.  To destroy the fetus is to harm the child and whatever potential exists with that being. It also harms a couple in their quest for a child they would love and care for the remainder of their lives.   The decision to abort then helps one, and harms two.

The decision to deliver the baby and give it up for adoption is an alternative.   Let’s take the other rule.   Do as much good as you can.   Giving it up allows the mother to be free and to move on.   That’s good for her.   It allows the child to live and have a chance to laugh, to squeal, to learn to walk, run, read and BE.   it allows a desiring and deserving couple to have and cherish a dream.  It helps all three, and harms none.

Put it all together now.   Do as much good as you can; do as little harm as you can.  It is not a sin, and you are not a bad person to want to protect yourself from perceived harm or disaster. But, isn’t it worth looking at this:  to free yourself in such a way as to do good for the baby, and for others?   Why can’t everyone win?  I’d like to suggest that peace of mind, and emotional calm are more likely here.  My experience in life has taught me that any time we can do more good than harm, we prosper as an individual.  We feel strong, empowered, and confident in ourselves–not in our perfection (which is unattainable), but in our meeting a potentially devastating challenge and surmounting it for the good of many.  In that we attain a degree of wisdom.

Sadly, my experience in life has also taught me that when we act in our own self-interest–no matter how justified–but harm others in doing it, we are less empowered, less confident.   We know, somehow, that we are better than that.

I encourage everyone to slow down, ruminate on this a bit.   Because in the coming days you are going to be confronted by your elected lawmakers with laws that will require more than the Wisdom of Solomon.   They will require a sanity that no psychiatrist or psychologist has even a glimmer of understanding, let alone accomplishing for themselves.  Those two simple rules are sane.   They open a window to the light.  They lead to physical and psychological freedom.

I leave you with this.   Today, I heard the Governor of Virginia defend a lawmaker who is proposing abortion of the child during childbirth, including after birth potentially.  This is America.   How did we come to this?   Where is it going to end?

We are better than this.

A Man Named Samir

Published January 24, 2019 / by Lee Kessler / 2 Comments on A Man Named Samir
2 Replies

Years ago,  a business mentor made a very shocking statement to me.   Looking at what he viewed as a declining education system, disintegrating family values, rising immorality, and group think dominating the young, he suggested there might actually be a group determined to bring America down from within, by gradually turning right into wrong, and wrong into right.

If true, this would be a propaganda victory of historic proportions.   Can you imagine the disinformation, misinformation, and misdirection campaign it would take to cause an ethical and moral people to reverse their thinking and actions?   What would it take to have them abandon the things they held righteous and true, to have them think that things which they held to be “right” are now “wrong” and things which they held to be “wrong” are now “right?”

What a challenge that would be to an enemy of freedom!  What a coup!   From the point of view of evil, flipping the entire Western Civilization and its values on its head would certainly write you into the history books of infamy on this planet.   Does such a person or group exist?

Yes, they do.   When I wrote the White King Trilogy I was attempting to reveal through fiction what seemed to be a plausible approach to causing us to dismantle our own form of government, to kill our young with deadly and addictive drugs, to render our education system nothing more than indoctrination centers, and to turn over power to financial interests outside our country–allowing them to dictate and control us.

Though fiction, the books have seemed prophetic, if not indeed true.   The headlines you read today manifest the exact line of attack laid out in the novels.   The exact line and substance.  The good news is that to defeat this enemy, you need to read the books for yourself.   Once you do, you spot how they are operating, and once you spot it, the strategy and tactics lose all power over you.   There’s a challenge for you.

I took the challenge for myself.   I asked myself, “Was it possible that someone had inserted a Fifth Column (see earlier Blogs) into the US, under cover of a Free Press?   Would our very Constitution provide sanctuary for the enemy, and would their skillful propaganda undermine the members of the Press themselves?  You can answer that yourselves, if you are honest.  We need an honest free press.   But, suppose it got flipped, is now upside down, and has become a dishonest free press.    That threatens us all.

In “White King and the Doctor,” Ayman Al-Zawahiri–the real life mastermind of Al Qaeda–dispatched a Public Relations/Propaganda Chief to hypnotize Americans so that he could then implant commands which would be followed without questioning.  That is mind control on a mass level.

And before you scoff, you should understand this had been done before.   Stalin knew this technology, Mao knew this technology.  They mastered indoctrination in order to control a population otherwise too large to control.

The technology was passed to a man named “Samir.”   He was assigned the take-down of the American Free Press.   He was assigned to get us to turn our strengths as a nation into weaknesses.   If he succeeded, we would implode, feeding on ourselves.  If you dare, read that book, and see if you can see Samir’s fingerprints on current events.  And, then, after that, ask yourself, “Have I been ‘Samirized’?”   Did he get to me?

Samir is a fictitious name for someone–or several people–but he does exist.   I believe I have located him, and know who he has been using to make right wrong, and wrong right.   Your mission is to locate him and his Fifth Column, before he gets to you.  The good news is that evil can not thrive in the light of day.   It hides in the darkness–in the shadows of fear.   So, assuming you have some ability to confront evil, just your eyes gazing at evil causes it to wither.

I will give you a HINT:  if you hear one credible news agency make a statement, and then all other agencies blindly repeat it, using almost the exact same wording, you are looking at victims of Information Warfare.  Their thinking, discerning minds compromised, they are now going over a cliff.   Samir is there.   He planted the first statement.   He threw the bait into the water.  The others, who were dim and lazy, just turned a lie into the truth, and smashed the truth down into a lie.   Remember, a lie told often  enough becomes the truth.  Here’s the kicker.   He preceded all that by getting the Press to first have an agenda.  Once members have an agenda, their own agenda blinds them from truth, and makes it possible for Samir to plant all manner of outrageous material.   Samir knows that if the “lie” conforms with their agenda, or can be perverted to conform with their agenda, he now has an “unwitting” accomplice.

Until a truly righteous person stands up.  Is that you?  I hope so.

Stay tuned for more of Samir’s tactics and strategies.

“The Plural of Anecdote is not Data”–Wrong!

Published January 14, 2019 / by Lee Kessler / Leave a Comment
Leave a reply

Two or three days ago the Speaker of the House was pressed by a journalist about those who had lost loved ones to crimes committed by people who had come here illegally.  She responded, (and this is very nearly an exact quote) “The Plural of Anecdote is not Data.”  And with that short sentence she not only misstated a fact, she dismissed thousands of true, painful stories of her countrymen.

Now before you get your underwear in a twist, this is not a Blog about Ms. Pelosi.   Like Hillary Clinton’s “deplorable” comment, which I believe cost her the election, Nancy Pelosi will have to live with the consequences of that one simple statement.   That is between her and the people of the United States.

But it caused me to examine it, since it seemed preposterous to me.   Sometimes we all spout off about something, without stopping to really make sure we understand the words that make up the idea we are espousing.   And, if we don’t understand a word properly, we can make a HUGE mistake in calculation or evaluation.    So, I was inspired to look up a few words here.

Using my trusty American Heritage Dictionary, let’s examine the dismissive comment:   “The Plural of Anecdote is not Data.”

The definition of anecdote is: a short account of an interesting or humorous incident.   The Speaker was in trouble right there, as I doubt any of us would consider the death by murder of a family member, and the description of the event, to be humorous.   But, all of us make mistakes.  I am reminding myself right now to remember that, the next time I might be tempted to hurl out the word bigot, racist, xenophobe, sexist, misogynist, etc. So, let’s press on.   The second definition is: hitherto undiscovered particulars of history or biography.

Let’s just say an anecdote is an account of an incident.   It is a story.

So, what is a datum.   According to the dictionary, it is: a fact or proposition used to draw a conclusion or make a decision.   That certainly sounds like something we would always want to have as we are drawing conclusions–a factual datum, or its plural, data.   The dictionary further defines data as: factual information, especially information used for analysis.

So, what is a fact?   The dictionary defines it as: a real occurrence or event, something having real demonstrable existence.

Putting it all together now: Data are real occurrences or events that are analyzed and used for reaching conclusions, and making decisions.   The real occurrences are the “anecdotes” or stories.  They are actual, and the truth of the story allows one to reach a conclusion.

Statistically, we eventually take multiple stories of the same type and distil them into a numerical measurement.   The story and the people in the story now are reduced to a number, and we look at the number to make our decision.   70,000 drug overdose deaths per year in the US is a datum.   300 per week dying in the US of heroin overdoes is a datum.   Whatever the quantity is of rapes committed in this country or on route to this country are datums.   Whatever the number is of Al Qaeda terrorists who make their way from Brazil up a corridor and into the US is a datum.

We can look at these numbers and hear talking heads evaluating and arguing about the significance and relevance of the data, arguing about the solutions, or even if there is a need for a solution.   But, one inescapable fact remains:  The numbers were derived from actual human stories, and the humanity was removed because to tell 70,000 stories would be too bulky and take too much time.   So, instead we distil it.   We can look at it.   But, if we are not careful, we can also “dodge” it.  Someone lived that death.  You know exactly what I am talking about if you are one of the ones who has lived that story.

Take for example the “plural anecdotes” which were not considered “data” worthy of evaluation this past week.  Take the 300 deaths per week of our countrymen to heroin  overdoses that they were stupid enough to take.  Stupidity is one thing, but I think we all agree that death is a pretty severe penalty for it.  I personally have an “anecdote” for the Speaker about a young friend of mine who died a little over a year ago.   His mother is a close friend, and I know the devastation and loss that the family experienced.   But, I also lost a young friend whom I liked very much and enjoyed talking with about the world.  I think of him often. This is true.   It is actual.   It was a real event, and he is now in the statistical data which was derived from the other stories like his. His anecdote is now in a category with others who died the same way.

The Speaker was wrong.   The plural of anecdote IS data.   She can be forgiven her poor choice of the word anecdote.   Let’s see if she and others, and we ourselves, will be willing to look at the data–which is factual–and render a conclusion and decision that honors and respects those who have suffered through their own “anecdote.”  If we lose sight of the fact that the numbers we read represent actual countrymen and their stories, then we do not deserve to be forgiven.

I tried to call the Speaker, but she is not taking calls.   I believe she is in Puerto Rico–“strategizing.”   I tried to call my newly elected representative in California. She is not taking calls either.   I tried to call Senator Kamala Harris, and the same is true for her.   I will try again.   Or, perhaps one of you will forward this to your representatives, and maybe they can reach one of these folks.   Or perhaps your favorite journalist you follow on Twitter…