Recent data from the Pew Research Center shows that from 1994 to 2022, Americans’ views of opposing political parties became increasingly negative. In 1994, only 21 percent of Republicans and 17 percent of Democrats held “very unfavorable” views of the other party. In 2022, that category rose to 62 percent for Republicans and 54 percent for Democrats. If we include those who hold “unfavorable” views, then over 80 percent of both Republicans and Democrats have negative views of the other party.

One of the many undesirable effects of this polarization is an environment in which anything can become a political lightning rod. Whether it involves Dr. Seuss books, Mr. Potato Head, or the Barbie movie, controversy seems to lurk around every societal corner. Nothing is safe, nothing is sacred, and anything can be weaponized by one political factor against another. The term often used to describe this perpetual conflict is “culture war”—a depressingly apt term. But through all the angry tweets, op-eds, and “cancel” campaigns, few ask about where these culture wars come from and whether we can end them.

While a complex social event is never the product of just one factor, culture wars generally emerge from one group of people using some form of power to pressure another group into changing its beliefs or behavior. The pressured group may fight back and cause the pressuring group to redouble its efforts. This cycle, if it continues, can broaden into a full-blown culture war.

What does this dynamic look like in practice? Imagine a country where a group of ice cream fanatics decide to make every citizen eat more ice cream. They might try to pass legislation that favors eating ice cream, attack and shame ice cream skeptics, and encourage eating ice cream as a social norm. They would probably win converts, but they would also make enemies (especially the lactose intolerant!). Those who do not wish to eat ice cream would react negatively and maybe try to push an anti–ice cream agenda. Soon, an ice cream culture war could break out, each side pressuring the other to conform to its beliefs.

The catalyst of a culture war is the pressure exerted by one group on another to adopt its ways of thinking and acting. But why do groups elect to use force on others to spread their viewpoints? Prima facie, there is no strong incentive to resort to aggressive evangelism. Societies are built through cooperation, even between those who disagree. The baker sells his bread to members of his political party as well as the opposing party. If he sold bread only to customers who adopted his political beliefs, the market would turn on him. The same incentive to cooperate exists for groups motivated by ideology. While it is certainly in their interest to add to their ranks, doing so in an aggressive and forceful manner is likely to work against them.

The state does not obey the same social norms as its citizens; its injunctions are not optional but coercive in nature. More importantly, such coercion (e.g., taxation, legislation, and law enforcement) does not exist in a vacuum but aims to achieve various ends. Interest groups looking to spread their beliefs can redirect state power to their own purposes. This may involve anything from getting a subsidy for an ideologically friendly company to using state-enforced censorship against ideological enemies.

As the power and reach of a state grows, so too do the opportunities to direct that power. In terms of total spending, the federal government of the United States is the largest in history. It is no coincidence that now, when the power of the state is greater than ever, culture wars are raging all around us. These conflicts are occurring not because people are deciding to fight with one another but because they are compelled to. If there were only free and voluntary associations, then alternative beliefs could coexist. There would be no need to promote, for example, one lifestyle over another, because everyone could live how they see fit.

But state power removes all choice and variety. As the state increases its control over domains like public school curricula and corporate subsidies, fewer ideas and directions are given a chance to succeed. Culture wars fester within such narrowing policy confines because values and beliefs are either represented or excluded.

Conflicts instigated through state power always spill into other areas of society. When the political representation or exclusion of one’s beliefs is at stake, a culture war can become an environment in which any means of defense seems fair game. Social institutions, corporations, and popular media can all be weaponized and wielded against one’s enemies. The result is as familiar as it is exhausting: unending conflict and controversy, with every institution, organization, and event in society politicized and nowhere to hide from the unceasing cross fire.

Culture wars are not created solely by the state, but a state with too much power makes them inevitable. High-minded sentiments about “having conversations” and “understanding the beliefs of others” might sound like appealing options for cooling the tensions of a culture war, but they gravely underestimate the scope of the problem. No amount of civil discussion will remove the divisions created by state power. Until that power is destroyed—or, at the very least, greatly diminished—the culture wars will continue.

J.W. Rich is an economics student and writer in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can find his other writings on his blog at thejwrich.medium.com.

 

JW Rich | Mises Wire

Mises Wire We heartily encourage reprints and shares of Mises Wire articles. If you wish to reproduce an article in your blog, magazine, radio show, newspaper column, classroom material, textbook, discussion group, website, or any other venue, please do so. The original publication source must be included in an appropriate place.

The post Government Is the Hidden Hand Directing the Culture Wars appeared first on Granite Grok.

Perhaps Ron DeSantis’ campaign would NOT have nosedived IF he had answered questions about UKRAINE and J6 like this. Instead, we have gotten platitudes on these two defining issues.

Pledges to “end the weaponization of government” CANNOT be taken seriously if you are NOT willing to say that what has happened …and is continuing to happen … to nonviolent J6 protesters is un-American and evil AND that you are going to do something about it.

 

I will pardon *all* Americans who were targets of politicized federal prosecutions & those who were denied due process – this includes all nonviolent Jan 6 protesters like @BrandonStraka & those who were denied their constitutional due process rights. It is un-American for the… pic.twitter.com/TqyVUPAvar

— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) October 14, 2023

 

The post Vivek Hits It Out Of the Park At NHGOP’s FITN-Summit appeared first on Granite Grok.

Last week, while eulogizing the collapse of another hurricane season – during a super hot summer narrative season – I hinted at the latest caterwauling by the climate cult. OMG, September was so darn hot; it’s a record. Hardly.

But, but September’s temperature anomaly, you say, yes, it looks like a hockey stick, and we know how much the Cult loves those when they feed the proper narratives.

 

 

That’s a thing, ain’t it? Despite the lack of satellite data prior to 1979, one might be willing to accept the super-hot-September narrative without question. Many have and will and do, but they’d be jumping to conclusions.

Locally, the US anomaly was pedestrian at best.

 

 

A different look here: this is the three-month anomaly for the contiguous US. Not only was this summer, not the hottest (last year was hotter), but the summer of 1936 had a greater anomaly than any other year in the record, and none of that excess CO2 we are told is going to mean our end. The only thing scary is how natural and cyclical this record looks absent the Climate Cult narrative bias.

 

 

And?

This is all NOAA’s data, and NOAA is run by NASA, which means it is NASA data, and this isn’t exactly friendly to anyone who is not a card-carrying member of the Climate Cult.

But, but Global temperatures, they’ll cry – when the data winks at them and shows a little leg. When things are going the other way, as they have been for over a decade, there’s nothing to see.

Put differently, the climate is a series of years, decades, and sometimes centuries of trending that can’t be captured in one month or even three. The data we have is not even a wink in the history of Earth’s climate, which the secularists of scientism will remind us is older than the Bible claims. True dat, but so is the climate record, and it is not favorable to the approved cult narrative.

The current trend continues to be hospitable to life on earth but is more likely to get colder, making it less so while the Progs and their Green Army of idiots are working double-time to make getting warm nearly impossible.

Note: Steve Milloy has a relevant Summer/ 2023 Climate Facts PDF with more details, including on September 2023, here, if you are interested.

The post Temperature Anomaly Voodoo and The Scorching Hot September Narrative appeared first on Granite Grok.

Every time Congress decides to “debate” whether or not to give themselves a raise, they try to do it in secret because it’s a very unpopular move, for obvious reasons.

Whenever I hear that, I think of an alternative deal. The critters make $174K a year, which is about three times the average wages of the people who pay their salary.

The problem is that whenever these critters get together, their antics cost the taxpayers even more.

So, I have a modest proposal. If the critters want to grant themselves a $10k raise, I say give them a $50k raise, but only on the condition that they stay home and not “govern” us.

The problem, for us, is that they can make much, much more than that by not staying home. Feinstein died with a net worth of over $100 million. Pelosi has more than $100 million. There are others, in all parties, that have figured out how to milk the system for far more than their meager salary.

Consider the recent funding of Ukraine—hundreds of billions sent there with no accountability. Certainly, much of that has come back to members of Congress and their enablers in the military-industrial complex.

What if, instead, we officially recognized the obvious corruption and paid each member of Congress $100 million to go away? “OK, guys, you won. Take your winnings and go home. And never come back again.”

Let’s look at the economics.

Four hundred thirty-five members of the House and 100 members of the Senate. None Supreme Court justices, the President and Vice President. Five hundred forty-six hungry, corrupt mouths to feed. $100 million each is only $54.6 billion.

That’s less than half of the $113 billion that has been sent just to Ukraine in the last two years. Add that to the billions (trillions?) given to big pharma, big agriculture, big tech, and a thousand others.

And you can bet that there will be billions more sent to Israel as that certainly will become the darling of the military-industrial complex in the coming weeks and months.

So, I think giving every elected critter in Washington $100 million would be quite a bargain as long as they take the money and go away.

But what about the rent-seeking lobbyists? I mean, they bought these Representatives and Senators with their hard-earned (cough!) money. What will they get from my plan?

Well, that’s going to be between the critters and their enablers. The windfall that the critters would have received will have to be shared with their lobbyist enablers.

Maybe, in the spirit of transparency that my proposal would require, all lobbyist donors would be mandated to submit invoices to their beneficiaries detailing their contributions and demanding restitution, which would include principal, plus interest, plus a return that they expected on their investment.

Everyone wins. No more sneaking around with code words like Pedo Pete and “The Big Guy.” No more pretending that “we’re making the world safe for democracy.” No more lies about “you can keep your doctor,” “Yellowcake,” or “They hate us for our freedoms.” Plus a thousand others.

We all know the system is corrupt. Instead of dancing around trying to pretend everything is on the up-and-up, let’s just admit the bastards beat us and pay them to go away.

We’ll all be better off in the long run.

 

The post “A Modest Proposal” appeared first on Granite Grok.

It is not often that an entire city reaches such a level of decay that it deserves to be entirely razed to the ground, removed from existence. Sodom and Gomorrah are the pivotal examples in history that were destroyed by hellfire.

Whether that meant a natural disaster, an attack by an extraterrestrial force, or some sort of Earth-based warfare is up to your interpretation of historical accounts in the texts. Those cities hypothesized to have existed on the southern coast of the Dead Sea or thereabouts no longer exist.

“Ye shall know them by their fruits,” goes the biblical maxim. And what are the fruits of Gaza? Terrorism, plain and simple. A manifestation of pure evil. Last weekend, religious zealots spilled over the 1950 Armistice Agreement Line and went on an orgy of death. What followed has been widely discussed as to what actually happened. The details are unspeakably despicable and revolting to a good, upstanding citizen. The fact that so many are willing to engage in conversation about whether or not children were beheaded is a clear exhibit of the shocking moral decay of the entire English-speaking world.

The kneejerk response of some political figures and even student groups was to celebrate Hamas and affirm the Palestinian people’s right to resist their occupation. How stupid are these people? In cities across Europe and North America, Muslims held public rallies to support Hamas. The blowback has only begun. There is a simmering rage that is patiently waiting to unleash righteous justice.

Yes, Palestine has been oppressed, and at some points in the years since the establishment of the state of Israel, the citizens of Gaza have been treated like caged animals, confined to a narrow strip of land. But that was in May of 1948, now nearly 75 years ago. In all of that time, the Palestinian people have succeeded in two very distinct outcomes that define their present reality: (1) They have served as a breeding ground and civilian shield for Islamic fundamentalists’ war against Israel, and (2) They have utterly failed to build a functioning government or establish legitimacy as an actual state in the international community.

How long does it take a people to successfully build a government to represent themselves? I ask with astonishment. There are many governments that have successfully been formed and joined the international community since 1948, the date of Israel’s creation. That list includes every modern country in Africa (except Ethiopia, Morocco, Liberia, and South Africa), many Caribbean island nation-states, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Malaysia, Maldives, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Fiji. South Sudan, for example, became a successful independent state with a functioning government as recently as 2011. So, why do Israel and Palestine continue with their ridiculous two-state solution featuring a splintered Palestinian state across two geographically distinct territories— Gaza and the West Bank?

I offer you a perspective on the situation. Take the position that Israel-Palestine is one state. The main power centers are Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Gaza has been denied or failed to create a functioning government— see the causes for that as you like. The reality is that the government of Israel has total power and control over Gaza and the West Bank. Those territories and the people in them exist at the mercy of the Israeli government. That also means that Israel can de facto control when and how it engages with Gaza.

In the past decade or so, the IDF’s incursions into Gaza have been limited in scale, temporary in duration, and intended to be incisive so as to root out anti-Israeli militants. They were justified by the reality that militias, many Iran-backed, were constantly and regularly firing rockets into Israeli territory, typically haphazardly at civilians. Gaza was little more than a base for violent anti-Israeli jihadist militias. What country in its right mind would allow such a constant threat to exist directly on its border?

If you consider Israel-Palestine to be a single entity, then the socioeconomic structuring of the population is fractured and essentially two-class. Israelis are in a superior position, with Palestinians severely disadvantaged with those in Gaza the most disadvantaged. The real result of this situation has become that Gaza is a power lever for Israel that enables its incredible influence over world events. The globalization of the Islamic community and the spread of sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people has made this situation such that there are groups of Palestinians, Palestinian sympathizers, and outright Islamic jihadists in cities across Europe and North America and in other urban centers in the Mideast and Asia as well.

When Israel acts with any force against Gaza in retaliation for the monthly barrages of rockets, there is protest and outcry. The Palestinians have won the hearts and minds of many on the political left worldwide. The situation in Gaza is a lever of power that can turn on globalized rage and outcry against injustice, colonialism, and state brutality. This is in the terms of the political left. Gaza is a time bomb.

To prevent further escalations of conflict and to defuse the situation entirely, there is one absolute way. That is to totally destroy Gaza and relocate any civilians there who are actually peaceful civilians. They can move to Egypt, Saudi, Jordan, Lebanon, or even the West Bank. Anywhere. But this is one solution that is painfully clear: Gaza does not deserve to exist.

Gaza has not negotiated for itself a functioning government or territorial integrity. It is barely able to maintain its own sovereignty, if it has any, it is a stretch to acknowledge. And it insists on continuing as a shield for jihadists whose main goal in life is to kill Israelis.

This is a proposed solution that is harsh, but life is harsh. Reality is harsh. Gaza is a tumor on global civil society. When it is pressed, it creates pain and anguish all over the world. It is a decaying city with outdated infrastructure and little chance to ever stand on its own as a prospering state.

The current global environment is perfect for refugees. They can walk across the US-Mexico border and get a free iPhone, paid luxury hotel for several months, and free US citizenship. They can do the same in many European countries and many Arabic countries, too.

Palestine can be the West Bank, and that would be a massive step forward for peace in the Mideast.

Just get rid of Gaza.

 

The post The Case for Razing Gaza appeared first on Granite Grok.

If you are not familiar with Aaron Day, he’s a serial entrepreneur who is running for President. And while that may look like a long shot, he’s still got a lot of critically important knowledge to share that is worth our time ad attention.

We’ve known Aaron for a while. He is something of a fixture among the grassroots and within the Liberty Alliance. He also has a unique understanding of the dangers of Centralized Digital Currency. He sat down with Jan Jekielek for Epoch TV to discuss it, and while it is nearly an hour long, I think you should watch it.

We can’t share it here, but you can watch it at the Epoch Times, and I’ve got a few snippets from the transcript to entice you to do exactly that.

Aaron begins by talking bout how he got here, the businesses he started – and how the government kept intervening to wreck them. It gives you some insight into his mindset and approach to problem-solving. His embrace of Bitcoin and digital currency and how that led to exploring government control of currency and by extension, human activity.

 

I’m focused on CBDC as somebody that’s a proponent of liberty and has moved to New Hampshire because of my libertarian values. I see central bank digital currency as the single biggest threat to human liberty. It is the gateway to everything that you just described. Once your money can be monitored, controlled, and censored by the government, that ties into social credit systems, vaccine passports, and digital IDs. That is the plan. This is something that’s actually been worked on. We are 50 years into a plan to push for a one world, global, technocratic form of government with this level of top-down control.

…

 

No, free countries weren’t thinking about this. About 20 countries were looking at exploring this in 2020. It’s now 2023 and 130 countries are exploring CBDC, and 20 countries will have implemented a CBDC by the end of this year. Over a billion people on this planet will be using a CBDC by the end of this year. What’s more alarming is that the United States has actually conducted three pilots.

The official view that you will hear from the chairman of the Federal Reserve is, “We don’t know if we will be looking at this. We don’t know if we’re going to be seriously pursuing this.” The reality is they have conducted three successful pilots and they already have the technology needed to roll out a CBDC in the United States. That’s the discrepancy that we have.

 

And one more …

 

There are three pilots. The first one is a pilot called Project Hamilton. The MIT multimedia lab was involved in all three of these pilots. Interestingly, the guy that was the chair when these things were started had visited Epstein’s Island twice.

You can’t make this stuff up. It sounds like a conspiracy theory, but there it is. This MIT group has been involved in each of these projects. Project Hamilton is a retail central bank digital currency. That simply means this would be the replacement for what we consumers use on a day-to-day basis as cash.

They did a pilot from 2020 to 2022, and this pilot was able to handle 1.7 million transactions per second. I’ll tell you why that’s important. If you look at Visa, MasterCard, and now this FedNow thing, which I could talk about separately, the current, traditional financial system can do between 50,000 and 100,000 transactions per second.

This Hamilton Project pilot can do an order of magnitude more than the traditional financial system, and that technology is sitting on the shelf. In the conclusion they said, “While we have the technical details worked out, there’s still a few things we might want to tweak. The real next step is figuring out the legality of how to roll this out, and the marketing of how to get people to accept this.”

People can be complacent and say, “This will never happen in America. They don’t have the technology yet.” No, it’s literally on the shelf. Project Cedar was a wholesale CBDC pilot. This is basically a CBDC that’s used for banks to communicate with one another for larger transaction volumes and to do transactions across the border. That pilot was concluded.

There is another one that’s even more dystopian, which was why they gave it a bland name. It’s called the Regulated Liability Network. The idea behind that one is to create one ledger that tracks all CBDC transactions. It’s basically a way of consolidating and managing all transactions and all digital assets, whether they are CBDC or non-CBDC.

It has taken me a while to summarize all this. I’ll give you an example of what it means and why it’s important. Imagine a future where there is no more cash, and the only thing that you can use to make purchases is CBDC. For instance, you go to the Apple Store and use your CBDC to buy a computer, and now your computer is given a digital token.

That digital token is tracked on a ledger along with your CBDC purchase of that computer. If the government decides they don’t like something that you’ve said online, or if you have a social credit score like they have in China where you have dipped below a certain level, they can not only shut off access to your money, they can shut off access to your computer, because your assets are actually assigned digital IDs. That is what is being contemplated with the Regulated Liability Network.

You can watch the entire conversation here, after which you can consider yourself as about as up to speed on CBDC as you could. Feel free to thank Aaron when you see him.

 

The post Aaron Day on CBDC and The Dangers of Currency Control appeared first on Granite Grok.

It has been a week full of news about Iran’s Islamist Jew-hating-proxy Hamas’s massacring innocents within Israel. Acts of terrorism on the 50th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War when the Arab countries of Jordan and Egypt attacked it.

Streaming out of the Gaza Strip (between Israel to the east and north, Egypt to the south, and the Mediterranean Sea to the west), they then retreated back into Gaza, showing their true colors; if they could, they would initiate Holocaust 2.0 immediately.

The week’s news has also had the effect of showing us who the Jew-Haters are around the world and here in NH (In NH, Dozens Gather To Defend Hamas While Hundreds Rally for Israel).

Of course, they are Progressives.

• “…Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.), who has long supported the Biden administration’s outreach to Iran and voted against pro-Israel resolutions in the past…”
• the Party of Socialism and Liberation, whose leader, Joy Douglas, said:

At the same time, Douglas insisted reports of mass Israeli civilian deaths at the hands of Hamas are untrue. No civilians were murdered in their homes, no hostages were taken by terrorists, and no 300 concertgoers were gunned down by terrorists using paragliders. There’s no documented evidence that those people are dead,”

Holocaust Deniers in the Service of Islam and Progressivism/Socialism.

 

Gaza, Gaza, so what is this place – Gaza? Here is a template (map) to review if or when you watch the news.

 

(click to embiggen)

 

One would think that given their size and population, they COULD have gone in the direction of “not much land, not much in the way of resources – so let’s go intellectual!” and maximized what they have.  Instead, they’ve engaged in a fruitless and blinkered outlook that they can really succeed in killing all of the Jews (“from the river to the sea”) and conquer Israel in an Islamist Jihad.

HT | Visual Capitalist

The post With All This Talk About Gaza … appeared first on Granite Grok.

I spent most of yesterday hanging (Press Pass) with a few hundred Republicans on day one of the NHGOP First in the Nation Leadership Summit, collecting videos including several of the candidates who spoke, as well as talking to a lot of Republicans outside the main ballroom.

Clips below include Chris Christie, Perry Johnson, Doug Burgam, Ronna McDaniel, and Ron DeSantis. I did not stay late enough to hear Nikki Haley or Vivek Ramaswamay. All that old age and treachery caught up with me, and the event was running about 40 min behind schedule.

I was hoping to get something for everyone, so I apologize for missing those two if you think they are the next best thing in presidential contenders.

I cannot attend day two (today), so no Asa Hutchinson, Tim Scott, or Mike Pence. I know. You were all pining for some Asa Hutchinson.

Overall

I can’t tell you how many times I heard someone say we must work together, unify behind our nominees, and how we can’t win if we don’t. It is a serious concern (but when is it not?). And while there was plenty of talk about what was wrong and what we need to fix, winning mostly meant stopping Dems from ruining the country or finishing the job the Left has started. That’s a big order, and everyone who spoke wants you to think they are the one.

Fair enough. Desperate times. Room for debate, but that aside, everyone who spoke sounded great. They all had good ideas and made excellent points. Hit something out of the park if you like—no shot in hell, but they had ideas that should not be ignored.

I did not record all of those ideas. My goal was to get a few seconds from each candidate to get a feel for their delivery and focus—some more than others.  I have several clips from DeSantis, but neither quality nor quantity are meant to show any preference. Nor are my notes anything but a few neutral observations of how I interpreted what I heard them say.

The Contenders

Chris Christie was the first Republican Presidential primary candidate to speak and the only one where I saw people leave the ballroom in deliberate protest. A small crowd got a little smaller, but it was early, and not everyone was there, perhaps protesting by simply arriving later.

Christie focused on the connections between what is happening in Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan. He identified an evil axis without calling them that. China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. Their goal is to create fear in the world. He also noted that Putin must be pleased about Hamas (helped by Iran) distracting us from Ukraine. How Putin wants to get the Soviet Union Band back together and letting him have any bit of Ukraine will embolden that.

This video is not edited and presented as is mid-thought or mid-stream.

 

One Clip

 

Next up is Perry Johnson. We learned about his blue-collar roots and self-made status. He’s the guy who wrote (created) the ISO 9000 standard (using quality metrics to optimize cost, quality, and productivity). That the RNC doesn’t like him becasue he would take away their power in Washington. And most importantly, how we need to fix the deficit and budget problems and how doing so will energize our economy. That every failed empire on earth went down becasue of economics.

He is pro-oil, pro-Israel, and would scrap the Dept of Ed. Again, the video is not edited and presented midstream and as is.

 

 

One Clip



 

Doug Burgam talked about energy, the economy, national security, job creation, the perils of war weakness, and Biden’s energy policy. One example was how Biden’s commitment to ending oil production affects Southeast Asian allies (especially Japan). They rely on the US for energy security. Biden’s commitment puts them all at risk from a geopolitically aggressive and expansionist China.

Burgam would open oil production – wide open – as both a move toward energy independence and to ensure allies who rely on it are not left to squirm under our enemy’s boots.

 

One Clip

 

Ron DeSantis had the most significant and loudest crowd, but I was not there for Nikki Haley or Vivek Ramaswamy, so again, that I saw. Lots of enthusiasm and his supporters appeared well-organized and there to put on a show for the cameras.

And he did have a great message and delivered it well without bashing any of his challengers. I have several unedited clips from his remarks. He stands with Israel. Defends Parental Rights. Rule of law. He wants the constitution enforced and opposes the administrative state as in – time to disarm the weaponized bureaucracy (my words, not his).

He wants to see the CDC, FDA, and NIH held accountable. Gov ROn went on to list his accomplishments in Flordia, from blocking CBDC to CRT to DEI. Lots of Republican red meat and all of it was well received.

 

 

Clip One

Clip 2

Clip 3

Clip 4

 

To close (as another reminder), yes, had I stayed later, I would have provided multiple clips for Haley and Ramaswamy, who are also, in my opinion, more interesting candidates likely to stimulate the most debate. They are not high on my list, but we have readers who would want to know what they had to say.  So, my apologies (again) for not having the stamina to make it until the end of the first day. The event was running late, and that was a big factor. But I was excited to get out and do some “reporting,” if you will, and plan to do more in the coming days and weeks.

Wait, I have one more. Ronna McDaniel spoke before Ron DeSantis if you are interested.

 

One Clip.

 

The post Pics, Video, and Observations from the NHGOP FITN Leadership Summit appeared first on Granite Grok.

The latest announcement from Steve Scalise has opened up the way for Jim Jordan. This decision that he has withdrawn from the race for the House Presidency was announced during a Republican conference meeting on Thursday night. Scalise had previously clinched the nomination for the post after narrowly beating Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, following a vote by the Republican conference on Wednesday.

The race for the next Speaker of the House had been underway following the unanticipated removal of Kevin McCarthy. Two candidates had emerged as frontrunners: Steve Scalise and Jim Jordan. While Scalise had secured the initial nomination in a secret ballot, it did not guarantee his ascension to the Speaker’s chair. He had to garner still sufficient support to win a total chamber vote.

Moreover, Scalise’s victory in the closed-door session, with a vote tally of 113-99, has sparked outrage among many conservatives. Much like McCarthy, some members see Scalise as a part of the “uniparty” establishment, a continuation of the status quo. This led many conservatives to rally behind Jim Jordan, a figure they see as representing their values and ideals.

Jim Jordan is not just another politician but a beacon of hope for conservatives. His candidacy is supported by none other than former President Donald Trump, a fact that bolsters his appeal among hardcore conservatives. Yet, despite this endorsement, the final decision rests in the hands of the House of Representatives members.

Interestingly, Jim Jordan had offered to nominate Steve Scalise for speaker on the House floor, which speaks volumes about his dedication to party unity. Despite narrowly losing the nomination, Jordan reminded his colleagues that the ultimate goal is to secure at least 217 votes on the floor, which is needed to officially elect the Speaker of the House. However, this was far from an endorsement of Scalise.

The reasons provided by Scalise were “the deep divisions within the Republican Party” and, therefore, “the inability to secure the necessary votes.” Despite being formally nominated by the House Republican conference, Scalise felt that the meeting still had not come together and was not united.

Moreover, concerns were raised over Scalise’s health, as he is battling blood cancer. While this was not the main reason for his withdrawal, it did add to the uncertainty surrounding his bid for speaker.

All the while, Jordan’s emphasis was not on ‘personal victory’ but on ensuring that the party presented a united front. This was evident in his decision to offer Scalise his support and attempt to persuade his colleagues to do the same. However, the deep fractures within the House Republican conference made it difficult for Scalise to secure the necessary votes to win the gavel.

Many had vehemently argued that such a process as a secret ballot conducted in Congress lacked transparency. In retort, Scalise accused conservative holdouts in the speaker’s race of having their own “agenda” and stated that he believed they needed to put their agendas aside and focus on what the country needed. Indeed, it was the belief of many conservatives that all votes put forth in the name of constituents should be transparent, allowing those constituents to monitor the actions of their representatives.

The GOP Congress’s decision to go behind closed doors and choose Scalise over Jordan has been seen as yet another instance of the party disregarding the desires of its voters. Despite the overwhelming support for Jordan among Republican voters, the party opted for Scalise, a decision met with widespread disappointment and frustration.

In a political landscape where big money donors and lobbyists often dictate the course of action, it is no surprise that they favor Scalise for Speaker. This influence is often seen in campaign finance, where wealthy donors can pour unlimited amounts of money into campaigns through Super PACs, drowning out the voices of ordinary Americans. However, it is the voters who want Jordan as Speaker, a sentiment that appears to be largely ignored by the Republican Congress.

The actions of our elected representatives have made it clear that they are not working for us; they are working for themselves. This is a wake-up call for us to hold them accountable and demand that they act in the best interest of our republic and not just their own.

To this effect, the Republican Accountability Project has launched an initiative to hold Republican members of Congress accountable for their votes, including by helping credible primary challengers against them. While it may be challenging to reduce the influence of big money donors and lobbyists on American politics, there are efforts to limit campaign finance, increase transparency, and enforce fair and effective election laws.

So, despite Jordan’s efforts to rally support for Scalise, it was clear that the race for the Speaker position was far from over. Some members of the House, including several of Jordan’s supporters, have indicated that they will still be voting for Jordan. This suggests that while Jordan may prioritize party unity, his supporters still see him as the best candidate for the Speaker position.

It is now clear where the hearts of true conservatives lie. They lie with Jim Jordan, a man they perceive as representing their values and ideals. Their support for Jordan is his political stance and their desire for transparency, accountability, and a government that genuinely represents the people it serves. As the final decision looms, one thing is sure: the voice of the people and true conservatives demands to be heard.

As the latest development of Scalise dropping out of the Speaker’s race unfolds, Jordan should have a clear path to victory, that is, if Republicans can come together and unite the party.

The post Jim Jordan Is the Conservative Choice appeared first on Granite Grok.

We used to use the phrase “Bring Big Flashlights” when we first started, but like many things, there were lots of “Shiny Objects” that captured my attention over the years. And after my latest DCYF-induced hiatus of several months, I am starting to rev back up again.

And what better way than to go back to doing what our NH Constitution holds us, we citizens, responsible to be actively doing:

 

[Art.] 8. [Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public’s Right to Know.] All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them.  Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive.  To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted.  The public also has a right to an orderly, lawful, and accountable government…

and

[Art.] 38. [Social Virtues Inculcated.] A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution, and a constant adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, frugality, and all the social virtues, are indispensably necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and good government; the people ought, therefore, to have a particular regard to all those principles in the choice of their officers and representatives, and they have a right to require of their lawgivers and magistrates, an exact and constant observance of them, in the formation and execution of the laws necessary for the good administration of government.

After all, if you accept the definition of “Character” to be “that which a person does when they don’t think anyone is looking or can find out”, I have learned the hard way that there are more than a few that have no compunction in trying VERY hard to do those things the rest of us would turn in disgust. Therefore, we ALL must be vigilant and observant to ensure that those we put into trust positions, by election, appointment, or by hiring, continuously keep to high standards in keep that trust alive. It’s called Accountability.

So, in my restart, baby steps. After all, I am getting a bit creaky and starting to run takes a bit of time which makes me a bit cranky. That said, can one find joyfulness in being cranky the right way (I’m sure trying to make that happen!)? Well, I’m going to try:

—— Original Message ——
From “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
To randerson@mascenic.org; jlampinen@mascenic.org; tfalter@mascenic.org; kmatson@mascenic.org; eneilson@mascenic.org
Date 10/12/2023 1:47:02 PM
Subject RSA 91-A Demand for SAU87 Enrollment Information

Good afternoon, School Board members,

Please find, attached to this email, a Right To Know demand for Enrollment information for the past five (5) years for the High School as well as the District as a whole.

I thank you for your lawful attention in this matter.

-Skip

Skip Murphy
Founder, co-owner
GraniteGrok.com | Skip@GraniteGrok.com

And, since I haven’t posted one in full for a while, here is the RSA 91-A demand that I sent:

October 12, 2023

Right to Know Request per RSA-91A: Total Enrollment information for the Mascenic Regional School District / SAU87

[Art.] 8. [Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public’s Right to Know.] All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive…The public also has a right to an orderly, lawful, and accountable government…

Demand:

Pursuant to the Right to Know Law (RSA. 91-A:4 (I) ), I am demanding access, within 5 business days, to the below enumerated Governmental records:

• For the last five (5) years, the following enrollment numbers:
  • High School number of students
  • Total District number of students

If this cannot be fulfilled within that 5 business day mandated window per RSA 91-A:2, II, please advise when the Responsive Record(s) will be made available.

Per RSA 91-A:4 IV(c) If you deny any portion of this request, please cite the specific exemption (RSA 91-A:5) used to justify the denial to make each record, or part thereof, available for inspection along with a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the information withheld.

Additional: It is not up to the Requester to be made to look up the subjects or materials that are the focus of this Right To Know (e.g., from the Respondent: “here’s the URL so do the search yourself”). It is the responsibility of the Respondent to fully supply all demanded materials.

As you are aware, in 2016, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that a governmental body in possession of records is required to produce them in electronic media using standard common file formats: Green v. SAU #55, 168 N.H. 796, 801 (2016). Unless there is some reason that it is not reasonably practical to produce such, explain why it is not practical to comply.

Please also note, per RSA 91-A:4 III, III-a, and III-b, you are required to maintain the safety and accessibility of such Responsive Records. This also includes such responsive records (e.g., emails, query files, policies) which may have been deleted from respective local hardcopy or software systems but are still available on the applicable servers or in application or archival system(s) either in-house or hosted.

Please let me know when these records are available for inspection or you may email the records to me at Skip@GraniteGrok.com. If the volume is turns out to be substantial, I’ll be happy to supply a Dropbox folder invite to hold the responsive records.

Thank you for your lawful attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Skip Murphy
Founder
GraniteGrok.com

I also sent a similar one for the budgetary information for the District as a whole as well as for the high school budget.

The clock has started to tick…

The post Time for Me to Get Back to Holding Government Responsible Again … appeared first on Granite Grok.

A quick shout out to all the “Vaccine Deniers” in the house we call ‘Merica. You should be proud of yourselves. In a nation with over 300 million people, not counting the tens of millions of unvaccinated illegals, DHHS says only 2% have lined up for the latest COVID booster.

This means that the Xbb.1.5. 2.9. Omicron SUV Epsilon Law and Order CSI Hawaii, Morrocco, Bangladesh Halloween 27 booster shots are not popular. Only a fraction of the population is still playing Pfizer-Roulette.

It must be embarrassing.

 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services data shows that the major vaccine manufacturers, Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, have gotten their updated shots out to about 2 percent of the population as of Wednesday,  Reuters reported.

 

And not for lack of trying. Big Pharma continues to ply the airwaves with ads on radio and television cajoling the masses to roll up their sleeves. COVID, RSV, and Flu, to name a few.

And what of those poor Democrats and their rhetorical terror campaigns? Vaccine denier. Anti-vaxxer. Terms of derision driving acts of tyranny that are falling on an increasing number of deaf ears. They’ll need to rethink that.

98% of Americans and some unknown number of non-Americans are vaccine-hesitant. They deny the efficacy of additional injections by refusing or failing to do – what can only be described – as their patriotic duty.

What is a progressive to do?

While we wait, here is Aaron Rodgers – alleged to be a royal asshat of a human being but one with the sense to exercise some intellectual medical autonomy – at least on the subject of “mandatory emergency use COVID vaccines.” He would like to debate Chiefs Tight End Travis Kelce (better known to many as Taylor Swift’s next ex-boyfriend) on the subject of these vaccines.

 

Aaron Rodgers is inviting Travis Kelce to have a vaccine debate.

Rodgers proposes that it be him and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. against Kelce and Anthony Fauci.

(via @PatMcAfeeShow)pic.twitter.com/tcqPmptGtB https://t.co/xvH9M5MlpR

— Ari Meirov (@MySportsUpdate) October 10, 2023

 

HT | Breitbart

The post The Rise of the Vaccine Hesitant? – 98% of American’s Have Not Received the Latest COVID “Booster” appeared first on Granite Grok.

When Rashida Tlaib was confronted with a request for a comment about Hamas’s atrocities committed on women and children, she avoided the reporter and refused to answer the question.

The Congresswoman from Michigan was asked to comment on the beheading and burning of innocent Jewish children, and she opted not to comment. Is there an option here? Children were beheaded in front of their parents or crowded into a room where burning tires were rolled in to burn them alive. Is there a question as to whether this is right or wrong? Is this a debatable question? Is this a situation you have to think about before commenting? If you answered yes, then that is a shame. There is something wrong with you as a human being.

It was embarrassing as an American to see a member of the House of Representatives cower and duck behind her staff members when the question was repeatedly asked of her. The wording changed, but the question remained the same. “Congresswoman Tlaib, is it wrong for innocent children to be beheaded by the terrorist group Hamas?” No response. Not a word. Then, the elevator door closed, and the Congresswoman slipped out of view. The Congresswoman from Michigan, like her fellow members of the Squad, shares a dislike for America and Israel. It’s sad and makes you question why the Jewish community supports Democrats. It is a habit that must be broken.

Rashida Tlaib later Tweeted:

“I grieve the Palestinian and Israeli lives lost yesterday, today, and every day. I am determined as ever to fight for a just future where everyone can live in peace, without fear and with true freedom, equal rights, and human dignity. The path to that future must include lifting the blockade, ending the occupation, and dismantling the apartheid system that creates the suffocating, dehumanizing conditions that can lead to resistance. The failure to recognize the violent reality of living under siege, occupation, and apartheid makes no one safer. No person, no child anywhere should have to suffer or live in fear of violence. We cannot ignore the humanity in each other. As long as our country provides billions in unconditional funding to support the apartheid government, this heartbreaking cycle of violence will continue.”

Alexandria Cortez Tweeted:

“Today is devastating for all those seeking a lasting peace and respect for human rights in Israel and Palestine. I condemn Hamas’ attack in the strongest possible terms. No child and family should ever endure this kind of violence and fear, and this violence will not solve the ongoing oppression and occupation in the region. An immediate ceasefire and de-escalation is urgently needed to save lives.”

And, finally, from Cori Bush

“Our ultimate focus must be on a just and lasting peace that ensures safety for everyone in the region,” she said. “Violations of human rights do not justify more violations of human rights, and a military response will only exacerbate the suffering of Palestinians and Israelis alike.”

“As part of achieving a just and lasting peace, we must do our part to stop this violence and trauma by ending U.S. government support for Israeli military occupation and apartheid.”

These people on the Extreme Left are on the wrong side of this issue. They have chosen the side of evil and deserve the criticism they receive from the Right and the Left. Even the White House, which usually defers to no comment, condemned the Squad’s remarks. Will this be the event to break up the Squad? It at least puts them outside of human existence, and it is a very dark place.

 

The post Can Progressives Not Recognize Evil appeared first on Granite Grok.

Back in Jr. High and High School, I was a WWII military nerd. Anything to do with the militaries involved in the war (pretty much everyone), I read. In fact, I read every book in the Campello library (part of Brockton, MA, where I grew up) and then started in on the main library downtown.

At that time, I could talk, with a fairly good level of detail, about both the European and Pacific fronts. Who knows, with China trying to throw its weight around, still having a little familiarity with the geographies (a little bit – it HAS been 50 years, ya know, right?) might be a tad useful.

Anyways, given that the fascist/communist/dictator Putin decided to start the Russian-Ukrainian war in the vain hope of recreating the false glory of Mother Soviet Union by re-aggregating all of the “runaways,” I’ve been on the Institute of War email distribution list.

Every night, I get an email talking about what has happened, in intelligence/military terms, that day on the battlefront.

This is the ISW’s first drop on the structure and placement of the Russian military. They seemed impressive, and the Soviet forces certainly kept us thinking otherwise, but it turned out (sans their nukes) that they were a second-rate military in a Third World country.

All that said, if you are still following this war to which the US has sent BILLIONS of $$$ (to the point where OUR military is “running short”), you might find it interesting.

 

Note: Page two of the report is blank – you can skip it.

10-12-23 Russian Order of Battle Outline ISW

 

HT |  Institute for the Study of War

The post Since We’re Spending so Much in Ukraine, How about a Little Russian Military 101… appeared first on Granite Grok.

What does a lunatic sound like? Well … listen to Lindsey Graham and you will know exactly what a lunatic sounds like. He wants Biden to wage war on Iran … apparently without a Congressional declaration of war … if, in his view, there is an escalation (which he does NOT define) by Hamas. Graham has such a fetish for war that he is willing to shred what’s left of the Constitution and risk a wider war in the Middle East. LUNACY.

Graham is also a liar. In one breath he’s telling us that Putin is going to take over all of Europe if he is not stopped in the Ukraine and in the next he’s telling us that the Russian Army has effectively been destroyed by his pal Zelensky. His fetish for war is such that he will say anything … ANYTHING … to keep the carnage going in Ukraine, where Russia is systematically and methodically destroying the Ukrainian armed forces.

CNN host: “You are saying, that you would want the United States and Israel to bomb Iran even in the absence of direct evidence of their involvement in this attack?”

Lindsey Graham: “Yeah.” pic.twitter.com/p6LToVn0zP

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) October 12, 2023

The post Bomb, Bomb, Bomb … Bomb, Bomb Iran … Lindsey Graham Is A Lunatic appeared first on Granite Grok.

I was recently accused of ‘having a lot of good ideas that are impossible to get done’.

I’m glad that at least some people think they’re good ideas.  But I’m sad that those people so often dismiss the ideas as being impossible.

I agree that they’re impossible to get done if we don’t even try. And if we get distracted, putting all our efforts into fighting over things like ‘a parental bill of rights’ — as if parents have a right to make other people pay to educate their children.

As Thoreau said, there are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root. We have to reverse that ratio. And that’s a cultural problem, not a political one.

For example, every minute of time, every dollar in contributions that goes into fighting

for a parental bill of rights;

or to get certain books out of school libraries;

or to control who uses what bathrooms, who plays on what sports teams, or who provides a supplemental course in financial literacy;

or to get this board member elected instead of that one;

and so on, is time and money that could be going towards evangelizing the fundamental issues regarding education: That it’s a responsibility, not an entitlement, and that its purpose is to ensure the preservation of a free government, not to provide children with ‘good jobs’ or ‘bright futures.’

If culturally, we reclaim the idea that the government is just a tool for protecting rights and that it gets its power from consent (which means your government can’t have more power than you do), then politically, everything can change, and quickly.

If culturally, we reject those ideas, then politically, nothing significant can change. If that’s really the case, then the ship is going down, and all you can do is build a lifeboat and get the people you love into it.

As long as the conversation is about regulations, or statutes, or elections, or even constitutions, then we’re screwed. The conversation has to be about the heart of the Declaration of Independence,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

and whether we as a people still believe that.  Or if, indeed, we ever did.

That is, by the way, also the heart of the GOP platform, at least on paper; and has been since the party was formed. For example, here is the platform from 1856:

Resolved: That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied in the Federal Constitution are essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions.

Here is the platform from 1860:

[Resolved:]  That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution, “That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” is essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions.

You get the idea. The same idea runs through every platform from then until now.

The GOP is the party that is supposed to be pruning back government to the point where it is consistent with these ideals (which are themselves inconsistent with almost everything done by modern government — even when under the control of the GOP).

But it’s the party members who have to see this, and push for it, not the party ‘leadership’, which is interested mainly in winning elections, and accumulating power (to pursue its current agenda) rather than dispersing it (so future generations will be free to pursue happiness in their own ways).

And for those who say that something can’t be done, I usually offer two words:  constitutional carry.  That’s the canonical example of Milton Friedman’s observation that what at one time seems politically impossible can come to seem politically inevitable, once people start asking the right questions — if the right ideas are already sitting around, waiting to be picked up.  Which is why it’s crucial to start talking about those ideas, even if you can’t imagine when or how they could possibly be implemented.

My dream is that one day government by consent will be seen the same way.

 

The post Don’t Give Up Before You Even Get Started appeared first on Granite Grok.

Last March during a “Candidates Night” forum in my small New Hampshire town, I was criticized by an incumbent library trustee who was running for reelection.  Although she was seeking to continue in her elected office, she illogically asserted that I had inappropriately “brought politics into the library trustee race and,” as she further declared, “there is no place for politics in any library.”

We want to thank Arlene Quaratiello for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Editor@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.

She was specifically inflamed by a recently published letter-to-the-editor in which I endorsed her opponents and signed off using my state representative title, thus making my letter much too political for her.

In my letter, I wrote that the two candidates I supported “believe in protecting our children from the increasing amount of inappropriate material available both in print and online without sacrificing the intellectual freedom that has always characterized public libraries.”  This statement certainly struck a chord with her because it clearly identified one of the main issues that has polarized the left and the right in the battle over our public libraries.  Fighting this battle is indeed highly political despite attempts to deny this reality. Consequently, the role of library trustee has become increasingly political in our communities. No longer is it akin to being an officer of the town garden club as it may have been in years gone by. Citizens also need to realize that the Board of Library Trustees is not the same thing as the “Friends of the Library,” a group of volunteers that truly should support the library in an apolitical way.

In a perfect society, libraries would be neutral places and the boards overseeing them would be apolitical, but we live in a very imperfect world, and the political battle over our libraries only intensifies with the passage of time.  In fighting this battle, it is important to understand who really wields the power in public libraries.  It is NOT the director; in most states, it is the library trustees.  These trustees have an underappreciated amount of power, usurping by far that of a library director.  The way to remedy the woke hijacking of our libraries is to get more conservative trustees elected so that more boards can attain a conservative majority.  This will immediately and effectively stop the drag queen story hours, the Pride Month displays, and the promotion of woke books in our public libraries.

While laws regarding the governance of public libraries differ somewhat from state to state, all states should be emphasizing the power of the people to run their own public libraries. The New Hampshire laws that I am familiar with exemplify this ideal. According to NH RSA 202-A:6, “The library trustees shall have the entire custody and management of the public library and of all the property of the town relating thereto.”  That sounds like a lot of power, and it is.  On one of the first slides displayed in its “Library Trustee Orientation,” the New Hampshire Library Trustees Association (NHLTA) cites RSA 202-A:6 as it asserts the political influence of library trustees and describes them as “powerful elected officials.”

Pursuant to state law, New Hampshire trustees “adopt bylaws, rules and regulations,” so they, not the director, have the authority to set all policies.  These policies could relate to “collection development” and determine whether Gender Queer or Lawn Boy will be put on the shelf, or they could relate to prohibiting drag queen story time or any number of hot button issues.  Trustees also “hold the purse strings” of the library since they are tasked with preparing an annual budget and authorizing all expenditures of public money.  Perhaps, most essentially, the trustees make all personnel decisions, appointing a director and approving the hiring of all other library employees.

It is noteworthy that the main qualification for the position of library director in New Hampshire is “education of sufficient breadth and depth to give leadership in the use of books and related materials” (202-A:15). Nowhere does it say that the library director or any other library employee must have a master’s degree in library science (MLS), but this has come to be an expected attainment at least for the director. Trustees are therefore free to hire someone who does not possess this certificate of questionable value (more about that in a future article!).  The director, who serves “as the administrative officer of the public library” (202-A:16), can recommend employees to the trustees, but it is the board that has the ultimate say over who gets hired.

Overall, library trustees wield a great deal of political power.  Unfortunately, some voters are not aware of this, so they don’t consider the political affiliation of candidates when casting their ballots for these important elected offices in their town.  They might as well be voting for the president of the Garden Club! The end result of this oversight is trustee boards that promote drag queen story hours, Pride Month displays, and collection development policies that embrace woke ideals. Worse yet, sometimes there is only one candidate running unopposed, so the voters have no choice. That is why it is so important to recruit candidates for these important offices or perhaps even decide to run yourself.

Once trustees are elected, they should not be subjected to the indoctrination provided by state library trustee associations which generally walk in lockstep with the ALA.  Here in my home state, the New Hampshire Library Trustees Association held a conference last spring, the agenda of which speaks for itself.   The keynote speech at the 2023 NHLTA Conference was “The First Amendment: Fighting Censorship through Library Advocacy” (a title that clearly reflects ALA’s current distorted agenda). The speech, not surprisingly, emphasized how content related to LGBTQIA+ issues and Critical Race Theory is inordinately being targeted for “challenges.”

After the keynote address, the attending library trustees could choose from a variety of break-out sessions and workshops.  “Intellectual Freedom & Social Justice: Supporting All of Our Values” focused on the “core values of librarianship,” including additional ALA buzzwords such as diversity, intellectual freedom, and sustainability.  If you felt the need to stay on the “social justice” track, you could also attend “How to Work with your Town Government, Boards, and Community to Promote DEI and Social Justice.”

If you still hadn’t gotten enough social justice at this conference, you could join representatives from a coalition of libraries by attending “Small Libraries Unite for Justice.” This program promoted “Courageous Community Conversations” (C3), described by the sponsoring libraries as “a series of events…created to bring people together in community and conversation about racial and gender justice.” Despite the obvious political nature of these topics, the promoters assert that “C3 is designed outside of political attitudes or bias” and is “geared toward all levels of understanding of race, gender, and trans identities.” Another break-out session that was offered had a similarly sounding title, “Courageous Conversations: Can We Talk About Race?”  For some odd reason, the organizers of this conference for library trustees took advantage of this meeting of library trustees to celebrate woke librarians who they considered “courageous.”

No library conference would be complete without guidance on collection development.  The NHLTA conference did not disappoint with the breakout session “Developing Collections, Preparing for Challenges” being offered with its requisite emphasis on “challenged” (a.k.a. inappropriate) books. One final program, “Conducting Diversity Audits for Small & Midsize Libraries,” sounded very similar to the online Library Journal course that I criticized in my July article, “Protesting Inclusive Collections.”  There were a few other programs offered at the conference that seemed more traditional and less political such as ones on grant writing and running effective meetings, but the majority of breakout sessions had a political spin as detailed above, reflecting the reality that the elected position of library trustee is indeed political.

NHLTA’s ideological influence is not limited to its annual conference.  Its quarterly newsletters reinforce its political agenda.  The Summer 2023 edition promotes activism by asserting, “The past couple of years have been rough ones for libraries – book challenges, attacks on free speech and diversity have made advocating for libraries more important than ever.”  Similarly, the Summer 2022 newsletter reports, “At their June board meeting, NHLTA’s Board of Directors voted unanimously to sign on in support of the American Library Association’s ‘United Against Book Bans’ initiative.”  This article emphasizes the close relationship between NHLTA and ALA, a relationship that is likely similar nationwide with other state-level trustee associations. By the way, there is a national association that is actually a division of the American Library Association and is called United for Libraries Association of Library Trustees, Advocates, Friends and Foundations. For the sake of length, I will not analyze its agenda here, but as you could see for yourself by visiting its website, it is predictable.

If we want to save our libraries, we need to grab the power back that has been taken by liberal trustees adhering to their woke agenda.  We need to recruit, support, and endorse library trustee candidates who will oppose those who walk in lockstep with the American Library Association.  My hope is that some readers of this article will even consider running for this crucial role themselves. The position of library trustee must be appreciated as the important political office that it has become because trustees have the power to transform our public libraries back into the beloved town institutions promoting true intellectual freedom that they were intended to be.

Previously published on Arlene Quaratiello’s Substack newsletter “No Shushing Now: Exposing Today’s Woke Libraries.”

The post They’ve Got the Power: The Crucial Role Played by Library Trustees appeared first on Granite Grok.

We start with a “blast from the past. My screaming match (several years ago) with former Laconia Daily Sun reporter Mike Kitsch over “financial compassion”  while I was on my Hamlet’s budget committee. A reprise about our “chat” in a very public parking lot of the Mills Falls hotel that sets up the rest of the post.

 

A question for Michael Kitch now that Detroit has gone belly up financially – what’s in your pocket?

I lost all respect, years ago, for Laconia Daily Sun Reporter Michael Kitch when we had a blowout argument that my town was made up of residents and elected officials that were cheapskates.  Certainly, he knew that I truly believed that when I was on the Budget Committee in my hamlet, I tried mightily to act in the vein that “this is not my money” – and spent a lot of time trying to convince others of the same.  If anything, I tried to be more frugal with other peoples’ money, their property tax monies, than I am with my own.  After all, it IS mine – I earned it and I should be able to spend it the way I want to.

Kitch believes otherwise – he could not understand (or stand for) the idea that I (and my town, and other political entities) refused to raise the taxes on our residents simply to send that money to towns and cities that were broke.  Broke not because the single industry in town just up and left (and to which I would have some empathy) but because of years and decades of Progressive / Liberal / Democrat rule – the largest example now being Detroit.  As I have written here before, we had a screaming match over the fact that I refused to send money to the leaders of those towns, who have already proved that they are incapable of wisely spending their taxpayers monies.  WHY would I want to send them more and “enable” their bad habits?  His response was that ‘we are all in this together, that there were people still hurting in those cities, that the intent to help was paramount, and it was irrelevant that the political and appointed leaders would just waste that extra money.

Right…I want to give MY hard earned money to people who will just set a match to it via paying off political favors, paying up the huge public unions, kept the hamster treadmill of corruption spinning at supersonic speeds, and to hold blameless these chuckleheads who should be held severely accountable .  Instead, in this time of “demanding Justice for Tryvon”, where is the outrage against the Detroit “Leadership” (many who have ending up in jail at a rate similar to that of former Massachusetts Speakers of the House)?

But Kitch believes that I, and folks that believe like me,  am the bad guy ’cause I refuse to put my hand in my pocket, pull out the green, and blithely send it away simply because I live in what he believes to be “a rich town”…

Yep, what’s mine and yours is his to have and direct. A Socialist with a byline (and he did use it), berating “rich” towns IN PRINT for not helping poor towns,  fomenting and fanning Class Warfare. So when I ran across THIS from Kurt Schlichter about why he doesn’t care about Blue cities, it struck that nerve with me above (plus, why should I care about Baltimore, or their fantabulous math education results (40 schools with few to no students proficient in math).

What we’re seeing in the Democrat cities is a total breakdown of civilization. That’s not an exaggeration. You don’t have a civilization when normal people can’t walk down the street without having to dodge junkies, piles of human waste, and knife-wielding maniacs. You have chaos. But chaos is OK with the inhabitants of the Democrat big cities. I know that because they keep electing people who allow their cities to be chaotic. I’m supposed to be outraged and upset by this, but my caring bandwidth is limited. I can only care about so much, and what I cannot do is care more about the plight that the blue voters have placed themselves in than the blue voters who elected the Democrats who allow this to happen do.

Blue cities, this is your problem, not mine. I don’t live in one. I live near one, but not inside it…Understand me. I don’t think that people in blue cities should not have safe and clean streets. I think they should. But they don’t think they should. And I know they don’t think they should because they refuse to elect people who will ensure they do. Don’t tell me that these problems are intractable and unsolvable because we watched Rudy Giuliani take New York City back from the Taxi Driver abyss when it was equally scummy and turn it into an urban paradise.

Decline is a choice and is often chosen with votes.

Many voters in Democrat cities have chosen such EVEN AS their candidates have rather poor records in living up to what their campaign promises say their results will be. And I dare say, for the rest of us that DON’T live in such cities, we don’t have their kind of problems. I chose my hamlet over 40 years ago, KNOWING that problems similar to what I saw in Boston existed up here – but they were rare, and the intensity was way down the scale. Sure, during that time, crime rates have gone up, but I blame that on a changing culture.

In fact, that’s the root cause of America’s problems as well, ESPECIALLY in the Democrat strongholds. But the culture has FAR MORE descended into the depth of hell (as Schlichter puts it) there than it has in the Heartlands and in the rural areas. The idea that people should be moral, have a sense of being part of something bigger than themselves, and that they are held accountable by others (and NOT an insignificant belief that also means to God). They hold on to traditional American mores and norms – and traditions despite the best efforts of the Left too, as Van Jones said, “bottom-up, inside out” alongside Obama’s infamous phrase that it was time to “fundamentally transform America.”

So, Democrats went ahead and started it. They continue to do so today. We should be surprised. They TOLD us, in clear language, that was their goal. Kitsch is evidence for it. The dumbing down of America is the delivery mechanism.

And they want me to be “compassionate”? No – Schlichter used the word “shrugging.” If it is one, two, maybe up to 5 elections, and THEN start turning things around using their votes? Perhaps. But this is a decades, if not century-long phenomenon. They CHOSE this – deliberately. Those that could have already fled, but until those who remain take charge of their government CHANGE that government and the results it gives, I have nothing but “compassion fatigue.” In fact, with a lot of the Progressive policies being failures, when you compare their rhetoric to the results, I shrug at those who vote for them.

Not my problem.

Thanks, Obama, for turning the major components of your constituency into drooling idiots to the point that they are so poorly educated that crime, drugs, and hedonism are all that is left for them to do or be.

 

 

Be less…by design.

 

 

 

The post They Put Themselves into This Situation. It is Not My Mistake Nor My Job to Help Them appeared first on Granite Grok.

Legislation filed by Representative Jason Gerhard (R-Northfield) would place a question on the ballot for the voters of New Hampshire. If approved by two thirds of voters, the New Hampshire Constitution would be amended to say that the state will declare independence if the federal government accrues a debt of $40 trillion. As of 10/13, the US debt is $33.5 trillion. In 2020, the debt was under $27 trillion. 

The post Legislation Could Trigger New Hampshire Secession Before 2030 appeared first on The Liberty Block.

GraniteGrok has a full-service woodshed. We’ll take anyone out there and give them a verbal thrashing regardless of political party or lack thereof. Democrats often, Republicans, almost as much. Everyone else, as needed. The Principles are more important.

We’ll also share praise – time and interest permitting – and Op-Eds for or against any Republican. So where are they? We are in the heat of a presidential primary and taking flack from all directions, but no one is able to articulate their support for these candidates?

We’ve seen a few, but far too few, and I’d like you to know that it is okay to write in support of your preference (email steve@granitegrok.com). We will publish it on these pages.

Perception vs Reality

I get that we (appear to) have more alleged Trump support on our voluntary staff, but I think this has created a perception that we’re not open to anything or anyone else. Hogwash. Poppycock. Bunk, rubbish, nonsense, baloney, and balderdash. No one has endorsed anyone, nor has the site stepped up to do the same. We may not, but we’d still want to share your thoughts even if we had.

They are welcome, and I have published every Op-Ed we have received in support of presidential contenders, including one promoting RFK Jr., but they have been few and far between.

If you think Trump is a stooge, send us an Op-Ed explaining why.

If Pence, Christie, Burgam, Ramaswamy, Haley, or Hutchins is the girl or guy, send us an op-ed praising their benefits.

I am also inclined to remind everyone that in 2016, we were not in for Trump until after the nomination when the alternative was Hillary – and cautions even then until proven otherwise. And, like the guy or not, he got some good stuff done and did the nation and the world a few favors. That does not mean he was flawless or that the field of contenders he is a part of does not include the next better candidate.

Instead of getting mad and storming off – refusing ever to set your eyes upon our pages again becasue no one is promoting your candidate (yes, that happens) – maybe you should step up and get that ball rolling. We will give you the same access to our readers that our authors enjoy.

If you are not articulate enough, encourage someone like-minded who is because our authors and readers are not monolithic. They enjoy the debate.

So start one.

 

The post As The FITN Republican Primary Approaches, where are the Op-Eds For “Other” Candidates? appeared first on Granite Grok.

The Vermont Department of Public Services conducted a poll and a series of focus groups over the summer regarding state energy policy, specifically support for or opposition to using more renewable energy. They just released the 87-page report on what they found out.

DPS poll/focus groups will be spun the other way, but this is what people said.

Vermonters Weigh In: Public Opinion on Renewable Energy, and the results are interesting. Here’s what the data actually points to, and how it will be spun to say the opposite.

The most striking and unsurprising finding from the polling is that the factors Vermonters find very or somewhat important in an electricity source are, first and foremost, “affordability” (98%) followed closely by “reliability” (97%). Coming in third was “Impacts on natural resources like forests, rivers, and wildlife” (91%). When asked to pick just one factor as the most important, “affordability” blew away the competition at 29%. “Reducing carbon emissions” took on larger importance at 19%, and “reliability” came in a close third at 17%.

Some of the factors that didn’t score so well in the generally important/most important questions: “Whether the source is renewable” 79%/8%, supporting jobs and economic development 91%/4%, and source produced in state 60%/1%.

So, to summarize, the kind of energy policy most Vermonters are looking for is affordable, reliable, and with the least possible amount of impact on our natural environment, such as forests, rivers, and wildlife. We don’t particularly care so much if it’s renewable, reduces carbon emissions, or is produced in state – albeit those attributes might be considered nice.

Needless to say (or maybe it needs to be said), this is the exact opposite of the state energy policy our elected lawmakers are imposing upon us, which is moving more and more into high-cost, less reliable, intermittent non-baseload wind and solar power that requires acres and acres of precious natural ridgeline and pasture lands, displacing natural habitats and, especially in the case of wind, threatening endangered species.

Now, for those who do express favor for renewable energy, it’s easy to virtue signal support for it in theory, but the real question – one happily asked by the pollsters – is how much would you be willing to pay extra for said renewable power? And, according to the poll, Vermonters say not much, and most preferably nothing at all.

Again, this sentiment is so far removed from the multi-billion-dollar price tag of the Global Warming Solutions Act one has to ask why do we keep electing the people we keep electing. But I digress.

Asked, “How much more would you be willing to pay [per month] for electricity if it meant that all of Vermont’s power came from renewable or low-carbon sources?” 31% of Vermonters said “nothing.” 17% refused to answer, which probably means they just didn’t want to sound like a skinflint in front of the pollster. 24% said somewhere between $1 and $25, 16% said somewhere between $26 and $50, and just 12% said they would pay more than $50 per month, which probably indicates they were just showing off for the pollster. If actually presented with an annual renewable energy fee in excess of $600 on their electric bill, I bet a big chunk of that 12% would freak out, and not in a happy way. But I admit I speculate.

In the focus group sessions, where they conducted what looks like a crash course in Vermont energy policies sandwiched between before and after surveys to track changes in opinions based on learned information, there was an interesting revelation on this topic. Although the “after” survey showed a very modest drop in the number of people unwilling to pay anything from 18% to 15%, the overall dollar amount people were willing to pay dropped off sharply. “The median amount among participants who were willing to pay something actually went down compared to these participants’ initial responses, from $30 to $25.” (P.43)

Of note: what I don’t like about the way they asked this question is there is a huge difference between $1 and $25 a month — that’s $12 to $300 a year; very different – but these folks were statistically grouped together. Other surveys that have asked a similar question find that those willing to pay more for a “green” alternative tap out at about $10 a year. So, this overly wide net is certainly skewing the report’s conclusion of what the true median of what people would be willing to pay actually is. I do not think very many people, let alone 24%, would sign up to pay an extra $300 a year for electricity given a choice.

But even skewed up this much, these numbers will not come close to covering the bill for the energy mandates that exist in the Global Warming Solutions Act. So, if we are asking the question, are Vermonters prepared to pick up the tab for the energy policies our elected leaders have signed us up for, the answer would be no. Absolutely not.

Here’s where the spin begins…. The report claims on page 16, “Renewable sources were most popular with Vermont residents. Solar led the way in terms of strong support (62%)….” There are problems with that statement, but it’s the spin you’re most likely to hear.

First problem: the ONLY options the respondents were asked about were renewable, except for nuclear. There were no options listed for the most affordable, reliable options with the smallest geographic footprint: fossil fuels.

A more accurate and truthful way of gaging public opinion would be to show respondents a full range of options, fossil and renewable, along with a true cost per kilowatt, a reliability score (baseload or not), a landscape/wildlife impact score, carbon emissions per kilowatt, and a renewability score, (for fun I’d add a “relies on components made with child/slave labor” from countries with traditionally marginalized populations” category, time and space permitting), and let them pick.

Additionally, the pollsters dishonestly put their thumb on the scale regarding the true cost of renewable electricity. On page 19 they explain (or rather explain away), “As acknowledged in the policy brief and the focus groups, the cost of electricity is a bit of a moving target. Historically, fossil fuels have been the most affordable option, but that is changing as state and federal policies create incentives for renewables and the increasing supply of renewables brings down their price in the market.”

“Incentives,” by which they mean taxpayer and/or ratepayer-funded subsidies, do not lower the actual cost of renewable energy; they just shift part of that cost onto someone else. Usually, someone down the income scale, which also flies in the face of what Vermonters surveyed say they want as part of our energy policy — equity. “Many focus group participants who were concerned about the cost of electricity cited concern for their lower-income neighbors, many of whom are struggling with rising costs for many other goods and services.” (P. 10) If that’s the case, aptly labeled “wealthfare” programs like net metering and subsidies for solar panels are not for you!

And last point I’ll make here, the report says on page 28, “Most participants preferred to place solar panels on existing residential and commercial buildings, or in parking lots or other spaces that were already developed. There was much less interest in solar in natural areas,” and “Similarly, we heard push back on wind, and offshore wind in particular, concerning impacts on wildlife.” This is, again, contrary to the energy policy vision our so-called representatives are putting forward in our names, which is pushing us toward large-scale, industrial wind and solar.

So, when you inevitably hear the spin that a poll of 700 Vermonters concluded that solid majorities want to get our energy from renewable wind and solar sources, do know that that comes with some mighty big “ifs.” If it costs the same or less than fossil-based sources, if it’s reliable baseload power, if it doesn’t have a large impact on natural resources and animal habitats, and if isn’t reliant on regressive taxes or fees to make it “affordable.” This is a roundabout way of saying, no, we don’t actually want an energy policy primarily based on renewable sources, at least not with the current technology.

 

Rob Roper is a freelance writer with 20 years of experience in Vermont politics, including three years of service as chair of the Vermont Republican Party and nine years as President of the Ethan Allen Institute, Vermont’s free-market think tank. He is also a regular contributor to VermontGrok.

The post Vermonters Really Don’t Support State Energy Policy appeared first on Granite Grok.