Book and Author of the Week
Don’t Burn This Book
If ever there was a guy I totally disagree with on just about every level, it would be Dave Rubin, but unlike his fellow conservatives, he at least appeals to the logos side of the argument and not the pathos side where most conservatives seem to want to attack. When I was finished reading, I had to admit that no matter where you stand on the spectrum, the ideas he brings out helped me understand that the nature of the problem does not lie in the political ground you stand on, but to guard against the “fake news” we have all been hearing about that bends the issues. There are a lot of issues he attacks such as the wage gap and racism where we are told by either the right or the left what is right.
We have been told that women make a lot less income than men, but in using examples, Rubin points out that this is mostly myth and we have been programmed to believe that there is a wage gap when in fact it is negotiable. I question some of his data. I’m sure that he does have facts to back up his claims, but once again where and who is providing this information? In racism, he uses examples of African Americans or blacks as they preferred to be called, who do not see racism as being the reason is not racism that finds most black Americans at the bottom of rung of social/economic ladder, but the poor family structure where most black household do not have a male/father which puts them in poverty. Again, I feel his argument is compelling, but too often single reasons are not really the answer to problems we have encountered. Too often I feel people feel obligated in finding a “scapegoat” to push the garbage into without seeking solutions. Sure tradition does indicate due to poverty there are a lot of single parent households in our African American population, but isn’t that part one of the root causes of racism? We can make things simple, but that won’t fix the problem and while Dave Rubin feels that racism isn’t the problem the press makes it out to be, I have a strong feeling that he is oversimplifying the problem and minimizing it.
One of his best arguments on the idea of violence is the black against black violence that is ignored in many cases, but instantly highlighted in cases where the violence is white on black. Black on Black violence reached an epidemic in Chicago a few years ago where there were close to 400 homicides that involved a black victim killed by a black perpetrator. While the numbers were reported, many of the victim’s families were not paraded in front of the cameras as they were during the recent incidents that brought this issue to the forefront. In addressing the violence against African Americans in this country, let’s not stop at the incidents that are white on black, but go further to all of the homicides of black on black that happen every day in the bigger metropolises like Chicago and New York City. When you pull out a weed in your garden, if you don’t pull out the roots, the problem will grow back. In some of these social problems where violence and race are factors, we must make sure we are able to pull out the roots or it will come back as it did with George Floyd.
I feel that Dave Rubin is a true conservative who can not see beyond what is in front of him, making assumptions based on those conservatives he likes to surround himself with. I do appreciate his take on exercising freedom in order to keep people from removing your rights even though he used the typical conservative argument for gun control. While I do not believe gun control is the answer, as a teacher I feel that there must be some solution to killing defenseless children with automatic weapons designed to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time. I have a lot of friends who go off into the wilderness to hunt game to provide food for their families. My late uncle owned a game preserve that was by invitation only in New York. The gun is then reduced from a killing method to a tool used for the betterment of family. I know that any restriction or law preventing citizens from accessing their second amendment rights will be viewed as government imposing their authority on the person which is why Thomas Jefferson wanted less government control. What bothers me is that those advocating for second amendment rights are often those who put the guns in the hands of guys like Zachary Cruz, Stephen Paddock, James Holmes, Jarrod Lee Loughner, Adam Lanza, and so on. All of these shooters and more were having mental illness problems and yet were able to access the guns they used in their mass shootings. While Dave Rubin argued for better background checks, he still made the point that too much restriction is an attack by the government on our rights.
I have always believed that rights were something we were entitled to as long as our rights did not infringe on the rights of others. Now in this time of far left agendas that is slowly draining us of our voice and right to say what we think without being attacked by the far left. I am in total agreement with him on this issue. I will continue to use my blog as my voice in the matter. To cry over spilled ink means that we must keep trying to raise our voice to the social injustice we see taking place and not to be discouraged when our voices are drowned out by those who oppose us.
I will never be able to listen to a Dave Rubin podcast without blowing a gasket, but I think he is brilliant in the way he tells us to check our facts and keep raising our voices no matter how many friends we may lose in the process. A friend of mine told me to read this book, because we were having a disagreement over some social issues. I thank her for recommending this book. Despite my feeling on his position on certain issues, I feel this is a worthwhile read.
Truth in the Media
One of the main attacks in Dave Rubin’s book was against the media where he used several examples of how the media has lost its objectivity as soon as social media hit the scene and completely changed the landscape. In this stampede of information overload, we must be vigilant about what and where the source is coming from. I will not be able to even come close to solving this Gordian knot in the few short paragraphs, but hope to at least present something to think about as we wade through the growing swamp.
We have a president who when the media does not agree with his point of view, will claim “fake news” that has carried a lot of weight recently calling to question those who broadcast their biases as mainstream news. There has been an open war over the right and the left in how news is presented to the public. One of the cases that Ruben’s really lights up on is Jussie Smollett who claimed he was a victim of a racial attack by two white men in Chicago, but was later to find out it was a hoax while several news agencies carried the story without checking the facts.
According to Rubin, too many agencies rush to judgement whereas they should just be making the report and not at an angle that shows their biases. This is new to the game. As we were being brought the war into our living rooms during Vietnam, the bias was not always obvious even though images of eighteen year olds dying in the jungles was hard to deal with at dinner time. I do not want my media to have a political agenda nor do I want the government telling me where and how the truth lies. It’s time we begin to examine our sources and become critical observers. I do not at the same time wish to wonder where the truth is when there is news coming from the left and the right that seem to have two different points of view.