Posted on

According to Research, You and I Are Probably Wrong

Curiosity, Conversation, and the Quiet Collapse of a Divided Society

In Case You Missed Recent Articles

The recent “No Kings” protests garnered less attention than previous rallies. While it seems to be dying out, it still got my attention. I spoke with people who attended them, read write-ups on the protests, and watched various clips covering the day’s events. I was curious as to what exactly they were protesting. The results were baffling.

Some of the main points included:

  • Executive orders
  • Removing illegal aliens
  • Ignoring the constitution

I couldn’t help but think, where were these outcries when Biden was in office? These are some of the same things the other side were upset about when Biden was in office. I thought, why are they mad now, but not back then? And why are conservatives not mad now, but were back then?

Executive Orders

It is fair to say Trump has issued the most EOs in recent history. As of this writing, here are the EO numbers to date:

  • Trump – 220 in his first term and 255 so far
  • Biden issued 150
  • Obama issued 276.

All three president’s numbers warrant a tyranny label. For reference, James Madison issued 1 in eight years. One.

Deportations

Where were the “No Kings” rallies during the Obama administration? As of this writing, here are the deportation numbers by president:

  • Trump: approximately 1 million
  • Biden: approximately 1.5 million
  • Obama: approximately 3 million (Garnering the nickname Deporter-in-Chief)

Where was the deportation outrage among liberals from 2008-2024? There should have either been outrage this entire time, or no outrage now. And where are the conservatives now that were outraged during the terms of Obama and Biden?

When asked which constitutional amendment, provision, clause Trump is ignoring, the only answer I got was “All of them!” They simply could not answer it. They had no defense of their own. The binary approach is what is disingenuous. It’s not that they disagree with tyranny, it’s that their team isn’t in office.

There is a current issue with this on the other side. Conservatives are no better. Why aren’t more conservatives speaking out against the number of EOs? I understand the need for them, but the abuse is rampant and every president uses them like tyrannical building blocks. They have no place in a republic.

For the record, I haven’t seen much in the way of ignoring the U.S. Constitution on the part of Obama or Trump. Biden, however, trampled on it, particularly through Covid.

A Call to Action

So why are we only hearing about the president on the “other side?” (Reminder, you don’t have a side. They don’t care about you. And the sooner you realize this, the better off your mental health will be).

We must find a way to bridge this divide. The reality that we cannot see or understand those on the “other side” is quietly dissolving the moral and social fabric upon which our society depends.

Homophily is common. This is the tendency to interact with those similar to ourselves more often than those considered different. You see this every day. Think about who you’re drawn to.

  • Frequents the same establishments
  • Enjoys the same hobbies
  • Has a similar intellect
  • Similar familial situation
  • Political and religious worldview

What Research Says

Individuals tend to underestimate the extent to which dialogue with those holding opposing views can refine their thinking and enhance their understanding of complex issues. Multiple research studies suggest that individuals may underestimate their level of agreement with a piece of communication from across the political aisle.

  • People expect that listening to opposing views will be unpleasant (Dorison et al., 2019). This was found to be a forecasting error. Their assumption stood directly in their way, subsequently affecting information consumption.
  • They expect that others who do not share their views will respond negatively to them (Wald et al., 2024). They found that people underestimate the degree of common ground that would emerge in conversation and from failing to appreciate the power of social forces in conversation that create social connection.
  • People are afraid they will not feel heard by others during a conversation (Teeny & Petty, 2022). Feeling, in advance, that they will not be heard, they are significantly more reluctant to enter into conversation with anyone with opposing views.
  • Brand new research showed that each participant underestimated levels of depolarization after having a conversation with them about various topics: Dogs vs cats, cancel culture, Biden’s performance as president (Kardas et al., 2026). All had the same outcome. Another finding within this study was that if one was told that it’s been shown that polarization reduces after conversations with others with different viewpoints, their own polarization reduced, without the conversation ever having taken place. Just the idea that someone else may have a different view and that previous experiments showed most depolarized after discussions caused a solid shift in their own polarization. Each participant found unexpected areas of agreement when discussing issues typically viewed as polarized.
  • Todd Kashdan proposed that curiosity itself was a driving factor behind reluctance towards political conversation. His team found that people incorrectly assumed others would be closed-minded towards cross-aisle conversations. Yet when they discovered that their political in-group displayed more humility and open-mindedness than originally anticipated, their curiosity increased, leading to more fruitful and willing conversations across the aisle (Kashdan et al., 2025).

Tribalism Must Go

Moral of the story? You’re probably wrong. And so am I. And that’s ok. Let’s change. Tribalism is a cancer. It does no one any good. It becomes evident that we have misjudged the depth of our own intellectual flexibility, as well as that of others, underestimating our shared capacity to adapt, to remain curious, and to reshape our thinking in response to new evidence. I’ve been as guilty as anyone. I get caught up in, “They’re not going to listen to anything I have to say anyway, I’m not going to waste my time.”

Sometimes this is rooted in a quiet but powerful presumption that we already possess the truth, and that the task of the other is merely to recognize it and follow. In such a posture, curiosity is not only diminished but also displaced, though it may be the most essential element of all.

Such curiosity led me to here. Years ago, I decided to learn. Really learn. And the more I learned, the more I understood the premise behind Socrates’ claim, “I am the wisest among you because I know nothing.” He found that the more he learned, the more he realized how much was out there to learn. And he possessed a small, minute fraction of the information available. For me, this led to openness and curiosity. Which led to anti-tribalism.

As stated in my first book, America’s Great Threat: America, America won’t fall from the outside. It will collapse from within, foremost among the causes is a rigid, binary way of thinking that divides people and discourages curiosity.

End Tribalism!

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

Dorison, C. A., Minson, J. A., & Rogers, T. (2019). Selective exposure partly relies on faulty affective forecasts. Cognition, 188, 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.02.010

Kardas, M., Nordgren, L., & Rucker, D. (2026). Unnecessarily divided: Civil conversations reduce attitude polarization more than people expect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 130(2), 187–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000469

Kashdan, T. B., McKnight, P. E., Kelso, K., Craig, L., & Gross, M. (2025). Enhancing curiosity with a wise intervention to improve political conversations and relationships. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 40272–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-24021-8

Teeny, J. D., & Petty, R. E. (2022). Attributions of emotion and reduced attitude openness prevent people from engaging others with opposing views. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 102, 104373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104373

Wald, K. A., Kardas, M., & Epley, N. (2024). Misplaced divides? Discussing political disagreement with strangers can be unexpectedly positive. Psychol Sci, 35(5), 471–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976241230005

Posted on

The Diary of Existing Beliefs

Skepticism, Faith, and the Fear of Being Wrong

Wes Huff and Steven Bartlett

I watched the new Wes Huff interview on Steven Bartlett’s Diary of a CEO. Steven is one of my favorite podcasts to watch. He has the best guests and is genuinely curious. This one, however, had a bit of predetermined readiness for a duel. Steven was welcoming as always and asked questions in good faith, but he could not tolerate the way Wes was answering them. So he cut Wes off many times shortly into Wes’ reply.

This showed me he was looking for predetermined outcomes to the questions he was asking and when it didn’t go as planned, he shifted, as if to refocus the conversation on his own skepticism. Wes masterfully put every question to rest with facts and his overall interpretation of the events in question.

Let’s take a few of Steven’s objections for examples of what I’m referring to.

The Great Leap Backwards

The greatest leap was an early one. Steven comes out swinging concerning the time when the gospels were written. John was written approximately 40 years after Jesus’ death. Steven attempts to make the case that this would be hard to remember. If this is the standard, we must throw out almost every text written in the ancient world as fact.

Throw out all of the Roman Empire. All Greek philosophers. Socrates? Gone. His pupil Plato? Gone. Plato’s pupil Aristotle? Gone. Aristotle’s pupil Alexander the Great? Gone. The earliest manuscripts we have of anything being written about Alexander the Great was approximately 250 years after his death. But we hang on every word of it as the undeniable truth.

It would all have to go. But we would never do that. Why? Because we only want to throw out what challenges us.

Both or Neither

Then Steven suggests that there can’t be a God with all of the evil in the world. Here, Wes delicately handles this objection (much more diplomatically than I would have—realizing this interview was a setup for a duel) by illuminating the often agreed upon philosophy that if we acknowledge there is Evil, then we must agree there is Good. And also agree they have origins and authors. Again, he was trying to prove something false only to feed directly into its philosophical objectivity.

The Unmoved Mover

Steven then gets into the evolutionary debate. They both quickly agree on adaptation. But the idea of a transition from chimpanzee to human has yet to be remotely adequately explained. Beyond this, Steven kept referring to existing realities and variations of the existing realities while dodging the origin argument the entire time.

At one point, Wes begins to say that there must have been a beginning and Steven interrupts, again, to shift into his creative brain making sense of the world outside of the need for a God. Wes even alludes to Aristotle’s claim that while moving things are moved by other movers, it could not have begun by a mover. It had to have begun by an eternal, unmoved mover. There has to have been an origin story. But Steven kept dodging it.

The Holy Vending Machine

Lastly, Steven travels into the arena of prayer. He says what many say, “I have prayed for meaningful things that never came true. If there is a God, why would he not answer that prayer? And if He doesn’t answer prayer, then how great of a God could He possibly be?”

This is assuming…

  1. We have asked according to God’s will,
  2. We already know what God’s will is ahead of time,
  3. We somehow have an idea of what should happen regardless of how limited we are in our thinking.

God is not the Holy vending machine in the sky. “A4 – new job!” And prayer isn’t solely asking for things, although at times, it involves that.

The Lord’s Prayer

Allow me to briefly break down the Lord’s Prayer as an example:

  • Our Father who is in Heaven: This lays out that he is revealed to us as a father (paternal authority) and where he currently is. So when we pray, we know exactly to whom we are praying.
  • Holy is your name: This indicates that when we pray, we are speaking to a perfect God.
  • Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven: Here we see the idea that when we pray, we are to ask for what He wants, not what we want. We are also to ask God to bring what is in heaven here to earth. Eternal rewards in the afterlife are not enough.
  • Give us this day our daily bread: When we do ask, we should ask for what we need, not necessarily what we want.
  • Forgive us, as we have forgiven others: This one’s tough. If we haven’t forgiven others very well, we are saying, don’t forgive us either. The opposite is equally true.

It ends with recognition that He is the creator and ruler of all. None of that is easy, nothing suggests indulging the self, and all of it challenge us to aim towards and ineffable telos.

Conclusion

Steven wanted to be right. This is new for him. He usually wants to learn. So why was this different? I think the answer is simple. Christianity calls us towards a better way than the easy path in front of us; the easy path of rejecting notions of delayed gratification. Never mind that delayed gratification is a predictor of economic success. Christianity also rejects the self and requires us to acknowledge the intrinsic deficiencies we all possess. This is often too much for our current self-driven society to handle. Personally, I’m glad I grew up before they invented self-esteem.

Thankfully, Steven eventually gets to a place where he concedes that Wes really is a good guy, knows what he’s talking about, and genuinely means well. It ended better than it started. Maybe next time Steven goes in ready for a fight, he will pick someone less informed so he can win.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

The Dirty “S” Word

Reclaiming a Biblical Concept the Modern World Can’t Stand

Grainger and Kelly Jackson

Grainger is a free-thinking writer with insights on modern fatherhood, relationships, and raising emotionally healthy kids, at the crossroads of psychology and spirituality. Multiple degrees in Psychology. Husband. Father. Counselor/Therapist.

Kelly Jackson is a Christian, wife, and mother who walked away from corporate success to follow a deeper calling. Through her work, she has supported hundreds of women through career shifts, nervous system stabilization, identity transitions, and the quiet work of legacy-building. Her mission is to help women return to what really matters in life.

Together, they bring you a difficult topic delivered at the intersection of compassionate kindness and unapologetic truth.

Kelly’s Message to the Ladies

Few words trigger a reaction like submission.

Say it out loud and watch shoulders tense. For many women, it conjures images of silence, shrinking, blind obedience, power misused. It sounds like erasure.

And if that’s what submission were, it should be rejected.

But the biblical vision of submission in marriage is not about domination or loss of agency. It is about order rooted in love, strength expressed through trust, and voluntary yielding within covenant.

A brief clarification: biblical submission only makes sense within a Christian worldview. If Scripture is not authoritative to you, we may not land in the same place—and that’s okay. This conversation is for those willing to consider God’s design on its own terms.

The Verse Everyone Quotes — And the Context They Skip

“Wives, submit to your husbands…” (Ephesians 5:22)

That line rarely stands alone in Scripture, though it often does online.

The verse immediately before it reads:
“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Ephesians 5:21)

Submission in marriage does not begin with wives. It begins with both husband and wife submitting themselves under Christ. Wives are called to submit within a structure where husbands are simultaneously commanded to love as Christ loved the Church.

And Christ did not dominate the Church. He died for her.

The Weight of Headship

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” (Ephesians 5:25)

Biblical headship is not privilege. It is responsibility. It is leadership under judgment. A husband is called to lay his life down in tangible ways—through protection, provision, humility, and spiritual stewardship.

Any version of submission detached from sacrificial leadership is not biblical. It is distortion.

Scripture never authorizes a husband to demand what he refuses to embody.

What Submission Is

Submission is a posture, not a personality.

It is:

  • Trusting your husband’s leadership when he is seeking God
  • Choosing cooperation over competition
  • Yielding preference for unity
  • Respecting the role God designed
  • Allowing yourself to be led without disappearing

It is voluntary, not coerced.
Strong, not passive.
Intentional, not automatic.

Take the Proverbs 31 woman. She is not voiceless. She is wise, industrious, discerning, and respected. Her alignment does not make her small—it makes her steady.

What Submission Is Not

I want to be super clear, as I know many will be thinking about the extremes.

Submission is not:

  • Enduring abuse
  • Obeying sin
  • Silencing legitimate concerns
  • Abdicating discernment
  • Shrinking to protect ego

When commanded to comply with wrongdoing, the apostles responded: “We must obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)

Submission never overrides obedience to God. It is not unquestioning compliance. It is not a command to tolerate harm.

Why the Word Offends Modern Culture

In a culture that treats power as something to seize and defend, submission sounds like loss.

But Jesus redefined greatness:
“Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant.” (Mark 10:43)

Christianity frames strength differently. Voluntary yielding under God is not weakness. Christ submitted to the Father—and commanded storms.

It’s important to distinguish that submission becomes dangerous when demanded. But it becomes life-giving when freely offered within a marriage anchored in Christ.

When a husband leads with humility, a wife can yield without fear. When a wife responds with respect, a husband is strengthened in leadership. Neither weaponizes Scripture. Both submit first to God.

This kind of order removes rivalry. It replaces scorekeeping with trust. Marriage stops resembling a corporate ladder and begins reflecting covenant.

Biblical submission does not erase women. It steadies homes. Properly understood, it does not silence wives—it anchors marriages in something stronger than personal will.

Grainger’s Message to Men

Ok fellas. You’re not off the hook just because she said wives should be better at the “S” word. We need to be better also. First, the scripture Kelly mentioned in Ephesians 5, well, is your spouse worth dying for? Chances are you’d say yes. And if so, then are you worth submitting to? That depends on the aspect of leadership that you employ. If leadership to you looks like ruling, being the boss, and instructing, then no, you’re not worth submitting to. If it’s servant leadership, then maybe.

Reclaiming the Word Submission

The etymology of the word submission closely translates to the words under to send or let go. So I submit my life to the authority of my pastor. I am under him to be sent or to let go of total control. I told him, “If you’re following Jesus, I’m following you.” This doesn’t make me inferior. Weak. Spineless. Quite the opposite. It makes me meek, strong yet in control. So submission doesn’t mean your wife is weak, it means she is strong yet in control. I’m not following my pastor blindly. If he tells me to shave my head and move to Waco, TX, he is on his own. I’m not going. But if he leads biblically, I’ll follow; I’ll submit.

The Verse Everyone Quotes

Kelly said it well. We first submit to each other. And to the men, if you’re not worth submitting to or are leading in a direction not aligned with God’s word, there’s no biblical validity to her staying in such abuse. So please don’t try to use that against her. It won’t work if someone like me, who knows the Bible in and out, is around to debunk your narcissistic tendencies.

The idea here is bilateral submission. The wife submits (follows under to send while strong and in control or restraint) to her husband and the husband simultaneously submits to Christ, so much that he will lay his life down for her. Both must happen to be in alignment with God’s will for our lives. Unilateral submission is the breeding ground for disaster. Submission to Christ looks like chasing God first, then your spouse, then leading your children, in that order. And chasing isn’t passive, it’s intentional.

What It Looks Like to Lead

So what should she submit to? Leadership implies:

  • Someone is voluntarily following. If not, you’re dictating.
  • You’re taking someone from one place to another. If not, you’re managing.
  • Leading from underneath, allowing those you lead to take credit for the everyday wins. If not, you’re bossing.
  • Serving first and eating last. If not, you’re insecure.

What It Looks Like in Everyday Life

Initiate, Serve, Follow Through.

Initiate

Initiate getting the kids up in the mornings. Initiate getting the kids’ clothes out. Initiate fixing breakfast. Initiate praying with the kids and with your wife. Initiate being on time to church. Do not wait for her to take control of these situations if you are able to initiate it.

Serve

Serve her. What restaurant does she want to go to? What movie does she want to watch? What would make her evening less stressful? This leads to reciprocity. Women often respond to such initiation and service in the most generous of ways. Sometimes, they don’t even realize this is an innate part of them until they’re given the liberty to inhabit such freedom. It starts with you.

Follow Through

Follow through with what you say you will do. This is true for consequence, reward, or simply showing up. If you tell your children not to touch the TV and they do, and you do nothing, they have learned not to respect you and your word means nothing. Likewise, if you say you will be at their piano recital and you don’t show up, they learn you don’t really mean anything you say. However, if you do provide consequences, and you do show up to the recital, you are teaching them you are a man of your word, which mirrors the God we serve. He is a man of his word.

If I say I’ll meet you for coffee at 9 AM, and 9 AM arrives and I’m not there and you haven’t heard from me, you might as well call the highway patrol. I’m on the side of the road somewhere. I’m a man of my word 100% of the time. This applies to our spouses as well. If I say I’ll get the house ready for guests, I better get it ready (to her satisfaction, not mine).

Final Reflection

Before moving on, consider:

Ladies:

1. What immediate reaction does the word submission stir in you—and why?

2. Where might God be inviting you to release control as an act of trust and obedience?

3. How does viewing submission as a spiritual discipline—not a gender deficiency—shift your understanding?

Men:

1. What areas of your life need improvement in initiating, serving, or following through?

2. Where might God be inviting you to accept responsibility and make internal changes with external and eternal rewards?

3. How does viewing submission as a two-way street that begins with you serving her shift your understanding?

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger & Kelly Jackson

Posted on

Don’t Throw the Message Out With the Mess-Ups

Logic Dies When Identity Speaks

Kid Rock & Bad Bunny

Do your best to read this with an open mind and an attempt to discover something new.

The Super Bowl halftime show was talked about more than the game. This has been the norm for the last few years. But this year, because of the strong political divide, there were two halftime shows. One for “each side.” This phrase alone is incredibly stupid to say. What’s a side? You have no side. They don’t care about you. And the fact that they’ve duped you into thinking you have a side that resembles any form of allegiance to you is stupefying.

So in come the predictable and tired political slogans and hateful rhetoric aimed at the “other side.”

“All Spanish! Yay diversity!”

“All Spanish?, we speak English!”

“It’s goIng to be sexy and lit!”

“It’s going to be vulgar!”

“Only thing more powerful than hate is love.”

“How many women does he love? His first song suggests too many!”

The next predictability were those praising the other halftime show. It was terrible. Lee Brice was ok. The others were very subpar. Until it got to Dr. Phil’s redneck cousin. Kid Rock was amazing. And I’m not a Kid Rock fan. Overall, it wasn’t a great show. But good luck telling that to MAGA.

“This was the best. Screw Bad Bunny!”

“I ain’t watching no Spanish show. ‘Merca!”

But the not so predictable part was when many turned on against Kid Rock for singing about Jesus.

The angle was that he, at one time, was a womanizer, and maybe even pedophile. There’s no evidence for the latter. But he was definitely the former. And wild. And crazy. And redneck. But like all people, we change. He did too, apparently. This takes me to my main point.

Tribalism Enters Center Stage

In one show, you have a man who is clearly currently a total womanizer who blatantly disrespects women and does an entire show about how every woman wants him and he does what he wants to them and leaves. But his most notable message was “The only thing more powerful than hate is love.”

On the other show, you have a character who has also ruffled some feathers, past and present, who ends up with a message saying “You can give your life to Jesus, till you can’t.”

Both artists controversial. Both have disreputable pasts. Both brought a strong positive message. This causes me to ask two questions?

  1. Why is one better (or worse) than the other?
  2. Why are we dismissing the message because of the messenger?

The only possible answer to the 1st question: Tribalism. And the answer to the 2nd question? See 1st question.

  • Solomon gave us the wisest book of the Bible.
  • King David gave us the most passionate book in the Bible.
  • Moses is the father of Jewish law and a foundational pillar of the Christian faith.
  • One left his first wife, hopped in bed with every chick this side of the Euphrates, decided to have multiple wives, who, eventually, were his downfall.
  • Another had an affair and killed her husband, who was his most loyal soldier, to cover up the affair.
  • Another killed a man because he got pissed off.

Do we throw their message out because of their mess-ups? I hope not. I have a lot of good things to say to help people live their best lives. But if you knew me in high school, you may not listen. Because I was a jack-wagon. Ernest Hemmingway and Robin Williams had plenty of good to say but ultimately couldn’t live by their own words. There have been many people in places of leadership that have positively altered the course of people’s lives, changing them forever, yet found themselves in a career-ending scandal.

There’s a strong psychological pull to dismiss a message once we discover flaws in the person delivering it. When someone lives inconsistently with what they teach, the instinct is to label everything they said as invalid. That reaction is understandable, but it isn’t always objective. Information can still carry value independent of the character of the person who delivered it. Sometimes the messenger is simply the vehicle. While the insight itself remains useful, constructive, or even transformative.

The tribalism has to end. There’s no real progress until we see through each other’s eyes.

I thank God every day there were no smart phones when I was in school. I thank God I’m forgiven. Thank God I’ve been given a second chance.

Don’t throw the message out with the mess-ups.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Jesus Targeted Hearts, Not Systems

The Truth About Lies About Jesus

I know, I know. I said I wouldn’t write any more religious posts because too many religious people major on minors and miss the forest for the trees. But I saw a piece recently where a writer attempted to show us just how smart he was and exercise a moral authority that apparently he possesses and everyone else just sits in awe, awaiting his every wise word on how centuries of information derived from ancient texts should be viewed the way he says it should, in spite of the historical accuracy of said ancient texts, or you are simply wrong. (I’ve purposely chosen not to include his article, so he doesn’t get unnecessarily digitally doxed).

It always fascinates me how people spend so much time attempting to tear down mountains of archaeological evidence, lived experience, and structure that has clearly benefited society. This happens when people attack religion, and especially Christianity. I say especially, because it is the religion that is the most attacked in America.

I won’t go too deep here on this, but three major discoveries of ancient scrolls surfaced over time, each older than the previous finds. Each time, they were identical. This is almost impossible to achieve outside of authenticity. Scholars who specialize in ancient manuscripts don’t dispute the core documents used to assemble the Bible. The best resource I know for this information is Wes Huff. Moving on.

In this newest hit piece, the first problem I notice is the overwhelming desire to use the word Palestinian yet claim to be giving us a history lesson at the same time. Palestinian wasn’t a word used often in biblical times. It’s not a region. Not an ethnicity. Regardless, let’s glean from his “Four points of brilliance.”

#1. Jesus Wasn’t White.

“What most white Christians conveniently forget is that the real Jesus of Nazareth looked nothing like those Renaissance paintings.”

Who is most? No one believes he was. I literally know of no one that believes for one second that Jesus was “white.” He was Jewish. The idea that some may consider him white is pulling from, very possibly, one of the smallest samples in survey history. The only people claiming others say this are indulging in the very tired race baiting that permeates liberal white women.

#2. Jesus Was Political.

“You have to be especially ignorant of basic historical facts to believe that Jesus—who was literally executed by the state as a political threat under a placard reading ‘King of the Jews’—wasn’t political.”

The crucifixion was illegal. Neither the Romans nor the Jewish authorities actually had a solid legal case against Jesus. Nothing that justified an execution. Many expected him to lead a revolutionary style governmental revolt, but his teachings consistently pushed away from political insurrection. He instructed them to respect the government. His only real intersection with political authority was confronting the Pharisees, who had aligned themselves with Roman power to protect their religious structure, cultural traditions, and the limited individualism and autonomy they still retained.

“He proclaimed good news to the poor and liberation to the oppressed.”

Yes. To the individual.

“He warned the first would be last and the last would be first.”

Calling the individual to humble himself.

“He told parables of masters being overthrown by servants, kings being challenged, wealthy being cast down while hungry were fed.”

The aim was to cultivate humility. To remind the person that, apart from Christ, their standing is no greater than that of the beggar, and that wealth should remain a servant rather than a master.

“He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey in a deliberate parody of Roman imperial processions.”

This was prophesied in Zechariah 9:9 approximately 500 years before Jesus was here.

The four examples given under #2 were all directed to the individual. Never a systemic enterprise. His message challenged hearts, not institutions.

#3 His Message Wasn’t About Heaven or Afterlife.

“Recognize that the Bible is not a historically accurate transcript of what Jesus said

(Admittedly, this is very difficult for most people who have been brainwashed to believe almost from birth that the Bible is “the word of God” with no mistakes and practically a fourth member of the trinity).”

Brainwashed? Brainwashed to believe 2 Timothy 3:16.

Then he says,

“Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, liberate the oppressed, forgive debts, redistribute wealth.”

Nope. Redistributed wealth was never near his lips. And even if it were interpreted that way, His message challenged hearts, not institutions.

Jesus’ message about money wasn’t complicated. Many religious leaders in his time were corrupt, working with Roman authorities to protect their hierarchical power and status. They treated wealth like proof of spiritual favor. Jesus didn’t condemn wealth itself, he warned, either you govern money, or it governs you. His criticism was aimed at people, like the Pharisees, who were controlled by money.

Maybe my favorite part of this segment in the piece was the dismissal of validity due to the fact that John wrote his letters around 70 A.D. (Actually, he said 70 years after Jesus’ death. That’s not true. It was approximaely 35 years after). This was when they knew it had all been completed. Not when they believe he wrote it. But let’s assume “oh wise one” is right. We have texts on Alexander the Great. The first known writings about his life happened over 250 years after his death. But we believe it as undeniable truth. The inconsistency is astounding.

#4 Jesus Wasn’t Divine.

“This is the big one—and is probably most difficult for modern Christians to accept. The historical Jesus, the man who walked the earth 2,000 years—never actually claimed to be divine. That’s an invention of his later followers.”

This is the biggest reach. But it again denies the validity of 2 Timothy 3:16. This is to dismiss the expression of the trinity, the claim that got him killed, and the more than 300 prophecies from the Old Testament that he fulfilled. If Jesus was not divine, we are all doomed. I guess, “I am the way, the truth, the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” just slipped his mind.

Why It Matters

“It made Jesus into an object of worship, a ticket to heaven, a way to escape this world.”

No, it actually drew a line in the sand, called people up, demanded people do not give in to desires, pointed to a narrow road, gave hope to the hopeless, and solidified exactly why Jesus was here.

What this writer did was cherry pick the visions of the anointed, the intellectuals (who surely have no agenda of their own) and justified every carnal move and every principal they think writers in the Bible “just got wrong.”

This is how dangerous it is to be governed by our feelings. We will find things that aren’t there.

“The lies Christians tell about Jesus—that he was white, apolitical, focused on the afterlife, and divine—aren’t innocent mistakes. They’re a systematic reconstruction designed to make Jesus safe for power.”

“This afterlife-obsessed Christianity has served power perfectly throughout history.”

The reduction to power is the part that’s intellectually dishonest. As if the only motivation one could have for staying out of politics was for power. This is truly paradoxical to common sense playing out right in front of us. Many, if not most, get in to politics for power, not avoid it.

Growth Over Feelings

But why would someone take such pride in deconstructing the Christian faith using fallacies and feelings over centuries of fact? Because it doesn’t line up with the way he feels. It doesn’t just say, “Do exactly what you want. Your truth is superior to the truth.”

It calls you toward a peaceful life. Towards delayed gratification. To invest in the next generation. To be a person of moral character. Integrity. Consistency. This fosters personal growth. And that’s difficult and messy. When beliefs clash with personal preference, reinterpretation becomes tempting.

Ok, I’m done with this. It will likely call out every religious zealot that sits around all day thinking about whether Susan went all the way in (because we saw her hand sticking out) or if we need to schedule another baptism. Sheesh. I’m tired thinking about that.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

The Freedom of Limits

Less Echoes, More Challenges

This isn’t one of those articles that brings research, data, science, into the discussion. This one is the eyeball test. What I see, what is working, and what’s not working.

Back Story

When I began officiating college basketball, it was primarily due to how poorly basketball was being officiated. I set out to show it was possible to work hard and be a good referee. I quickly garnered a reputation for, “That’s one of the good ones.” As if to suggest this is rare.

Fast forward. Many years later, I’m serving in a pastoral counseling role at my church when my wife says, “You should consider doing this for a living.” That sparked a desire to understand where the industry was. It didn’t take long to understand that this industry was ideologically captured by group-think minions that dare you to present facts and refuse to test the ideas they espouse proudly.

  • Affirm at all costs
  • Validate anything and everything
  • Make them feel seen and heard so they return
  • Don’t challenge them or they will end their own lives and you will be the reason why

This all made no sense to me. If counseling becomes solely a space for affirmation without thoughtful challenge, its value diminishes. Effective therapy involves both validation and constructive confrontation. Helping clients examine assumptions, recognize blind spots, and consider alternative perspectives rather than simply reinforcing existing beliefs.

But that’s just it, we have moved beyond the ability to think critically, but rather homogenously. It’s an incessant drilling of like-minded, echo-chambered mobs with pitchforks daring others to get in their way. “If they believe they’re a microwave, you better find the popcorn button!” But there’s a problem, it simply doesn’t work.

Therapeutic Madness

I recently read an article that made me almost come out of my chair and yell in excitement at the screen, “Yes! That’s what I’m saying!” Skye Sclera’s primary point was how therapy seems to be ideologically homogenous and in denial that another perspective exists. When therapy becomes this rooted in groupthink, it reduces its quantitative reach. And when clinicians struggle to establish clear behavioral limits, clients may interpret this as implicit permission for unrestricted behavioral choices, including those that may be maladaptive or harmful. It’s like a menu that has way too many options. You’re not impressed, you’re overstimulated. That’s because there’s liberty in limits. But good luck telling the therapeutic community that.

The Outcry

Lately, there have been an influx of mothers entering our office making this statement, “I heard you had a man here that talks to teenage boys and knows how to make the rest of our lives more peaceful. Well, I need this guy to see my son. Because he is wreaking havoc on our home and something has to change!” The last five mothers who entered saying this, I accepted as clients. Here are some examples:

New Dad

One comes in, looking everywhere but in my eyes. Talks at me instead of to me. We begin talking about how he ended up in my office (most of my clients are court-ordered). As he states why, I quickly see that this young man doesn’t have a man in his life telling him how to and how not to act in public. So I ask. Nope. No man. So I lean in. “You want to be exactly like your father who is sitting in a prison cell? No? Then you should start acting like a real man. You have a baby on the way. Do you wish to be the dad you never had? Yeah? Then you will need to start acting like a man. So far, you resemble a little boy who argues and fights his way through everything. Men discuss. Men care. Men protect and provide but also nurture and love. You are on your way to being cellmates with your dad if you don’t do something different!” He clearly needed to hear this. Because his mom told him he didn’t have to go to therapy if he didn’t want to. Yet he chose to continue.

Little Boy Syndrome

Another one came in looking down and away, steady RBF. Made it clear he didn’t want any part of this. Again, I leaned in. “Sounds like you wanted to be treated like a man.” He nods yes. “Then you should start acting like one. Men don’t look down when they’re talking to people. Men don’t cuss their mothers. Men don’t sit back and wait for good things to happen. They make good things happen. They initiate. They help. They make everyone’s life around them better because they’re in it. Little boys cause more problems. And you’re causing more problems for your family.”

This particular young man goes back to court. His mother tells the judge about our conversations. Leaves it to the young man where to go for therapy. He says he wants to see me because I’m “different.”

What makes me different? I fully believe it’s because I don’t let them stay where they are.

“Who you are isn’t nearly as important as who you could be. And who you could be isn’t here. So let’s go find him.”

Mom’s Despair

A mother comes in with her arms open. “The last 5 therapists I saw didn’t understand. They validate my son’s anger outbursts. Affirm his rudeness and violent tirades. They say that we must let him feel his emotions fully. Am I going crazy or does that sound like a bad idea?” I then spoke about how young men need structure that’s not sugar-coated but blunt and forward directed. I told her that I believed his previous therapists were trying to exorcise the masculine out of him, assuming that was the demon within, and installing a feminine chip would solve everything. But it won’t.

As I told her some of the strategies I use on teenage boys, she began to cry. But they were tears of joy. For the first time, she encountered feedback that resonated with psychological clarity. Rather than vague reassurance, she heard a formulation grounded in behavioral principles. I spoke of the benefits of structured incentives, consistent boundaries, and predictable consequences. At the same time, supporting his development likely requires a balanced approach. Allowing meaningful autonomy while maintaining appropriate parental guidance rather than granting full control. No one had ever expressed the need for him to be called up, not out.

Quenching the Thirst Using Limits

What I hear is an outcry from both mothers and young men for something real and not ideological. Something that beckons to evolutionary psychology. Something that is a calling card to their given biology. That it’s ok to be masculine. It’s ok to be tough. It’s ok to be angry. It’s ok to be confused. And it’s ok to express emotion.

It’s as if they have been wandering in a desert and someone just gave them a drink of cold water.

This must be how Jordan Peterson felt when he realized how many men were responding to his call to stand up straight, put on your best clothes, look a man in the eye, make your bed, and treat yourself like someone you’re responsible for. I’ve seen many interviews when people ask him to acknowledge this influence and he is reduced to tears. Now I know why. It’s sadness knowing that all they needed was fundamental encouragement to revolutionize their lives mixed with the pure joy of seeing it come to fruition.

I’m seeing it now. Every day. We don’t need more therapists who just nod and validate everything. We need more who actually challenge people. Therapists willing to call out what’s broken and call people up to something better. Ones who aren’t afraid to say the uncomfortable, unpopular truths that actually change lives. Because drowning clients in feelings while ignoring reality isn’t compassion, it’s avoidance. And whether the field admits it or not, a lot of people are starving for someone who will finally be honest with them. But if you ask a therapist, they’ll say these clients are misguided and haven’t found their “true self.” Yes they have. And now I’m normalizing their true self with structure and boundaries. And the evidence is right before me. There’s freedom in limits.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Single Awareness Day

Why Being You and Working On You Are Both Good

This is for my single friends.

When I was single I celebrated the hatred of Valentine’s Day. Literally got with other miserable young men and drank to the hatred of Valentine’s Day. I’m still not excited about the marketing pressure to make purchases you shouldn’t in order to meet cultural norms. It’s worse in dating than marriage. But still awful.

Here are some things I wish I knew when I was younger.

Why Do You Get Married?

If you marry because you love them, you’ll divorce them because you don’t love them. Love cannot and will not be a sustaining factor in marriage. It must be commitment. Commitment when it’s hard, messy, gross, frustrating, and truly no fun.

The work gets you through the tough times and makes the good times better than they have ever been.

Note: For Christians, you must marry someone solely because you believe God put this person in your path on purpose. What God put together let no man separate.

Marital Problems

Martial problems are rarely marital problems. They’re almost always singleness problems that never got dealt with.

Deal with you. Make you better. A partner won’t transform you. They will just exacerbate what’s already there. So put yourself in the strongest position possible before expecting success. Your relationship will never be successful if either of you are still broken.

Single Is a Whole Number

You aren’t a fraction of a person when you’re single. You aren’t second rate. Inferior. Missing out on life. You’re single. Some choose to stay single their whole lives. Some don’t. But if you’re someone who wishes you weren’t single, it’s ok. You won’t be forever. Just for now. If you rush, it will be a mistake.

What You Emit, You Attract

I had a daughter that at age 13 was posting sports bra pictures on Instagram. I sat her down and asked her what type of guy will like that post. She thought about it, and with honesty, said, “Boys that only care about one thing.” Yup.

“What kind of boy would respond to a post where you have a cute outfit on holding a cup of coffee and a Bible?” She said, “The marrying kind.” Yup.

The presentation you deliver into the world will equal the response you receive. If you give thot vibes, you will get thots in your DMs. If you give classy vibes, you’ll get classy in your DMs. Work on your presentation. And be the person you want.

Familiarity

There was a study done at Yale involving 3-month-old to 7-month-old babies. The experiment involved three phases: Good vs bad, same vs different, the first two combined.

Infant Morality

In the experiment, they performed a puppet show for the babies. A gray bunny was trying to open a box but was struggling. Along came an orange bunny and helped him finish opening the box. Next, while the gray bunny was trying to open the box, a blue bunny came along and abruptly shut the box door so the gray bunny couldn’t open it. They then presented the two bunnies for the infant to choose. Over 70% of the time they chose the good bunny.

Taste Buds Rule

Next, they presented two types of food. Cheerios and Golden Grahams. The baby selected. Then the green bunny chose the same food they chose, while the purple bunny chose the other food and saying they didn’t like the food the baby chose. Again, they were tasked to choose a bunny. Over 70% chose the bunny who chose the same food.

A Fork in the Road

Lastly, they took the green and purple bunny and placed them in the first scenario. The green bunny who chose the same food as the baby was the bad bunny (no, not the Super Bowl guy) who slammed the box down. The purple bunny who chose a different food was the good bunny. They were at a crossroads. Do they choose the good bunny who chose a different food or the bad bunny who chose the same food? The majority chose the bad bunny who chose the same food. Familiarity took priority over morality.

Be intentional in choosing the right person, not the familiar person. This explains why people choose abusive partners. I had a client in my office last week. First session. She tells me her ex-husband was abusive and she just broke up with an abusive man. I asked her how often her dad abused her. She just started sobbing. She had yet to mention her dad. She didn’t have to. She found what was familiar.

It’s why people go back to spouses that abuse them. It’s familiar. And I get why. New is scary. It’s unchartered territory. It’s unknown. It’s just much easier to go back to what we already know, even if what we know is not good for us. This is why we must surround ourselves with the right people who will support us in this transition out of what’s familiar and into what’s best.

DO NOT settle for familiar. In fact, don’t settle at all. You’re worth more. See your value the same way you value others.

Lastly, when you do find a partner, don’t make Valentine’s Day such a big deal. It’s just another way retailers found to market our emotions. I treat my wife like she’s a queen every single day of our lives. Therefore, when Valentine’s Day gets here, it’s just another day.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

I Forgive You

The Burden That Affects Only One

I have written about forgiveness before, but in response to an article and a cultural event that took place. You can see that HERE. This time, I want to make it personal. Because it is. Here’s my story. Try your best to respond to the call to action at the end.

I forgive you. Yeah you, the one who told me you would place me under investigation so that I would leave the company because you didn’t want any white people there.

I forgive you. Yeah you, the one who told me I would not get the job though I was most qualified because I was a white male.

I forgive you. Yeah you, the one who told me that the only way I’d ever be a good therapist was if I were to become a woman.

I forgive you. Yeah you, the one who went behind me, told outright lies, and got me removed from the band because you wanted full credit for any future success of that artist.

Aas far as I know, each one of those individuals above are still alive. But if they were deceased, it wouldn’t change the statement. I forgive them. Why?

Forgiveness is an internal dialogue. Though it is expressed externally. Forgiveness is you drawing a hard line in your own mind and body. This wound does not get unlimited access to my life. The injury happened, but it doesn’t get to run the system anymore. You’re telling your nervous system to stand down, telling your thoughts to stop orbiting the damage, and reclaiming the bandwidth that pain once consumed. From that point forward, you’re not drifting in reaction, you’re moving with intention. Focus replaces fixation. Direction replaces rumination. And your future stops being negotiated by your past.

My Experience

I was working at a large corporation. I had risen to the top 5 in the entire company in sales. I was being celebrated by many in the company that were not in my area. Meanwhile, in my area, there was a black woman that sat me down and told me a harsh truth. I had applied for a supervisor position leading a sales team. She said that she did not want me to get the supervisor’s position.

As a result, I did not get it. She told me it was because she wanted her black female friends to get it because we need more “diversity.” Diversity had come to be known as non-white. She said, and I quote, “The last thing this company needs is more white men telling black people what to do.” Another supervisor’s position became available. I applied again. This time, someone above her stated that being top 5 in the company means something and that he was giving me a shot. But I had to work for “her.” As soon as I got the job, she told me that she would see to it that I’m no longer there.

She had opened an investigation into another supervisor, a mixed male. Again stating that we need more females in the company. Shortly thereafter, she opened one on me, completely inventing infractions. My coworker sweat through it and hung on. I did not. I moved on.

I was in another industry. I went to the boss and discussed getting hired for certain positions. He plainly told me that we need more black people and that I would not get the job, “So don’t even bother applying.” I was more qualified and had more experience. It did not matter.

I’ve already written about this, but basically, I was in class and told that in order to be a good therapist, you have to be a woman. If you’re a man, you have to be feminine. You can’t be masculine in any way. But being a straight white Christian male made it impossible to be a good therapist and that I needed to rethink my career choices.

Each of these individuals left a mark on me. It stung. Each of these individuals was in a place of authority and, by default, I looked up to them. Each said what they said because they knew there were no repercussions. Being racist or sexists was perfectly acceptable as long as it was against white males. And I’m not the lawsuit type. I like the path of least resistance.

Fortunately, I’m surrounded by wise men and women. And these wise individuals encouraged me to see it for what it was; a power grab rooted in ideological homogeny centered around group think that has placed blinders over their eyes to the possibility that someone could disagree with them and be right. So I forgave them.

How Do You Know When You’ve Forgiven Them?

You know forgiveness has actually happened when their name stops having power over your nervous system. It comes up, a familiar scenario resurfaces, and there’s no spike. No heat. No internal recoil. Just neutrality.

My wife had to forgive her ex-husband and her father for years of harm. Today, when they’re mentioned, she doesn’t relive the story. She simply says she hopes and prays they’ve changed. That’s the difference. Forgiveness isn’t sentimental, it’s neurological. The person who once hijacked your emotions no longer lives rent free in your head. Their name becomes just a sound, not a trigger. And in that moment, you realize something radical. You’re no longer reacting. You’re choosing

Studies

There are studies showing a link between forgiveness and physical health. One such meta-analysis (Lee & Enright, 2019) showed forgiveness having a positive effect on the sympathetic nervous system, endocrine production, brain activity, blood pressure, cholesterol, and the immune system (N = 58,531, r = 0.14, p < 0.001).

Your Turn

Who do you need to forgive? Your story is likely much worse than mine. Murder. Rape. Molestation. Sex trafficking. Domestic violence. Psychological abuse. Malevolently turning the children against you. The list goes on and on. People do awful things at times.

You may be asking, “Why should I forgive them? They don’t deserve that.” And you would be right. They don’t. I don’t deserve the forgiveness I receive either. And neither do you. That’s why.

So I’ll ask again, who do you need to forgive? Don’t wait. Don’t put it off. Forgive them today, tonight. Even if you don’t have a way to tell them. Forgive them. Tell someone that you’ve done so. You will begin to feel a weight lifted off of your shoulders. Peace is achievable. But not with unforgiveness lurking in the background.

To my Christian brothers and sisters. Forgiving is not an option. It is a command. We are able to forgive others because God forgave us. Remember, we didn’t deserve the forgiveness God extended, no one does. So forgive.

One last time, Who Do You Need to Forgive?

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

Lee, Y., & Enright, R. D. (2019). A meta-analysis of the association between forgiveness of others and physical health. Psychology & Health, 34(5), 626–643. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2018.1554185

Posted on

Information Correctly Examined

The Hidden Truth Behind Emotional Headlines

I realize it is uncharacteristic for me to jump into the legal realm, but my criminal justice minor comes out of hiding in certain situations, particularly if the law is being ignored or misrepresented. Knowing the facts behind any situation, juxtaposing those facts against the emission of information, and seeing clear and obvious incongruencies will cause me to write something like this. As a result, we will pause the 3-part series on men valuing marriage and interrupt the regularly schedule program for an important update.

We can all agree that the current crisis of illegal immigration, enforcement of such, and the violent protests that are taking place have captured America, at least in the short-term. We can also agree that loss of life is terrible, regardless of the circumstances. These were human beings coming to the rescue of other human beings (at least in their eyes, this was their intention). These are pure motives. Respectable. Honorable (sort of). But as Thomas Sowell once said, the only thing that made him realize Marxism was the wrong way to go was… Facts. And this is precisely where this story takes a turn, the facts.

Legal facts

Is the current operation lawful under the U.S. Constitution?

  • In Article I, it states that Congress is to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. From this, SCOTUS has inferred national sovereignty over borders.
  • In Article II, the executive branch is given authority to enforce such laws using entities available to it, such as ICE and DHS.
  • Because the courts have determined that immigration enforcement is a civil function and not criminal, immigration laws do not fall under Article III.

When did SCOTUS decide that?

It is vital that the public understand the clear distinction the courts have made between civil enforcement and criminal enforcement. If it were criminal enforcement, then Article III would come into play, granting rights to counsel, speedy trial, jury trial, etc. This is not needed for civil enforcement. Therefore:

  • ICE does not need to provide criminal-level due process.
  • Immigration courts are administrative courts, not Article III courts.
  • Standards of proof are lower.
  • Detention can occur pending proceedings.

The Recent Cases

Now that we have legal facts, let’s break down the facts from this lens for just a couple of recent cases (The Renee Good case is HERE).

Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias

This gentleman was being pursued by ICE for being in the U.S. illegally. Arias also had warrants for multiple criminal offenses. Upon realizing that he was being pursued, Arias fled his vehicle, leaving his son alone in the vehicle. The officers then helped the small child stay warm, provided him food, and sought to reunite him with family. Upon taking the child to a family residence, they refused to open the door and take this child in. Therefore, he has now been rejected by both his father and other family members. ICE then detains Arias, who then agrees to reunite with the child. They are placed in a residential facility together awaiting immigration trial.

When reading the facts, I don’t see detainment of a child, bait, deception on the part of ICE. I see a lawful federal operation.

Alex Pretti

This gentleman attended a protest with a camera and a pistol on his side. ICE agents were there to arrest a different individual. So far, Pretti had been peacefully protesting with a camera in hand. Upon attempting to arrest the targeted individual, Mr. Pretti ceased being peaceful and physically interfered with the arrest. This resulted in an attempt to detain Mr. Pretti for his actions, to which he physically resisted. While agents were attempting to detain him, another agent removed Pretti’s pistol and walked away. Immediately following this, Pretti reaches for his pistol, that he thought was still there, to avoid detainment using lethal force. Neither Pretti nor the agents knew that the pistol had been removed, based on both subsequent actions. ICE agents, believing there to be a pistol, fired shots.

Again, this is a simple case of someone violently interfering with a lawful federal operation, resisting arrest, and attempting to fire shots at an ICE agent. This is sad. Unfortunate. Needless. Preventable. Some say the administration should give ICE a break for a while and let the fury die down. And maybe they’re right. But when they attempt to do their job again, will someone physically attempt to interfere? Will someone hurt the ICE agents who are doing their job? Will someone else lose a loved one? How does culpability rest with those doing their lawful job in the face of unlawful mobs?

All loss is sad. Good’s loss is sad. Pretti’s loss is sad. And you may read this thinking, “This is so wrong!” And maybe you’re right. The solution to these tragedies is quite simple.

Solutions

Exercise your First Amendment right to peacefully protest. Peacefully means:

  • Do not block the road with your body or a vehicle.
  • Do not use your vehicle as a weapon.
  • Do not become physically involved with an ICE agent doing his/her job.
  • If you legally possess a weapon, do not reach for it at any time while being detained.
  • Protest with your right to vote

Hold your local leadership accountable for exacerbating anger by not allowing local authorities to assist ICE while fueling anger and division. Local leadership holds at least as much culpability for these tragedies as the individuals themselves for exercising poor judgment.

I am in full support of your right to detest the current administration.

I am in full support of your right to hate what ICE is doing.

I am in full support of your right to peacefully protest.

I cannot support physical interference with lawful federal operations. Either we have laws with consequences, or we have no laws.

So, do you still feel the same now as you did when answering the poll question?

Now, can we get back to talking about how much I love my wife?!

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

The Lies of Unconstraint

When Feelings Replace Law, Tragedy Follows

Renee Good

Before we get into this, anyone who knows me knows that I do not take loss of life casually. I do not like it, nor do I celebrate it. This is a tragic situation any way you look at it. I truly have sympathy for someone going through what Good’s wife is going through, as well as the witnesses to such a traumatic event. Prayers are up.

Having said that, this case is difficult, but somewhat predictable. It involves what Thomas Sowell calls the Conflict of Visions. In this book, Sowell refers to two primary ways of looking at the world. Unconstrained and constrained visions.

Unconstrained Vision:

In the unconstrained vision, people are viewed as capable of perfection. Institutions make people evil. People should collectively gather to make each other perfect. When perfection isn’t achieved, it’s because there is a systemic evil preventing this perfection from being achieved rather than fixed human limit.

Constrained Vision:

The constrained vision says that people are imperfect. Perfection will never be achieved. Individuals must work to be the best version of themselves, thus leading to a better society. We must acknowledge and accept that we will never be perfect and must embrace liberty inside of boundaries. Because people are self-interested and imperfect, no system can eliminate trade-offs or achieve ideal outcomes. Social stability depends on traditions, rules, incentives, and limits that restrain human behavior rather than transform it. Progress comes through managing imperfection, not overcoming it.

This case puts these visions on display. There are three topics I’d like to cover here:

  1. Assumption of superiority
  2. The inability to draw a line
  3. The humanity of both the officer and driver of the car.

Assumption of Superiority

Another great book by Thomas Sowell was, The Vision of the Anointed. The book characterizes the “Anointed” as a class of elite intellectuals who, having generously conferred upon themselves superior moral insight, conclude that they are better qualified to make decisions for individuals than those individuals are to make for themselves. These superior beings have decided that if they say it, then it must be true. And if you disagree, then you must be braindead, heartless, or outright evil. As a result, if they claim a moral high ground on any given issue, you must get out of the way because they know what you don’t. Why? Because they said so.

Wokal’s piece on leftist prerogative covers this and is spot on. These elites yell “I’m a doctor” and we are all to relinquish all rules, laws, and civil engagement. We just allow the tyranny of the fringe to step in as the arbiter of all things right. There’s no discourse required, no facts, no data, just “I’m in charge, move!” The end.

Where is the Line?

Another problem is drawing the line. The problem is when you ask to draw a line, you won’t get one on the far left. It’s a result of the unconstrained vision. There are no boundaries.

For instance, it was “Let people love who they want. Love is love.” This, in some countries, has become, “Minor attracted persons have desires and children are capable of the full range of love we have to offer. Love is love.”

Where is the line? Where do we say enough? At what point is it too far?

When I ask those on the right, they are rather quick to draw that line. Sometimes too quick. But on the left, I rarely get a straight answer.

So is violating the law willingly too far? Some claim Martin Luther King Jr. violated the law. He did so peacefully. Never by striking a law enforcement official with a vehicle.

“But Jesus violated the law?” Only Jewish law, that he fulfilled. Not the law of the land, which was Roman law. So no, he didn’t violate the law (In fact, part of the point of the crucifixion being so critical was that it was an illegal execution).

I’m still looking for the line. The line that says, though it’s sad that someone lost their life in an altercation, the primary culpability has to reside with the person initiating a violent altercation.

The line has to be that using a vehicle to both stop and strike someone has to be… TOO FAR.

The Humanity

Another aspect of this is the life that was lost. There’s so much sadness surrounding this. She was told it is perfectly ok, good, acceptable, and even noble, to protest a group of children that don’t exist. She was told that telling anyone to leave our country for any reason is bad. Again, it’s the feeling one has about a single life superseding the betterment of society as a whole, that has agreed to a set of laws that we are all to live by.

Let’s talk about humanity. Let’s talk about the 33 stitches the same ICE agent received after being dragged by a car recently. This event causes PTSD. Maybe, he was quick to act based on that. You could make the argument that given the possible PTSD he should not have been working in this stressful environment. That’s fair. But if you drive your car towards me and I have my pistol, I will shoot to save my life also.

Facts

Then there are the facts laid out by Daniel Carr:

  • Blocking the road is illegal. In this case, it is also interfering with a federal operation.
  • The officer on the passenger side walks to the driver’s side to detain the driver for such unlawful actions.
  • The driver accelerates and strikes an officer with the front left of her car.
  • The officer, believing his life was at risk, shoots three shots. Much less than typical in a scenario like this (If you want to know why when they fire, they shoot multiple shots, go spend a day with them). These shots are protected and expected both by Minnesota law and federal law.

Preceding Lies

It is sad that there is a life gone. What’s truly sad is that someone has lied to her and told her:

  • It’s justified to stop federal agents from removing illegal Somali non-citizens who are draining financial resources from the government in a fraud scam.
  • She was told that feeling a certain way justifies solving it using violent means without consequences.
  • She was told that public policy must match how she felt at any given time and we all need to just “get out of the doctor’s way.”

Masculinity didn’t cause this.

Patriarchy didn’t cause this.

Misogyny didn’t cause this.

Lies caused this. Refusal to follow the laws that have been drawn and agreed upon by society caused this.

Unfortunately, this situation falls into the predictable “feelings vs. public policy.” Just because it feels right, doesn’t mean it is right. And as I’ve said before, feelings and public policy can both be good and still not match.

I fully support one’s right to protest legally, which means peacefully, according to the First Amendment. MLK did that. Jesus did that. Renee did not. To me, the saddest part of the story (after the death of a human) is that Renee was fed enough lies that she was willing to put her life on the line for children that didn’t exist, leaving her own child motherless in the wake. I will tell the truth, even and especially when it hurts. The alternative is much worse. And the truth is, this could have been avoided by not believing and following every emotional plea one hears.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger