Truth Versus Prejudice, Cigarettes are Good for the Economy, and Super Tuesday Results

It's the day after Super Tuesday, and many people are looking at the results to see what the truth is today. There is no need to do that. Truth does not change. I believe as my father did that if Jesus were to come back today, that he would say the same things today that he said then. What Dad and I might disagree at first about Jesus is his race. I would have been around people who told me to look at the region of the world that is being talked about, and then to consider whether someone born there would be a white person or a dark-skinned person.

The most beautiful thing about talking to my father about things like that was his willingness to consider evidence. If he were presented with evidence that shed light on truth, he did not turn his back on the light so that he wouldn't see it. He might struggle to let go of prejudices he had long believed when he didn't know the truth, but he would eventually let the prejudice go in favor of the truth. In the case of the race of Jesus Christ, it would not have been that he thought Jesus had to be a white man; it would have been more like he had never thought about until it was pointed out to him.

My godfather was an ordained minister. He would never argue about such things, and he would never, to my knowledge, ever treat a Black person, or any person, disrespectfully. He knew he wasn't perfect, but he believed he was forgiven. If his mission in life was to get rich through Christianity, then he failed miserably. However, if his mission was to use himself to bring comfort through the words of Christ, he was an amazingly beautiful person. He would likely not debate the race of Jesus and would instead deflect the attention to his words. If pressed, he would likely say something on the order of "through God, all things are possible." Then he would talk about the message rather than the messenger.

Now, my uncle who was far more religious than my father, and as religious as my godfather when it came to preaching the word of the Lord, would be far more likely to argue about the race of Jesus than anybody I can think of. Of course, he was one of the people I can think of who was the most likely to argue about anything. 

He was a really smart man who could explain things like radar and sonar to people such that they would understand. He had a bit more difficulty explaining how and why each vacuum tube was important, but he knew what he was talking about. People who knew him knew that about him. If he were explaining why a TV wasn't working as he was fixing it, explaining how the three broken short-wave radios could be used to make two good ones, or explaining how sonar and radar work on echolocation principles, the depth of his knowledge on those things was impressive. However, he was open to adjusting his beliefs, or expanding his knowledge, on those topics as new evidence updated old beliefs. He was quite scientific. His job involved science. He was good at his job.

So, why would a person who understands science, like my uncle, reject the evidence that people born in the region in which Jesus lived are Black? He would never reject a scientific truth on the job if the source were a Black person. 

The reason I believe best explains it is that his reason for believing Jesus was a white man was not based on his scientific beliefs, but rather on his human nature to seek acceptance and companionship. If he were to challenge the beliefs of people who accept him and show him love by saying that scientifically Jesus would have been a Black man, then they might not show him the love and acceptance they give him. He conformed to their beliefs for acceptance, despite his argumentative nature.

Instead, he would use his argumentative nature to defend such an affront. The idea that the Bible is perfect to these people whose companionship he cherished is important to retaining that cherished companionship. He could even show me a picture depicting Jesus as a white man in his Bible. However, I could likely flip that very book to Genesis where there would be a picture of Adam and Eve, the first people on Earth, and ask him why they have belly buttons. Any attempt to challenge the ideas that he must share in order to associate with the people who love him must be dispelled, even if they are scientifically accurate. When it came to his nature to be accepted, this scientific man would defend their prejudices despite scientific certainty that their prejudices were not true.

I like to think that I learned all the good lessons, and that makes me equal to the good part of all three of them. I like to think that I am open to new evidence as it comes to light, that I accept things and am a good person, and that I can explain things that people sometimes don't understand. If I am really honest with myself, though, I am argumentative, at times a bit too accepting of some things, and that there are many things that I accept only because I haven't really thought about it.

One of the writing challenges on a now-gone content farm was to write about an unpopular opinion that is true. That was simple. One unpopular opinion that is true is that cigarettes, and the consequential health effects, are good for the economy. 

Let me first of all concede these things:

• Smoking is a disgusting habit that has negative effects to more than just one's health.
• There are many more reasons for not smoking than for smoking.
• Smoking causes illnesses and disabling diseases.
• Illnesses and disabling diseases reduce a person's capacity to produce.
• Illnesses and disabling diseases cost money to treat.
• There is no use in treating the disease unless the person quits smoking.
• Smoking causes death.

Let me tell you the unpopular but scientifically accurate truth about how that positively affects the economy.

A good economy relies upon there being jobs for young people, which is most easily accomplished through attrition. Some attrition is positive. When jobs open up because people get promoted or retire, that job becomes available to someone else. Unfortunately, those jobs also become available when people die. Some deaths are caused by illnesses, and sometimes those illnesses are disabling diseases. Some people die from illnesses caused by smoking, and others die of illnesses not caused by smoking.

The truth may not be popular, but what I have said is all true. What cigarettes do is they speed up the process that otherwise would naturally occur anyway. Even people who don't smoke cigarettes eventually die. That may be unpopular, but it is true.

When people who smoke get sick, there will be fewer steps taken to treat illnesses caused by smoking if the patient will not quit smoking. That will almost certainly result in death sooner that could have been postponed for later. If the person doesn't smoke, or is willing to quit smoking, those other steps in treatment will be taken. Sometimes they work; sometimes they don't. Even when it works, though, the people who get cured will still eventually die. Some of the people who were cured will die after getting sick again.

Without proving how additional treatments and treatments for subsequent illnesses costs more than someone not being treated and dying, the flaw in thinking that smoking costs money in health care is self-evident. It is unpopular to say it, but cigarettes save us money in health care costs because they cause early deaths and reduce the treatment options for the patient. Cigarettes not only create job openings through the early deaths they cause, but the cigarette industry also itself has a supply of jobs.

As unpopular as it may be, cigarettes are good for the economy because death is good for the economy, and the best deaths for the economy are the deaths of people who are sick and have lost the ability to produce. 

We can proof check the claim about death being good for an economy by looking at the economies following World War II, the Civil War, and even the Great Plague in Europe. Each of those events was followed by an economy that was more stable and provided greater opportunities for the common person than the economy that preceded those events. Resource scarcities tend to get corrected when hundreds of thousands, or even a third of Europe, no longer need housing, food, and clean water.

Ultimately, death is good for the economy. Things that cause death, like wars and diseases that kill hundreds of thousands or even millions of people, and even cigarettes, are good for the economy if the economy is measured only in numbers. Despite that each of these methods of causing deaths may be good for the economy, they are terrible for society overall because of the sadness and destruction they cause to families and other social networks. However, prices go down when there is more supply than there is demand, and that doesn't change whether the supply goes up through production or the demand goes down because something kills a lot of people.

I, like my father, can accept the truth that violates traditional thoughts when presented with the science and math to prove something that before I accepted without much thought. Like my godfather, I can move on knowing the ultimate message is more important than debating that one unpopular truth. Like my uncle, I am willing to argue about that just because I am willing to argue about pretty much anything. However, if you argue against that truth because it is unpopular, then it is you, and not me, who is sacrificing the science to remain popular with people who deny the science.

The truth the day after Super Tuesday is the same as the truth was the day before it. The truth was the truth all the way back in history, and it will remain the truth forever into the future. That is the lesson I draw from my dad's contention that Jesus would say the same things today that he said when he was of flesh before. Even though truth doesn't change, the popular opinion about the perception of truth changes often.

The truth before Super Tuesday was that the establishment has been professing that the primary task is defeating Donald Trump. The DNC was really undermining the movement started by Bernie Sanders by using marketing science to convey subliminal messages that, when analyzed, actually violate the science and math that supports the best way to accomplish the stated primary task of defeating Donald Trump.

The truth after Iowa was that Tom Perez should resign. The truth after New Hampshire was that Tom Perez should resign. The truth after Nevada was that Tom Perez should resign. The truth after South Carolina was that Tom Perez should resign. The truth that Tom Perez should resign did not change after Super Tuesday. The truth about the best way to beat Donald Trump did not change. The truth that the DNC is using marketing science to fight the unpopular truth that young people will be running things and old people will die did not change.

What changed after Super Tuesday was the perception of the truth that Joe Biden has the support of Black people, that he is a better candidate to represent the interests of Black people than Bernie Sanders, and that he has a better chance than Sanders to beat Trump. He doesn't have the support of Black people, and there is no way that he comes close to Sanders' history of support for the civil rights of Black people. Biden also is more likely than Sanders to lose to Trump.

If what I said is true, then I must find a way to explain things like Biden winning more states and delegates than Sanders, and especially throughout the south where large turnouts of Black voters overwhelmingly voted for Biden over Sanders. More than anything else, I must find a way to explain Biden getting the coveted endorsement of the Honorable Jim Clyburn. Not only must I do that, but, if it is to be of any use, I must do so such that Black people who may think they disagree with me are enlightened and not offended.

Without discounting the value of the voters in any primary, the states that Biden won in the south are states that are likely to be red regardless of who the nominee is. His wins in the southern states were impressive and were converted into delegates for him. The most impressive win for him in the south, and most disappointing loss for Sanders, was in Texas. Biden was able to convert the endorsements by Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Beto O'Rourke into an unexpected win over Sanders in the Lone Star State. However, even that impressive win is not likely to mean electoral votes in November for Biden or Sanders. And with that, I will employ the lesson I learned from my godfather to not argue about irrelevant details when the importance is truly in the message.

In explaining another reason for Jim Clyburn's endorsement other than his race, I first will concede these facts:

• Jim Clyburn is a Black person.
• Jim Clyburn is a highly respected member of Congress.
• Jim Clyburn did not give his endorsement in exchange for any type of shady deal.
• Jim Clyburn has been a longtime Democrat.
• Jim Clyburn honestly believes Biden is the better choice for the reasons he believes that.

I will offer back that Jim Clyburn's former aide, and who is the former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic party, is also Black, and he endorses Sanders. The reason these two highly respectable Black men who have much in common support different candidates is most likely because of their ages. It seems that regardless of what racial demographic is looked at, the older a person is, the more likely they are to support any candidate other than Sanders. Paradoxically, the younger a person is, the more likely they are to support Sanders over any other candidate.

Biden was the vice president selected by the only Black president in American history. That is truth. That is significant. That is historically accurate. It meets all the scientific requirements for truth. However, that does not mean it is now not true that he wrote in support of segregationists. It is also true that he tried to explain that and made it worse. It also remained true that he belittled Anita Hill to discount her testimony so that Clarence Thomas could be confirmed. These things that he did that eliminated him from consideration by me were true before Super Tuesday, and the things that eliminated him from my consideration were true after Super Tuesday. 

Any person who chooses to get their guidance from people like Jim Clyburn are free to do so. Again, I think his endorsement has more to do with his age and his longtime affiliation with the party than it does because he is Black. I will listen to the messages about the interests Black people have in the party from the likes of Dr. Cornel West, the Reverend Dr. William Barber, and the lovely and outspoken Nina Turner. Hell, even Public Enemy endorses Sanders. It isn't because they are Blacker than Clyburn. It is because they are younger and don't have the longtime affiliation as Democrats that Clyburn does.

Since the majority of Democratic voters in the states Biden won are Black people, there is a subliminal association that Black people support Biden. However, I do not need to know a person's race to determine the likelihood that they support Biden. I need to know their age and how long they have identified as a Democrat. The older a person is, the more likely they are to support Biden. Most people who support Biden are those who contend that Sanders is not really a Democrat. People who have identified as Democrats for a long time, and who are more concerned about offending those who accept them than discussing an unpopular truth that could result in expulsion from the congregation, are likely to support Biden.

People who support Biden for fear of being kicked out of the party are those who do not understand what the party is or how corporations like political parties must be run. Though political parties are privately managed and have no duty to be fair, the truth is that political parties must be managed by members who have fiduciary obligations to other members. No individual can own a non-profit, so the idea that someone who has belonged to the party a long time has more ownership of it than a newcomer is false. The only truth about people who have belonged to the party for a long time is that they are more likely to support people who they have known for a long time.

What was true before Super Tuesday is still true after Super Tuesday.

• The DNC is using marketing tactics to confuse the membership.
• Tom Perez needs to resign.
• Joe Biden still has all those gaffes that have eliminated him from consideration for my vote.

The perception of the truth did change after Super Tuesday. It appears that Biden might have a chance because he beat Sanders in states that the Democratic nominee will almost certainly lose in November. It appears Biden did well with Black voters because Black people in those states represent the longtime Democratic voter, which, besides age, is the other demographic that favors Biden everywhere. It might also appear that Biden is past making gaffes that will cost him the election, but, in his victory speech, he talked about the vision he has that the education that "poor kids" get will be equal to the education "white kids" get. 

I imagine Tom Perez and the other committee members of the party who truly do love Joe Biden, and who also want to also hold onto their corporate contributions, speaking fees to wealthy donors, and lobbyist jobs for their retirement, are wishing the well-spoken young guy from Indiana had done better. If only the truth about him did not include some racial issues that resulted in his city's administration becoming white, Biden could have dropped out and endorsed him.

The perception that Biden won belies the truth that when California is counted and tallied into the totals, Bernie Sanders will have won Super Tuesday by many votes. All of Biden's impressive wins in the south were in states that Trump won handily in 2016. 

There was, however, the win in Massachusetts that seems to contradict my contention that Biden only won in states that Democrats will lose in 2020. Of course, Massachusetts does not meet my qualification of a southern state, but it absolutely was an unexpected win in a state that is one of the truest of the blues. How do I explain that? It is most probably that there was a large turnout of older voters who have been longtime Democrats. Those are the two demographics that are the most certain to vote for Biden.

Truth doesn't change. Only the perception of truth changes.

Don't fret that too much. Trump will not win that state in November. That state will go to Bernie if he is the nominee with almost near certainty. That was the truth before Super Tuesday, and it is the truth after Super Tuesday.

Even if you try to defend the position you are likely taking because you are either an older person or you have identified as a Democrat for a long time, all you can do to prove that Biden has changed his ways is to show us pictures of him with Black people who endorse him. We, however, can show you pictures of Bernie handcuffed to a Black woman in '63, and being arrested at a protest against segregation in '65, and ask you to go back that far with Biden to find consistent truth. The truth will be unpopular to old people and longtime Democrats.

All of that was true before Super Tuesday, and all of that is true after Super Tuesday. 

If the objective is truly to beat Donald Trump, and the party is dedicated to the principle that the person with the most votes should win, then it is still true that Tom Perez and the rest of the DNC should resign, and the directorship of the party should be restructured such that its committee members act as fiduciaries rather than as owner-operators.

The truth in that sentence should be obvious, even if you are old and have identified as a Democrat for a long time. It may be unpopular, but it is true that young people need to take control of the party. If you don't want them at the table, then get up and leave. It is not your table, nor does it belong to the committee members. That is how non-profits work, and it is true whether you understand it or not, just as it was before Super Tuesday.