As some of us feared “The Most Powerful Man on Earth” having played with the powers of hell by needlessly exploding a huge bomb in Afghanistan is now toying with joining the Olympians(Rushmore is not enough) by threatening nuclear war.It is perhaps fitting that this is the anniversary week of the killing of 210,000 Japanese by Enola Gray and Boxcar leveling Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the same week over 70 years ago.Samuel Johnson said that the last refuge of a scoundrel is Patriotism.So that it is no surprise that as the FBI investigation follows the money and closes in, POTUS invokes an international war situation and a domestic riot(helter skelter) scenario; both requiring reflexive resort to force.How do you want extinction fast or slow? The paranoid post adolescent ruler of North Korea is acting in sync with his cultural(recent) heritage.The President of the U.S.A. is not.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
The Octogenarians 
This is so important and revealing that I cannot, as SB wishes to do, consider it an ”Abbott-and-Costello “who’s on first” routine”.
SB (comment 21 Aug 6:43PM) linked us to four “news sources” (videos) that demonstrate otherwise bright minds saying that Trump said things that he did not say, and distorting what he did say to represent what an objective read of them should not allow. So, the question that leaps to the greatest of heights is that of WHY? A most obvious possibility is that all of them intensely hate Trump and extreme emotions tend to distort reasonableness. Another is that this provides an opportunity (dishonest that it is) to engage with others in a magnified ceremony of moral preening. How exceptionally good we are compared to how bad “they” are, or “he” is! Another possibility is that they think that Nazi-like attitudes are actually rampant in our Country and thus represent more of a threat to our core values than are threats to free speech demonstrated by a growing acceptance of violence as an acceptable means by which “ugly” ideas are to be squelched. There was a time when “liberal” minds would fight for the right of others to voice their opinions no matter the opinion. Too many have now apparently shifted to a leftist mindset with its focus on destroying (violence and lies are acceptable) those who express views that are felt to be (and even some that should be considered) repugnant. I watched all the videos. Not one of these otherwise bright talking heads addressed the fact that a right to free speech had been physically attacked. A pillar of our nation was attacked and with close to 20 minutes of combined “news” coverage not one of these bright minds even hinted this to be worthy of comment. If free speech is ACTUALLY the more important (ultimate life-saving) issue, Trump’s statements that recognized and addressed that fact demonstrate the morally superior position. If with nearly 20 minutes of coverage the sources we rely upon for information choose to ignore key ingredients of the issue being “covered” we should know that these are not objective sources. Part of learning is to know which sources for important information are not trustworthy. Watch these videos for a learning experience.
SB’s comments (17 Aug 9:31 PM) are well presented as usual. I appreciate that. It is her use of questionable premises and their conclusions that provide room for some good debate. For instance, she writes: “In the evolution of mankind, society has attempted to establish norms of behavior … “Thou shalt not kill.” And, yet, as E.G. has identified, we justify war, defining it as the required response to problem solving.”
Yes, we continuously strive to establish norms of behavior. This fact does not protect us from sometimes inventing “norms” that in some contexts increase our dysfunctions, norms that cause us to act to our own detriment, even destruction. “Thou shalt not kill” is one of the more obvious. Biblically, the original Hebrew reads “Thou shalt not commit murder.” The “norm” that EB presented (but not the Hebrew version) would have allowed the Nazis and or Stalin, or any number of other horrendous aggressions to have succeeded.
A “norm” I think worth protecting is that which advocates for each and every citizen an equal treatment under the law. “Equal” treatment and “special” treatment are logically different and incompatible. But even this “norm” could in some contexts be reasonably compromised. Children are citizens, yet we do not want them to drive cars, vote, etc. until adequate levels of maturity are acquired. This is a line of argument that the left could use to support some forms of favored group status, That is, if they chose to use reason instead of moral accusations.
Claims of racial superiority (or inferiority) make sense only to those who CHOOSE to believe that race is important. Those of us who think that this optional belief is both harmful and foolish realize that we must navigate among people who assign meaning to such things and this often confronts us with turbulent and dangerous sailing conditions. (Yes, I realize that many children and non-thinking adults are inculcated by parents and faulty cultural “norms” with these sentiments before they can reason it through for themselves. Such is the ugly nature of this tragic, foolish belief.) But we thinking adults can get beyond this. Right?
DS has the admirable ability to divert attention from a fundamentally basic norm with “what ifs” that justify positions in his world view. Fine. Introduce your own ancient moral guideline, but first address the question at hand. If not able to fully understand the challenge of the discussion, on the floor is the character of the person who has assumed leadership position on behalf of our country (and the world?). We have not truly begun to discuss policies for the future. However, if one is willing to make a Faustian deal in pursuit of what one believes to be beneficial outcomes, that is the equivalent of building a foundation on quicksand … and, it will swallow (devour) you. There are standards that are essential in life, and that includes the political spectrum. There are consequences to bypassing/ignoring those guidelines. Throughout the millennia, societies have provided venues for atonement for such deviations. I offer you the column from a fellow member of my cultural tribe … The NYTimes political conservative columnist, Brett Stephens:
“If conservatism is supposed to teach anything, it’s that, even in politics, character counts above everything. … It’s not going to get better.”
I congratulate and admire the current statements of conservatives Steve Schmidt, David Frum, law professor Richard Painter, et al. They reflect the commonality of decency as a norm. When the titans of capitalism are running away from the one they always knew was a con man, you know that survival of our … and world … economy is at stake. Again, be careful of the devil you’re relying on.
DS: “A ‘norm’ I think worth protecting is that which advocates for each and every citizen an equal treatment under the law”
Wow! There’s a move in the equitable direction … especially, in view of DS’s attacks in the past of inaccurately substituting/interpreting “equal distribution” for “equal opportunity.”
DS: “But we thinking adults can get beyond that. Right?”
Who wouldn’t welcome that!!!
P. S. DS: “… are well presented as usual.” I will proudly and happily yield to the eloquence of E.G. … any time.
SB tells us (19 Aug 7:42 AM) that I am not addressing the core issue at hand, that it has to do with the “character of the person who has assumed leadership position on behalf of our country (and the world?).”
Apparently she has not noticed how often I have attempted to rationally demonstrate how the haters of Trump are misreading, exaggerating, and sometimes concocting out of nothing, whatever forms of evidence (propaganda) that will “work” to negatively shape other’s views of him, demonize him – destroy his character.
It has come as a surprise to me the number of deeply admired minds who perceive Trump’s character to be unacceptable in the Presidency. The fact that there are many “never Trump” republicans has raised the issue to an unusually high level of interest! I love a mystery! Either they are wrong or I am wrong. Or, the truth is somewhere in the middle. I do not have an ego that demands that my current position prevail. The highest probability of accurate judgment lies in our abilities to ferret out the pertinent facts. It is the best quality of evidence and reason that should prevail, not ANY person’s ego.
SB quoted Brett Stephens of the New York Times: “If conservatism is supposed to teach anything, it’s that, even in politics, character counts above everything.” The following demonstrates why Stephens is wrong: There are other dimensions to the issue having to do with the character of who is to be our Country’s President. I think that we would all prefer a mediocre or faulty level of character leading our Country to where it should go rather than a person of impeccable decency leading us mistakenly to a lesser place. This is why I have invested so much thought devoted to today’s contest between left and right, the pros and cons of original intent “justice” which advances individual liberty versus something very different, the left’s attempt to create “social justice” which requires a sufficiently powerful government that it can forcefully redistribute the product of other people’s labor and direct us to feel what those in power believe are “proper” sentiments and values.
I would consider it a character defect if I didn’t come to the defense of anyone accused falsely of flaws that good evidence indicates do not exist. There is evidence that Trump does have flaws, but too often not those his enemies intend to drag him down with. Trump also has strengths that should enter into the equation.
SB says that I have made “attacks in the past of inaccurately substituting/interpreting “equal distribution” for “equal opportunity.” I don’t see my style as that of making “attacks”; I hope it is more an effort to clarify. But if my various analyses somehow violate a person’s cherished belief or sentiments I can see why from that point of view it could be “felt” as an attack. The meanings and morality of “equal distribution” and “equal opportunity” are context sensitive. A government that is forcing an “equal distribution” of wealth has consequences related to affecting (mostly negatively) incentives that are required to maximize society’s needed resources. “Equal opportunity”, because of unequal ability and unequal proximity to similar choices, will never be perfectly achieved. But we can attempt to structure our laws such that THOSE LAWS obstruct or benefit no one more so than another.
Exposed.
D.S…”those who choose to believe race is important…” Are those who are taught by text and example exercising ” choice”? Descartes is pinwheeling in his grave. Are the leaders of industry ,art and the sciences tilting at windmills in their powerful rejection of racism,sexism,religious bias,misogyny and homophobia delusional? No we ” thinking adults ” can’t get beyond this through a de novo thinking process that denies its antecedents ( biological and social) and claims to be impervious to the siren call of advantages conferred by historical privilege.To anticipate the nonsense that historical privilege has been earned and not conferred is part of the responsibility of “thinking man”.The enormous guilt that is being shown nationally,denied only by the sociopathic ,indicates that emotional reactivity is part of human reasoning.I refer you to “The Wreck of the Hesperus” for the result of arrogance when in D.S…”turbulent and dangerous sailing conditions”.
As Ronald Reagan would say … “There you go again.” Spinning to suit your proclivities.
DS: “… legally exercising the right of free speech were physically attacked by another group that was intentionally violating the right of free speech.”
Dies this statement insinuate that the counter-protesters did not have a permit? Check your facts.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/aug/17/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-charlottesville-counter-protest/
And, in so doing, you promote incendiary myths a la Donald Trump: Pershing and use of bullets dipped in pigs’ blood. Total fabrication.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/23/donald-trump/donald-trump-cites-dubious-legend-about-gen-pershi/
DS: “The fringe existence of racist and dangerous fools and the squelching of free speech are not closely equivalent.”
A distorted comparison in making the case against close equivalency. This is more damaging than comparing apples and oranges. There definitely is no moral equivalency between embracing fascist symbols and racial exclusion, and the disagreement against those beliefs which are the antithesis of our nation. “He that lieth down with dogs shall wake up with fleas.”
DS: “Of the two evils, the most egregious is the totalitarian bent of leftism that demonstrates a willingness to physically and violently prevent access to contrary views.”
Please, sir, your cherry-picking in your representation. Let us go back to Friday night, 8/11, where the so-called “nice people” of the alt-right marchers provided a preliminary mood. Who was fomenting violence by carrying (Tiki — http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tiki-brand-denounces-white-supremacists_us_59919760e4b09096429854b5) torches, Nazi emblems, the Confederate flag (which in Germany is used to represent the white supremacist movement as the Nazi swastika is a forbidden symbol), chants of “blood and soil”? The clergy who were meeting in a church, in a prayer vigil, had to be scurried away in fear of their safety. Be very measured when accusing of fomenting violence. Free speech is definitely a human right treasure. It is unconstitutional to falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theatre.
DS: “This presents the greater threat to our human future.”
I regret to say that your “scientific method” mindset IS the greater threat as it lacks a moral compass … and hopefully, the majority are able to recognize that. No “addiction” to “righteous sentiments” here. It’s only reinforcing the values of who we are as a people and country.
P. S. Have you ever been in Charlottesville? A very beautiful university town.
SB writes (19 Aug 12:06PM) : “I regret to say that your “scientific method” mindset IS the greater threat as it lacks a moral compass … and hopefully, the majority are able to recognize that. No “addiction” to “righteous sentiments” here. It’s only reinforcing the values of who we are as a people and country.”
Thank you SB, with this our attention is directed to a basic way to describe differences between us as well as many societal differences in general.
My first thought when challenged to clarify the concept of “moral compass” – and how people tend to use it – is to compare it to a ship’s compass. As a sailor who has voyaged thousands of ocean miles on a 42 foot sailboat (mostly before GPS) I know “compasses”. I have seen some that are gorgeous works of art. Like some people’s favored “morality” it is possible to be so enamored of its unique beauty that adulating and polishing it becomes a distraction that allows one’s ship to sail into the rocks. Knowing the TRUTH of where you are and where rocks exist is extremely important.
Of course, “moral compass” can refer to any life-advancing structure of stability that can be used for guidance and support) in an otherwise turbulent world. SB apparently believes that only her concepts of “morality”, but not others (or specifically not mine) are valid for serving this purpose. Let me suggest that “the scientific method” IS a “moral compass”. I also suggest that it is the best of possible “moral compasses” precisely because with its stable focus on accuracy of judgments related to determining probabilities of “TRUTH” we are more likely to know where we are and where the rocks are – thereby allowing us to navigate as safely as possible to environments most conducive to human life. I hope that “the majority” can understand this life-saving (therefore highly moral) logic.
Let’s have an “Amen!”
Daedal2207 writes (19 Aug 11:18AM): “Are those who are taught by text and example exercising ” choice”? Descartes is pinwheeling in his grave.”
I hope that Daedal2207 is not suggesting that when we are “taught” a falsehood it cannot be corrected?
Hopefully we are “taught” to think critically and embrace the ability to correct the self – and the professor too. (Descartes deviated from ideas presented by his philosophic predecessors. I see no reason why he would find my processes of argument upsetting. Could Daedal2207 please explain why he thinks Descartes would be “pinwheeling” in his grave?) I know from observation, social statistics, and personal experience that what is called “racism” is only one of many inappropriate generalizations people can make that plague society. Note that I have not denied that racism is being taught or exercised. In fact I have noted that everyone must navigate their lives dodging the hostile and erratic behaviors caused by those who think that race is important. Luckily in our country there are relatively few who are truly racist, or homophobic, or sexist, or driven by religious bias, misogyny or homophobia delusional (Daedal2207’s list). My point is that a thinking mind can reject and condemn such teachings as destructive and hateful (therefore one’s possession of such foolish and dangerous generalizations is optional). How sad it is that many young minds are “taught” that in our country, one that truly affords high levels of individual liberty, other groups hate their group, “others” will hold them back, they are victims and their anger against “others” is justified. Yes, the party that advocates “diversity” over unity feeds on such destructive teachings.
Daedal2207 asks: “Are the leaders of industry, art and the sciences tilting at windmills in their powerful rejection of racism, sexism, religious bias, misogyny and homophobia delusional?” Here is a probable answer: What person who wants to be a good person (Including myself) would be against such obviously disgusting and primitive attitudes? This fact explains how easy it is to expand to drug-like “highs” the sentiments of self-righteousness, the perception that one’s self (or company) is of ESPECIALLY good character by voicing LOUDLY one’s being horrified by any person’s or any group’s holding of such despicable attitudes! In other words: Everyone! Look how good I am!
But, IF THE ACCUSATION MADE AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL, A GROUP, OR A COUNTRY IS NOT TRUE, the REALITY is: Look at how destructive and/or foolish I can be!
You are generous Susanna.We’re the laughing stock of the whole world!!!
DS is indeed bold to personally identify with inaction,cruelty,bombast and mediocrity.As far as the heroic antebellum south is concerned,it never existed, Hollywood’s long lasting obeisance notwithstanding.The landed gentry could bug out of the confederate army if they owned 9 slaves.Another 9 would exempt a second son..Lee designed a western campaign to divert and possibly defeat Union forces in Texas and California and thus gain time for Britain &Spain to intervene.It seems to be clear cut treason.His motivation ? to consolidate his personal kingdom and wealth,deeply dependent on his slaves.
Daedal2207 (comment 17 Aug 4:24 PM) says that I am “bold”. I hope that I am “bold” enough, or rational enough to see through the various forms of hysteria fomented by bloated and righteous sentiments, sentiments to which too many are addicted. What is the probability that Trump ACTUALLY favors or admires Nazi groups? This man has a daughter who has converted to Judaism and married a practicing Jew – he has embraced them with love and sufficient respect to trust them with important government activities.
During his now famous Charlottesville interaction with the “press” Trump said that “there are good people on both sides.” But we know, and Donald Trump clearly pointed out, that there were more than two sides involved in the Charlottesville conflicts. During that exchange Trump clearly condemned as despicable, the fringe-group Nazi marchers who had a legal permit to march. He identified as “alt left” another despicable group that convened intending to foment physical violence against that first group. He clearly mentioned two other sides intermixed among the marchers – those who wish to protect monuments (The Robert E. Lee monument was mentioned) and a side wishing to destroy historic monuments. I just watched the full exchange. He clearly specified that the “good” people “on both sides” pertained to those for or against retaining monuments. The antagonistic press and other Trump haters who are using this “good people” statement to suggest that it referred to the Nazi group are intentionally misrepresenting his statement. (Yes, they are promoting fake news.)
Some of the press and general reaction afterwards seems to reflect horrification that the “alt right” Nazis and the “alt left” factions were presented by Trump as if they were equivalent in their evil or danger. A disgusting, but small fringe-group of racist fools (one fanatic became a killer) who were legally exercising the right of free speech were physically attacked by another group that was intentionally violating the right of free speech. These attackers were swinging clubs that COULD have, but luckily did not kill. (By the way, free enquiry, which is a form of free speech, is also a cornerstone of the scientific method). The fringe existence of racist and dangerous fools and the squelching of free speech are not closely equivalent. Of the two evils, the most egregious is the totalitarian bent of leftism that demonstrates a willingness to physically and violently prevent access to contrary views. This presents the greater threat to our human future. That so many in our society do not see this as the greater threat IS the threat.
As Ronald Reagan would say … “There you go again.” Spinning to suit your proclivities.
DS: “… legally exercising the right of free speech were physically attacked by another group that was intentionally violating the right of free speech.”
Dies this statement insinuate that the counter-protesters did not have a permit? Check your facts.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/aug/17/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-charlottesville-counter-protest/
And, in so doing, you promote incendiary myths a la Donald Trump: Pershing and use of bullets dipped in pigs’ blood. Total fabrication.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/23/donald-trump/donald-trump-cites-dubious-legend-about-gen-pershi/
DS: “The fringe existence of racist and dangerous fools and the squelching of free speech are not closely equivalent.”
A distorted comparison in making the case against close equivalency. This is more damaging than comparing apples and oranges. There definitely is no moral equivalency between embracing fascist symbols and racial exclusion, and the disagreement against those beliefs which are the antithesis of our nation. “He that lieth down with dogs shall wake up with fleas.”
DS: “Of the two evils, the most egregious is the totalitarian bent of leftism that demonstrates a willingness to physically and violently prevent access to contrary views.”
Please, sir, your cherry-picking in your representation. Let us go back to Friday night, 8/11, where the so-called “nice people” of the alt-right marchers provided a preliminary mood. Who was fomenting violence by carrying (Tiki — http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tiki-brand-denounces-white-supremacists_us_59919760e4b09096429854b5) torches, Nazi emblems, the Confederate flag (which in Germany is used to represent the white supremacist movement as the Nazi swastika is a forbidden symbol), chants of “blood and soil”? The clergy who were meeting in a church, in a prayer vigil, had to be scurried away in fear of their safety. Be very measured when accusing of fomenting violence. Free speech is definitely a human right treasure. It is unconstitutional to falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theatre.
DS: “This presents the greater threat to our human future.”
I regret to say that your “scientific method” mindset IS the greater threat as it lacks a moral compass … and hopefully, the majority are able to recognize that. No “addiction” to “righteous sentiments” here. It’s only reinforcing the values of who we are as a people and country.
P. S. Have you ever been in Charlottesville? A very beautiful university town.
SB (19 Aug 12:47PM) says something with which I agree: “There definitely is no moral equivalency between embracing fascist symbols and racial exclusion, and the disagreement against those beliefs which are the antithesis of our nation.” But she apparently believed that I had written something that would violate this obvious truth! My guess is that she considers that my support for free speech (even for those with hateful ideas) is the same thing as support for their hateful ideas (even when in the same sentence I describe their beliefs to be despicable.) Demonstrated here is an example of a faulty thinking process being used by many in the press to slander and libel Trump. Has the hysteria reached such a level that otherwise bright perpetrators do not recognize in themselves sloppy reasoning? Or have they become such fanatics that what is known to be a lie is justified if it harms Trump?
The following reinforces the above theme:
SB: “Please, sir, your cherry-picking in your representation. Let us go back to Friday night, 8/11, where the so-called “nice people” of the alt-right marchers provided a preliminary mood.”
Is SB indicating that “Preliminary mood”, because it is “hateful”, is justification for the later physical violence?
And SB’s apparent willingness to link Trump’s “nice people” comment to the “alt right marchers”, as she describes them, indicates that she did not read (or comprehend, or ignored,) what I had reported. I specifically explained that if we source DIRECTLY to Trump’s interaction with the press (this is available on the internet) his statement about “nice people” clearly referred NOT to “alt right” Nazi sympathizers (whom he had earlier condemned) but to those involved in two additional competing factions, one group marching for preserving monuments, the other for eliminating them. Those reporting it differently are apparently engaging in “fake news”. Be it through sloppiness or intentional, this demonstrates a serious corruption.
Is this blog being “gaslighted”?
DS: “Has the hysteria reached such a level that otherwise bright perpetrators do not recognize in themselves sloppy reasoning? Or have they become such fanatics that what is known to be a lie is justified if it harms Trump?”
“Here’s looking at you, kid.” … “Mirror, mirror on the wall …”
Steve Schmidt, Republican strategist
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Schmidt
George Will, conservative commentator
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Will
Richard Painter, chief WH ethics lawyer in George W. Bush administration
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Painter
Senator Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, Foreign Relations Committee chairman
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Corker
Bill Kristol, political conservative, founder of “The Weekly Standard”
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/344456-bill-kristol-trump-setting-up-senate-republicans-for-failure
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kristol
Etc., etc., etc.
Out of this Abbott-and-Costello “who’s on first” routine.
daedal2207: “It is perhaps fitting that this is the anniversary week of the killing of 210,000 Japanese by Enola Gray and Boxcar leveling Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the same week over 70 years ago.”
Thus, the beginning of The Cold War. Being taught to approach power struggles with a healthy dosage of skepticism meant avoiding herd mentality. The reluctance lives on. In his second year of college (back in 1993) one of my sons cautioned me with the old adage “Be careful what you wish for” as it pertained to the end of the Cold War. The Cold War had provided a world order of checks-and-balances … teams of alliances … and, for the most part, everyone knew the rules. We were now inviting chaotic free for all. I thought it was a rather cynical declaration … but, now I see the unemotional thought process that has served his analytical field. No herd mentality need apply.
On North Korea … I’m not losing any sleep over that one. Nothing much has changed in that poor country that has been the buffer zone between China and the U.S. (using surrogate South Korea). https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-has-been-making-ominous-threats-his-whole-life/2017/08/10/68e69646-7e0d-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html?utm_term=.3ff65715e5a4. China does not want unification in the peninsula. As far as it is concerned, the status quo is fine. North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weaponry capability … which it has possessed for over 10 years … is the security blanket that Saddam Hussein did not have and cost him dearly in regime change. North Korea knows that the U.S. can obliterate it in a nuclear attack, but the deterrent on us is the price … and Seoul knows that. North Korea wants to have a seat at the world’s table. It’s all about economics … and territorial security. Which brings us to …
China. It seems more logical to think that China sees military power as a backup tool. Ultimate military prowess might be an old-fashioned concept … extremely expensive for individual countries. Our military budget is greater than the combined totals of the next 15 countries down the line (which include Russia and China). We have over 700 military bases throughout the world. The world is letting us spend ourselves into oblivion (which is what Reagan did to the old Soviet Union). The lesson learned by China (a society with thousands of years experience and patience) is that the controlling power will be economic domination, dictating the terms of global behavior (to include climate change). Our own Defense Department has stated that climate change is a national security issue. (Upheavals in weather-related consequences … droughts/famine, floods, fresh water demands … cause chaos. In the Arab Spring, the high price of wheat brought on by drought conditions created the tipping point.) Greedy, short-sighted denials is the equivalent of burying one’s head in the sand. China is financing projects throughout the world … to include Africa and Latin America. We, on the other hand, talk about military action in … Venezuela!!!! The comedians in South America must be having a field day, a la Stephen Colbert!! Which brings us to …
Trump. There’s only one thing that dominates what comes out of the mind of this amoral narcissist: the fear that his corrupt and criminal life will be unveiled. Trump’s ignorance allowed his ego to needlessly go for the presidency. His lack of institutional knowledge of the rule of law as well as procedure deceived him into believing that he would be shielded from his illegal, mafia-like behavior. All the self-praising and self-adulation will not spare him his ultimate denouement … being exposed as a criminal loser. He cannot bully his way out of this one … and all the bluster hurled at North Korea, Venezuela, his AG, the Intelligence Community, The Majority Leader of his party, Angela Merkel, the tactics to divert attention from the Special Counsel’s investigation WILL NOT WORK. With no strategic conditions having changed that would justify such bellicose language, the threat of preemptive nuclear war underscores the weakness of Trump’s leadership and the depth of his amoral mind which does not hesitate in abusing our country and the world with an unimaginable fear factor.
That is correct, daedal2207, this president of the U.S.A. does not represent our heritage. Or, does he?
P. S. However, my fear is that he will succeed in becoming our first dictator.
P. S. #2 daedal2207, with the above, it is abvious that I fully concur with your response to AG.
We are a large country with over 300 million citizens. From this population MSNBC, indeed all “news” programming, finds it easy to present talking heads who will honestly, and often dishonestly, advance favored agendas. Our job, assuming that we are primarily truth seekers, is to accurately judge the objectivity of our sources – and the voices they select for us to hear. Given that there are many “causes” for which believers will deceive themselves and others, lie, or even die for, we need to understand some simple logic and the basic meanings of important political concepts. Most fundamentally, the political left wants a bigger role for government in directing our lives. The political right wants a greater degree of liberty and rights for each citizen (to find his own path to happiness). Therefore logically the “left” would represent degrees of socialism and its extremes lean toward totalitarianism. The right, when pushed to its extremes would SHIFT THE OTHER WAY toward chaos and anarchy.
Fascism requires a high degree of government control. It is actually a form of socialism. Nazism was called “National Socialism”. That it has been described by many scholars as something that is “far right” presents a confusing misnomer.
It advances today’s political left to create the impression (or spread the lie) that Trump and the Republicans are not desirous of protecting individual liberty, but are very bad people who are, through government, attempting to advance racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, bigoted beliefs (as well as other vices yet to be imagined).
When Republicans, because they advocate for equal individual rights, will not provide “special treatment” for members of “groups” favored by democrats they are generalized, slandered and libeled as “haters” of those who are members of those groups. A successful advocacy of individual freedom means that some will use that freedom to join with ugly people for despicable causes. In a land that values freedom they are allowed that right. It is the absurdity of their ideas that will keep them on the fringes of society. Those on the fringes also know that a totalitarian or leftist form of government could do them harm. It is not unreasonable that they (such as Nazi groups) would prefer Republicans over Democrats. That does not mean that Republicans like them. It means that Republicans like liberty. When any group activity infringes on the rights of individuals, such as in Charlottesville, our laws are supposed to be enforced. Despicable people demonstrating for their similarly disgusting cause is not violent, is not illegal. It is when rights are physically violated, usually by conflicting fringe groups or individuals, and the police do not do their peace-keeping job, that harm to our land of liberty is most painful.
(Of interest: Dinesh D’Souza has just published a book on the subject of fascism in America called “The Big Lie”).
“Fascism requires a high degree of government control “,DS reasons quite well ,we disagree on the premises which undergird the reasoning.DS then,must be aware that isms do not come into the world “fully armed from the head of Zeus” like Athena. Early fascism,,early nazism ,early communism had to disarm other concepts of societal function and create the conditions that ensured the sense of their being essential. ( see E.G. Comment) Krystalnacht was not right away,and many Jews could not see genocide on the horizon.The young rattler doesn’t look much like the adult but is , if anything, more deadly.
From Evan Goggin:
I saw this terrible event and I got to thinking about all of these young people who feel empowered to fight for a white only state. I started thinking about pop culture too,and I believe that many may become connected to this because of how the world today is viewed socially.When people say “the world is so terrible” or “there’s so much hate in the world today”,it provides justification for fascism and nazism.Nazism and fascism are ideologies which rely on a chaotic world as they try to say all countries or peoples will fight for supremacy.I think between Trump and the discomfort that comes with him,people feel more comfortable and justified as the President says the world is so terrible and that he will unleash”fire and fury like the world has never seen.”This creates a society in which people feel comfortable being openly fascist or nazist.As people believe the world is terrible,they believe it is justified to want to constantly war with other groups.
Daedal2207 is apparently telling us that Trump is not interested in moving our country toward regaining its original-intent, equality of individual-liberty values, that Donald Trump is really snakelike, conniving to achieve sufficient personal power to become a fascist-type despot – likely desirous of lording-over, or even eradicating those perceived to be “lesser peoples” (whoever they may be). I suppose that this conclusion finds support by how he and his fellow Trump haters choose to reinterpret or read between the lines – they assign great weight to “dog whistles” and such (Isn’t that a form of projection?). This conjecture of mine as to the weakness of their evidence exists because the vast majority of Trump’s policy ACTIONS are those that I would have pursued in order to shift the country’s direction away from a life-destroying future of diminishing resources and demeaning expansions of dependency to one where we have again a significantly growing economy, an equality of individual rights, and the substance of REAL meaning – acquired because this great treasure is intrinsically imbedded within one’s having possession of personal responsibility.
In response to E.G.:
“Nazism and fascism are ideologies which rely on a chaotic world as they try to say all countries or peoples will fight for supremacy.”
There is much wisdom in E.G.’s words, stated in clear and concise terms. I also concur with daedal2207 in his definition of isms. Isms claim “the ultimate answer.” Which is the enlightened ism that stretches a hand out for equal opportunity instead of stepping on it in the ladder of advancement? In the evolution of mankind, society has attempted to establish norms of behavior … “Thou shalt not kill.” And, yet, as E.G. has identified, we justify war, defining it as the required response to problem solving. Of course, then, it’s the war against evil. Spinning a defense/argument on behalf of racial supremacy with false, disparaging claims of, amongst others, providing “special treatments for certain groups,” is the ultimate evil against humanity. E.G. correctly identifies the cowardly behavior of brutal action through group membership … a la street gang style. On the other hand, the self-proclaimed sophisticates use the outmoded “left-vs-right” attack of disappearing ideologies. Weak. A realignment is in order. That spectrum is searching for new colors while looking to fit in the world of today. If anything, our parties are presently finding unity against the attempt to moral equivalency to an unquestionable amoral chore at the titular head of our country. Today, Senator Corker (R-Tennessee) openly questioned the mental capacity of the con man-in-chief.
Follow the yellow brick road … and, at the end, you will unveil Oz, who knows nothing and believes in nothing … the ultimate apprentice putting on a fantasy-filled reality show … you know, a cartoon character. Unfortunately, the majority of us did not want to tune in. Our country is living through an abusive and chaotic relationship.
Welcome, E.G. … and, thank you.
P. S. We’re the laughing stock of the Third World.
Ignoring the Korean threat will not end it. Not confronting the Korean threat will eventually lead to more causalities for our troupes & people. Not confronting Hitler before World War II resulted in millions of lost lives.
Agreed,but the threat has to be defined.The paranoid verbosity of DERPOK’s leader cannot be ignored but isn’t much of a threat. A miniaturized nuclear warhead on an operational ICBM is a menace but not a threat until it is coupled with a coherent policy and plan.Getting the big boys of the nuclear club to agree on crippling sanctions on N.Korea is a large accomplishment.The non vetoing presence of Russia and China is HUGE. The hysterical /paranoid post adolescent cannot prevail over this. Concurrently our leadership is being watched and tested elsewhere in the world. When the leader of the. world’s remaining superpower manufactures foreign and domestic policy on napkins at dinner in Mara Lago in Fflorida or breakfast at Bridgewater in New Jersey and announces it without consultation or advice,he is acting like the paranoid post adolescent. from N.Korea. and contributing to unwarranted anxieties in Americans.
The big boys in the nuclear club are held together by the certainty of mutual assured destruction,the puny noisy jerk from N Korea can be and would be crushed and his nation extinguished in armed confrontation.He would do damage however;since he and his country can be brought down by economic measures why would anyone sane lift the lid of hell? ( With a watching, measuring world looking on and Americans responding to further stress.)
Reblogged this on daedal2207's Blog and commented:
Game of Thrones ?