Happy New Year from All of Us

The Octogenarians wish you all a felicitous 2018 and invite you to comment and to have your comment elevated to a post.This invitation was given last year to women contributors only but this year we’re gender blind.( smile).
Several weeks ago a woman named Miranda Davis wrote an invited editorial to the L.A.Times as a metastatic cancer survivor who was several years beyond her survival time and who indeed had outlived not only her six month prognosis but the physician who made it.She commented that she found the Trumpian distortion of democratic norms,the introduced divisiveness,the racism.sexism and loss of world,moral and diplomatic status deplorable and resolved to continue to live until Trumpism was ejected from the White House and the threat of Nuclear Havoc was eliminated! Most of ( not all ) of the Octogenarians salute you Miranda and join your pact dedicated to restoration of Democracy.



  1. Yes, Happy New Year to all! And what better way to start it than to engage in a fundamental challenge.

    How interesting it is – the slightest glance at current events reveals that well-meaning minds with equally bright levels of achievement fervently and often heatedly advocate conflicting, even incompatible policies! Given the truth of this fact, logic tells us that brilliance does not necessarily correlate with knowing all the truths that matter. Logic too, dictates the fact that in such a conflict at least one side’s judgment must be incorrect. So, what explains a passionate claim to possess with sureness one answer when clearly a number of other competent minds prove the existence of other possibilities? Given the existence of other possibilities, the most truthful stance would be that of agnosticism. When judgments must be made, this most honest stance would acknowledge that one’s position is a guess based on probabilities and not certitude! For minds needing higher degrees of certitude than ALL the evidence would justify, a desire to acquire new evidence and adjust one’s belief accordingly is subordinated, thus, learning and adjustment cannot be the dominant motive.
    Other motives: With mindsets that allow the exclusion of contrary evidence we can manufacture and bloat beliefs that enable us to individually and tribally FEEL smarter, FEEL more important, and FEEL superior. Exaggerated certitudes allow us to “trip” with good-feeling beliefs without the legal hazards of cocaine – but this form of mind-drug can be dangerously addictive just the same – dangerous to the addict and to those within the addict’s orbit.

    Daedal2207 tells us about a cancer victim selected by the LA Times to editorialize about her negative views concerning our President. She and many others state repeatedly and passionately that President Trump has, I paraphrase, “distorted democratic norms, introduced divisiveness, racism, sexism and loss of world, moral and diplomatic status”. Objective thinkers will want to know if these expressed beliefs are true. Should there be a lack of objectively-based evidence this would indicate that something other than truth is motivating the judgment. (Is it fake news?) Trumped up evidence becomes proof that something other than a desire for the objective truth is motivating the judgment.
    So let’s look at the quality (or not) of these accusations: How has President Trump “distorted democratic norms”? It would be interesting to see more detail as to what the leftist mindset considers to be a “democratic norm”. For instance, does advocating for the Founders’ vision of a “Republic” in order to diminish the dangers of a tyranny by the majority represent a “distortion of democratic principles”? In what way or ways has President Trump been “divisive”? Why would this necessarily be something bad? Common sense tells us that if we all agreed with his agendas we would be united, not divided. Conversely, if we all became leftists we would be united, not divided. But we should want to be divided from that which would do US harm, and united in efforts that play out to humanity’s best future! Apparently Trump is deemed by leftist mindsets to be negatively “divisive” because he clearly believes that if united around their agendas we would do harm to humanity’s best future. Is Trump a true racist and sexist? To the degree that supporting evidence is weak, it increases the probability that truth is not their dominant motivation. A “racist” is anyone who generally thinks that the race of a person is important. What in Trump’s history or present behavior justifies an accusation that he hates, loves, denies or gives special favor solely on the basis of a person’s race? Given the variety of racial backgrounds among his various business and political associates it appears that race plays no part, and merit is dramatically the dominant factor in his judgments. Is he sexist? Again, given the number of women who perform important jobs within his business and political world there is no evidence that anything other than merit is operative. Many of Trump’s detractors are claiming that an inclination to objectify women’s looks (as tends to be the nature of beauty contests) means that Trump, by engaging in such activities, has demonstrated dastardly “sexist” inclinations. By this standard, almost all normal and healthy men are guilty of “sexism” – which makes the charge on this basis absurd and dubious. Has Trump actually caused for the U.S. a “loss of world, moral and diplomatic status”? To the degree that world leaders and their populations share a leftist orientation I would expect this criticism to be true. The accusations are wrong to the degree that world leaders understand the values of strength being used to guard against the development of powerful, totalitarian-leaning governments (thereby more easily prone to monetary and other forms of corruption). And wrong to the degree that they respect competitive economic policies that would actually work best to the favor of mankind. Consider: The best definition of “moral behavior” would be “doing that which measurably works to humanity’s favor”. Compared with the moral issue just defined, the use of accusations that demonize President Trump with sloppy forms of evidence displays a slapdash distraction. It also provides supportive evidence that for leftist mindsets there is a lesser need to adjust intellectual beliefs to be rooted in objective truths than there is a need (an addiction?) to fuel favored feelings.

  2. Amen!

    Jeffrey E. Thomas, M.D., FAANS, FACS

    Diplomate, American Board of Neurological Surgery

    Medical Director, Cerebrovascular and Neurointerventional Neurosurgery

    Washington Hospital and Washington Township Medical Foundation 2500 Mowry Ave., Suite 222 Fremont, CA 94538 510 248-1160

    Chairman of the Board of Directors, Jeffrey E. Thomas Stroke Shield Foundation 3053 Fillmore St. , #268 San Francisco, CA 94123 (415) 830-6031




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.