Test Run

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/12/who-won-the-presidency-america.html 

Facebook post to be repeated here because of its importance.

Having declared since the days of Ronald Reagan Republican Party was trying to destroy democracy in America (yeah I know I keep repeating it, but it’s my way of saying I told you so now aren’t you sorry you were so mean to me 😉), I am stunned by the inability of people to realize how much danger we are in at this moment. Refusal to face awful reality can be deadly. In this case deadly to democracy and deadly to Americans, some of whom who have already been killed in the streets.

This article speaks about both sides, the eternal childish optimists and the hard cold rationalists who see through a glass clearly.

> “We’re being tested, and we’re failing. The next attempt to steal an election may involve a closer election and smarter lawsuits.<“

Trump is a miserable failure and he will be gone although his fanatic supporters will be still trying to destroy democracy in his name. However, to the GOP this was a dress rehearsal.

Anti- Evangelism

 

Copy of a Facebook post which I think is worth repeating here. The article is by an atheist who was raised as a right wing evangelical.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/12/white-evangelicals-made-a-deal-with-trump-now-what.html

>Evangelicals, Galli added, “are deeply suspicious of human authority,” but only to a point. What they may fear, really, is authority they don’t control. “Paradoxically,” he continued, “they are a group that’s attracted to authoritarian leaders, whether that person be a pastor of a megachurch or a dictator.”

... This, too, is something the modern GOP has in common with the Christian right. Democracy is the enemy. People can’t be trusted with their own souls. Leave them to their own devices, and they make the wrong choices, take the easy way out, threaten everything holy. They need a savior, whether they like it or not.<

This is the problem with Christ as king. He’s an absolute ruler. Morality is whatever he says it is. Right and wrong or whatever he says they are. There is nothing forbidden as long as he wills it. Deus vult!

It is this extremism which is making evangelicals into anti-evangelicals. They are driving people out, not only out of their churches, but of all religion.

State Security Forces Or Paramilitaries Need Not Apply

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/liberal-hyperbole-trump-coup.html

An interesting article but, as often happens, one particular point has especially irritated me. The author, Eric Levitz, makes a point by misdefining a word.

>To left-wing contrarians, meanwhile, describing Trump’s antics as a “coup” was nearly as absurd as Rudy Giuliani’s legal theories. This was not a violent seizure of power aided by state security forces or paramilitaries.<

Lexicolatry defines coup as: ‘A violent or illegal change in government.’  Note that a coup does not need to be violent. Any illegal overthrow of the government is also a coup.

I know this may seem like a minor offense, but to me the misuse of words is an extremely serious matter; especially when this abuse of language is intended to make some important point.  It is especially irritating that this author declares those he is criticizing are committing an “absurdity” by accurately utilizing a term which he inaccurately defines.

(Or, as I am more inclined to put it, sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking.)

I have numerous serious issues with the article. For example, Trump is not, as it suggests, a momentary “presentism” oddity. He’s the culmination of at least 40 years of Republicans’ determined efforts to destroy democracy in America. The author seems unaware of this fact. I also am offended by experts who declare that our democracy is strong. Our democracy is very near death and the Republicans are determined to put it in its grave. The fact that we squeaked by this time has left us all the weaker.

Essentially, I found the entire article to be a clear example of denialism. It is determined effort to refuse to face reality. This has allowed Republicans as a party to undermine democracy at every level of government. “It can’t happen here!” Is a cry that should be familiar to anyone aware of the history of fascism.   In reality, it not only can happen here, it has been happening for decades and it is continuing to happen now. A slow motion coup remains a coup.

Well the author accurately points out failures on the part of Trump’s attempts, he ignores the many successes. Nearly half of American voters believe this nonsense and have already surrendered their dedication to democracy. That is no small thing!

As I anticipated, Republicans are using this lack of confidence in democracy to press forward even more gerrymandering and voter restriction measures. The racists, whichever party was their home, have been doing this since the days of Reconstruction. It is not an example of  “presentism”.

I can go on pointing out the many flaws in this article, but honestly, I find them too irritating. I can only be reminded again of the growth of fascism in Italy, Germany, and even America. “He’s just a politician.”  “It’s just a phase.”  And let’s never forget Fukuyama’s famous conviction that democracy in the world was so strong that we had reached the end of history.

It can happen here. It is happening here. Refusing to face that fact will allow it to happen here.

Final note: the fact that the author later says that a figurative coup could be perceived as taking place does not ignore the fact that he misdefined the word in making one of his foolish points.

Someone Is Blind With Something.

 

From the Washington Post, a headline (Capitals removed)

Postal Service warns 42 states their voters could be disenfranchised by delayed mail in ballots

The resultant dialogue with D, the poster:

D:  This alone should say at all.

Me:  Yes, it says the Trump administration is working to sabotage the election in a move to destroy democracy in America.

D: Rreally?  You're smarter than that

Me:  Confiscated mail sorting machines, confiscated mailboxes, slashing the budget, forbidding overtime, for bidding extra deliveries, the post office run by a man who has over $100 million invested in companies which compete with the post office. Sounds perfectly normal to me.😏

D: the USPS just put out information about the "confiscated" machines that indicate why they were removed.  Has absolutely nothing to do with this administration.   Geesh

Me :  For over 100 years mail in ballot and was completely successful and no one doubt it. Suddenly this year and this year alone it is happened. Reality is real.

D:  we have mail in ballots here in Washington and there are still races that are not settled.  Plus...we got two EXTRA ballots sent to us for this Primary.   It's just a bit Lucy goosy for my taste

Me: It has worked since Lincoln was reelected during the Civil War. It is strange that it suddenly doesn’t work in the year when Donald Trump fears it might cost him reelection. Of course it could just be an amazing coincidence. But I doubt it

D: I shared with you my personal experience with mail in voting, and you are so blinded by hate that you're telling me my multiple ballots and waiting for results  are Trumps fault?   Or are you just calling me a liar?

Me:   Why are you so bitterly angry? I’m not upset at all by our conversation. You think I’m calling you a liar? What?

What exactly is it that you think I hate?

Calm down. Just because we disagree is no reason to be rude or insulting.

D: I'm not angry at all.  Just questioning your responses.   You said you doubted that it was problematic...after I told you the problems.  Simple

Bty, do you choose your retirement check be mailed to you or direct deposit?  Kind of the same reasoning, yes?

Me:  You as one single individual had problems and therefor you conclude that the entire system is totally failing? That’s like your car not working, therefore assuming the cars are not valuable and should be abandoned.

And suggesting I’m calling you a liar and telling me I’m blinded by hate do not sound like you’re just having a calm discussion.

Again, USPS has done an admirable job. If a check is mailed me I have it go to the bank. Of course I do direct deposit. It’s easier. But the USPS has been the most popular and most successful branch of government (It’s also a private business, since it’s hard to serve two masters, this messes things up) until Republicans begin interfering with its operations back in the Bush era by requiring them to fully fund their retirement system for 75 years ahead. Meaning they had to set aside funds for the retirement of postman who hadn’t even been born yet. The Trump administration has savagely attacked the post office service. Of course it’s not functioning right now. It’s like someone saying that your car isn’t working after I took a sledgehammer to the engine. That doesn’t mean the car is unreliable.

D:  Or...as one single individual that has experienced problems, can you imagine it on a larger scale?  Perception is everything, wouldn't you agree?  Gotta take grandkids for haircuts

Me:  be careful out there. The world isn’t a safe as it used to be.

Blindsight

https://quillette.com/2020/02/11/my-former-life-as-a-radical/

This article exemplifies a situation I find so often true when dealing with conservatives.  The criticism of left wing extremism is accurate and effective. Yet somehow the author doesn’t seem to notice that right wing extremists fit exactly the same pattern. In fact, it’s hard to even imagine this article applying to right wing radicals. It’s almost as if there is no such thing as right wing radicals.  Perhaps, in the mind of the author, there isn’t.

> The neuroscientist-cum-philosopher Sam Harris once remarked that “the true horror of religion” is that it “allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions what only lunatics could believe on their own.” And as Voltaire warned us, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” Radical ideology has a similar effect—it inspires and justifies immoral actions. 

...As Mark Twain said, “To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” <

And to a right wing radical, all radicals look left wing.

Mother Nature, Begone!

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qjdzwb/sophie-lewis-feminist-abolishing-the-family-full-surrogacy-now

Makes one wonder just how radical radical feminists feel the need to be in order to keep their movement alive and well. I don’t regard “well” as the correct term now that I think about it. Alive and…Virulent?

As for me, I’m a humanist. I think all human beings male and female, should be allowed to reach their full potential. Yes, humanism was a term that was once applied almost exclusively to men. That was then.  This is now. 

Let’s re-define the term as it should have been understood in the first place.  Enough with this war between the sexes garbage. I didn’t like it when it was code for male dominance and I don’t like it now when whatever this bizarre extremism is on the most fringe outlying elements of the feminist movement is abusing the concept.  

As is the inevitable case with all utopians, this proposal suggests that magic will happen if we just blindly obey and follow the dictates of this individual. All women will automatically care for every child as if the child with her own and feel no special concern for her own offspring.  Billions of years of evolution will vanish!  Also, somehow everyone will have time to take care of every single child in the world.

Makes me think that Sophie Lewis graduated from Hogwarts with honors. She just waves her wand and says, “Mater majicus!  Familius eliminatus!”

This instantly makes the world perfect.

🤪

Notes: Extremism And the Left

Quillette Is doing well this week! Here's another article I found compelling and interesting. The first point of the article makes it I found most in need of sharing Is that the extreme left is growing and, unless it is reigned in, will become as extreme and anti-intellectual as the extreme right.

>Those on the right once were the main enemies of evolutionary theory, but today, as Colin Wright argues, those on the extreme left are the “new evolution deniers.”<

And in answer to all those extremist you choose to throw science into the garbage can:

 > But science should be in the business of advancing knowledge of the world and its inhabitants rather than advancing certain groups or sides over others. Like any discipline of science, evolutionary psychology has not been untouched by prejudice and ridiculous theories. But most of them were either unfalsifiable and thus unscientific or were falsifiable and subsequently refuted by experimental tests. <

Pay For Pray

R posted a video declaring, Do agree you should be allowed to pray wherever you are? Never let anyone tell you not to pray… No matter where you are! Do you agree?

The video that showed various groups of people praying in public and making a very big show of it, in some cases being sure that there were television cameras recording their actions.

I responded: “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. Matthew 6:5-6

He replied: Guess this means we don't pray together Sunday's in church, hey Jim????

Me: I think Jesus meant to make an exception for praying in the synagogue. But you should ask him that question. I'm just quoting him.

That ended the exchange, but I have been thinking about it in the days that have passed. It's actually a very good question. I think it needs to be explored further; so I have done so and here is what I have concluded:

By combining Matthew 6:5-6, which refers to the public show of prayer, with other passages, the meaning becomes quite clear.

9And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. 13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified ratherthan the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Luke 18:9-14

This is clear enough. Ask yourself if you are praying to make sure that everyone, including God, knows what a great prayer and wonderful person you are or are you praying sincerely to God? It's a question of the target. Is your prayer a communion with God or bragging to your audience?

This is true whether you are praying in the privacy of your chamber or in the temple.

Or, to put it another way, don't let anyone tell you you can't pray anywhere you want anyway you want, not even Jesus!


Although the first portion of the Matthew verse I've already quoted does not directly refer to prayer, it does refer to doing things privately not publicly. I believe this is relevant.

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.
“Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
Matthew 6:1-4

I believe that this indicates that it is not so much the privacy that is so important as is the sincerity. You should avoid public displays not because they are inherently offensive but because of very serious temptation to show off, to brag, to seek self justification, to seek worldly rewards rather than sincere communion with God.

I conclude that sharing prayer with your fellow believers during services may be good or bad, depending upon your intent. Sincere humility and love of God are pleasing to God. Shows and displays displease God. Even internal bragging and self justification displease God.

In short, motive is everything and God knows your motive.

This is why I try not to make a great show of public prayer. As I have noted in earlier posts, I require myself to pray whenever I hear a siren. I am often out in public when I hear one. Keeping in mind my feelings about the subject, I try not to pray too obviously. Not being a completely orthodox Catholic (American and European Catholics frequently aren't) doesn't preclude me from using the sign of the cross when I pray. In public I try to do it in a subtle manner with very small gestures which are unlikely to be noticed by those around me. If I feel I am too closely observed, I make the sign of the cross in my mind rather than as actual physical gestures, simply holding my hand up near my face as if being thoughtful. This permits me to meet this religious obligation without making a public show of it.

Contrast this with examples like those of Mr. Tebow, who makes a great show as he prays in front of millions, and I think it's easy to see why I am suspicious of his motivations. Then look at members of Congress who obviously exchange public prayer for votes...

'Nough said.

Trump Card

Years ago, I read an interesting article in the LA Times. It observed that while the Communist Party was beginning to show signs of turning away from communist doctrine, Chairman Mao was still an adored and even idolized figure throughout the country. Dictatorships always seem to have at their core a cult of personality. The idea that the great leader is a miraculous superhero (what the Greeks would have simply called a hero) is used by these countries the way high schools use sports teams to encourage "school spirit".

However, once the repressive government falls, there is often a concerted effort to degrade the former great leader into a despised monster. Khrushchev's deStalinization is an example of this effect. It isn't always entirely successful. It is not unusual in Russia today to see some individuals during street disturbances raising signs expressing their wish for a return of Stalin. This may say a great deal about the popularity of Vladimir Putin.

In contrast, Chairman Mao remained popular in China. While even to this day it is difficult to get an accurate or open response from the Chinese people, outsiders can tell the difference between genuine affection and a terrorized pretense. We only need to look at North Korea's spontaneous expressions of love for Kim Jong Un to see how obvious it is that the people are turning out in response to terror rather than adoration.

The Times article, remember this was several years ago, made an attempt to discover why the Chinese people seemed to acquiesce to their government's insistence on the continued adulation of Mao. The response seem to be the same almost whoever was asked. It came down to the belief that Mao had certainly done terrible things and the people being asked the question had often lost family members to his purges and excesses, but Mao was seen to have done something which could not be denied and which was a such supreme importance that it made him a hero, a great man, in spite of his obvious failures and flaws.

What he had done was to make China great again.

The Chinese people were well aware that their country had once been one of the greatest civilizations in history. They were also well aware that the country has been reduced to state of desperate poverty and Third World status. Whatever atrocities and sufferings he had created, Mao made China great again. The whole world once again respected Chinese power.
Sound familiar?

Not all of Donald Trump's followers are racists or fascists. Many of them genuinely believe that America has ceased to be as powerful and respected as she once was. The fact that, unlike China's position, this is a fantasy is irrelevant. They believe it. They act accordingly. They vote accordingly.
Decades of Republican propaganda, of right wing media's disinformation and agitprop, of changing demographics, and failed economic polices have had their effect. There are those whom Donald Trump insults, and who intensely dislike many of his policies and behaviors, who nevertheless support him. His flaws seem minor compared to the promise of America becoming great again.

It's The End Of The World -- Again!

In response to the latest Right Wing Bizzaro rants about Obama and Africa and Ebola and plots to destroy America, I posted:

While I rate Obama as an above average president, I nonetheless do have some very serious concerns with his administration. There are areas in which I believe he has seriously failed in his duty to the American people. (Most of these are areas in which he is continuing the practices of past presidents.)

I find it very sad, and quite disturbing, that there is so much fantasy based bigotry and hatred directed at this man that it is almost impossible to discuss these real world issues. Instead, when I am trying to debate these matters I find myself spending my time trying to convince people that he's not the antichrist, secret Muslim plotter, evil Kenyan destroyer of America... well you know all the weird accusations that have become Gospel truth to terrified, but otherwise reasonable human beings.

They then begin to attack me as a member of the cabal who believes Obama is perfect. We never get to reality or considered critique.

There is so much smoke and mirrors and so many absurd accusations (the situation reminds me very much of a Hollywood special-effects blockbuster -- all smash 'N crash and flash 'N splash with absolutely no substance or meaning whatsoever) that serious discussion or thoughtful consideration become impossible.

That is not a healthy situation for the obsessed and terrified hate mongers or for our nation.

Fear Is The Mind Killer

I shared the comment below. In response to friends' comments, I added:

Republican Maine state Representative Lawrence Lockman said in 1995, “If a woman has (the right to an abortion), why shouldn’t a man be free to use his superior strength to force himself on a woman? At least the rapist’s pursuit of sexual freedom doesn’t (in most cases) result in anyone’s death.”

Once a group, perhaps especially a political party, becomes dedicated to the tactics of hate and fear they find themselves carried along by their own self generated avalanche. An endless barrage of new, ever more shocking declarations are required to maintain their movement's energy.

Apparently this individual has already apologized for his statements, but the mere fact that he felt not only free but even obligated to make them means that no apology is sufficient. Worse, he doesn't seem to repudiate it. He's just sorry he said it and it got reported. Every parent knows this one. "I'm really sorry I got caught. I'm not sorry I did it, only that you caught me."

My question is, why do any women vote Republican? Why are there still Log Cabin Republicans? Even allowing for gerrymandered districts, how can any Republican be elected to anything?

Much of the answer lies in taking a closer look at a phrase from the cult classic Dune. "Fear is the mind killer," say the Bene Gesert Witches. Partly correct. Any truly powerful emotion is the mind killer. Fear and hatred, currently all that the Republican Party has to offer, can very quickly destroy the already limited capacity of the human mind to think in a rational manner.

Note: I have long thought someone should rewrite the novel and call it Prune. The Benihana witches are seeking the ultimate household appliance, the Cuisinart Hat Rack... There's lots more but there's no point in going on because either you like Dune and don't appreciate my trying to spoof it or you don't really know what the hell I'm talking about, so I'll just hush up.

The Ten Cannots That Lincoln Never Said

The 10 Cannots, sometimes referred to as the 10 Commandments of Capitalism. Falsely attributed to Abraham Lincoln, these are often quoted by conservatives to prove that Lincoln was a conservative. This somehow ignores the fact that Lincoln was universally regarded as an extreme liberal around the world. He was praised for this and condemned for this, but there was no doubt that he and his Republican Party were extremely liberal in their day, so liberal that conservatives around the world were terrified of them.

It occurred to me that conservatives would believe the 10 Cannots even if they were aware that Lincoln was not the one who said them. So I decided to take a look at each one and analyze its impact in the real world.

 * You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

Unless you're a wealthy banker. Then you encourage people to take out mortgages they cannot possibly afford, place bets that they will fail to pay the mortgage, and then collect the money when they are unable to pay the debt that you encouraged them to incur. They get poorer. You get richer.

* You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

Unless you're a slaveholder. Then your own physical and intellectual weaknesses vanish as you exploit the strength and power of those you have enslaved. This also applies to those who exploit the desperation of workers by forcing them to work for substandard wages simply to stay alive. This is not slavery, although it does operate on a similar general principle

* You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.

But you can make help big men grow even bigger by tearing down little men. If  you tear down a few hundred million of them, your bank account grows exponentially.

* You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

But you can make the wage payer obscenely wealthy by half starving the wage earner.

* You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

But you can make the rich richer by destroying the poor.

* You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.

But you can establish sound security by buying your own personal congressmen.

* You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

But you can win the class war by saying that those who agree with Jesus that there should be social justice are inciting class hatred. (Now that one's clever!)

* You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.

Which is why rich people should always be sure that the poor class is kept near starvation. That way they won't have any money to spend on things like political campaigns.

* You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.

What you can build is your own vast wealth. There is nothing more certain to keep you wealthy than keeping millions of your fellow citizens so desperate and poor that they cannot build initiative and independence.

* You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

But you should give hundreds of billions of dollars every year in government subsidies, tax breaks, and welfare for the wealthy to those who are already billionaires.  After all, that's something they can and should do for themselves through the congressman they have bought.

The Decalogue is from the link below.  All comments are mine.

--variously known as the "Industrial Decalogue," the "Ten Don'ts," the "Ten Cannots," "Ten Things You Cannot Do, "or the "American Charter" --

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln/prosperity.asp#yF3Y58yIcP0ZGL84.99

.

Ted Cruz and the Coming (Republican) Götterdämmerung

On Sen. Ted Cruz holding his filibluster (thank you for that one, Elaine, friend of Nick).

Cruz quoted:

You got in the 1940s Nazi Germany. Look, we saw in Britain, Neville Chamberlain who told the British people, accept the Nazis. Yes, they'll dominate the continent of Europe, but that's not our problem.

Let's appease them.  Why? Because it can't be done! We can't possibly stand against them.

Memo to Sen. Cruise:

Please read a history book. At least one history book. Please do so before opening your mouth again. You are embarrassing yourself and the Republican Party, in front of anyone who knows any facts about the origins of World War II.

End memo, begin commentary.

Egregious Error Number One. Neville Chamberlain never said that anyone should put up with the Nazis dominating Europe.

All that Neville Chamberlain actually said was, we will let Hitler have Czechoslovakia in return for his  promise to leave the rest of Europe alone. Yes, that's right. His appeasement consisted only of permitting Hitler to take over one small country in return for promising to leave the rest of Europe free.

Of course, Chamberlain was a fool to trust Hitler, and sacrificing Czech freedom in order to protect the rest of Europe was not an honorable act. But not only did he not say the things that you say he did, he said the opposite. He said we must oppose Hitler if he dares to attack Poland.

You see, Senator, England did not declare war under Winston Churchill. England declared war under Neville Chamberlain. The fact that Chamberlain had not stood up to Hitler earlier caused his government to fall and then, after the war had started, Churchill took the helm.

I will say that again, please read this sentence slowly and carefully at least 12 times before you open your mouth again. The declaration of war against Nazi Germany was made by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Neville Chamberlain stood up to the Nazis as soon as he realized they were breaking their treaty agreement.

He never said, he never believed, that England should not stand up to Germany. He did believe that what happened in Europe was England's problem. I suppose it's convenient to apply your nasty smears to a dead man, but there are those of us who believe in history and facts and reality and who think that, since he can't speak for himself, we will speak for Mr. Chamberlain. Foolishly trusting? Undeniably! But the rest of what you said is outright fabrication;  a despicable smear against a foolish, but very courageous man.

Unless, of course, it is simply unforgivable ignorance.

Egregious Error Number Two.  When the Nazi leaders were put on trial for war crimes and eventually hung for said crimes, they were never accused of committing the horrific war crime of providing medical insurance for their conquered subjects.  International law does not recognize providing medical care to individuals as a war crime. In fact, it does not regarded it as any kind of crime.

There are a number of possible explanations for your recent bizarre conduct. I do not believe that you are experiencing delirium tremens, or that you are severely mentally ill. No, I think you know exactly what you were doing. I think you are the perfect example of a demagogue. You have replaced Karl Rove as the new Demosthenes. And, as I pointed out when I made that comparison with Rove, I mean the Demosthenes who is despised as an utterly manipulative greedy abuser of his own clients. The one who is accused of having betrayed his country by forcing upon them a false and pointless war which caused horrific destruction...and of doing so because he believed that he could loot the ruins to make political gain.

On the other hand, I must admit there was a very positive side your presentation and other recent antics. When the Democratic extremists were in power, I busily bashed away at their foolishness and pretensions. Being strictly neutral, I am doing so now against the Republican extremists. And I must say, there is no doubt in my mind that your actions are seriously injuring the possibility that the radical extremists of the Republican Party will remain in power in the Congress for much longer. Some Republican politicians and strategists are even beginning to think that people like you will cost Republicans control of the House! This was unthinkable just a couple of months ago.

So, please permit me to say, don't take my advice. No, I prefer you to keep on trucking! Good work!  Well done!  Please do more of the same!

The American people, the Democratic Party, Independents and Moderates everywhere, all want you to keep opening your mouth and shooting yourself...not in your political foot, but in your party's political heart.

Atrocities, Anyone?

Science news September 21, 2013.  Book reviews

The Nazi and the Psychiatrist by Jack El-Hai

Douglas Kelley, a US Army psychiatrist was assigned to maintain the mental health of the Nazi leaders awaiting trial for their atrocities.  He decided on his own to determine what made these men capable of committing these horrific crimes. His conclusion was disturbing. He did not find them insane nor even unusual compared with other people. The only two traits they seemed to share we'e being goal driven and being tireless workaholics.

He concluded that we could find people in America who would commit the same atrocities. In fact, a large number of people would do so. It seems reasonable to assume we could find people with those traits everywhere in the world.

Conclusion: the potential to commit evil is deep among all of us, more so in some of us. All it takes is one evil leader; there will always be plenty of followers.

Donkeys and the GOP

Breaking news from the right wing. The blogosphere, reaching all the way to at least one English newspaper, has declared an attempted desecration by Obama. What is he going to desecrate?

The facts: The University of Chicago is planning on demolishing an old apartment building in which Ronald Reagan, as a child, lived for less than one year. They're doing this to increase their student parking space. That's it. Those are the facts.

So what has the right wing screaming atrocity? Well, it turns out that the University of Chicago might be considered as one of the places where Obama could possibly build his library sometime in the unknown future.

If this is the site chosen, and if someone comes to visit that library, and if that person parks in this particular parking space which is normally reserved for students, then the University could conceivably be interpreted as having demolished Ronald Reagan's childhood home to create a parking lot for Obama's library. Could be so interpreted. If you're a real dumbass.

(Panic not, that's ass as in donkey.)

Let's be clear, even if the University of Chicago site is chosen for Obama's future library, the library will have its own parking lots. This will not be a parking lot for the library. It would just be a parking lot in which someone was visiting the library might choose to park. And then again, it is more likely they would park in the parking lot for the library which would be close to the library. Still, maybe someone wants a lot of exercise and prefers to park farther away and then walk to the library.

Please forgive the simplicity of the paragraphs above with their many word repetitions, but it is apparently necessary to make things clear to those experiencing a panic attack about this non-event.

It occurs to me that if Republicans could just learn to laugh at themselves then they wouldn't make such fools of themselves all the time. I suppose that's just asking too much.

I see why Bobby Jindal refers to his own party as, "the stupid party".

Tighty-Whities and Tattletales

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/soup-kitchen-paul-ryan-photo-donor_n_1980541.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Lesson, dare to tell the truth about a GOP candidate's falsehoods and the Tighty-Whities will punish YOU! They think you deserve it, you tattletale!

Note: I refer to the Radical Republicans as Tighty-Whities. Can you guess why?

I said, when support for the Iraq War was running over 90 per cent, "The day will come when America will ask, 'How did we get into this mess?'"

I said, when Bush was running for his second term, "If you vote for this dolt and he wins, you will get what you deserve!"

I say today, "If you vote for this aristocrat and he wins, you will get what you deserve!"

I'm not always right, but I am right more often than not; and I am right about this! In the words of the commercial, "You asked for it! You got it!"

Final Note: To the best of my knowledge, the term, "Tighty-Whities" as applied to the GOP and Tea Party are my original conceit. Use the term freely, but give me attribution.

As many Americans know, Oklahoma banned Sharia law from being considered by state courts. Why was this important? It wasn’t, not as a real issue. There is no likelihood of Sharia being a part of the state court system. The action was taken by demagogues in the state legislature who wanted to distract tier constituency from their failures and to benefit form the fears and confusion of the electorate.
Doing good work and passing good laws is hard. Playing on fears and baseless panics is easy. I’m surprised the legislators didn’t also attempt to ban Kilingon law. It’s so much harsher that Sharia and as likely to ever be a part of the state court system.
The founding fathers attempted to create a balance between the outrages of Athenian democracy [see Alcibiades and the Syracuse expedition] and the suppression of the people under the Roman Republic. That’s why junior high school civics students learn that the US is a democratic republic. Its supposed to be a careful construction of the benefits of both systems without the inherent failures of each. Actually, it works pretty well, considering that its a wholly human effort. We do surprising well when compared to the rest of history.
Right now everyone is confused and frightened. Therefore we tend strongly to seek someone to blame. Someone who is not us. That’s important. Obviously we can’t be responsible for our own troubles. It must be a plot.
American voters hate politics and largely ignore it. Then they are surprised when politicians use their power to do bad things. It shouldn’t be a surprise, but somehow, it always is.