More than one-quarter of this nation's governors have mobilized their national guard forces in response to rioting.
What's happening in many of our major, and some minor, cities is neither revolution nor protest nor civil disobedience, but violence for the sake of violence that has nothing to do with the death of George Floyd, in whose name many of the protests began.
There is a disturbing historical tendency in the United States for peaceful protest gatherings to become violent uprisings, but what is happening now is beyond anything in memory. The Inciter-in-Chief, who has to blame somebody, is pointing his well-manicured finger at Antifa, a large but amorphous radical left-wing group whose name is short for Antifascism.
We think the finger should be pointed the other way. When a ship's captain loses the respect of the crew or repeatedly puts them and the vessel in danger, mutiny frequently ensues; what we are seeing is mutiny by citizens of a leaderless nation.
In retrospect, we should have seen it coming. We've all been cooped up for months fearing a disease that no one could seem to define, which was denied by our alleged leader, but which was killing people around the world at a frightening rate.
Rather than offering us words of encouragement and comfort, the unpresident spent his time blaming anyone he could think of for the disease, all the while shamelessly trying to elevate his own image in the public eye and ignoring expert advice. He was clearly uninterested in the plight of the American people.
The Ship of State is adrift without a hand on the tiller, and no one is stepping up to get us back on course. We place the fault for this unrest, this mutiny, squarely at Donald Trump's feet. His xenophobia, his disdain for the common people, his racism, and his pandering to groups who espouse hate and anger have come home to roost.
Someone has to get this mess straightened out. The only sure thing is that it will not be Donald J. Trump.
--- Diogenes, 5/31/2020
* The Beatles, "Revolution," 1968.
U.S. Constitution
The foundation of the United States of America
31 May 2020
28 May 2020
Still Trying To Eradicate Stupidity
This
post was originally published on April 7. In light of the attention
recently given to masks and Americans' responses to using them, we have
updated it.
In his 1982 novel "The White Plague" Frank Herbert writes about a mad scientist who develops a pathogen that kills women. Men are asymptomatic carriers. His intended target is Ireland, because his wife and children were killed by an IRA bomb. But viruses don't observe borders, and the virus spreads rapidly and easily, passing through filters with ease. The result is global gendercide.
COVID-19 is far less selective. Its victims include the rich and the poor, the intelligent and the moronic, the religious and the atheistic, the royal and the commoner. It is an equal opportunity pathogen, making no distinction of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. No one is immune.
But there is one class of Americans who choose to put themselves at increased risk by willfully and deliberately ignoring the best medical advice: There is no word for such behavior other than stupid.
In a White House press briefing on April 3, the Great Pretender discussed the CDC advisory that all Americans wear face masks when around others to help stop the spread of the virus.
That was when a true leader would have pulled out a mask and put it on.
But after repeatedly assuring Americans that wearing a mask is voluntary because he doesn't want us to think the CDC has any authority, he went on to say that he would not be wearing a mask because "I think wearing a face mask as I greet presidents, prime ministers, dictators, kings, queens. I don’t know, somehow I don’t see it for myself."¹
Excuse me? There hasn't been a state visit to the White House since before COVID-19 appeared. His excuses range from silly to petty, like saying he "didn't want to give the press the pleasure of seeing it"² during a visit to a Ford plant in Michigan.
As Biden aide TJ Ducklo noted, "Presidents lead by example, and wearing a mask helps protect others, . . . Donald Trump should try it, because his failure to act early on producing [personal protective equipment], on ramping up testing, and implementing a coherent national response to this crisis has cost thousands of Americans their lives."As if the Unspeakable Unmasked cared.
Unfortunately, the Chucklehead-in-Chief's "do as I say, not as I do" attitude will no doubt be adopted by those who accept him as a role model, needlessly increasing the death toll. His followers, who seem to tend to blind allegiance, either to the GOP or to Trump, as opposed to independent thought and decision making, may well be hit the hardest.
With COVID-19 we might finally have a cure for stupidity--dare we hope it begins at the top?
---Diogenes, 4/7/20; republished 5/28/20
¹https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-coronavirus-briefing-transcript-april-3-new-cdc-face-mask-recommendation
²https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-mocks-joe-biden-wear-face-mask-public/
³https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-mocks-joe-biden-wear-face-mask-public/
In his 1982 novel "The White Plague" Frank Herbert writes about a mad scientist who develops a pathogen that kills women. Men are asymptomatic carriers. His intended target is Ireland, because his wife and children were killed by an IRA bomb. But viruses don't observe borders, and the virus spreads rapidly and easily, passing through filters with ease. The result is global gendercide.
COVID-19 is far less selective. Its victims include the rich and the poor, the intelligent and the moronic, the religious and the atheistic, the royal and the commoner. It is an equal opportunity pathogen, making no distinction of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. No one is immune.
But there is one class of Americans who choose to put themselves at increased risk by willfully and deliberately ignoring the best medical advice: There is no word for such behavior other than stupid.
In a White House press briefing on April 3, the Great Pretender discussed the CDC advisory that all Americans wear face masks when around others to help stop the spread of the virus.
That was when a true leader would have pulled out a mask and put it on.
But after repeatedly assuring Americans that wearing a mask is voluntary because he doesn't want us to think the CDC has any authority, he went on to say that he would not be wearing a mask because "I think wearing a face mask as I greet presidents, prime ministers, dictators, kings, queens. I don’t know, somehow I don’t see it for myself."¹
Excuse me? There hasn't been a state visit to the White House since before COVID-19 appeared. His excuses range from silly to petty, like saying he "didn't want to give the press the pleasure of seeing it"² during a visit to a Ford plant in Michigan.
As Biden aide TJ Ducklo noted, "Presidents lead by example, and wearing a mask helps protect others, . . . Donald Trump should try it, because his failure to act early on producing [personal protective equipment], on ramping up testing, and implementing a coherent national response to this crisis has cost thousands of Americans their lives."As if the Unspeakable Unmasked cared.
Unfortunately, the Chucklehead-in-Chief's "do as I say, not as I do" attitude will no doubt be adopted by those who accept him as a role model, needlessly increasing the death toll. His followers, who seem to tend to blind allegiance, either to the GOP or to Trump, as opposed to independent thought and decision making, may well be hit the hardest.
With COVID-19 we might finally have a cure for stupidity--dare we hope it begins at the top?
---Diogenes, 4/7/20; republished 5/28/20
¹https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-coronavirus-briefing-transcript-april-3-new-cdc-face-mask-recommendation
²https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-mocks-joe-biden-wear-face-mask-public/
³https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-mocks-joe-biden-wear-face-mask-public/
26 May 2020
Gimme Shelter
We live in a county which the board of supervisors has declared a "Second Amendment Sanctuary."
What's happened to the Second Amendment that it needs sanctuary? Does it fear editing? Has it tired of being abused by Boobus Americanus Militante and gone into hiding? What on earth could have made a short paragraph seek shelter?
If I were the Second, I just might have taken it on the lam after all the misuse I had suffered at the hands of the gun lobby. And this nonsense about Second Amendment "sanctuaries" might have been the last straw.
Of all the subspecies of Boobus Americanus, the gun-toters who think they should be able to carry openly any firearm they can lift are by far the least evolved. Unable to make their case to most legislatures, they have brought their scare campaign to local and county governments, urging them to adopt a "sanctuary" measure to ensure the safety--or as they would probably say, the sanctity--of the Second Amendment.
This is without doubt one of the most ludicrous, absurd, harebrained, risible, ridiculous, foolish, silly, puerile, goofy, and preposterous schemes ever foisted on the American people. It's appalling that anyone, let alone elected officials, who are supposed to have some semblance of intelligence, could fall for it. As P. T. Barnum may have said, "There's a sucker born every minute."
First, the Second Amendment doesn't need a sanctuary. It is safely embedded in the root and base of our legal system, the Constitution. If it needs sanctuary from anyone, it is the leadership of the NRA, who have the gall to call themselves a civil rights organization, and have somehow brainwashed hundreds of thousands of Americans into the idea that their rights--well, specifically their rights to gun ownership--are in danger. Hogwash.
The NRA claims their rights are endangered because there is a move afoot to repeal the Second Amendment. No, there isn't. I have to seriously doubt that any of them have ever read the Constitution. If they had, they would have an idea just how difficult it is to repeal an amendment.
Since the first ten amendments were published in 1791, only one amendment has been repealed. That was the 18th, which established Prohibition, and getting it out of the way was a cakewalk. It wouldn't be so for any others, and especially not for those first ten, enshrined as the Bill of Rights.
The portion of the Second that the NRA sometimes speaks of as God-given is the sentence fragment that goes " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," written by James Madison, not the Almighty.
Rehearsing all the reasons why the NRA is wrong on this issue will be the content of another blog when I can get it down to manageable size. I started on the idea of sanctuary and got carried away.
Should your local government look into the idea of becoming a "sanctuary", please bring them to their senses and remind them that anything they pass in opposition to any existing state law will be quickly overturned.
The United States of America is the home and sanctuary of the Constitution and its Amendments, and it's all that is needed.
--- Diogenes, 5/26/20
What's happened to the Second Amendment that it needs sanctuary? Does it fear editing? Has it tired of being abused by Boobus Americanus Militante and gone into hiding? What on earth could have made a short paragraph seek shelter?
If I were the Second, I just might have taken it on the lam after all the misuse I had suffered at the hands of the gun lobby. And this nonsense about Second Amendment "sanctuaries" might have been the last straw.
Of all the subspecies of Boobus Americanus, the gun-toters who think they should be able to carry openly any firearm they can lift are by far the least evolved. Unable to make their case to most legislatures, they have brought their scare campaign to local and county governments, urging them to adopt a "sanctuary" measure to ensure the safety--or as they would probably say, the sanctity--of the Second Amendment.
This is without doubt one of the most ludicrous, absurd, harebrained, risible, ridiculous, foolish, silly, puerile, goofy, and preposterous schemes ever foisted on the American people. It's appalling that anyone, let alone elected officials, who are supposed to have some semblance of intelligence, could fall for it. As P. T. Barnum may have said, "There's a sucker born every minute."
First, the Second Amendment doesn't need a sanctuary. It is safely embedded in the root and base of our legal system, the Constitution. If it needs sanctuary from anyone, it is the leadership of the NRA, who have the gall to call themselves a civil rights organization, and have somehow brainwashed hundreds of thousands of Americans into the idea that their rights--well, specifically their rights to gun ownership--are in danger. Hogwash.
The NRA claims their rights are endangered because there is a move afoot to repeal the Second Amendment. No, there isn't. I have to seriously doubt that any of them have ever read the Constitution. If they had, they would have an idea just how difficult it is to repeal an amendment.
Since the first ten amendments were published in 1791, only one amendment has been repealed. That was the 18th, which established Prohibition, and getting it out of the way was a cakewalk. It wouldn't be so for any others, and especially not for those first ten, enshrined as the Bill of Rights.
The portion of the Second that the NRA sometimes speaks of as God-given is the sentence fragment that goes " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," written by James Madison, not the Almighty.
Rehearsing all the reasons why the NRA is wrong on this issue will be the content of another blog when I can get it down to manageable size. I started on the idea of sanctuary and got carried away.
Should your local government look into the idea of becoming a "sanctuary", please bring them to their senses and remind them that anything they pass in opposition to any existing state law will be quickly overturned.
The United States of America is the home and sanctuary of the Constitution and its Amendments, and it's all that is needed.
--- Diogenes, 5/26/20
25 May 2020
Too Stupid To Live?
"Some people are too stupid to live" was a favorite saying of a former coworker.
It was the first thing that came to mind when I saw a photo this morning of people crowded into a swimming pool at a Lake of the Ozarks venue.
It's true that COVID-19 doesn't spread in water, as far as anyone yet knows. But in a pool environment people pop up snorting, spitting and blowing. That's a lot of potentially infected air moving around, and the chlorine in the water will have no effect on it.
"Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die" has been another phrase running around my head since the well-publicized opening of bars in Wisconsin on May 14. Just about a week later, Wisconsin saw a spike in new COVID-19 cases almost doubling the number before the opening, and the state's numbers remain high.¹
This Memorial Day weekend will be another key date to watch. The traditional opening day of summer is bringing Americans out in droves where weather permits. One can hardly blame them after months of isolation, but one can at least hope they wear masks and keep their social distance. But we know they won't.
People who seek out beaches, bars, and other crowd-oriented venues tend to be gregarious. It is not in their nature to stand apart. They like to congregate, mix, and mingle. That isn't a judgment, just a statement of fact. They can do so masked, but it's hard to drink wearing a mask, and dancing wouldn't be much fun, either. They also enjoy physical contact--the "rubbing elbows" effect. Despite best intentions, after trying to sip a drink around a mask, almost anyone would ditch the mask.
It's difficult not to have some sympathy for governors who are doing their best to manage this mess. Absent any guidance--indeed, with contrariness--from the alleged chief executive they have to rely on the best teams they can put together.
We're Americans, and we don't like being told we can't carry on as usual. As the saying goes, this is a free country. But we are not free to shout "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium or to bring a valise labeled "BOMB" onto an airliner, which I have actually seen.
We should be savvy enough to know that endangering public health is tantamount to endangering public safety. Adapting to a new status quo isn't easy. It's inconvenient and uncomfortable and weird in some cases, but we have to get it through our heads that there is a potentially deadly pathogen floating around everywhere, and it's easy to catch.
COVID-19 kills about 6% of the people who get it.² By contrast, the annual flu that the Pretender-in-Chief likes to compare it to kills only about 2/10 of one percent of its victims.³ That makes COVID-19 about 54 times more deadly than any garden variety flu.
If we can keep those numbers in mind, maybe we can be smart enough to live.
--- Diogenes, 5/25/20
¹ Disclaimer: The numbers in this paragraph are based on a New York Times database of Wisconsin cases. Other sources differ in the actual numbers but not in the shape of the curve. The spike may be coincidental and/or may be the result of factors other than tavern attendance.
² https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeAdvegas1?
³ https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm
It was the first thing that came to mind when I saw a photo this morning of people crowded into a swimming pool at a Lake of the Ozarks venue.
It's true that COVID-19 doesn't spread in water, as far as anyone yet knows. But in a pool environment people pop up snorting, spitting and blowing. That's a lot of potentially infected air moving around, and the chlorine in the water will have no effect on it.
"Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die" has been another phrase running around my head since the well-publicized opening of bars in Wisconsin on May 14. Just about a week later, Wisconsin saw a spike in new COVID-19 cases almost doubling the number before the opening, and the state's numbers remain high.¹
This Memorial Day weekend will be another key date to watch. The traditional opening day of summer is bringing Americans out in droves where weather permits. One can hardly blame them after months of isolation, but one can at least hope they wear masks and keep their social distance. But we know they won't.
People who seek out beaches, bars, and other crowd-oriented venues tend to be gregarious. It is not in their nature to stand apart. They like to congregate, mix, and mingle. That isn't a judgment, just a statement of fact. They can do so masked, but it's hard to drink wearing a mask, and dancing wouldn't be much fun, either. They also enjoy physical contact--the "rubbing elbows" effect. Despite best intentions, after trying to sip a drink around a mask, almost anyone would ditch the mask.
It's difficult not to have some sympathy for governors who are doing their best to manage this mess. Absent any guidance--indeed, with contrariness--from the alleged chief executive they have to rely on the best teams they can put together.
We're Americans, and we don't like being told we can't carry on as usual. As the saying goes, this is a free country. But we are not free to shout "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium or to bring a valise labeled "BOMB" onto an airliner, which I have actually seen.
We should be savvy enough to know that endangering public health is tantamount to endangering public safety. Adapting to a new status quo isn't easy. It's inconvenient and uncomfortable and weird in some cases, but we have to get it through our heads that there is a potentially deadly pathogen floating around everywhere, and it's easy to catch.
COVID-19 kills about 6% of the people who get it.² By contrast, the annual flu that the Pretender-in-Chief likes to compare it to kills only about 2/10 of one percent of its victims.³ That makes COVID-19 about 54 times more deadly than any garden variety flu.
If we can keep those numbers in mind, maybe we can be smart enough to live.
--- Diogenes, 5/25/20
¹ Disclaimer: The numbers in this paragraph are based on a New York Times database of Wisconsin cases. Other sources differ in the actual numbers but not in the shape of the curve. The spike may be coincidental and/or may be the result of factors other than tavern attendance.
² https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeAdvegas1?
³ https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm
23 May 2020
Smite The Unbeliever!
Unbeliever-in-Chief Donald Trump says he will order churches to open. Ha!
He knows his base is heavily peopled with conservative Christians. He has also no doubt received heavy pressure from the likes of Jerry Falwell jr., Steve Pettit, and Franklin Graham, who will show us the way according to them, in return for our personal check, to paraphrase Mary Chapin Carpenter.
He plays to that audience not because he shares their beliefs, but because they comprise a large chunk of the white conservative vote. He couldn't care less what they believe, but they will support him come hell or high water, and he is desperate for their help.
That pesky First Amendment gets in his way of trying to strongarm the churches directly, so he wants governors to declare churches essential: “The governors need to do the right thing and allow these very important, essential places of faith to open right now for this weekend, . . . if they don’t do it, I will override the governors. In America, we need more prayer, not less.”
Right. Good luck with that. We have plenty of prayer, thank you. What the preachers are missing is hands dropping money into offering baskets.
There is no hierarchical structure outside martial law that compels governors to obey the president. And considering that the president left the governors leaderless and swinging in the wind early on in the pandemic, few are likely to be amenable to his "orders."
In any event, I'm pretty sure the governors' actions are supported by the Tenth Amendment, and not subject to override by federal power.
The lockdown hasn't put a damper on prayer or praise. Christians of faith know they don't need buildings, or crowds, or even ministers, to worship. They can commune with their Lord singly and quietly, anywhere.
The Unbeliever-in-Chief should try it.
--- Diogenes, 5/23/20
¹ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/us/politics/trump-churches-coronavirus.html
He knows his base is heavily peopled with conservative Christians. He has also no doubt received heavy pressure from the likes of Jerry Falwell jr., Steve Pettit, and Franklin Graham, who will show us the way according to them, in return for our personal check, to paraphrase Mary Chapin Carpenter.
He plays to that audience not because he shares their beliefs, but because they comprise a large chunk of the white conservative vote. He couldn't care less what they believe, but they will support him come hell or high water, and he is desperate for their help.
That pesky First Amendment gets in his way of trying to strongarm the churches directly, so he wants governors to declare churches essential: “The governors need to do the right thing and allow these very important, essential places of faith to open right now for this weekend, . . . if they don’t do it, I will override the governors. In America, we need more prayer, not less.”
Right. Good luck with that. We have plenty of prayer, thank you. What the preachers are missing is hands dropping money into offering baskets.
There is no hierarchical structure outside martial law that compels governors to obey the president. And considering that the president left the governors leaderless and swinging in the wind early on in the pandemic, few are likely to be amenable to his "orders."
In any event, I'm pretty sure the governors' actions are supported by the Tenth Amendment, and not subject to override by federal power.
The lockdown hasn't put a damper on prayer or praise. Christians of faith know they don't need buildings, or crowds, or even ministers, to worship. They can commune with their Lord singly and quietly, anywhere.
The Unbeliever-in-Chief should try it.
--- Diogenes, 5/23/20
¹ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/us/politics/trump-churches-coronavirus.html
22 May 2020
Boobus Redux
Boobus Americanus was H. L. Mencken's pet name for the American people.
Of the "plain people," the middle class, he said, "No one . . . has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.”
He was right.
Yes, I said that.
Few people outside journalism and academia spend much time on Mencken. For most, his writing is too predictable and his personality too prickly. He had deeply held views on almost everything, was critical and/or intolerant of almost everything, and he was a snob.
He was also probably a genius. Mencken wrote nearly 30 books including the first English language study of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy in 1907. In 1919 he published The American Language, a study of the dialects of English spoken by Americans. He wrote in many genres including drama and poetry, and was an exceptionally prolific journalist.
Throughout his work he held to a belief in Social Darwinism: the doctrine that the rich are rich precisely because they are smarter and/or harder working than the poor.¹ Mencken saw society in layers of castes to which one belonged by virtue of birth. The poor were poor, the rich were rich, and that was that. Being of privileged birth, Mencken naturally saw himself in the upper layer.
We at Vox Populi hold to a narrow and specific message: we promote and support the overthrow of Donald Trump as president of the United States. We assume that our readers share the same view, which leads us to assume that we share the same demographic.
Let's consider the circles of friends and acquaintances with whom we share social activities. Ours includes academics, educators, lawyers, funeral directors, pastors, musicians, journalists, writers, artists, physicians, etc. Are we similar? If so, we're all snobs--that's our caste.
We, and most of you, I expect, value learning, knowledge, and professional expertise. I submit that many of the people who support Trump do not. They think those values are elitist and they distrust them. It was no accident that intellectuals and artists were targeted by Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Educated and creative people question authority and don't do as they're told. They look for options to the status quo, and those options might include unfriendly systems of government. They tend to upset the apple cart.
Trump's brashness, his affected "plain guy" attitude, his disrespect of the press and of his staff, his disdain for any rule he doesn't like, his open anger and abrasiveness, are embraced by those who think such behavior is somehow masculine, American, and therefore admirable.
Mencken foresaw how a real estate salesman could be elected president with no political experience: "In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is . . . the most devious and mediocre—the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum."²
We admire intellect, poise, erudition, and eloquence. As a class we tend to political correctness and conflict avoidance. We drink artisanal beer with our panini while discussing Annie Proulx's latest book. We bemoan having a fatuous idiot as president.
If we don't push back hard, if we don't call out Trump on every lie, if we don't back the Democratic nominee 100% with no defections, if we don't find ways to convince Trump's supporters of the real truth, we'll be doing the same things for four more years.
Boobus Americanus will prevail again.
--- Diogenes, 5/22/20
¹ https://seesharppress.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/nietzsche-and-mencken/
² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken#Books
Of the "plain people," the middle class, he said, "No one . . . has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.”
He was right.
Yes, I said that.
Few people outside journalism and academia spend much time on Mencken. For most, his writing is too predictable and his personality too prickly. He had deeply held views on almost everything, was critical and/or intolerant of almost everything, and he was a snob.
He was also probably a genius. Mencken wrote nearly 30 books including the first English language study of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy in 1907. In 1919 he published The American Language, a study of the dialects of English spoken by Americans. He wrote in many genres including drama and poetry, and was an exceptionally prolific journalist.
Throughout his work he held to a belief in Social Darwinism: the doctrine that the rich are rich precisely because they are smarter and/or harder working than the poor.¹ Mencken saw society in layers of castes to which one belonged by virtue of birth. The poor were poor, the rich were rich, and that was that. Being of privileged birth, Mencken naturally saw himself in the upper layer.
We at Vox Populi hold to a narrow and specific message: we promote and support the overthrow of Donald Trump as president of the United States. We assume that our readers share the same view, which leads us to assume that we share the same demographic.
Let's consider the circles of friends and acquaintances with whom we share social activities. Ours includes academics, educators, lawyers, funeral directors, pastors, musicians, journalists, writers, artists, physicians, etc. Are we similar? If so, we're all snobs--that's our caste.
We, and most of you, I expect, value learning, knowledge, and professional expertise. I submit that many of the people who support Trump do not. They think those values are elitist and they distrust them. It was no accident that intellectuals and artists were targeted by Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Educated and creative people question authority and don't do as they're told. They look for options to the status quo, and those options might include unfriendly systems of government. They tend to upset the apple cart.
Trump's brashness, his affected "plain guy" attitude, his disrespect of the press and of his staff, his disdain for any rule he doesn't like, his open anger and abrasiveness, are embraced by those who think such behavior is somehow masculine, American, and therefore admirable.
Mencken foresaw how a real estate salesman could be elected president with no political experience: "In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is . . . the most devious and mediocre—the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum."²
We admire intellect, poise, erudition, and eloquence. As a class we tend to political correctness and conflict avoidance. We drink artisanal beer with our panini while discussing Annie Proulx's latest book. We bemoan having a fatuous idiot as president.
If we don't push back hard, if we don't call out Trump on every lie, if we don't back the Democratic nominee 100% with no defections, if we don't find ways to convince Trump's supporters of the real truth, we'll be doing the same things for four more years.
Boobus Americanus will prevail again.
--- Diogenes, 5/22/20
¹ https://seesharppress.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/nietzsche-and-mencken/
² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken#Books
20 May 2020
Poor Donald, Part 3
I've recently written about ways in which Donald Trump is poor. Not in money, to be sure, but in empathy, understanding, affirmation, and self-esteem. Today I want to talk about his poverty of intellect.
I'm not going to borrow from his own playbook and call him stupid. Like it or not, no one who can reach his level in business, then parlay his personality into a successful presidential campaign is stupid. At the very least he is smart enough to hire the right people to tell him what to say and do. The problem is, he doesn't like to listen to them and usually ends up firing them.
The nature of both intellect and intelligence has been heavily studied, and there are several theories and models of both. One area where most theories agree is that the ability to recognize and solve problems effectively is important to a mature intellect.
It is that area where Donald Trump's intellect appears to have been shortchanged.
Solving problems is a routine matter, something we all do hundreds of times a day. We may not call it problem-solving, but every time we make a decision to do one thing and not another, every time we face a challenge, however slight, we are identifying and solving a problem. The magnificent quantum computer we call our brain does it all for us unconsciously, and usually effortlessly.
The unpresident's brain may not work all that smoothly. Most of us aren't privy to decision making in the White House, but we have witnessed the effects of some problems with decisiveness there. In the three years the Trump administration has been in charge, it has seen an 85%¹ turnover in upper-level staff--an unenviable record in a place that should be a model of stability. Who knows what secrets those people are carrying away with them?
Every entry/exit through the administration's revolving door is a decision the Addlepate-in-Chief couldn't make, couldn't live with, or simply didn't like.
We see it more directly in his spoken language, particularly in press briefings and similar venues. His inability to complete sentences, his detours into unrelated subjects, his limited attention span, and his occasional outright incoherence raise serious concern about his fitness for any position potentially involving the use of weapons.
Testing and psychometric evaluation from Trump's youth could shed a great deal of useful light on these questions, but Trump has threatened to sue any school that releases his records.²
Getting to those records should be the goal of every investigative reporter in America. There's unquestionably a Pulitzer prize waiting. And I'll bet there's a "Deep Throat" out there with the information.
Everyone has a price.
--- Diogenes, 5/20/20
¹ https://www.brookings.edu/research/tracking-turnover-in-the-trump-administration/
² https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-trump-high-school-transcript-20190305-story.html
I'm not going to borrow from his own playbook and call him stupid. Like it or not, no one who can reach his level in business, then parlay his personality into a successful presidential campaign is stupid. At the very least he is smart enough to hire the right people to tell him what to say and do. The problem is, he doesn't like to listen to them and usually ends up firing them.
The nature of both intellect and intelligence has been heavily studied, and there are several theories and models of both. One area where most theories agree is that the ability to recognize and solve problems effectively is important to a mature intellect.
It is that area where Donald Trump's intellect appears to have been shortchanged.
Solving problems is a routine matter, something we all do hundreds of times a day. We may not call it problem-solving, but every time we make a decision to do one thing and not another, every time we face a challenge, however slight, we are identifying and solving a problem. The magnificent quantum computer we call our brain does it all for us unconsciously, and usually effortlessly.
The unpresident's brain may not work all that smoothly. Most of us aren't privy to decision making in the White House, but we have witnessed the effects of some problems with decisiveness there. In the three years the Trump administration has been in charge, it has seen an 85%¹ turnover in upper-level staff--an unenviable record in a place that should be a model of stability. Who knows what secrets those people are carrying away with them?
Every entry/exit through the administration's revolving door is a decision the Addlepate-in-Chief couldn't make, couldn't live with, or simply didn't like.
We see it more directly in his spoken language, particularly in press briefings and similar venues. His inability to complete sentences, his detours into unrelated subjects, his limited attention span, and his occasional outright incoherence raise serious concern about his fitness for any position potentially involving the use of weapons.
Testing and psychometric evaluation from Trump's youth could shed a great deal of useful light on these questions, but Trump has threatened to sue any school that releases his records.²
Getting to those records should be the goal of every investigative reporter in America. There's unquestionably a Pulitzer prize waiting. And I'll bet there's a "Deep Throat" out there with the information.
Everyone has a price.
--- Diogenes, 5/20/20
¹ https://www.brookings.edu/research/tracking-turnover-in-the-trump-administration/
² https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-trump-high-school-transcript-20190305-story.html
19 May 2020
Poor Donald, Part 2
"Despite his wealth, the trappings of his office, and his attempts to
appear otherwise, in the final analysis, his behavior reveals Donald
Trump to be a poor man."
So ended Part One of this series. If you haven't read it I urge you to do so before getting into this one.
Donald Trump doesn't lack money or resources or housing or any of the basics of life, but he is still poor.
Remember that I came to this conclusion considering his physical behavior and body language, not his wealth or trappings. There are many kinds of non-material poverty: of spirit, of affection, of companionship, of self worth.
Let's look at an easy one: poverty of affirmation. Trump is so hungry for praise and acceptance that if he can't get it from the outside he makes up his own. This also speaks to a lack of self esteem and a sense of insecurity. He is a braggart and a boaster: the behavior of someone who desperately needs to hear himself praised, even if the words come from his own mouth.
That is classic Narcissism, and it points to the emotional emptiness of his condition. Most serious Narcissists hate themselves, recognizing the poverty of spirit and sense of worthlessness that gnaws at them.
It is that poverty that leads him so often to adopt defensive postures, specifically the crossed arms protecting his vital organs and the pout that acts as a symbolic seal on his mouth. He is signaling that he has walls up and will neither act nor speak.
But then what about the obvious, sometimes explosive behavior directed outward? It's bullying, and it's all part of the same package. Bullying isn't just a matter of being mean:
"Research finds that bullies have a distinct psychological makeup. They lack prosocial behavior, are untroubled by anxiety, and do not understand others' feelings. They exhibit a distinctive cognitive feature, a kind of paranoia: They misread the intentions of others, often imputing hostility in neutral situations."¹
In the unpresident's case, bullying is a form of defensive behavior. When he yells at a reporter or reels off a string of insults, he is trying to avoid input. When you see that behavior, the image you should have in your mind is that of a little boy with his fingers in his ears saying bla-bla-bla-bla-bla.
Last episode tomorrow: The Poverty of Intellect.
--- Diogenes, 5/19/20
¹https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/bullying
So ended Part One of this series. If you haven't read it I urge you to do so before getting into this one.
Donald Trump doesn't lack money or resources or housing or any of the basics of life, but he is still poor.
Remember that I came to this conclusion considering his physical behavior and body language, not his wealth or trappings. There are many kinds of non-material poverty: of spirit, of affection, of companionship, of self worth.
Let's look at an easy one: poverty of affirmation. Trump is so hungry for praise and acceptance that if he can't get it from the outside he makes up his own. This also speaks to a lack of self esteem and a sense of insecurity. He is a braggart and a boaster: the behavior of someone who desperately needs to hear himself praised, even if the words come from his own mouth.
That is classic Narcissism, and it points to the emotional emptiness of his condition. Most serious Narcissists hate themselves, recognizing the poverty of spirit and sense of worthlessness that gnaws at them.
It is that poverty that leads him so often to adopt defensive postures, specifically the crossed arms protecting his vital organs and the pout that acts as a symbolic seal on his mouth. He is signaling that he has walls up and will neither act nor speak.
But then what about the obvious, sometimes explosive behavior directed outward? It's bullying, and it's all part of the same package. Bullying isn't just a matter of being mean:
"Research finds that bullies have a distinct psychological makeup. They lack prosocial behavior, are untroubled by anxiety, and do not understand others' feelings. They exhibit a distinctive cognitive feature, a kind of paranoia: They misread the intentions of others, often imputing hostility in neutral situations."¹
In the unpresident's case, bullying is a form of defensive behavior. When he yells at a reporter or reels off a string of insults, he is trying to avoid input. When you see that behavior, the image you should have in your mind is that of a little boy with his fingers in his ears saying bla-bla-bla-bla-bla.
Last episode tomorrow: The Poverty of Intellect.
--- Diogenes, 5/19/20
¹https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/bullying
17 May 2020
Poor Donald, Part 1
The Roman playwright Terence wrote, "I am human, and I think nothing human is alien to me." I discovered that quote back when I was studying Latin, and it stuck with me. These days, however, I find myself wondering about the nature of humanity.
Specifically, I wonder about Donald Trump. I can't seem to reconcile my humanness with his. It's not the money or the trappings. I've rubbed shoulders with millionaires and "personalities." Ho-hum. Nor do I think he's not human, although the thought sometimes flashes across my mind.
Still, it is the money and the trappings that make the behavior difficult to understand. Then it struck me: I've been tying him to the wrong demographic.
This is not a happy man. The crossed arms are a classic defensive position, a barrier against interaction, a fence to keep the world out. The facial expression, with eyes open and mouth downturned, expresses contempt of whatever or whoever is the subject of dislike. In public appearances he is seen more often in this pose than in any other.
I have seen this defensive posture frequently, but not in people who are wealthy and/or who exercise power. Their postures are typically open and confident. This image is everything but.
These postures are clearly practiced. For Trump the crossed arms are not defensive but an aggressive posture such as that used by animals trying to make themselves look bigger to a foe. Then there are the facial gestures. Most notable is the rosette mouth that he wields aggressively. It is a gesture that he shares with other primates:
Trump likes to think he is a unique creature, but his behavior and choice of gestures reveal a universal truth: he, we, and our cousin species are inextricably linked in uncountable ways, right down to our DNA. And whether the unpresident likes it or not, "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together¹."
Specifically, I wonder about Donald Trump. I can't seem to reconcile my humanness with his. It's not the money or the trappings. I've rubbed shoulders with millionaires and "personalities." Ho-hum. Nor do I think he's not human, although the thought sometimes flashes across my mind.
Still, it is the money and the trappings that make the behavior difficult to understand. Then it struck me: I've been tying him to the wrong demographic.
I have seen this defensive posture frequently, but not in people who are wealthy and/or who exercise power. Their postures are typically open and confident. This image is everything but.
These postures are clearly practiced. For Trump the crossed arms are not defensive but an aggressive posture such as that used by animals trying to make themselves look bigger to a foe. Then there are the facial gestures. Most notable is the rosette mouth that he wields aggressively. It is a gesture that he shares with other primates:
Trump likes to think he is a unique creature, but his behavior and choice of gestures reveal a universal truth: he, we, and our cousin species are inextricably linked in uncountable ways, right down to our DNA. And whether the unpresident likes it or not, "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together¹."
OK, this has been a long digression. I started talking about human behavior and demographics and landed up somewhere else. I said that I had been considering Trump in the context of the wrong demographic. What I was leading to was this: Despite his wealth, the trappings of his office, and his attempts to appear otherwise, in the final analysis, his behavior reveals Donald Trump to be a poor man.
Stay tuned.
--- Diogenes, 5/17/20
¹ The Beatles, "I Am The Walrus," 1967.
15 May 2020
SHAME!
The McCarthy unAmerican madness ended abruptly on June 9, 1954 during the Army-McCarthy hearings when Boston lawyer Joseph Welch, finally outraged by Sen. Joseph McCarthy's baseless accusations, said, "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty
or your recklessness. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency? At long last, have you no sense of decency?"
Trump has now committed an outrage worthy of McCarthy. He is blaming former President Obama for virtually all the problems that have plagued his administration and demanding that Obama testify to sabotaging his administration before he assumed office.
Enough is enough. We must all call out to Trump, "Have you no sense of decency? At long last, have you no sense of decency?" To which we should add "Have you no shame?" We must shout it in the millions of our voices from the rooftops, from town squares and from city plazas, and we must be heard.
--- Diogenes, 5/15/20
Trump has now committed an outrage worthy of McCarthy. He is blaming former President Obama for virtually all the problems that have plagued his administration and demanding that Obama testify to sabotaging his administration before he assumed office.
Enough is enough. We must all call out to Trump, "Have you no sense of decency? At long last, have you no sense of decency?" To which we should add "Have you no shame?" We must shout it in the millions of our voices from the rooftops, from town squares and from city plazas, and we must be heard.
--- Diogenes, 5/15/20
14 May 2020
How long?
This is a rant. Yes, I've said some of this before. Please indulge me.
It is customary to blame the president for everything we don't like. Well, why not? He is the most visible public servant we have, and everyone can remember his name. We should rather remember the name of our Congressional representative, who is from our community and may even live on our block. Well, no matter. We don't.
The fact is, most of what goes on in the country is guided by Congress. They are our elected representatives and it is their Constitutional duty to make laws. Congress is a big, slow ship that doesn't maneuver quickly, so there is always time to contact your representative or senator to suggest mid-course corrections.
Where the office of president becomes useful is in times of emergency or disaster. He can, by executive declaration, make any number of things happen. Any fallout may later have to be sorted out with Congress, but urgent needs can be timely met.
It is in those moments that the mettle of any true leader is tested. High public office is not for the faint of heart. Enormous trust is placed in the executive--trust that he will respect those who put him in office and will see, to the best of his ability, to their welfare and protection--especially at times when the world changes.
America's involvement in WWII began and ended with two world-changing decisions from two strong presidents. Both were made and followed through with certainty and confidence.
Following Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt acted with alacrity, declaring war on Japan, ending America's neutrality, and plunging the nation into a war it was not prepared to fight. He did so in the knowledge of mutual trust between him and the people, a trust that roused an entire nation to action.
Upon FDR's death Harry Truman took up the war, and brought it to an emphatic conclusion by deploying atomic weapons. Neither president's decision was taken recklessly or out of emotion, but after careful consideration, which lent them the strength of sure authority,
Many such moments and decisions have punctuated the history of the presidency.
Until now.
How long shall the wicked triumph?
--Diogenes, 5/14/20
¹ https://blog.factba.se/2018/01/08/stable-genius-lets-go-to-the-data/
² https://www.brookings.edu/research/tracking-turnover-in-the-trump-administration/
It is customary to blame the president for everything we don't like. Well, why not? He is the most visible public servant we have, and everyone can remember his name. We should rather remember the name of our Congressional representative, who is from our community and may even live on our block. Well, no matter. We don't.
The fact is, most of what goes on in the country is guided by Congress. They are our elected representatives and it is their Constitutional duty to make laws. Congress is a big, slow ship that doesn't maneuver quickly, so there is always time to contact your representative or senator to suggest mid-course corrections.
Where the office of president becomes useful is in times of emergency or disaster. He can, by executive declaration, make any number of things happen. Any fallout may later have to be sorted out with Congress, but urgent needs can be timely met.
It is in those moments that the mettle of any true leader is tested. High public office is not for the faint of heart. Enormous trust is placed in the executive--trust that he will respect those who put him in office and will see, to the best of his ability, to their welfare and protection--especially at times when the world changes.
America's involvement in WWII began and ended with two world-changing decisions from two strong presidents. Both were made and followed through with certainty and confidence.
Following Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt acted with alacrity, declaring war on Japan, ending America's neutrality, and plunging the nation into a war it was not prepared to fight. He did so in the knowledge of mutual trust between him and the people, a trust that roused an entire nation to action.
Upon FDR's death Harry Truman took up the war, and brought it to an emphatic conclusion by deploying atomic weapons. Neither president's decision was taken recklessly or out of emotion, but after careful consideration, which lent them the strength of sure authority,
Many such moments and decisions have punctuated the history of the presidency.
Until now.
- We are shackled with a president who has neither respect for nor trust in anyone who does not share his skin color, his ideas, his ethnicity, his party, his beliefs, his wealth, or his favorite color of tie. In short, no one.
- Gone is the eloquence of his predecessors in office; a recent study determined that he speaks at about a fourth-grade level.¹
- He has no use for people who are not puppets or toadies, or anyone who differs from him in the slightest way; his upper-level staff has seen an 85% turnover since his election.² Does anyone know who's watching the store?
- His mental state is clearly and obviously unstable.
- He lacks the ability to make decisions and stand by them.
- He cannot control COVID-19 and the inability to control any entity is so far from his life experience that it is likely unraveling his sanity.
- His body language speaks volumes. He frequently appears with arms crossed--closed off to the world, a defensive posture; and a downward gaze with downturned mouth, signaling contempt.
How long shall the wicked triumph?
--Diogenes, 5/14/20
¹ https://blog.factba.se/2018/01/08/stable-genius-lets-go-to-the-data/
² https://www.brookings.edu/research/tracking-turnover-in-the-trump-administration/
13 May 2020
Readings for Radicals, Rebels, Revolutionaries, and Rabble-rousers
[Because we've just witnessed the first widespread civil uprising in quite some time, I'm republishing this list as a reminder of how important it is to stand up against tyranny] --- Diogenes, 6/11/2020
I hope that none of you have ever or ever will experience tyranny in real life,
but there are people highly placed in government who would very much like to have more power and would like the people to have less. I offer here some reading and viewing material by people who did experience tyranny in some of its worst forms that might help you recognize authoritarianism if it ever rears its ugly head.
These are standard works that will probably be in your local library. K=Kindle
Many of these works are challenging. If you start one and hate it, just grab another.
Bradbury, Ray: Fahrenheit 451 K
Dick, Philip K.: The Man In The High Castle¹ K
Frank, Anne: The Diary Of A Young Girl K
Lockhart, Robin Bruce: Reilly: Ace of Spies K
Marquis, John: Papa Doc: Portrait Of A Haitian Tyrant
Orwell, George: Animal Farm K
Orwell, George: 1984 K
Short, Philip: Pol Pot: Anatomy Of A Nightmare K
Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: One Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich K
Trunk, Isaiah: Judenrat
Webb, William: The Dictator
Wiesel, Elie: Night K
Hitler, Adolf: Mein Kampf K
Mazin, Craig and Johan Renck: Chernobyl (Five-part HBO miniseries)
Powell, William: The Anarchist Cookbook K
¹Also an Amazon Prime series
If you haven't the time to read, then meditate on these quotes:
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" Thomas Charlton
"The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair." H. L. Mencken
"We have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world, and it starts out with three words: 'We, the people.'" Ruth Bader Ginsburg
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln
--- Diogenes, 5/13/20
I hope that none of you have ever or ever will experience tyranny in real life,
but there are people highly placed in government who would very much like to have more power and would like the people to have less. I offer here some reading and viewing material by people who did experience tyranny in some of its worst forms that might help you recognize authoritarianism if it ever rears its ugly head.
These are standard works that will probably be in your local library. K=Kindle
Many of these works are challenging. If you start one and hate it, just grab another.
Bradbury, Ray: Fahrenheit 451 K
Dick, Philip K.: The Man In The High Castle¹ K
Frank, Anne: The Diary Of A Young Girl K
Lockhart, Robin Bruce: Reilly: Ace of Spies K
Marquis, John: Papa Doc: Portrait Of A Haitian Tyrant
Orwell, George: Animal Farm K
Orwell, George: 1984 K
Short, Philip: Pol Pot: Anatomy Of A Nightmare K
Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: One Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich K
Trunk, Isaiah: Judenrat
Webb, William: The Dictator
Wiesel, Elie: Night K
Hitler, Adolf: Mein Kampf K
Mazin, Craig and Johan Renck: Chernobyl (Five-part HBO miniseries)
Powell, William: The Anarchist Cookbook K
¹Also an Amazon Prime series
If you haven't the time to read, then meditate on these quotes:
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" Thomas Charlton
"The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair." H. L. Mencken
"We have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world, and it starts out with three words: 'We, the people.'" Ruth Bader Ginsburg
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln
--- Diogenes, 5/13/20
11 May 2020
Blogus Interruptus
I'm breaking into the daily flow of Vox Populi to ask you to watch the video below. I don't do this lightly; the clip is from the CNN program "Unfiltered," and it discloses some unusually troubling aspects of Donald Trump's behavior. Even if you've seen it elsewhere, please watch it again.
This isn't just another Trump-bashing tape. It includes a succinct and cogent discussion of how Trump controls his followers and the moral and ethical trap that many of them find themselves in as a result.
Earlier this month Trump was sent into a rampage by seeing an ad critical of his policies run by the Lincoln Project, a conservative Republican PAC that opposes his re-election.
In response he tweeted a broadside of insults and ad hominem attacks at Lincoln Project leaders. The words he uses are neither shocking nor unexpected, just his predictable limited monosyllabic vocabulary in full flow. What is troubling is the tone: sixth-grade bullyspeak. It is incoherent, rambling, and disconnected.
This is the man who is charged with preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution. One must ask if this rambling jibberjabber is all he can do to defend himself, how can he possibly stand up for the Constitution? If he can't muster words will he turn to weapons?
If the Twitter texts are not legible on your monitor, I have provided links to transcripts at the end of this post. The clip is about 11 minutes long. Sorry for the ad at the beginning.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/05/06/lincoln-project-trump-coronavirus-ad-se-cupp-intvu-vpx.cnn
If after viewing the video you have concerns about the stability of the president and/or his ability to conduct the affairs of his office, I urge you to contact your congressional representatives and share those concerns. Here are links to their contact information:
https://www.house.gov/
https://www.senate.gov/
--- Richard Brown, 5/11/20
https://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1257532112233803782
https://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1257532114666508291
https://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1257532110971318274
https://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1257532101966036993
This isn't just another Trump-bashing tape. It includes a succinct and cogent discussion of how Trump controls his followers and the moral and ethical trap that many of them find themselves in as a result.
Earlier this month Trump was sent into a rampage by seeing an ad critical of his policies run by the Lincoln Project, a conservative Republican PAC that opposes his re-election.
In response he tweeted a broadside of insults and ad hominem attacks at Lincoln Project leaders. The words he uses are neither shocking nor unexpected, just his predictable limited monosyllabic vocabulary in full flow. What is troubling is the tone: sixth-grade bullyspeak. It is incoherent, rambling, and disconnected.
This is the man who is charged with preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution. One must ask if this rambling jibberjabber is all he can do to defend himself, how can he possibly stand up for the Constitution? If he can't muster words will he turn to weapons?
If the Twitter texts are not legible on your monitor, I have provided links to transcripts at the end of this post. The clip is about 11 minutes long. Sorry for the ad at the beginning.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/05/06/lincoln-project-trump-coronavirus-ad-se-cupp-intvu-vpx.cnn
If after viewing the video you have concerns about the stability of the president and/or his ability to conduct the affairs of his office, I urge you to contact your congressional representatives and share those concerns. Here are links to their contact information:
https://www.house.gov/
https://www.senate.gov/
--- Richard Brown, 5/11/20
https://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1257532112233803782
https://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1257532114666508291
https://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1257532110971318274
https://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1257532101966036993
10 May 2020
Vacuum Sucks
If you've ever wondered what the phrase "vacuum of leadership" means, look around. You're in one.
Obfuscation, misinformation and doublespeak have characterized the Trump administration's response to COVID-19 almost since the beginning. The unpresident himself first denied, then downplayed, then ignored the virus. Until it came knocking at his door.
The first reported staff member to test positive was a presidential valet, who also happens to serve meals to the Denier-in-Command. Then came a spokesperson for the vice president, and now the top West Wing medical advisors have quarantined themselves. Yet the alleged leader of the country traipses around maskless, paying no attention to people from the CDC, who really do know what they're talking about.
Why is this important?
It's important because many of the Booboisie (Vox Populi, 5/6) are convinced they should follow his example, and they are a viral WMD waiting to infect God knows how many of their fellow Americans. Even a tiny bit, a smidgin, a soupçon of leadership from Washington urging followers to "do as the CDC says, not as I do," could potentially save many lives.
In the Louvre Museum in Paris is a painting by Antoine-Jean Gros¹ depicting Napoleon among plague victims in Jaffa (now in Israel). The general fearlessly reaches out with his bare hand to touch a victim's sore, a sure means of infection.
This is propaganda of the highest order. With this painting Gros effectively compared Napoleon with Jesus. The people of France would follow him anywhere.
Poor Trump has no Gros, no champion in the media who could give him the propaganda boost he so desperately craves. Even at the best of times he is not an inspirational person, not a leader to inspire sacrifice, not a charismatic figure to follow into battle. And no one can make him that.
What he can bring out, as I said a couple of days ago (5/8), is the "anger, racism, xenophobia and sense of disenfranchisement" that dwells in many of his supporters, and frequently erupts in violence.
Perhaps this is why his followers are drawn to him. Perhaps they sense that he shares those feelings. His actions and policies certainly reflect some commonality. Perhaps they don't want charisma. Perhaps they want someone like them: average, working class, conservative with traditional values, colorless and mediocre.
In Donald Trump they have certainly found that.
---Diogenes, 5/10/20
¹Central detail of Antoine-Jean Gros, Napoleon Among the Plague-Stricken at Jaffa, 1804.
Obfuscation, misinformation and doublespeak have characterized the Trump administration's response to COVID-19 almost since the beginning. The unpresident himself first denied, then downplayed, then ignored the virus. Until it came knocking at his door.
The first reported staff member to test positive was a presidential valet, who also happens to serve meals to the Denier-in-Command. Then came a spokesperson for the vice president, and now the top West Wing medical advisors have quarantined themselves. Yet the alleged leader of the country traipses around maskless, paying no attention to people from the CDC, who really do know what they're talking about.
Why is this important?
It's important because many of the Booboisie (Vox Populi, 5/6) are convinced they should follow his example, and they are a viral WMD waiting to infect God knows how many of their fellow Americans. Even a tiny bit, a smidgin, a soupçon of leadership from Washington urging followers to "do as the CDC says, not as I do," could potentially save many lives.
In the Louvre Museum in Paris is a painting by Antoine-Jean Gros¹ depicting Napoleon among plague victims in Jaffa (now in Israel). The general fearlessly reaches out with his bare hand to touch a victim's sore, a sure means of infection.
This is propaganda of the highest order. With this painting Gros effectively compared Napoleon with Jesus. The people of France would follow him anywhere.
Poor Trump has no Gros, no champion in the media who could give him the propaganda boost he so desperately craves. Even at the best of times he is not an inspirational person, not a leader to inspire sacrifice, not a charismatic figure to follow into battle. And no one can make him that.
What he can bring out, as I said a couple of days ago (5/8), is the "anger, racism, xenophobia and sense of disenfranchisement" that dwells in many of his supporters, and frequently erupts in violence.
Perhaps this is why his followers are drawn to him. Perhaps they sense that he shares those feelings. His actions and policies certainly reflect some commonality. Perhaps they don't want charisma. Perhaps they want someone like them: average, working class, conservative with traditional values, colorless and mediocre.
In Donald Trump they have certainly found that.
---Diogenes, 5/10/20
¹Central detail of Antoine-Jean Gros, Napoleon Among the Plague-Stricken at Jaffa, 1804.
09 May 2020
MIA: POTUS
You stand up in front of a large crowd, walk to a podium, place your hand on a holy book of your choice and say:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."*
This is an oath, a solemn promise to carry out a set of actions on behalf of the Constitution and the people of the United States of America. You do not--you can not--walk away from it, abrogate it, deny it or ignore it.
These are the most important thirty-five words you will ever utter. You are making a covenant with all Americans--not Latino, not African-American, not white, not Asian, not Native American, not male nor female--but all of us; every single one of the 331 million citizens of this sovereign country.
Your duty is clear and your job has only two requirements: 1): Execute the office to which you were elected, regardless of what it throws at you, always keeping in mind the welfare of those 331 million people who expect you to lead them; and 2): Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, every word and phrase of it, with honesty, fairness, and decency toward all. That is what you have sworn to do.
From ancient times oaths have been considered a special kind of promise. They are frequently taken in life-or-death situations and sometimes include a plea or reference to a deity. Merriam-Webster defines oath as: "a solemn attestation of the truth or inviolability of one's words."
And it was words that Americans came to hear, in person or remotely. They enjoyed the fireworks and the spectacle, followed the parade, gossiped about who was wearing what at the inaugural balls, but they came to witness the words that make this nation unique in the world, words that have provided peaceful transition of power for 231 years.
You said: “I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
If you have determined that you are unable to carry out your duties, you have two options. You can invoke the 25th Amendment, take a break and place the vice president in charge temporarily; or you can resign.
Make a decision. Respect your oath, or in the name of God, go!
--- Diogenes, for the American people, 5/9/20
* Original spelling and capitalization. The phrase "So help me, God" is optional.
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."*
This is an oath, a solemn promise to carry out a set of actions on behalf of the Constitution and the people of the United States of America. You do not--you can not--walk away from it, abrogate it, deny it or ignore it.
These are the most important thirty-five words you will ever utter. You are making a covenant with all Americans--not Latino, not African-American, not white, not Asian, not Native American, not male nor female--but all of us; every single one of the 331 million citizens of this sovereign country.
Your duty is clear and your job has only two requirements: 1): Execute the office to which you were elected, regardless of what it throws at you, always keeping in mind the welfare of those 331 million people who expect you to lead them; and 2): Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, every word and phrase of it, with honesty, fairness, and decency toward all. That is what you have sworn to do.
From ancient times oaths have been considered a special kind of promise. They are frequently taken in life-or-death situations and sometimes include a plea or reference to a deity. Merriam-Webster defines oath as: "a solemn attestation of the truth or inviolability of one's words."
And it was words that Americans came to hear, in person or remotely. They enjoyed the fireworks and the spectacle, followed the parade, gossiped about who was wearing what at the inaugural balls, but they came to witness the words that make this nation unique in the world, words that have provided peaceful transition of power for 231 years.
You said: “I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
If you have determined that you are unable to carry out your duties, you have two options. You can invoke the 25th Amendment, take a break and place the vice president in charge temporarily; or you can resign.
Make a decision. Respect your oath, or in the name of God, go!
--- Diogenes, for the American people, 5/9/20
* Original spelling and capitalization. The phrase "So help me, God" is optional.
08 May 2020
Were We Not Paying Attention, Or Did We Just Not Care?
Here are two comments about Trump's "The Apprentice," picked at random from the Internet Movie Database. I've made no edits or corrections.
"I used to like the show, but its become Donald Trumps own ego fest. Granted its his company you'll be working for, but come on! some of the things says "You're FIRED" is just insulting.
"after watching the show, I would not want to work for him. not because he is arrogant, pompous or such. Its just that the show is unrealistic and the way he handles things makes me just squirm. Good Entertainment? YES, but tiring as the back stabbing gets so tiring.. its not team work, its not personal, its just business. watch your back jack." 2/20/07
"I was at my friends house watching this, and it was the worst show I have seen in a long time. Uneventful, and lacking of any drama, I could easily slept through this. After I watched a couple of episodes I demanded my money back, which is crazy since I didn't spend any money to watch it. I wouldn't wish this on my enemy. I give this a 2, just for the fact that it gave Conan some material to make fun of Trump with. If your idea of a good time is to watch people act like they are the center of the universe, then this is for you. Otherwise this is a complete waste of time, not to mention money. Personally I would rather have a colon exam then watch this show again." 8/26/04
More than ten years before the ludicrous specter of a Trump presidency reared its obscene head, people were talking about the same atrocious behavior that troubles us today. Some of us may have echoed these volunteer reviewers at the time, or chuckled about them when jokes were made of them elsewhere on TV.
Why should we have paid attention to the antics of a boorish Manhattan real estate developer making a fool of himself trying to be a TV star? It was just Trump being Trump.
Then there it was: Against all odds, a Trump candidacy. Along with too many other Americans, I thought it was a joke.
I was a strong supporter of Bernie Sanders. I was sure he would be nominated, because he was the only potential Democratic candidate who could match Trump punch for punch. Either the DNC didn't take Trump seriously or their heads were so far up their collective backsides they couldn't see beyond Hillary. They put their bets on her and lost the race.
And we didn't know it until the end. The media continually told us, and probably told Hillary and the DNC, that a Trump win was impossible, even unthinkable. He was a political nobody. She was a former U.S. Senator and sitting Secretary of State with an immense following and inside knowledge of Washington. We convinced ourselves it would be an easy victory. We lied to ourselves.
In the final analysis, Hillary Clinton could not have won the 2016 election. Because she is a woman.
That is not a sexist statement but a matter of realpolitik. No one, including the DNC and the Clinton team, was prepared for the kind of blitzkrieg Trump launched, nor for the violence it fomented. Bernie had the chutzpah to match it, but Hillary was always playing catch-up.
Yes, she won the popular vote, but too few of us had been watching closely enough to see that she needed more to get past the Electoral College.
Trump managed to tap a deep vein of machismo that infects a sizeable percentage of white American men and to release the anger, racism, xenophobia and sense of disenfranchisement that flows through it, riding it to victory.
We can not, must not, shall not, let that happen again. Never Again!
--- Diogenes, 5/8/20
"I used to like the show, but its become Donald Trumps own ego fest. Granted its his company you'll be working for, but come on! some of the things says "You're FIRED" is just insulting.
"after watching the show, I would not want to work for him. not because he is arrogant, pompous or such. Its just that the show is unrealistic and the way he handles things makes me just squirm. Good Entertainment? YES, but tiring as the back stabbing gets so tiring.. its not team work, its not personal, its just business. watch your back jack." 2/20/07
"I was at my friends house watching this, and it was the worst show I have seen in a long time. Uneventful, and lacking of any drama, I could easily slept through this. After I watched a couple of episodes I demanded my money back, which is crazy since I didn't spend any money to watch it. I wouldn't wish this on my enemy. I give this a 2, just for the fact that it gave Conan some material to make fun of Trump with. If your idea of a good time is to watch people act like they are the center of the universe, then this is for you. Otherwise this is a complete waste of time, not to mention money. Personally I would rather have a colon exam then watch this show again." 8/26/04
More than ten years before the ludicrous specter of a Trump presidency reared its obscene head, people were talking about the same atrocious behavior that troubles us today. Some of us may have echoed these volunteer reviewers at the time, or chuckled about them when jokes were made of them elsewhere on TV.
Why should we have paid attention to the antics of a boorish Manhattan real estate developer making a fool of himself trying to be a TV star? It was just Trump being Trump.
Then there it was: Against all odds, a Trump candidacy. Along with too many other Americans, I thought it was a joke.
I was a strong supporter of Bernie Sanders. I was sure he would be nominated, because he was the only potential Democratic candidate who could match Trump punch for punch. Either the DNC didn't take Trump seriously or their heads were so far up their collective backsides they couldn't see beyond Hillary. They put their bets on her and lost the race.
And we didn't know it until the end. The media continually told us, and probably told Hillary and the DNC, that a Trump win was impossible, even unthinkable. He was a political nobody. She was a former U.S. Senator and sitting Secretary of State with an immense following and inside knowledge of Washington. We convinced ourselves it would be an easy victory. We lied to ourselves.
In the final analysis, Hillary Clinton could not have won the 2016 election. Because she is a woman.
That is not a sexist statement but a matter of realpolitik. No one, including the DNC and the Clinton team, was prepared for the kind of blitzkrieg Trump launched, nor for the violence it fomented. Bernie had the chutzpah to match it, but Hillary was always playing catch-up.
Yes, she won the popular vote, but too few of us had been watching closely enough to see that she needed more to get past the Electoral College.
Trump managed to tap a deep vein of machismo that infects a sizeable percentage of white American men and to release the anger, racism, xenophobia and sense of disenfranchisement that flows through it, riding it to victory.
We can not, must not, shall not, let that happen again. Never Again!
--- Diogenes, 5/8/20
07 May 2020
The Clown Prince
I have no interest whatsoever in knowing the Great Pretender's reading habits. (I sometimes envision the White House bookshelves lined with hundreds of copies of the ghostwritten The Art Of The Deal.) But I digress.
Whatever his reading habits might be, someone at some point in his life must have told him about Nicolo Machiavelli. The Italian diplomat and writer is best known today for his book The Prince, which many people associate with the concept "divide and conquer."
In The Prince, written in 1513, Machiavelli discusses ways in which the ruler of a government, whom he calls simply "a prince," might govern his land, offering different approaches to princes who have come to power in various ways, from the affirmation of his people to crookedness and villainy. (What might he have thought of an ex-host of a wretched TV "reality" show?) Sorry, digressing again.
He does have some blanket suggestions for all princes:
"A prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank." *
That last idea would certainly resound with the unpresident.
Machiavelli's ideal prince is:
"[A man who] deems it necessary in his new principality to secure himself against enemies, to gain friends, to conquer by force or fraud, to make himself beloved and feared by the people, followed and reverenced by the soldiers, to destroy those who can and may injure him, introduce innovations into old customs, to be severe and kind, magnanimous and liberal, suppress the old militia, create a new one, maintain the friendship of kings and princes in such a way that they are glad to benefit him and fear to injure him." **
This ideal prince shows different faces in different situations and speaks with a forked tongue. This is, in a sense, one way of dividing and conquering: set different sides at odds by telling them different "truths."
To the best of my knowledge the actual phrase "divide and conquer" does not appear in the original The Prince. Nor do I believe it to be in his later book, The Art of War.
Machiavelli was a soldier and strategian who knew war, which raged in greater or lesser conflicts all over Europe during his time. Today we're not talking a violent war, although the Clown Prince seems to think of himself as a generalissimo in the war on an invisible enemy (Movie: Superclown vs. The Virus From Outer Wuhan). But I digress yet again.
Machiavelli's ideas can still be applied, not in terms of actual war, but in the ideational struggles of our time: politics, corporate takeovers, stock market shenanigans, more politics.
This we know about the Clown Prince: The press is told one thing, the people another, then both stories are denied. At a public appearance one set of plans is proposed; at a meeting of people who can lend megabucks to a campaign something else is said; governors hear yet another swindle.
Fears about COVID-19 are raised, disputed, then argued some more. Qualified experts are touted, then denigrated when they start telling the truth. We get lie upon lie, hoax upon hoax, disrespect upon disrespect. It's the oldest con trick in the book: Keep your mark off balance.
"Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate." I've used that line from "The X-files" elsewhere, but we're seeing it everywhere now as the unpresident pulls out every dirty trick imaginable finagle re-election.
I know I'm preaching to the choir, but shall we not put down our music books and pick up bullhorns?
Whatever his reading habits might be, someone at some point in his life must have told him about Nicolo Machiavelli. The Italian diplomat and writer is best known today for his book The Prince, which many people associate with the concept "divide and conquer."
In The Prince, written in 1513, Machiavelli discusses ways in which the ruler of a government, whom he calls simply "a prince," might govern his land, offering different approaches to princes who have come to power in various ways, from the affirmation of his people to crookedness and villainy. (What might he have thought of an ex-host of a wretched TV "reality" show?) Sorry, digressing again.
He does have some blanket suggestions for all princes:
"A prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank." *
That last idea would certainly resound with the unpresident.
Machiavelli's ideal prince is:
"[A man who] deems it necessary in his new principality to secure himself against enemies, to gain friends, to conquer by force or fraud, to make himself beloved and feared by the people, followed and reverenced by the soldiers, to destroy those who can and may injure him, introduce innovations into old customs, to be severe and kind, magnanimous and liberal, suppress the old militia, create a new one, maintain the friendship of kings and princes in such a way that they are glad to benefit him and fear to injure him." **
This ideal prince shows different faces in different situations and speaks with a forked tongue. This is, in a sense, one way of dividing and conquering: set different sides at odds by telling them different "truths."
To the best of my knowledge the actual phrase "divide and conquer" does not appear in the original The Prince. Nor do I believe it to be in his later book, The Art of War.
Machiavelli was a soldier and strategian who knew war, which raged in greater or lesser conflicts all over Europe during his time. Today we're not talking a violent war, although the Clown Prince seems to think of himself as a generalissimo in the war on an invisible enemy (Movie: Superclown vs. The Virus From Outer Wuhan). But I digress yet again.
Machiavelli's ideas can still be applied, not in terms of actual war, but in the ideational struggles of our time: politics, corporate takeovers, stock market shenanigans, more politics.
This we know about the Clown Prince: The press is told one thing, the people another, then both stories are denied. At a public appearance one set of plans is proposed; at a meeting of people who can lend megabucks to a campaign something else is said; governors hear yet another swindle.
Fears about COVID-19 are raised, disputed, then argued some more. Qualified experts are touted, then denigrated when they start telling the truth. We get lie upon lie, hoax upon hoax, disrespect upon disrespect. It's the oldest con trick in the book: Keep your mark off balance.
"Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate." I've used that line from "The X-files" elsewhere, but we're seeing it everywhere now as the unpresident pulls out every dirty trick imaginable finagle re-election.
I know I'm preaching to the choir, but shall we not put down our music books and pick up bullhorns?
--- Diogenes, 5/7/20
* Machiavelli, Niccolo: The Prince, tr. Luigi Ricci. Oxford: The Oxford University Press, 1909, ch. 14.
** Machiavelli, Niccolo: The Prince, tr. Luigi Ricci. Oxford: The Oxford University Press, 1909, ch. 7.06 May 2020
On The Booboisie
I'm bringing out my man H. L. Mencken for an encore.
A couple of days ago I noted that Mencken called the American species Boobus Americanus. He refined that tag for "plain folk," as he called the middle class. He referred to them as the Booboisie, and wrote this about them:
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. No one in this world, so far as I know--and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me--has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."* [My emphasis]
Yes, that is harsh. Mencken was a snob, but he was also an astute observer of human behavior, and he called them as he saw them. An unfortunate fact of today's American society is that so many of us have become so politically correct we no longer actually say anything. We prevaricate, hedge, circumlocute and tergiversate** all over the place in our attempt to avoid insulting anyone.
I'm going to adopt Mencken's straightforward approach temporarily and do some generalizing.
Most of us have asked at one time or another who voted for Trump. Some of us have found the answer, which turns out to be what we expected, but for those who haven't yet got there, here it is, based on four independent studies of voting patterns.*** Most of these traits are found in a majority, but not the totality, of Trump voters.
The typical Trump voter in 2016 was most likely to be:
--- Diogenes, 5/6/20
* Mencken, H. L., Notes On Democracy, 1926
** A great word; I just learned it.
*** Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/exit-polls-who-voted-for-trump-clinton-2016-11
CNN: https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls
Pew Research Center: https://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/for-most-trump-voters-very-warm-feelings-for-him-endured/
Roper Center for Public Opinion Research: https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2016
A couple of days ago I noted that Mencken called the American species Boobus Americanus. He refined that tag for "plain folk," as he called the middle class. He referred to them as the Booboisie, and wrote this about them:
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. No one in this world, so far as I know--and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me--has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."* [My emphasis]
Yes, that is harsh. Mencken was a snob, but he was also an astute observer of human behavior, and he called them as he saw them. An unfortunate fact of today's American society is that so many of us have become so politically correct we no longer actually say anything. We prevaricate, hedge, circumlocute and tergiversate** all over the place in our attempt to avoid insulting anyone.
I'm going to adopt Mencken's straightforward approach temporarily and do some generalizing.
Most of us have asked at one time or another who voted for Trump. Some of us have found the answer, which turns out to be what we expected, but for those who haven't yet got there, here it is, based on four independent studies of voting patterns.*** Most of these traits are found in a majority, but not the totality, of Trump voters.
The typical Trump voter in 2016 was most likely to be:
- White
- Male
- Older than 45
- Conservative
- A high school graduate, possibly with some college
- Protestant or Evangelical
- A rural or suburban resident
- Earning more than $50,000 per year
- A veteran
- Primarily concerned about terrorism and immigration
- Supportive of the Mexican border wall and similar projects
- Angry with the federal government
- Convinced that Trump was honest, trustworthy, and qualified to be president.
--- Diogenes, 5/6/20
* Mencken, H. L., Notes On Democracy, 1926
** A great word; I just learned it.
*** Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/exit-polls-who-voted-for-trump-clinton-2016-11
CNN: https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls
Pew Research Center: https://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/for-most-trump-voters-very-warm-feelings-for-him-endured/
Roper Center for Public Opinion Research: https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2016
05 May 2020
Death In Ohio
I was forcibly reminded today that yesterday was the 50th anniversary of the Kent State massacre in Ohio. To my shame, I had forgotten the date. But not the event.
On May 4, 1970, armed Ohio National Guard troops who had been mobilized by Republican Governor Jim Rhodes confronted a group of students on the campus of Kent State University in Kent, Ohio. The students were protesting the American bombing of Cambodia, a neutral country. It was a major escalation of the Vietnam War.
Members of the Guard shot four students to death and wounded 9 others for exercising their First Amendment rights. Governor Rhodes denounced the protesters as terrorists, comparing them to communists, Nazis and the KKK, and calling them "the worst type of people that we harbor in America."
Say what? These were Americans exercising their rights. But Richard Nixon was president, and protest was not well tolerated.
I am aware that the Constitution gives us the right peaceably to assemble, and that passions were high at Kent State. The mayor of Kent and officers of the university had been spooked by rumors of everything from LSD in the water supply to plans to blow up the ROTC building.
The National Guard continues to deny any order to fire. Some of the guardsmen had been pelted with bricks and pieces of concrete. Some claimed they were responding to small-arms fire, others to reports of a rooftop sniper.
In fear or anger they fired indiscriminately, and 13 people, some of whom weren't involved at all, were hit.
Most of us who were active in what we naively called the Revolution abhorred violence. Kent State shocked us deeply and changed the protest movement in America. We had to decide how we would respond to the use of force.
One of our major goals was to get American soldiers out of Southeast Asia; but now we had a new concern. If they did come home, would the president turn them loose on us?
--- Diogenes, 5/5/20
On May 4, 1970, armed Ohio National Guard troops who had been mobilized by Republican Governor Jim Rhodes confronted a group of students on the campus of Kent State University in Kent, Ohio. The students were protesting the American bombing of Cambodia, a neutral country. It was a major escalation of the Vietnam War.
Members of the Guard shot four students to death and wounded 9 others for exercising their First Amendment rights. Governor Rhodes denounced the protesters as terrorists, comparing them to communists, Nazis and the KKK, and calling them "the worst type of people that we harbor in America."
Say what? These were Americans exercising their rights. But Richard Nixon was president, and protest was not well tolerated.
I am aware that the Constitution gives us the right peaceably to assemble, and that passions were high at Kent State. The mayor of Kent and officers of the university had been spooked by rumors of everything from LSD in the water supply to plans to blow up the ROTC building.
The National Guard continues to deny any order to fire. Some of the guardsmen had been pelted with bricks and pieces of concrete. Some claimed they were responding to small-arms fire, others to reports of a rooftop sniper.
In fear or anger they fired indiscriminately, and 13 people, some of whom weren't involved at all, were hit.
Most of us who were active in what we naively called the Revolution abhorred violence. Kent State shocked us deeply and changed the protest movement in America. We had to decide how we would respond to the use of force.
One of our major goals was to get American soldiers out of Southeast Asia; but now we had a new concern. If they did come home, would the president turn them loose on us?
--- Diogenes, 5/5/20
04 May 2020
A Moron In The White House
I've been thinking about H. L. Mencken recently, wondering what he might make of today's political situation. I admire the irreverent muckraking, wisecracking journalist whose work for The Baltimore Sun, The American Mercury, The Smart Set, and other journals enlivened American journalism from the 1920s through the '40s.
Mencken was an archetypal curmudgeon. He disliked everything: government, marriage, religion, politicians and people. He poked the rich, prodded the poor, and disparaged the middle classes. He coined the phrase "monkey trial" for Tennessee v. Scopes and referred to the American people as Boobus Americanus.
A bit less than a century ago he wrote this as part of a piece on elected officials:
We have reached that day, perhaps for this reason: "The men the American people admire most
extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most
violently are those who try to tell them the truth."**
Mencken claimed to dislike all forms of government including democracy, but he was well aware of the value and potential fragility of the American system: "The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-bye to the Bill of Rights."***
Mencken may have disliked government, but he certainly had his finger on its pulse. He even anticipated Mitch McConnell: "Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong."****
Mencken was not just a complainer. He had suggestions for righting social and political wrongs, and gave us some challenges for defeating government oppression (sorry for the sexclusive language):
"All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos."***** (My emphasis).
And he reminds us: "It doesn't take a majority to make a rebellion; it takes only a few determined leaders and a sound cause."******
We have the cause, getting rid of the moron in the White House. Let's find a few leaders.
--- Diogenes, 5/4/20
*Baltimore Evening Sun, 7/26/1920
**The Smart Set, vol. 67, 1922
***Baltimore Evening Sun, 3/13/1933
****Mencken, H. L., Minority Report, p. 282
*****"Le Contrat Social", in: Prejudices: Third Series (1922)
******The Smart Set, Vol, 71, p, 144
Mencken was an archetypal curmudgeon. He disliked everything: government, marriage, religion, politicians and people. He poked the rich, prodded the poor, and disparaged the middle classes. He coined the phrase "monkey trial" for Tennessee v. Scopes and referred to the American people as Boobus Americanus.
A bit less than a century ago he wrote this as part of a piece on elected officials:
"As democracy is perfected, the office of the president represents, more
and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty
ideal. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will
reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron."*
Mencken claimed to dislike all forms of government including democracy, but he was well aware of the value and potential fragility of the American system: "The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-bye to the Bill of Rights."***
Mencken may have disliked government, but he certainly had his finger on its pulse. He even anticipated Mitch McConnell: "Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong."****
Mencken was not just a complainer. He had suggestions for righting social and political wrongs, and gave us some challenges for defeating government oppression (sorry for the sexclusive language):
"All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos."***** (My emphasis).
And he reminds us: "It doesn't take a majority to make a rebellion; it takes only a few determined leaders and a sound cause."******
We have the cause, getting rid of the moron in the White House. Let's find a few leaders.
--- Diogenes, 5/4/20
*Baltimore Evening Sun, 7/26/1920
**The Smart Set, vol. 67, 1922
***Baltimore Evening Sun, 3/13/1933
****Mencken, H. L., Minority Report, p. 282
*****"Le Contrat Social", in: Prejudices: Third Series (1922)
******The Smart Set, Vol, 71, p, 144
03 May 2020
Apologies
My apologies to everyone who has commented on a post and received no response. The fault was mine, a mistake in setting up the program.
I knew I should have asked a grandchild to do it.
Diogenes will be back tomorrow with H. L. Mencken.
--- Richard Brown, 5/3/20
I knew I should have asked a grandchild to do it.
Diogenes will be back tomorrow with H. L. Mencken.
--- Richard Brown, 5/3/20
02 May 2020
В «Правде» нет «Известий», в «Известиях» нет «Правды»
The Russian title is a pun about newspapers in the Soviet era. There were two national papers: Izvestiya, which roughly translates as "News," was the official newspaper of the Soviet government; Pravda, which means "Truth," was the official news outlet of the Central Committee of the Communist Party.
The pun says, "There is no 'Izvestiya' in 'Pravda,' and no 'Pravda' in 'Izvestiya'." That is, "There is no news in the truth and no truth in the news," and speaking it in the wrong company could get you tossed in jail.
That is why the framers of the Constitution insisted on free speech and a free press.
As Americans we have the right not only to say what we think, but also to publish it. If the government takes a position we do not agree with, we are free to speak and publish protests against it.
American journalism has been something of a rough-and-tumble enterprise almost from the beginning, but it has always been imbued with a kind of nobility, especially when reporting the news. Such was the case through the era of radio and the first few decades of television.
Sadly, it has not been the case since the mid-1980s when Rupert Murdoch began infecting American news media. Through the 1980s and '90s, entertainment gained primacy, which led to news programs that had more in common with entertainment than with traditional news reporting.
We have now reached a pass where it can be said of much American news reporting, "There is neither truth nor news in the news."
I am not going to comment on any network or station or channel, or make any recommendations based on my own opinions. What I have to offer, for those of you who might be interested, are a few links that might help navigate the sea of un-news and disinformation.
A Wikipedia article on the history of false news and how to detect it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news#Detecting_fake_news_online
The transcript library of Rev.com, where you can find verbatim transcripts of almost everything newsworthy:
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts
For purposes of comparing and contrasting, here's the official White House transcript site:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/
Another site for identifying falsehoods in the news:
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/how-to-spot-fake-news/
There are many more such sites and I urge you to find some you like so you can do your own fact checking. I trust those above--well, except the White House, of course.
--- Diogenes, 5/2/20
Fox News is a brand name, not a descriptor of content.
The pun says, "There is no 'Izvestiya' in 'Pravda,' and no 'Pravda' in 'Izvestiya'." That is, "There is no news in the truth and no truth in the news," and speaking it in the wrong company could get you tossed in jail.
That is why the framers of the Constitution insisted on free speech and a free press.
As Americans we have the right not only to say what we think, but also to publish it. If the government takes a position we do not agree with, we are free to speak and publish protests against it.
American journalism has been something of a rough-and-tumble enterprise almost from the beginning, but it has always been imbued with a kind of nobility, especially when reporting the news. Such was the case through the era of radio and the first few decades of television.
Sadly, it has not been the case since the mid-1980s when Rupert Murdoch began infecting American news media. Through the 1980s and '90s, entertainment gained primacy, which led to news programs that had more in common with entertainment than with traditional news reporting.
We have now reached a pass where it can be said of much American news reporting, "There is neither truth nor news in the news."
I am not going to comment on any network or station or channel, or make any recommendations based on my own opinions. What I have to offer, for those of you who might be interested, are a few links that might help navigate the sea of un-news and disinformation.
A Wikipedia article on the history of false news and how to detect it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news#Detecting_fake_news_online
The transcript library of Rev.com, where you can find verbatim transcripts of almost everything newsworthy:
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts
For purposes of comparing and contrasting, here's the official White House transcript site:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/
Another site for identifying falsehoods in the news:
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/how-to-spot-fake-news/
There are many more such sites and I urge you to find some you like so you can do your own fact checking. I trust those above--well, except the White House, of course.
--- Diogenes, 5/2/20
Fox News is a brand name, not a descriptor of content.
01 May 2020
Freedom to Think, Part 2
Yesterday I wrote about the most important freedom we have: the freedom to think, because all the types of expression enumerated in the First Amendment spring from thought. I also urged you all to exercise those First Amendment rights frequently.
I like to believe that everyone who receives these posts is an active advocate and practitioner of First Amendment rights, but I am aware of the chronic lack of interest in action, not to say apathy, that infects many Americans.
I recently mentioned the "Know-nothing" party and their habit of saying "I know nothing" when asked about their political affiliation. Here in 2020 America we say "I don't want to get involved," or "One person never makes a difference," or "No politician ever looks at letters," or "Nothing I can do can matter."
Wrong on all counts. If you are a United States citizen you are automatically involved because the laws and rules of the nation apply to you. Changes made by politicians can affect nearly everything in your life, and you have the right to speak for or against those changes. Not exercising your rights is tantamount to not having them. If you do nothing else, vote.
One person can make a big difference. I always recall the Chinese proverb quoted by JFK: "A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step." To paraphrase, "A world-changing movement must begin with a single person." You don't have to act alone. Find an organization, locally or online, that suits your political and/or social interests and join it.
It is probably true that you won't get a personal response from letters to politicians; the best you can hope for is a form letter sent by an intern. That's not to say your action was wasted. Letters are counted and sorted by subject, and numbers count. If your representative sees a huge influx of letters on one issue, you can bet that it's going to get to a higher rung on her agenda.
Finally, the nihilist excuse: "Nothing matters." Horsefeathers. Every person matters, and every action has an impact. Where do you think you would be today if the framers of the Constitution had thought that way?
As an independent blogger with limited resources and a short reach I've asked myself more than once if researching material and sitting in front of my computer for hours is worth the effort, when maybe only a dozen people might read it. And I always come back to the same answer: Yes. We can't know where our words go. We can't know they won't make a difference to someone with influence. Above all, we must have hope and faith, and belief in our cause.
If you decide to write a letter, don't worry about your abilities, or about grammar and spelling. Do the best you can to get your point across in clear language. Don't wander off the subject. Keep it short and to the point, even if it's just one typed line. Remember the numbers game: every piece of mail helps.
Above all, regardless of how you feel about the person you are writing, be respectful. Think that you are writing to the office, not the person. Government offices in the United States are always due respect, no matter what a schlump the incumbent might be; and never, never, never, use profanity or foul language.
Finally, do not write in anger. It will go nowhere. I ask you to trust my personal experience in this. If you write an angry, inflammatory letter, save it and go away from it until you cool down. Passion can be communicated in civil language and be more effective for it.
Happy May Day.
--- Diogenes, 5/1/20
I like to believe that everyone who receives these posts is an active advocate and practitioner of First Amendment rights, but I am aware of the chronic lack of interest in action, not to say apathy, that infects many Americans.
I recently mentioned the "Know-nothing" party and their habit of saying "I know nothing" when asked about their political affiliation. Here in 2020 America we say "I don't want to get involved," or "One person never makes a difference," or "No politician ever looks at letters," or "Nothing I can do can matter."
Wrong on all counts. If you are a United States citizen you are automatically involved because the laws and rules of the nation apply to you. Changes made by politicians can affect nearly everything in your life, and you have the right to speak for or against those changes. Not exercising your rights is tantamount to not having them. If you do nothing else, vote.
One person can make a big difference. I always recall the Chinese proverb quoted by JFK: "A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step." To paraphrase, "A world-changing movement must begin with a single person." You don't have to act alone. Find an organization, locally or online, that suits your political and/or social interests and join it.
It is probably true that you won't get a personal response from letters to politicians; the best you can hope for is a form letter sent by an intern. That's not to say your action was wasted. Letters are counted and sorted by subject, and numbers count. If your representative sees a huge influx of letters on one issue, you can bet that it's going to get to a higher rung on her agenda.
Finally, the nihilist excuse: "Nothing matters." Horsefeathers. Every person matters, and every action has an impact. Where do you think you would be today if the framers of the Constitution had thought that way?
As an independent blogger with limited resources and a short reach I've asked myself more than once if researching material and sitting in front of my computer for hours is worth the effort, when maybe only a dozen people might read it. And I always come back to the same answer: Yes. We can't know where our words go. We can't know they won't make a difference to someone with influence. Above all, we must have hope and faith, and belief in our cause.
If you decide to write a letter, don't worry about your abilities, or about grammar and spelling. Do the best you can to get your point across in clear language. Don't wander off the subject. Keep it short and to the point, even if it's just one typed line. Remember the numbers game: every piece of mail helps.
Above all, regardless of how you feel about the person you are writing, be respectful. Think that you are writing to the office, not the person. Government offices in the United States are always due respect, no matter what a schlump the incumbent might be; and never, never, never, use profanity or foul language.
Finally, do not write in anger. It will go nowhere. I ask you to trust my personal experience in this. If you write an angry, inflammatory letter, save it and go away from it until you cool down. Passion can be communicated in civil language and be more effective for it.
Happy May Day.
--- Diogenes, 5/1/20
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)