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.
U.S. Constitution
The voice of the people
02 May 2020
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
30 April 2020
Freedom To Think, Part 1
The freedoms guaranteed to Americans in the First Amendment are usually referred to as freedoms of expression: to worship as we choose, praising whichever deity we revere; to speak freely on any subject, and to publish our words and ideas without fear of censorship or reprisal; to gather peaceably together whenever and wherever we wish for any reason; and to approach representatives of the government freely when we have a complaint.
We take these freedoms for granted; and why not? They have been the foundation of our society all our lives, and for all the lives of our American ancestors for generations.
Using his own country as an example, Winston Churchill succinctly described the difference between democratic and totalitarian governments: “In England, everything is permitted except what is forbidden. In [Nazi] Germany, everything is forbidden except what is permitted."
The rhetorical question "It's not illegal to think, is it?" pops up frequently in crime shows, usually when a person is feeling undue pressure from police. In point of fact, in some regimes it is technically forbidden to have ideas the rulers perceive as a threat.
As far as the public knows, police and other investigative agencies haven't developed mind-reading techniques. But profiling, close watching, and electronic surveillance are the next best thing. In totalitarian societies those techniques are routinely applied to everyone. A few innocent unusual acts, an "inflammatory" word uttered, a chance meeting with a stranger, and a citizen of North Korea, Syria, or Uzbekistan might find themselves arrested on suspicion of being an enemy of the state; and suspicion is sometimes all it takes to make a person disappear.
It's not exactly thought control, but when every person in a country is automatically under suspicion of subversion and only a misstep away from arrest, it might as well be. All expression except that in praise of the government is throttled, and eventually no one but extreme revolutionaries dares to think anything else.
There are individuals in this country, many of them in power at the state or federal level, who would prefer to see such a condition in the United States. Happily for us, that would be very difficult to achieve.
But not impossible. Edmund Burke* wrote that "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Rights are like muscles. If not exercised, they atrophy. We the people of the United States owe it to ourselves, our ancestors and our descendants to exercise our rights, letting the present administration know our extreme displeasure with it.
Let your voice be heard. It's the most powerful weapon you have. Speak truth to wannabe tyrants in blogs, tweets, letters to editors and to your senators and representatives. Use any medium available to voice your resistance to encroaching tyranny, because you have the right to think, to speak, and to protest.
Please check in tomorrow for some thoughts on the process of protest.
--- Diogenes, 4/30/20
*The statement is attributed to Burke, with some uncertainty.
We take these freedoms for granted; and why not? They have been the foundation of our society all our lives, and for all the lives of our American ancestors for generations.
Using his own country as an example, Winston Churchill succinctly described the difference between democratic and totalitarian governments: “In England, everything is permitted except what is forbidden. In [Nazi] Germany, everything is forbidden except what is permitted."
The rhetorical question "It's not illegal to think, is it?" pops up frequently in crime shows, usually when a person is feeling undue pressure from police. In point of fact, in some regimes it is technically forbidden to have ideas the rulers perceive as a threat.
As far as the public knows, police and other investigative agencies haven't developed mind-reading techniques. But profiling, close watching, and electronic surveillance are the next best thing. In totalitarian societies those techniques are routinely applied to everyone. A few innocent unusual acts, an "inflammatory" word uttered, a chance meeting with a stranger, and a citizen of North Korea, Syria, or Uzbekistan might find themselves arrested on suspicion of being an enemy of the state; and suspicion is sometimes all it takes to make a person disappear.
It's not exactly thought control, but when every person in a country is automatically under suspicion of subversion and only a misstep away from arrest, it might as well be. All expression except that in praise of the government is throttled, and eventually no one but extreme revolutionaries dares to think anything else.
There are individuals in this country, many of them in power at the state or federal level, who would prefer to see such a condition in the United States. Happily for us, that would be very difficult to achieve.
But not impossible. Edmund Burke* wrote that "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Rights are like muscles. If not exercised, they atrophy. We the people of the United States owe it to ourselves, our ancestors and our descendants to exercise our rights, letting the present administration know our extreme displeasure with it.
Let your voice be heard. It's the most powerful weapon you have. Speak truth to wannabe tyrants in blogs, tweets, letters to editors and to your senators and representatives. Use any medium available to voice your resistance to encroaching tyranny, because you have the right to think, to speak, and to protest.
Please check in tomorrow for some thoughts on the process of protest.
--- Diogenes, 4/30/20
*The statement is attributed to Burke, with some uncertainty.
28 April 2020
There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See
The proverb in the title continues, "The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore
what they already know." The biblical saying first appears in English in 1546, in "The Proverbs of John Heywood."
In the early 1860s a political movement called the Know-nothings emerged in the United States. Their philosophy was in fact not one of ignorance. The name stemmed from their desire to keep the party more or less secret; when a member was asked anything about it he would respond "I know nothing."
The phrase, however, resounds in a tendency in this country to value ignorance.
I have lately been contemplating a pair of epigrams that encapsulate our ambivalence toward learning. On one hand we say "Knowledge is power," but on the other, "Ignorance is bliss." The dichotomy is difficult, if not impossible to reconcile.
Don't we all seek power in some form? We are a competitive species; we seek to overcome others in school by getting better grades; in sports by scoring more points; in business by making more money or having a more prestigious office location. Each of those requires knowledge and understanding, whether of an academic discipline, a playbook or a corporate strategy.
But don't we all also seek bliss? We scrimp and save for Fantasyland vacations, we spend thousands on computer gaming and virtual reality systems and dream of winning the lottery, all to the end of shedding stress, relieving ourselves of work related concerns and trying, as The Beatles sang, to "turn off your mind, relax and float down stream."
Such scenarios, however, do not in themselves imply ignorance. Indeed, we have to work to earn money to get a little bliss, and working implies knowledge of something.
Who, then, can achieve bliss through ignorance? Let's define ignorance. According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary it is "lack of knowledge, education, or awareness." Blissfulness results from not having to worry; if one knows nothing, one has nothing to worry about.
If bliss is the absence of worry and stress it follows that there is also absence of thought, as worry and stress are byproducts of thought. Having no thoughts implies the inability to think, which I doubt sounds blissful to most of us.
Still, there are some among us who are able to achieve a bliss-like state not through absence of thought but through wholesale denial of reality. They believe that problems will go away if they don't think about them; they deny their existence then deny the denial; they flout rules that they don't like; they operate outside normative behavior, and they answer to no one.
They are Heywood's "most deluded people . . . who choose to ignore what they already know."
And they are in charge of this country.
--- Diogenes, 4/28/20
In the early 1860s a political movement called the Know-nothings emerged in the United States. Their philosophy was in fact not one of ignorance. The name stemmed from their desire to keep the party more or less secret; when a member was asked anything about it he would respond "I know nothing."
The phrase, however, resounds in a tendency in this country to value ignorance.
I have lately been contemplating a pair of epigrams that encapsulate our ambivalence toward learning. On one hand we say "Knowledge is power," but on the other, "Ignorance is bliss." The dichotomy is difficult, if not impossible to reconcile.
Don't we all seek power in some form? We are a competitive species; we seek to overcome others in school by getting better grades; in sports by scoring more points; in business by making more money or having a more prestigious office location. Each of those requires knowledge and understanding, whether of an academic discipline, a playbook or a corporate strategy.
But don't we all also seek bliss? We scrimp and save for Fantasyland vacations, we spend thousands on computer gaming and virtual reality systems and dream of winning the lottery, all to the end of shedding stress, relieving ourselves of work related concerns and trying, as The Beatles sang, to "turn off your mind, relax and float down stream."
Such scenarios, however, do not in themselves imply ignorance. Indeed, we have to work to earn money to get a little bliss, and working implies knowledge of something.
Who, then, can achieve bliss through ignorance? Let's define ignorance. According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary it is "lack of knowledge, education, or awareness." Blissfulness results from not having to worry; if one knows nothing, one has nothing to worry about.
If bliss is the absence of worry and stress it follows that there is also absence of thought, as worry and stress are byproducts of thought. Having no thoughts implies the inability to think, which I doubt sounds blissful to most of us.
Still, there are some among us who are able to achieve a bliss-like state not through absence of thought but through wholesale denial of reality. They believe that problems will go away if they don't think about them; they deny their existence then deny the denial; they flout rules that they don't like; they operate outside normative behavior, and they answer to no one.
They are Heywood's "most deluded people . . . who choose to ignore what they already know."
And they are in charge of this country.
--- Diogenes, 4/28/20
26 April 2020
Donald John Trump: an overview and the last Trumpcentric post for a while.
Ethnicity: German/Scottish/American; Trump's grandparents were German immigrants. His mother immigrated from Scotland.
Education: High school: New York Military Academy; B.S., Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania.
Profession: Real estate developer.
Marital status: Married, twice divorced.
Current Occupation: President of the United States of America.
Consider the facts, starting with the fact that he is only a third-generation American, a newcomer. Yet he led the "birther" challenge against Barack Obama. This might suggest more than a bit of hypocrisy if it weren't such common knowledge that the attack was racially motivated.
Given his family's short tenure in the United States and his mixed blood, one wonders why Trump is so rabidly xenophobic. Foreign-born though they were, Trump's ancestors appear to have been exclusively white. His phobia of Mexicans and dislike of Orientals suggest a deep-seated problem with persons of color.
The New York Military Academy uniform was the only one Trump ever wore. Presidents without military experience are no longer rare, but this one never served his country in any way prior to running for its highest office.
A bachelor's degree in economics is the extent of Trump's education. Yet he routinely challenges medical doctors and other highly trained professional experts.
A boor and a bully, Trump has routinely paraded facts of his failed marriages and sexual conquests through the press, victimizing his wives and partners and soiling himself with the filth of his ego and libido.
He must be brought down and cast out.
---Diogenes, 4/26/20
25 April 2020
Presidential Qualities
Things a president of the United States of America should be:
Things a president of the United States of America should not be:
---Diogenes, 4/25/20
- Intelligent
- Respectful of the Constitution
- Empathetic
- Good listener
- Patriotic
- Considerate of others
- Circumspect
- Leader by example
- Even tempered
- Honest
Things a president of the United States of America should not be:
- Rude
- Racist
- Xenophobic
- Reckless
- Misogynistic
- Disrespectful of others
- Snide
- Vindictive
- Liar
- Belligerent
---Diogenes, 4/25/20
24 April 2020
On Maturity
As children, when we say we like something, we're also declaring it to be good. Conversely, what we don't like is bad. Use the phrase "good for you" trying to convince a child under a certain age that a food they don't like is healthy, and they're likely to respond "no, it's not." The child isn't arguing the point that the food is healthy, but simply restating her preferences because the modifier "for you" doesn't register.
As we mature we begin to understand distinctions between absolute descriptors like "good" and conditional ones like "good for you." Some things do not change, however. When we say we like vanilla ice cream we will always mean "it's good," because the gustatory experience is completely sensual and completely subjective.
In other areas we learn there are different ways of seeing most things. Objective and subjective perception, for example, which as children we conflated into like= good and dislike=bad, are very different. Most experiences and encounters in life can be objectively measured and evaluated, either by intrinsic qualities, such as a work of art, or by social and/or cultural norms, by which we define relationships and behaviors.
As adults we are able to discern those distinctions. We comprehend that it is entirely possible to dislike something that can be shown logically to be intrinsically good, and we can like something that is flawed. We have learned to apply reason. We say we like/dislike something for aspects of its existence. Our reasoning is no longer "I like that and therefore it's good," but "I like that for these reasons . . ."
There are some people whose development never quite got to the point of making the subjective/objective distinction, who remain locked into the pattern of things they like being good and things they don't like being bad. If this is sounding familiar it's because many of those people are afflicted with a mental condition I discussed in my April 17 post, Narcissism.
The condition was named for the mythological Greek youth Narcissus, who lay for so long gazing into a pond admiring his own reflection that he took root and turned into the flower named after him.
We are burdened with a president who is afflicted with an extreme case of the condition. It is evident in a number of ways, including his speech habits. Select almost any of his public utterances at random and you will find the like=good, dislike=bad equations.
The concerning thing about this is not the grammar; it's the fact that these are totally subjective expressions. It's true that he does occasionally use the first person plural, but it's unclear whether he's referring to a team or using it in the royal sense.
The point is that the unpresident frequently speaks in the fashion of a monarch--or a tyrant. He is prone to unilateral action and should be watched closely for evidence of instability.
---Diogenes, 4/24/20
As we mature we begin to understand distinctions between absolute descriptors like "good" and conditional ones like "good for you." Some things do not change, however. When we say we like vanilla ice cream we will always mean "it's good," because the gustatory experience is completely sensual and completely subjective.
In other areas we learn there are different ways of seeing most things. Objective and subjective perception, for example, which as children we conflated into like= good and dislike=bad, are very different. Most experiences and encounters in life can be objectively measured and evaluated, either by intrinsic qualities, such as a work of art, or by social and/or cultural norms, by which we define relationships and behaviors.
As adults we are able to discern those distinctions. We comprehend that it is entirely possible to dislike something that can be shown logically to be intrinsically good, and we can like something that is flawed. We have learned to apply reason. We say we like/dislike something for aspects of its existence. Our reasoning is no longer "I like that and therefore it's good," but "I like that for these reasons . . ."
There are some people whose development never quite got to the point of making the subjective/objective distinction, who remain locked into the pattern of things they like being good and things they don't like being bad. If this is sounding familiar it's because many of those people are afflicted with a mental condition I discussed in my April 17 post, Narcissism.
The condition was named for the mythological Greek youth Narcissus, who lay for so long gazing into a pond admiring his own reflection that he took root and turned into the flower named after him.
We are burdened with a president who is afflicted with an extreme case of the condition. It is evident in a number of ways, including his speech habits. Select almost any of his public utterances at random and you will find the like=good, dislike=bad equations.
The concerning thing about this is not the grammar; it's the fact that these are totally subjective expressions. It's true that he does occasionally use the first person plural, but it's unclear whether he's referring to a team or using it in the royal sense.
The point is that the unpresident frequently speaks in the fashion of a monarch--or a tyrant. He is prone to unilateral action and should be watched closely for evidence of instability.
---Diogenes, 4/24/20
23 April 2020
Happy Birthday, Will
Today is Shakespeare's birthday, which Diogenes always takes off to contemplate the Bard and read a few of his plays and maybe a sonnet or three. Aloud, of course.
Back tomorrow.
Back tomorrow.
22 April 2020
The Power of Money
Since the mid-1980s Donald Trump has been a party to or has been named in an estimated 3,500 to 4,000 lawsuits.
Take a moment to wrap your head around that. Excepting divorce, the vast majority of us never encounter a lawsuit, and when we do it can be a traumatic experience. Yet the president of these United States is involved with approximately 100 a year which leave him unscathed because using the courts as a tool is just a part of doing business.
Yes, Trump is above all a businessman, and the number and kinds of the businesses he controls are frequently involved in litigation; nearly half the cases involved his casinos, some of which are known to have attracted major crime figures.
Still, an in-depth study conducted by USA Today found that "the number of cases in which Trump is involved is extraordinary. For comparison, USA TODAY analyzed the legal involvement for five top real-estate business executives: Edward DeBartolo, shopping-center developer and former San Francisco 49ers owner; Donald Bren, Irvine Company chairman and owner; Stephen Ross, Time Warner Center developer; Sam Zell, Chicago real-estate magnate; and Larry Silverstein, a New York developer famous for his involvement in the World Trade Center properties.
---Diogenes, 4/22/20
*https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/
**https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/opinion/campaign-stops/donald-trumps-playbook-for-smearing.html
Take a moment to wrap your head around that. Excepting divorce, the vast majority of us never encounter a lawsuit, and when we do it can be a traumatic experience. Yet the president of these United States is involved with approximately 100 a year which leave him unscathed because using the courts as a tool is just a part of doing business.
Yes, Trump is above all a businessman, and the number and kinds of the businesses he controls are frequently involved in litigation; nearly half the cases involved his casinos, some of which are known to have attracted major crime figures.
Still, an in-depth study conducted by USA Today found that "the number of cases in which Trump is involved is extraordinary. For comparison, USA TODAY analyzed the legal involvement for five top real-estate business executives: Edward DeBartolo, shopping-center developer and former San Francisco 49ers owner; Donald Bren, Irvine Company chairman and owner; Stephen Ross, Time Warner Center developer; Sam Zell, Chicago real-estate magnate; and Larry Silverstein, a New York developer famous for his involvement in the World Trade Center properties.
"To maintain an
apples-to-apples comparison, only actions that used the developers'
names were included. The analysis found Trump has been involved in more
legal skirmishes than all five of the others — combined."*
"Knowledge is power," wrote Sir Francis Bacon, but for the obscenely rich such as Trump, money is power, and it is used as a tool and a weapon. Commanding a host of attorneys, he effectively employs the legal strategy of counterpunching. Larry Schwartz, ghostwriter of "The Art of the Deal," described the process: "So
somebody comes after him and says that he’s done something nefarious and
horrible, and he just goes back at them with all guns blazing — you know, boom, boom, boom. And admits nothing, never admit anything, never say you made a mistake, just keep coming."**
The offenses for which the unpresident has been sued range from real estate fraud to racial prejudice. He has no mercy. Opponents, whether wealthy players or persons of color seeking affordable housing, receive the same devastating response.
Trump does not understand the concept of respect, because that would require him to acknowledge the worth of other individuals. He will lie, cheat, use the law as a bludgeon when he can; he will insult, defame, ridicule and slander anyone at the slightest provocation, and later deny it.
He has respect neither for the law nor for the courts that administer it, manipulating them as tools to attain his ends. By extension he has no respect for the Constitution, the foundation of our law, even though he has sworn to preserve, protect and defend it. For that alone he should be charged with perjury.
And this is the president of the United States of America.
Trump does not understand the concept of respect, because that would require him to acknowledge the worth of other individuals. He will lie, cheat, use the law as a bludgeon when he can; he will insult, defame, ridicule and slander anyone at the slightest provocation, and later deny it.
He has respect neither for the law nor for the courts that administer it, manipulating them as tools to attain his ends. By extension he has no respect for the Constitution, the foundation of our law, even though he has sworn to preserve, protect and defend it. For that alone he should be charged with perjury.
And this is the president of the United States of America.
*https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/
**https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/opinion/campaign-stops/donald-trumps-playbook-for-smearing.html
20 April 2020
Rocks and Hard Places
Our language contains several colorful adages that use dilemmas to describe being in a difficult situation: being between a rock and a hard place; between the devil and the deep blue sea; and, harking back to when the classics were included in education, between Scylla and Charybdis.
Here is a new one for our times--a dilemma that affects every American, strains the fabric of society, tests our resolve to be decent, and sets us unnecessarily against one another: we are between Trump and truth.
Fact-checking journalists and others who value the truth estimate that Trump has lied to the American people approximately 16,240 times since being elected president. That works out to slightly more than ten lies a day that are passing the presidential lips.
Of course the Liar-in-Chief denies every one, turning the blame to journalists who he claims lie about him--one of the behaviors we discussed in our recent series about Trump's mental state. He currently has active libel suits against the New York Times and The Washington Post, which he will not win, because as journalists say, "It's not libel if it's true."
Nonetheless, such cases are costly to defend. Trump doesn't mind losing them--his goal is either to bankrupt the defendant or to make it so expensive to tell the truth about him that the media will back off.
Trump has made it clear that one of his goals, if re-elected, is to "reform" the libel laws in favor of plaintiffs. And that my friends, would begin the erosion of the First Amendment rights of free speech and a free press.
Thence our dilemma. This man is our elected leader. But how can we, in any conscience, follow a leader who has no interest in our welfare, who lies to us as a matter of habit, who routinely disregards the Constitution he has sworn to uphold and defend, and whose energies are dedicated solely to being re-elected?
--Diogenes, 4/20/20
Here is a new one for our times--a dilemma that affects every American, strains the fabric of society, tests our resolve to be decent, and sets us unnecessarily against one another: we are between Trump and truth.
Fact-checking journalists and others who value the truth estimate that Trump has lied to the American people approximately 16,240 times since being elected president. That works out to slightly more than ten lies a day that are passing the presidential lips.
Of course the Liar-in-Chief denies every one, turning the blame to journalists who he claims lie about him--one of the behaviors we discussed in our recent series about Trump's mental state. He currently has active libel suits against the New York Times and The Washington Post, which he will not win, because as journalists say, "It's not libel if it's true."
Nonetheless, such cases are costly to defend. Trump doesn't mind losing them--his goal is either to bankrupt the defendant or to make it so expensive to tell the truth about him that the media will back off.
Trump has made it clear that one of his goals, if re-elected, is to "reform" the libel laws in favor of plaintiffs. And that my friends, would begin the erosion of the First Amendment rights of free speech and a free press.
Thence our dilemma. This man is our elected leader. But how can we, in any conscience, follow a leader who has no interest in our welfare, who lies to us as a matter of habit, who routinely disregards the Constitution he has sworn to uphold and defend, and whose energies are dedicated solely to being re-elected?
--Diogenes, 4/20/20
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)