[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
U.S. Constitution
The foundation of the United States of America
11 June 2020
09 June 2020
Cops: Defund Or Defend?
In the wake of the documented killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer and the subsequent protests, a number of cities across America are moving to reform their police forces. Even Congress is getting into the act.
This is generally a good thing, but it must be done carefully and reasonably. Above all, it should not be done as a knee-jerk reaction to one case, however horrific, of police brutality.
It must be done in consideration of the public's safety. All the public: black, white, Asian, Latino, straight, gay, Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, rich, poor, homeless, addicted--the entire panoply of this remarkably diverse nation.
Unlike several other countries, the United States does not have a paramilitary national police force. Instead, we have insanely over-armed local forces who routinely deploy battlefield weapons on the streets, including their favorite, tear gas, which was outlawed as a weapon of war by the Geneva Protocol of 1925. But it's OK to use on civilians.
Following the 1965 Watts riot, some larger police forces began increasing their armamentaria to include heavy automatic weapons and grenades, armored personnel carriers, and adopting military-style gear and tactics. This militarization increased during the 1980s drug wars, which saw the proliferation of SWAT forces. Since the late 1990s, police departments have been able to acquire excess military equipment of all kinds, bulking up their arsenals sufficiently to fight a small war. And they've been getting away with murder.
Since 2003, more than 1,000 Americans have been killed by police each year,¹ and the vast majority of them were not criminals. There is ample evidence that militarization is both ineffective and unequal. One study from 2018 showed that "militarized 'special weapons and tactics' (SWAT) teams are more often deployed in communities of color, and—contrary to claims by police administrators—provide no detectable benefits in terms of officer safety or violent crime reduction, on average."²
Not surprisingly, there are very few government programs that keep track of civilian deaths by police. There are a few in the private realm, but none of them agree exactly just how many non-criminals have been killed by police. One thing they do agree on is that people of color are disproportionately at risk, and that about 90% of such deaths are caused by gunshot.
I do not agree with any action that would abolish a police force or reduce it to ineffectiveness. That would invite chaos and vigilantism. But reform is unquestionably needed in many American police organizations.
Police officers are not soldiers, and police forces should not look at their communities as battlefields. Many police forces have adopted the "Protect and Defend" motto. They should take it seriously. They should know the people they claim to protect and defend. They should pay attention to the dynamics of their neighborhoods.
Needless to say, the Warmonger-in-Chief wants the police to go out and "dominate the streets." And of course he thinks they're all "great, great people."
Police should be our neighbors, not an occupying force. In the past couple of weeks we've seen the enmity that exists between communities and the forces who are supposed to be protecting and defending them. Too many Americans view the police as an enemy, in some cases with good reason.
Attitudes on both sides need to change. If an improvement in police-community relations can emerge from the recent strife, we will all be winners.
---Diogenes, 6/9/2020
¹ https://fatalencounters.org/
² Jonathan Mummolo, "Militarization fails to enhance police safety or reduce crime but may harm police reputation," https://www.pnas.org/content/115/37/9181.
This is generally a good thing, but it must be done carefully and reasonably. Above all, it should not be done as a knee-jerk reaction to one case, however horrific, of police brutality.
It must be done in consideration of the public's safety. All the public: black, white, Asian, Latino, straight, gay, Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, rich, poor, homeless, addicted--the entire panoply of this remarkably diverse nation.
Unlike several other countries, the United States does not have a paramilitary national police force. Instead, we have insanely over-armed local forces who routinely deploy battlefield weapons on the streets, including their favorite, tear gas, which was outlawed as a weapon of war by the Geneva Protocol of 1925. But it's OK to use on civilians.
Following the 1965 Watts riot, some larger police forces began increasing their armamentaria to include heavy automatic weapons and grenades, armored personnel carriers, and adopting military-style gear and tactics. This militarization increased during the 1980s drug wars, which saw the proliferation of SWAT forces. Since the late 1990s, police departments have been able to acquire excess military equipment of all kinds, bulking up their arsenals sufficiently to fight a small war. And they've been getting away with murder.
Since 2003, more than 1,000 Americans have been killed by police each year,¹ and the vast majority of them were not criminals. There is ample evidence that militarization is both ineffective and unequal. One study from 2018 showed that "militarized 'special weapons and tactics' (SWAT) teams are more often deployed in communities of color, and—contrary to claims by police administrators—provide no detectable benefits in terms of officer safety or violent crime reduction, on average."²
Not surprisingly, there are very few government programs that keep track of civilian deaths by police. There are a few in the private realm, but none of them agree exactly just how many non-criminals have been killed by police. One thing they do agree on is that people of color are disproportionately at risk, and that about 90% of such deaths are caused by gunshot.
I do not agree with any action that would abolish a police force or reduce it to ineffectiveness. That would invite chaos and vigilantism. But reform is unquestionably needed in many American police organizations.
Police officers are not soldiers, and police forces should not look at their communities as battlefields. Many police forces have adopted the "Protect and Defend" motto. They should take it seriously. They should know the people they claim to protect and defend. They should pay attention to the dynamics of their neighborhoods.
Needless to say, the Warmonger-in-Chief wants the police to go out and "dominate the streets." And of course he thinks they're all "great, great people."
Police should be our neighbors, not an occupying force. In the past couple of weeks we've seen the enmity that exists between communities and the forces who are supposed to be protecting and defending them. Too many Americans view the police as an enemy, in some cases with good reason.
Attitudes on both sides need to change. If an improvement in police-community relations can emerge from the recent strife, we will all be winners.
---Diogenes, 6/9/2020
¹ https://fatalencounters.org/
² Jonathan Mummolo, "Militarization fails to enhance police safety or reduce crime but may harm police reputation," https://www.pnas.org/content/115/37/9181.
07 June 2020
The State Of Trump
"He is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature."*
I am shamed by forgetfulness.
It had gone out of my head that the District of Columbia lacks a governor. Our seat of government has Congress for its legislature and the president as its governor. Poor DC.
So the National Guard, forced to "defend" the Bully-in-Chief's own little fiefdom, was apparently following legitimate orders to commit highly questionable, if not unlawful, acts when it cleared the way for him to waltz over to St. John's church with his posse in tow.
That neither excuses nor legitimizes anything the Guard did. The actions of helicopter pilots in battering the crowds with rotor wash are at least under investigation, but given the players I have to question the rigorousness of the inquiry.
The notion of the president using his "gubernatorial" powers to direct military action could be a dreadful precedent. I mean, think of it: an overgrown, self-absorbed child with 69 square miles of territory to play with real soldiers in.
Imagine--Bayonet charges on The Ellipse; Nighttime exercises in Rock Creek Park; Amphibious landings on Roosevelt Island. The Barbarian Duke of DC could see the first and last of these, surveying his demesne from the roof of the White House.
I suggest we urge the governors of Maryland and Virginia to build a high wall along their borders with DC, allowing only helicopter access, and let the games begin.
---Diogenes, 6/7/2020
* George Bernard Shaw: Caesar and Cleopatra.
I am shamed by forgetfulness.
It had gone out of my head that the District of Columbia lacks a governor. Our seat of government has Congress for its legislature and the president as its governor. Poor DC.
So the National Guard, forced to "defend" the Bully-in-Chief's own little fiefdom, was apparently following legitimate orders to commit highly questionable, if not unlawful, acts when it cleared the way for him to waltz over to St. John's church with his posse in tow.
That neither excuses nor legitimizes anything the Guard did. The actions of helicopter pilots in battering the crowds with rotor wash are at least under investigation, but given the players I have to question the rigorousness of the inquiry.
The notion of the president using his "gubernatorial" powers to direct military action could be a dreadful precedent. I mean, think of it: an overgrown, self-absorbed child with 69 square miles of territory to play with real soldiers in.
Imagine--Bayonet charges on The Ellipse; Nighttime exercises in Rock Creek Park; Amphibious landings on Roosevelt Island. The Barbarian Duke of DC could see the first and last of these, surveying his demesne from the roof of the White House.
I suggest we urge the governors of Maryland and Virginia to build a high wall along their borders with DC, allowing only helicopter access, and let the games begin.
---Diogenes, 6/7/2020
* George Bernard Shaw: Caesar and Cleopatra.
06 June 2020
The Power Of Power
"Power tends to corrupt," said Sir John Dalberg-Acton, "and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Power is an addictive force that some people simply cannot resist. They are drawn to it without resistance, like iron filings to a magnet. Once addicted they spend excessive amounts of time and money in a continuing attempt to get closer to the center of that power, the heart of the magnet.
For some it is a struggle. If they have religious or ethical scruples they may try to hold them up as a shield against addiction, but sooner or later the tug of that magnet will be just too strong.
Others try to limit their involvement. "I'll just go along a bit to see what it's like," they say, or "I'll only run for one term." But the magnet's power doesn't allow limits.
Power, especially political power, is a pernicious disease that has no cure, and those who become addicted are doomed to a lifetime of fear, always watching their words and looking over their shoulders to be sure there is no threat of losing the thing they value most: Power. If they put any value on their soul it is in second place.
The reason the Great Pretender's minions are stuck to him like limpets and cannot let go is that he holds the key to their existence: their power, or access to it. In Washington, that is an existential matter. The closer one is to the center of power, the more powerful one is perceived to be. Getting kicked out to a more distant orbit is a disaster and an embarrassment.
Most of them don't respect the man. They worship the power they perceive him to hold.
The fascistic Trump holds over his followers' heads the threat of removal from himself. These people have not only lost their direction; they have also lost track of their sworn purpose: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; [and to] bear true faith and allegiance to the same.
In the government of the United States no person or office is more potent or important than the Constitution. It is the rock on which all things are established. Yet the addiction to temporary power and the concomitant fear of losing it has caused too many officials to lose sight of the only entity to which they own allegiance.
They need to pick up that Bible their boss had the insolence to hold up in front of St. John's church and turn to Matthew 6:24. You know the one. It begins, "No man can serve two masters."
--- Diogenes, 6/6/2020
Power is an addictive force that some people simply cannot resist. They are drawn to it without resistance, like iron filings to a magnet. Once addicted they spend excessive amounts of time and money in a continuing attempt to get closer to the center of that power, the heart of the magnet.
For some it is a struggle. If they have religious or ethical scruples they may try to hold them up as a shield against addiction, but sooner or later the tug of that magnet will be just too strong.
Others try to limit their involvement. "I'll just go along a bit to see what it's like," they say, or "I'll only run for one term." But the magnet's power doesn't allow limits.
Power, especially political power, is a pernicious disease that has no cure, and those who become addicted are doomed to a lifetime of fear, always watching their words and looking over their shoulders to be sure there is no threat of losing the thing they value most: Power. If they put any value on their soul it is in second place.
The reason the Great Pretender's minions are stuck to him like limpets and cannot let go is that he holds the key to their existence: their power, or access to it. In Washington, that is an existential matter. The closer one is to the center of power, the more powerful one is perceived to be. Getting kicked out to a more distant orbit is a disaster and an embarrassment.
Most of them don't respect the man. They worship the power they perceive him to hold.
The fascistic Trump holds over his followers' heads the threat of removal from himself. These people have not only lost their direction; they have also lost track of their sworn purpose: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; [and to] bear true faith and allegiance to the same.
In the government of the United States no person or office is more potent or important than the Constitution. It is the rock on which all things are established. Yet the addiction to temporary power and the concomitant fear of losing it has caused too many officials to lose sight of the only entity to which they own allegiance.
They need to pick up that Bible their boss had the insolence to hold up in front of St. John's church and turn to Matthew 6:24. You know the one. It begins, "No man can serve two masters."
--- Diogenes, 6/6/2020
05 June 2020
Exit Strategy recap
This evening, purely by chance, I was watching the drama "Madam Secretary," season 4, episode 12, "Sound and Fury." The story is about the Cabinet removing a deranged president from office using the 25th Amendment, which Diogenes discussed in today's post.
There were moments when the character of the president said things that could have come from the Great Pretender's mouth. The likeness was downright spooky. The episode first aired on 14 January 2018, about a year after Trump assumed office, and before the public became aware of the worst of his delusions. It's almost like clairvoyance.
I urge you to watch episode 12 of season 4 of "Madam Secretary" on Netflix or whatever channel you may get it on. I guarantee you'll get a strong feeling of déjà vu.
There are no coincidences.
--- Richard Brown, 6/5/2020
There were moments when the character of the president said things that could have come from the Great Pretender's mouth. The likeness was downright spooky. The episode first aired on 14 January 2018, about a year after Trump assumed office, and before the public became aware of the worst of his delusions. It's almost like clairvoyance.
I urge you to watch episode 12 of season 4 of "Madam Secretary" on Netflix or whatever channel you may get it on. I guarantee you'll get a strong feeling of déjà vu.
There are no coincidences.
--- Richard Brown, 6/5/2020
Exit Strategy
There are three ways an American president can be removed from office other than being voted out:
Impeachment: If only we had the gift of foresight. Had we any inkling of how far off the rails the unpresident would go, this would have been the best choice. But alas, the opportunity is past.
25th Amendment: The 25th has a provision whereby a president who has become unable to perform his duties can be involuntarily relieved of them. It's tricky and complicated, but not impossible.
In order to achieve removal, the vice-president and a majority of "the principal officers of the executive departments" (the Cabinet) have to vote to remove him temporarily from office.
Even if it were possible to get eight Cabinet members to vote for ouster, Mike Pence is the fly in the ointment. He would almost certainly vote no, but there's no indication his vote would count more than others, and a simple majority is all that is required.
But wait, there's more. The language of the amendment says the Cabinet members can be replaced by a majority "of such other body as Congress may by law provide." Neither size nor makeup of that body is specified.
OK, here's the thing: I know that Congress couldn't gear up to invoke the 25th Amendment before November. But if members of Congress got a lot of mail and email and tweets and phone calls reminding them that their first allegiance is to the Constitution and not to the president, and if the notion of using the 25th were to get enough attention, it could get some of them thinking about what they can and should do.
Right now, as any number of commentators have pointed out, the unpresident seems to be at a tipping point. With several current and former members of the government denouncing Trump, more Republicans might find the courage to come out against him.
The strategy is to keep pressure on. The goal is to make Trump unelectable.
I'm not delusional. I know this little blog and its loyal but small following isn't going to make huge changes by itself. But we all have friends, and belong to Facebook groups, and all our friends have friends, and if the Six Degrees of Separation theory works, who knows what could result?
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”*
--- Diogenes, 6/5/2020
* Attributed to Edmund Burke (1729-1797).
- Assassination
- Impeachment
- 25th Amendment
Impeachment: If only we had the gift of foresight. Had we any inkling of how far off the rails the unpresident would go, this would have been the best choice. But alas, the opportunity is past.
25th Amendment: The 25th has a provision whereby a president who has become unable to perform his duties can be involuntarily relieved of them. It's tricky and complicated, but not impossible.
In order to achieve removal, the vice-president and a majority of "the principal officers of the executive departments" (the Cabinet) have to vote to remove him temporarily from office.
Even if it were possible to get eight Cabinet members to vote for ouster, Mike Pence is the fly in the ointment. He would almost certainly vote no, but there's no indication his vote would count more than others, and a simple majority is all that is required.
But wait, there's more. The language of the amendment says the Cabinet members can be replaced by a majority "of such other body as Congress may by law provide." Neither size nor makeup of that body is specified.
OK, here's the thing: I know that Congress couldn't gear up to invoke the 25th Amendment before November. But if members of Congress got a lot of mail and email and tweets and phone calls reminding them that their first allegiance is to the Constitution and not to the president, and if the notion of using the 25th were to get enough attention, it could get some of them thinking about what they can and should do.
Right now, as any number of commentators have pointed out, the unpresident seems to be at a tipping point. With several current and former members of the government denouncing Trump, more Republicans might find the courage to come out against him.
The strategy is to keep pressure on. The goal is to make Trump unelectable.
I'm not delusional. I know this little blog and its loyal but small following isn't going to make huge changes by itself. But we all have friends, and belong to Facebook groups, and all our friends have friends, and if the Six Degrees of Separation theory works, who knows what could result?
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”*
--- Diogenes, 6/5/2020
* Attributed to Edmund Burke (1729-1797).
03 June 2020
Trump the Terrorist
Terrorism: The systematic use of terror (violence or the threat of violence) as a means of intimidation or coercion.
Terrorist: One who uses terror as a means of intimidation or coercion.
Donald Trump is a terrorist.
He does not lead. He controls by instilling fear: fear of job loss or demotion, fear of loss of access, fear of public denunciation.
He has so cowed the Republican Party that even Archdemon Mitch McConnell kowtows to him.
In 2018 alone he threatened other nations with military attacks, including the use of nuclear weapons, nine times.
Even before his election he raised the specter of violence with his inflammatory comments about immigrants and his open pandering to hate groups.
He has directly threatened American citizens with military action if they don't cease and desist protesting. As we all know, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."¹
Donald Trump is a tyrant.
He routinely ignores any law that he considers inconvenient, including elements of the Constitution.
He has tried to deny First Amendment rights to news organizations and social media platforms, even while insisting they respect his rights under the amendment.
He has threatened to stop civil disobedience by invading states with the Army, over several governors' protests.
He has acted unilaterally in cases that required approval by Congress or other oversight. Here is a link to a month-by-month list (January, 2017-April, 2019) of his violations of protocol: https://indivisible.org/resource/donald-trump-national-security-risk-here%E2%80%99s-current-trumpthreatlevel
18 U.S. Code § 2339, "Harboring or concealing terrorists," makes "Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, has committed, or is about to commit" certain acts of terrorism, is subject to a fine and up to ten years' imprisonment.
Ordering an armed military attack on unarmed American citizens in the process of exercising their rights is not one of those "certain acts," but it should certainly be taken as an act of terrorism. It should be possible to say that the Executive Branch of the U. S. Government is harboring a terrorist, who should be arrested.
Here's the dilemma: The president is, God help us, the head of the executive branch, so the harboring and acting are being done by the same person. Moreover, it is an open legal question whether a sitting president can be arrested for anything. Seriously.
"American democracy" should not become an oxymoron.
--- Diogenes, 6/3/2020
¹ Isaac Asimov, Foundation. London, Panther Books, 1960.
02 June 2020
If I Were A Conspiracy Theorist . . .
. . . I would answer "yes" or "probably" to these questions:
Is Trump insane?
Does Trump have burner phones and secret email and Twitter accounts that he uses to communicate with allies?
Do those allies include the KKK, the NRA, and other right-wing terrorists and militias?
Is Trump directing his allies to foment violence and unrest?
Were the "outside agitators" that have been mentioned sent by Trump?
Does Trump use the Dark Web to communicate with his allies?
Were lawful protests over George Floyd's death hijacked by Trump and/or his allies for political gain?
Would Trump commit violence against the American people if it helped his re-election chances?
Has Trump been brainwashed by ex-KGB officer Vladimir Putin?
Was this entire catastrophe engineered by Trump so he could play the hero?
And "possibly" to this one:
Is Trump the Antichrist?
If I were a conspiracy theorist. If I were paranoid.
--- Richard Brown, 6/2/2020
Is Trump insane?
Does Trump have burner phones and secret email and Twitter accounts that he uses to communicate with allies?
Do those allies include the KKK, the NRA, and other right-wing terrorists and militias?
Is Trump directing his allies to foment violence and unrest?
Were the "outside agitators" that have been mentioned sent by Trump?
Does Trump use the Dark Web to communicate with his allies?
Were lawful protests over George Floyd's death hijacked by Trump and/or his allies for political gain?
Would Trump commit violence against the American people if it helped his re-election chances?
Has Trump been brainwashed by ex-KGB officer Vladimir Putin?
Was this entire catastrophe engineered by Trump so he could play the hero?
And "possibly" to this one:
Is Trump the Antichrist?
If I were a conspiracy theorist. If I were paranoid.
--- Richard Brown, 6/2/2020
We Have The Power
". . . whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is
the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing
its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness… it is their right, it is their duty, to
throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security."
--- Thomas Jefferson
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
--- Abraham Lincoln
"Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country."
--- Franklin D. Roosevelt
These words from three presidents across three centuries affirm the American people's ownership of their government. Two of them acknowledge the people's right to overthrow an oppressive regime.
Jefferson and Lincoln wrote during times when the success of our experiment with democracy was in doubt. Both men fought forces that would have returned us to tyranny, dismantled the structure of our government and denied our rights. Yet both men understood that any government can become corrupt and rotten, and defended the right of the American people to take charge and reform it.
We do not seek Constitutional reform, but regime change. It is our responsibility. No one else will do it.
We must take charge, and we cannot wait until November. Trump has crossed the line into tyranny. If he follows through on his threat to use an antique law to set the American armed forces against the American people, the United States of America will join Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, Iran, Uganda, and North Korea, who are known to have taken the same action.
We must rise up. It is our right. It is our duty.
---Diogenes, 6/2/2020
--- Thomas Jefferson
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
--- Abraham Lincoln
"Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country."
--- Franklin D. Roosevelt
These words from three presidents across three centuries affirm the American people's ownership of their government. Two of them acknowledge the people's right to overthrow an oppressive regime.
Jefferson and Lincoln wrote during times when the success of our experiment with democracy was in doubt. Both men fought forces that would have returned us to tyranny, dismantled the structure of our government and denied our rights. Yet both men understood that any government can become corrupt and rotten, and defended the right of the American people to take charge and reform it.
We do not seek Constitutional reform, but regime change. It is our responsibility. No one else will do it.
We must take charge, and we cannot wait until November. Trump has crossed the line into tyranny. If he follows through on his threat to use an antique law to set the American armed forces against the American people, the United States of America will join Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, Iran, Uganda, and North Korea, who are known to have taken the same action.
We must rise up. It is our right. It is our duty.
---Diogenes, 6/2/2020
01 June 2020
Genitum Non Factum
The title is borrowed from the Credo of the Roman Catholic Mass. It means "Begotten, not made," and in the context of this post it refers to leaders.
Notwithstanding the claims of military academies and universities, leaders are born, not made. Any idiot can shout orders at other people and maybe coerce them into action, but only a true leader can give orders in full confidence that they will be obeyed. Only a leader can run out ahead of a platoon and know instinctively that the group has her back.
Leadership is a gift that embodies trust, confidence, self-respect, courage, and intelligence. The genuine leader is able, in some way, to impart those qualities to the people she leads. We call it a gift because it is an inexplicable quality that some humans have and most do not.
Leaders, seemingly through the force of their personality, are able to help their followers reach mental or physical goals they once thought beyond them. Perhaps this comes from the trust followers place in leaders--trust that they will be supported and praised for doing the best they can do while being subtly encouraged to do better.
Leaders think on their feet and have the capacity to adapt to fluid situations. They remain confident that their people will follow them because they have earned the trust of their followers and have listened to their input.
Donald Trump is good at many things: shouting, denigrating, diverting blame, pointing, intimidating, hating, insulting, name-calling, belittling, whining, scorning, mocking, taunting, and generally being unpleasant.
Trump has neither the trust of his followers nor any confidence that they will follow him. CNN reports there is a "serious divide" among unpresidential advisers, some of whom urge him "to formally address the nation and call for calm, while others have said he should condemn the rioting and looting more forcefully or risk losing middle-of-the-road voters in November."¹
Doves and hawks, doves and hawks, and not a populist among them. And that's irrelevant because he hasn't the sense to listen to any of them. He will continue
shooting from the hip until he is stopped by someone with the authority to make him stand down. There are such people; they just need to grow a spine.
People who follow Trump do so out of fear. He can't lead because he is not a leader. He can make people do his bidding because he is a bully. But he will never lead.
It's not easy being the Loser-in-Chief.
--- Diogenes, 6/1/2020
¹ https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/31/politics/trump-underground-bunker-white-house-protests/index.html
Notwithstanding the claims of military academies and universities, leaders are born, not made. Any idiot can shout orders at other people and maybe coerce them into action, but only a true leader can give orders in full confidence that they will be obeyed. Only a leader can run out ahead of a platoon and know instinctively that the group has her back.
Leadership is a gift that embodies trust, confidence, self-respect, courage, and intelligence. The genuine leader is able, in some way, to impart those qualities to the people she leads. We call it a gift because it is an inexplicable quality that some humans have and most do not.
Leaders, seemingly through the force of their personality, are able to help their followers reach mental or physical goals they once thought beyond them. Perhaps this comes from the trust followers place in leaders--trust that they will be supported and praised for doing the best they can do while being subtly encouraged to do better.
Leaders think on their feet and have the capacity to adapt to fluid situations. They remain confident that their people will follow them because they have earned the trust of their followers and have listened to their input.
Donald Trump is good at many things: shouting, denigrating, diverting blame, pointing, intimidating, hating, insulting, name-calling, belittling, whining, scorning, mocking, taunting, and generally being unpleasant.
Trump has neither the trust of his followers nor any confidence that they will follow him. CNN reports there is a "serious divide" among unpresidential advisers, some of whom urge him "to formally address the nation and call for calm, while others have said he should condemn the rioting and looting more forcefully or risk losing middle-of-the-road voters in November."¹
Doves and hawks, doves and hawks, and not a populist among them. And that's irrelevant because he hasn't the sense to listen to any of them. He will continue
shooting from the hip until he is stopped by someone with the authority to make him stand down. There are such people; they just need to grow a spine.
People who follow Trump do so out of fear. He can't lead because he is not a leader. He can make people do his bidding because he is a bully. But he will never lead.
It's not easy being the Loser-in-Chief.
--- Diogenes, 6/1/2020
¹ https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/31/politics/trump-underground-bunker-white-house-protests/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)